Moises Caicedo | Chelsea player

Adnan said:
It was Fulham that wanted Mctominay in that particular transfer window and according to several reliable media outlets, Mctominay turned them down. And the situation was such according to reports, that we had to move players on before signing new players. And with Mount, a slot opened up with several departures for footballing and non footballing reasons.
Click to expand...

This was deadline day, which makes it a whole different beast. My entire point was the planning or lack thereof from the beginning of the summer.

Adnan said:
Let me make a distinction between the boardroom members and the footballing structure at the time. It was widely reported about there being a budget of around £100m to spend (some reported even less than that) and that was the budget that was given to the footballing personnel at the club who led the football structure post Solskjaer. So when you have a small budget and the issues the team faced post Solskjaer were pretty vast with many positions needing upgrades, you just cannot sign players like Antony for anywhere close to the price Ajax wanted. Hence with that budget the footballing structure led by John Murtough walked away from a deal for Antony according to a very reliable Brazilian journalist who mainly covered Sao Players past and present. And one of the reasons why I believe Murtough was happy to walk away from signing Antony was due to the fact that he had already signed two young wing forwards in Amad and Garnacho for the left and right side of the attack. They were both his players.

But according to the The Athletic, after we'd lost the first two games against Brighton and Brentford, the board of directors led by Joel Glazer, dipped into the revolving credit facility and went ahead and signed Antony for a ridiculous sum of money. And it was reported that Glazer got both Cliff Baty and Michael Stewart involved and they oversaw the deal for Antony as far as the money is concerned.

So in a hypothetical scenario, I'm a member of the board of directors and you're the DoF at the club overseeing the development of the team. I give you a budget of £100m to spend and you plan with that £100m for most of the summer. And with only weeks left in the transfer window, I change the budget and provide an extra £100m from the club's credit card. Now if you think about it, if the whole amount was available at the start of the window, would your planning be different. I think it would be different because you'd have much more money to play with and have tingle to plan how to develop the team. So that's why I say there's a difference between members of the board and people who are working in a footballing capacity at the club. These are two different functions.
Click to expand...

That's great to know but if anything this further prove my point. Also it seems like you have mixed up some of the timelines.

In summary, at the beginning of ETH's first season in August 2022, we overspend because the Glazers insisted on splashing out £80m+ on Antony. This obviously affects the budget for the 2023 summer transfer window, which must have been known by ETH and the previous regime. Yet they both thought it was wise to 1) spend £50m+ on Mount and 2) hope they would generate funds on players that apparently either didn't want to leave or was actually wanted by ETH. So yes, whilst the financial aspect was out of their control because Glazer-dumb-mmkay, they still messed up by putting all their eggs in the Mount basket.

Hence why I said ETH buying Mount was such a red flag for me because everyone knew the transfer budget was so limited. You don't further compound the financial AND recruitment mistakes (under Ole's period) by going for the opportunistic and available transfer, then hope for the best in regards to filling the other positions.

Look don't get me wrong, if I had to apportion blame, the Glazers would absolutely be getting the majority responsibility for letting the club and organisation rot. However, as we've seen with ETH (at Leverkusen), he was just emphatically bad in a tactical sense and I believe he saw Mount as a 'priority' over a 6 through his actions. It showed in the way he wanted us to play in his 2nd season, his reliance on McTominay, his managing of the games and his transfer recruitments. In the end midfield just happened to be part of the pitch where the ball would pass through for both our team and the opposition.
 
Last edited:
criticalanalysis said:
This was deadline day, which makes it a whole different beast. My entire point was the planning or lack thereof from the beginning of the summer.



That's great to know but if anything this further prove my point. Also it seems like you have mixed up some of the timelines.

In summary, at the beginning of ETH's first season in August 2022, we overspend because the Glazers insisted on splashing out £80m+ on Antony. This obviously affects the budget for the 2023 summer transfer window, which must have been known by ETH and the previous regime. Yet they both thought it was wise to 1) spend £50m+ on Mount and 2) hope they would generate funds on players that apparently either didn't want to leave or was actually wanted by ETH. So yes, whilst the financial aspect was out of their control because Glazer-dumb-mmkay, they still messed up by putting all their eggs in the Mount basket.

Hence why I said ETH buying Mount was such a red flag for me because everyone knew the transfer budget was so limited. You don't further compound the financial AND recruitment mistakes (under Ole's period) by going for the opportunistic and available transfer, then hope for the best in regards to filling the other positions.

Look don't get me wrong, if I had to apportion blame, the Glazers would absolutely be getting the majority responsibility for letting the club and organisation rot. However, as we've seen with ETH (at Leverkusen), he was just emphatically bad in a tactical sense and I believe he saw Mount as a 'priority' over a 6 through his actions. It showed in the way he wanted us to play in his 2nd season, his reliance on McTominay, his managing of the games and his transfer recruitments. In the end midfield just happened to be part of the pitch where the ball would pass through for both our team and the opposition.
Click to expand...
My timeline might be off here because I'm presuming we're discussing the transfer window when we signed Mason Mount.

Mctominay didn't want to leave and Fulham were trying to sign him throughout the summer and even West Ham made a attempt to try and sign him according to reports. And whether the reports were accurate or not, I just don't know, but it was reported that for United to sign another midfield and CB it would require players to leave. And both Mctominay and Maguire refused to leave. The planning for that window did depend on players leaving and along with Mount, Amadou Onana and a CB signing was the plan.

I'm not sure it was a case of EtH putting everything into the Mount basket or even his desire of wanting Antony. The issue here was that the board of directors led by Joel Glazer should not have got involved at the end of the transfer window and panic buy Antony when there was reports from Antony's hometown about United having walked away from a deal in June 2022. The football decisions should be led by the football structure and not the board of directors. They panicked and wanted to be seen as having supported the manager and hence dipped into the revolving credit facility but sometimes it's prudent to wait it out and let the football structure lead on recruitment even if it means not signing players and staying patient. Also Erik ten Hag isn't the one who sets the budget but rather he gave his opinion on players he liked and it's now upto the club led by the football structure to make a final decision and from what we know know, they walked away from a deal but the board panicked at the end of the window and signed the player for a ridiculous sum. The board sets the budget via the executives on the board and the likes of Richard Arnold, Cliff Baty and Michael Stewart should be in charge of that side of the finances.

Personally I wouldn't look into ten Hag's time at Leverkusen as a measuring stick because he was only their 5 minutes. At United he inherited and team that had lost a couple of key players like Pogba and Geeenwood and the team was set up to play reactive football. Attempts were made to sign Frenkie de Jong and he even brought Mainoo through to the first team who is a player that can handle the ball in small spaces. So after that, in came INEOS, and having spent around £400m, in their time at the club, our best midfield is probably still Casemiro and Mainoo. And that's where the issues lie for me and I don't believe their dealings in the transfer window are centred around a cohesive plan as far as developing the team to play a more proactive game.
 
Adnan said:
My timeline might be off here because I'm presuming we're discussing the transfer window when we signed Mason Mount.

Mctominay didn't want to leave and Fulham were trying to sign him throughout the summer and even West Ham made a attempt to try and sign him according to reports. And whether the reports were accurate or not, I just don't know, but it was reported that for United to sign another midfield and CB it would require players to leave. And both Mctominay and Maguire refused to leave. The planning for that window did depend on players leaving and along with Mount, Amadou Onana and a CB signing was the plan.
Click to expand...

McTominay 'refusing to leave' is probably as much as down to ETH probably not wanting him to leave. I empathise with ETH a little for the team he inherited but I think he made a choice in keeping/encouraging McTominay to stay. We both don't know the actual truth but we know for sure ETH had been very vocal of wanting him to stay in past years and we saw the amount of playing time he had.

I don't doubt we had to sell before recruiting but that's beside the point of what I was trying to say. Both the previous board and ETH decided to buy Mount and keep McTominay; wanting a 6 just wasn't that high on their priority. Put it this way, even with our budget restraints at the time, do you think a manager like Guardiola or Enrique would have looked at our squad and said 'yes bring me in Mount and we'll deal with the 6 somehow, later or whatnot?'. IMO if a manager really wanted a 6 and wanted to actually try to midfield, they would have done it. I realise I may be oversimplifying this but I think actions speaking louder than words.

Adnan said:
I'm not sure it was a case of EtH putting everything into the Mount basket or even his desire of wanting Antony. The issue here was that the board of directors led by Joel Glazer should not have got involved at the end of the transfer window and panic buy Antony when there was reports from Antony's hometown about United having walked away from a deal in June 2022. The football decisions should be led by the football structure and not the board of directors. They panicked and wanted to be seen as having supported the manager and hence dipped into the revolving credit facility but sometimes it's prudent to wait it out and let the football structure lead on recruitment even if it means not signing players and staying patient. Also Erik ten Hag isn't the one who sets the budget but rather he gave his opinion on players he liked and it's now upto the club led by the football structure to make a final decision and from what we know know, they walked away from a deal but the board panicked at the end of the window and signed the player for a ridiculous sum. The board sets the budget via the executives on the board and the likes of Richard Arnold, Cliff Baty and Michael Stewart should be in charge of that side of the finances.

Personally I wouldn't look into ten Hag's time at Leverkusen as a measuring stick because he was only their 5 minutes. At United he inherited and team that had lost a couple of key players like Pogba and Geeenwood and the team was set up to play reactive football. Attempts were made to sign Frenkie de Jong and he even brought Mainoo through to the first team who is a player that can handle the ball in small spaces. So after that, in came INEOS, and having spent around £400m, in their time at the club, our best midfield is probably still Casemiro and Mainoo. And that's where the issues lie for me and I don't believe their dealings in the transfer window are centred around a cohesive plan as far as developing the team to play a more proactive game.
Click to expand...

Good point about FDJ, I had forgot about that saga. It makes me even more disappointed that ETH wanted him and then the next year we went in for Mount. It's such a radical change and bewildering turning point from wanting such a fundamental base midfielder player to then go to that super-transitional-4-2-4 bollocks the next year.

Also as for INEOS, whilst I implied I think they are doing a better job, I'm also very aware it's not so straight forward. Buying Ugarte, keeping ETH after the FA Cup win, keeping Amorim, prioritising another attacking player over a midfielder and now potentially extending Maguire are all red flags for me. However, Yoro, Cunha, Sekso, Mbeumo, Heaven, Kone and Dorgu are all steps in the right direction; it's a much clearer development plan. Amorim aside, I think the key point will be the recruitment in the summer. If we bring in a couple or several top midfielders, it would certify INEOS are going in the right direction 2.5 years (at that point) since taking over. If that doesn't happen, ffs.
 
criticalanalysis said:
McTominay 'refusing to leave' is probably as much as down to ETH probably not wanting him to leave. I empathise with ETH a little for the team he inherited but I think he made a choice in keeping/encouraging McTominay to stay. We both don't know the actual truth but we know for sure ETH had been very vocal of wanting him to stay in past years and we saw the amount of playing time he had.

I don't doubt we had to sell before recruiting but that's beside the point of what I was trying to say. Both the previous board and ETH decided to buy Mount and keep McTominay; wanting a 6 just wasn't that high on their priority. Put it this way, even with our budget restraints at the time, do you think a manager like Guardiola or Enrique would have looked at our squad and said 'yes bring me in Mount and we'll deal with the 6 somehow, later or whatnot?'. IMO if a manager really wanted a 6 and wanted to actually try to midfield, they would have done it. I realise I may be oversimplifying this but I think actions speaking louder than words.



Good point about FDJ, I had forgot about that saga. It makes me even more disappointed that ETH wanted him and then the next year we went in for Mount. It's such a radical change and bewildering turning point from wanting such a fundamental base midfielder player to then go to that super-transitional-4-2-4 bollocks the next year.

Also as for INEOS, whilst I implied I think they are doing a better job, I'm also very aware it's not so straight forward. Buying Ugarte, keeping ETH after the FA Cup win, keeping Amorim, prioritising another attacking player over a midfielder and now potentially extending Maguire are all red flags for me. However, Yoro, Cunha, Sekso, Mbeumo, Heaven, Kone and Dorgu are all steps in the right direction; it's a much clearer development plan. Amorim aside, I think the key point will be the recruitment in the summer. If we bring in a couple or several top midfielders, it would certify INEOS are going in the right direction 2.5 years (at that point) since taking over. If that doesn't happen, ffs.
Click to expand...
I do agree we needed midfielders and we still need midfielders of the requisite abilities to propel us forward as a more dominant team. Also agree with you that ten Hag did want to keep Mctominay as a box crasher who could score goals as a final third player. But if we go of reports, then the club were trying to sell him and had been negotiations with both Fulham and West Ham. But it was said that Mctominay was holding out for a bigger club and eventually Napoli signed him the following season where he was at a club that was challenging for the league.

Also I don’t believe it was a case of signing Mount over a deeper lying midfielder because when we missed out on Frenkie de Jong, ten Hag said that he would look for internal solutions in that deeper midfield position and brought through Kobbie Mainoo.

I think Guardiola and Luis Enrique would prioritise the midfield. But I would've said the same to you about ten Hag before he arrived at the club and eventhough he did prioritise the midfield by wanting Frenkie de Jong he settled for Kobbie Mainoo as the internal solution for that position. And Guardiola as good as he is as a coach, has never found himself in a position where he required the amount of players we as club have needed to become competitive.

And before Luis Enrique was appointed PSG head coach, the club had already signed Vitinha, Soler, Fabian Ruiz and Renato Sanchez for central positions. And that was just in midfield and the level of spending over-all and the volume of players they bought is only matched by clubs like City and Chelsea. Besides the midfield, they also bought Nuno Mendes and Hakimi as fullbacks in 2021 - 2022. So the team that was inherited by Luis Enrique was strong as far as the playing personnel is concerned and he definitely made a difference with his ability as a coach. But ultimately what made the difference for PSG was their ownership and how quickly they could conduct a rebuild by signing a high volume of very talented players. But I think Luis Enrique's arrival gave them a direction and he took on the role of both the manager and the head coach to guide Luis Campos who had made a number of mistakes and was being criticised.
 
criticalanalysis said:
So you can't the provide sources that in your own words 'ETH has stated time and again he desired a 6 THAT summer' and the public knowledge for Cacedo's transfer fee.
Big assumptions that if I don't believe or are not sure of, means I'm the one, who is refusing to accept, got it.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight:
you really "need a source" to not understand Amrabat arrived late in the window, on loan, because a DM was always on the list of targets ETH desired but cash was short thus even THAT deal almost fell through?

(Google it. By July 28th we were being linked with an Amrabat purchase "but Dependant on player sales")

And you actually " need a source" to not believe Chelsea and Liverpool were so stupid as to make the opening bids the made for Caicedo without an inkling of what he was valued at?

According to you the above is mere assumption?

criticalanalysis said:
Unless you, ETH and the board thought we had an unlimited budget then bringing in Mount was a choice that they had to deal with (tactical and financial). You can not just whittle off the fact of bringing in Mount for £50m+ was simply business as usual and pretend it didn't affect the rest of the recruitment.
Click to expand...
A strange accusation to throw at someone who has been telling you from the start United vastly over paid for EVERY signing that summer starting with Mount. If THAT united board had indeed gone for Caicedo that summer (as per your desire) their utter inabity to negotiate would have meant he would have been the solo signing that summer. Especially In a summer that we needed to recruit in goal, midfield (2 players) and upfront.

We did eventually get what was on the list. But because the board over paid for mount and Ramus and arguably onana. Its far from suprising the 6 we ended up with was an A Rabat. Moreover on a last gasp loan.


criticalanalysis said:
I never said Caicedo would have cost less than Mount, which is what you had said, putting words into my mouth.
Click to expand...
You literally imply it every time indicate we should have targeted him first over any other signing that summer. Of which Mount is the first.


criticalanalysis said:
Again I never said we would have afforded £100m+ at the beginning of the summer, which is when I made my point about ETH signing Mount was a red flag. It was the possible notion of Caicedo being 'affordable' relative to the money we paid for Mount (i.e not that much more), which you've just admitted was assumed to be around £70m in that summer. And even then the main issue of the 'red flag' wasn't not buying Caicedo, it was not buying a 'proper' 6 for the limited budget we did indeed have the time.
Click to expand...
We paid over 20m too much for Mount who was a piss easy purchase to negotiate, with a year left. So it's rather rich to entertain the idea that board could have attempted to bid for Caicedo with years left on his deal. As bad as they were even they knew their limitations....
 
Last edited:
Lost for words how good this guy is. Crazy player.
 
One of the few players who is going to give you at least a 7/10 performance every week. Also one of the very few worth the £100m fee.
 
Hate it when he plays well, reminds me of how we messed up by walking away from a complex cheap deal. Damn you Brighton for having prior knowledge which gave you advantage over everyone else. £4.5m is literally peanuts and we walked away because of difficulty.
 
Last edited:
Noodle said:
One of the few players who is going to give you at least a 7/10 performance every week. Also one of the very few worth the £100m fee.
Click to expand...

We've gone from Makelele to Essien to Kante to Caicedo. With Mikel, Ramires, Matic sprinkled in between.

We seem to have a knack for having great defensively minded midfielders.
 
Last edited:
WeePat said:
We've gone from Makelele to Essien to Kante to Caicedo. With Mikel, Ramires, Matic sprinkled in between.

We seem to have for having great defensively minded midfielders.
Click to expand...

Awful scouting strikers but so good scouting defensive midfielders. Share some.
 
WeePat said:
We've gone from Makelele to Essien to Kante to Caicedo. With Mikel, Ramires, Matic sprinkled in between.

We seem to have a knack for having great defensively minded midfielders.
Click to expand...
The essien one annoys me.
 
WeePat said:
We've gone from Makelele to Essien to Kante to Caicedo. With Mikel, Ramires, Matic sprinkled in between.

We seem to have a knack for having great defensively minded midfielders.
Click to expand...
I hate to say it as they're cult heroes in their own right but Mikel and Ramires are so out of place on that list.

Nowhere near the level of the others.
 
Dancfc said:
I hate to say it as they're cult heroes in their own right but Mikel and Ramires are so out of place on that list.

Nowhere near the level of the others.
Click to expand...

That's why they're sprinkled in and not part of the original list ;)
 
WeePat said:
That's why they're sprinkled in and not part of the original list ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah but I mean I think Matic belongs with the other 3 even though he was only at the very top for a year.

Was a gamechanger initially.
 
£115m is looking like it’s going to be a good value deal.

Obviously the £60m on Lavia and £107m on Enzo don’t look anything like value, or the £75m on Fofana, but he’s proof if you throw large amounts of money around often you’ll eventually land a good one!
 
TheReligion said:
£115m is looking like it’s going to be a good value deal.

Obviously the £60m on Lavia and £107m on Enzo don’t look anything like value, or the £75m on Fofana, but he’s proof if you throw large amounts of money around often you’ll eventually land a good one!
Click to expand...
Lavia has the talent but his injuries are shocking. They couldn’t have predicted that to be fair
 
Surprised there isn't more people that were impressed by his Rivaldoesque theatrics. I was genuinely chuckling watching him roll around. I know he's a red cafe darling but come on it was a brilliant homage to the noodle-legged Brazilian.
 
G7BQKHEWAAEGQnm

OIP.wj8LpkWFF8qIERWxjCqRSgHaEK


Somebody help the man.
 
The old "I knew I've absolutely done him there so I'll pretend I'm injured too, to make out it was an accident".
 
He was really pumped for this game, obviously over pumped as it worked out. It reminded me of coming up against a pumped up Guimares up at Newcastle who at times seemed to be going about running on adrenaline and pumped up aggression.

In fact, there's lots of similarities to that aggressive side of the game with Chelsea and Newcastle when they are playing at those levels, you do feel like it's walking a tightrope sometimes of just crossing the line at times.
 
dumbo said:
Surprised there isn't more people that were impressed by his Rivaldoesque theatrics. I was genuinely chuckling watching him roll around. I know he's a red cafe darling but come on it was a brilliant homage to the noodle-legged Brazilian.
Click to expand...

What made me laugh was the 'what, me?' reaction even at the initial yellow card, let alone the red card. I was like, you know what you did bro :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.