Summer transfer thread 17/18 season (NEYMAR TALK IN OTHER THREAD)

rwbug · 09-09-2017 09:12AM

A good read on West Ham and their transfer dealings, they make Arsenals deadline day look professional.

http://thehlist.blogspot.ie/2017/09/west-ham-and-year-of-long-knives.html

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 02:47PM

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2017/09/diego-costa-transfer-agreed.html

Diegos off back to Atletico. Reported fees of about £55-58m, which IMO, is an amzing piece of business by Chelsea.

29 in a few weeks and hasnt trained/played in 4 months with under 18 months left on his deal.

21-09-2017 02:48PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2017/09/diego-costa-transfer-agreed.html

Diegos off back to Atletico. Reported fees of about £55-58m, which IMO, is an amzing piece of business by Chelsea.

29 in a few weeks and hasnt trained/played in 4 months with under 18 months left on his deal.

Greizmann to Utd confirmed

Royale with Cheese · 21-09-2017 02:50PM

How do Chelsea keep getting so much money for these players? Their transfer record over the past few years is fairly healthy.

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 02:55PM

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Greizmann to Utd confirmed

In the summer maybe, no chance its in January and not for as "cheap" as this summer.

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

How do Chelsea keep getting so much money for these players? Their transfer record over the past few years is fairly healthy.

We do really well selling, its the buying we're not so good at, well, not in terms of buying ready made stars. We've missed out on a raft of players in the last few seasons.

rwbug · 21-09-2017 03:04PM

Good price but glad he is going, imo Chelsea are a much more frightening proposition with him in the side.

Cookiemunster · 21-09-2017 03:20PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

In the summer maybe, no chance its in January and not for as "cheap" as this summer.

It was reported that his release clause dropped back to €100m after the summer window closed. So if true, exactly as cheap as last summer.

Deise Vu · 21-09-2017 03:47PM

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

How do Chelsea keep getting so much money for these players? Their transfer record over the past few years is fairly healthy.

I don't know what you are insinuating. The Chelsea manager texts his player to tell him he is not wanted, the guy stays in Brazil getting fat and mouthing to the world that he is a slave. He says he will only transfer to one team and, tragically, they have a transfer ban in place. He is 29 in three weeks and presumably on a vastly higher wedge than when AM sold him. Its only natural Athletico would come in and buy him back for a 50% mark-up on what they sold him for three years ago.

Doesn't sound one bit suss at all. I'd trust all Russian and Chinese businessmen with my life. Thank God for FFP too.

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 03:51PM

rwbug wrote: »

Good price but glad he is going, imo Chelsea are a much more frightening proposition with him in the side.

Impossible to tell really, Morata still hasnt played properly with Hazard, Chelseas best player by some distance.

He wont manage to take on and occupy 2 CBs on his own, its not his game really but his movement off the ball into space is very good.

I reckon by the end of the season he'll be in and around 20 league goals too, Costas stats are somewhat distorted, first few months of both title wins he blitz the scoring charts and then disappeared down the home stretch but still finished on 20 league goals in each campaign.

yabadabado · 21-09-2017 03:54PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

In the summer maybe, no chance its in January and not for as "cheap" as this summer.

Agreed with you regarding a January move but why do you think his fee will increase if he moves ?

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 03:58PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

I don't know what you are insinuating. The Chelsea manager texts his player to tell him he is not wanted, the guy stays in Brazil getting fat and mouthing to the world that he is a slave. He says he will only transfer to one team and, tragically, they have a transfer ban in place. He is 29 in three weeks and presumably on a vastly higher wedge than when AM sold him. Its only natural Athletico would come in and buy him back for a 50% mark-up on what they sold him for three years ago.

Doesn't sound one bit suss at all. I'd trust all Russian and Chinese businessmen with my life. Thank God for FFP too.

In todays market, if Costa has a 4 year contract hes worth 80m, easily. Tthe transfer market has moved on vastly from 2014 but when Chelsea paid £32m for him back then they met his buy out clause, he was arguably worth far more.

Luckily Chelsea have never failed to meet the FFP criteria, unlike City or PSG, Chelseas business and money making is more transparent than some suspect accounts and Arab investment from within the same groups.

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 04:03PM

yabadabado wrote: »

Agreed with you regarding a January move but why do you think his fee will increase if he moves ?

FWIW though, I do think he'll leave in the summer, could be that he only signed the summer extension to stay through the transfer ban and remain loyal through a difficult time for them.

It will be interesting to see him in the PL, thats if he does go to Utd.

Deise Vu · 21-09-2017 04:39PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

In todays market, if Costa has a 4 year contract hes worth 80m, easily. Tthe transfer market has moved on vastly from 2014 but when Chelsea paid £32m for him back then they met his buy out clause, he was arguably worth far more.

Luckily Chelsea have never failed to meet the FFP criteria, unlike City or PSG, Chelseas business and money making is more transparent than some suspect accounts and Arab investment from within the same groups.

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 04:51PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

In atelticos case, they needed the money for Costa, he never wanted to leave but at the time was their most saleable asset. That rings through when you understand that from the end of his first title winning season, hes tried and failed every window to move back to Atletico for a number of reasons.

Chelsea hold all the power here, Atletico want him, Costa wants out, it was a case of Chelsea giving them a price and either them paying it or Costa spending the next 18 months on the beach in Brazil not getting paid and moving to Atletico on a free in 2019. they could have wait until January 2018, the price wouldnt change, Chelsea dug in over this due to Costas attitude is my guess.

As I pointed out above, hes always wanted to go back to Atletico, no problem there at all in that but for Costa to come out and play the victim in all of this is why I'd guess Chelsea played hard ball.

Lukker- · 21-09-2017 05:12PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

I don't know what you are insinuating. The Chelsea manager texts his player to tell him he is not wanted, the guy stays in Brazil getting fat and mouthing to the world that he is a slave. He says he will only transfer to one team and, tragically, they have a transfer ban in place. He is 29 in three weeks and presumably on a vastly higher wedge than when AM sold him. Its only natural Athletico would come in and buy him back for a 50% mark-up on what they sold him for three years ago.

Doesn't sound one bit suss at all. I'd trust all Russian and Chinese businessmen with my life. Thank God for FFP too.

Lukker- · 21-09-2017 05:14PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

So you are saying Barcelona could have rejected the Neymar transfer? Quick someone tell Barcelona!

I'd imagine they want to sign him so they can get him back to the club and get him fit in time for January, something they can't do otherwise. Potentially loan him out too.

GavRedKing · 21-09-2017 05:30PM

Lukker- wrote: »

So you are saying Barcelona could have rejected the Neymar transfer? Quick someone tell Barcelona!

I'd imagine they want to sign him so they can get him back to the club and get him fit in time for January, something they can't do otherwise. Potentially loan him out too.

Thats their main and immediate issue around this transfer.

Costa I imagine will have known about this move for some weeks so if hes not breaking his bo**ocks trying to get fit in Brazil or more likely, hes alread in Madrid, hes mad.

Its a WC year and he'll be fighting with Chelseas new #9 for a place in the Spanish WC squad.

RobertKK · 21-09-2017 05:50PM

So Chelsea sell Costa to Atletico so United can in January or next summer sign Griezmann

Deise Vu · 21-09-2017 06:02PM

Lukker- wrote: »

So you are saying Barcelona could have rejected the Neymar transfer? Quick someone tell Barcelona!

I'd imagine they want to sign him so they can get him back to the club and get him fit in time for January, something they can't do otherwise. Potentially loan him out too.

What bit about the Wenger £40M +1 bid do you not understand? Arsenal made the bid, spoke to the player and he told them to GTFO. Liverpool would have been obliged to accept the bid if Suarez agreed terms. Just because the buyout is met also doesn't another team couldn't come along and bid higher. It's not a difficult concept really. Do you think Athletico were going "Dammit Chelsea paid Costa's buyout of £32M and we would have got £40M off PSG"? Neymar bought the contract himself so he was out the door once the buyout was met.

Again, for the final time, Athletico have just thrown a quarter of their annual turnover at a player who said he wouldn't play for anyone else, a player they cannot use until January, a player whose attitude stinks and who hasn't kicked a football since last May. Sounds like the deal of the century alright.

Liam McPoyle · 21-09-2017 07:08PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

What bit about the Wenger £40M +1 bid do you not understand? Arsenal made the bid, spoke to the player and he told them to GTFO. Liverpool would have been obliged to accept the bid if Suarez agreed terms. Just because the buyout is met also doesn't another team couldn't come along and bid higher. It's not a difficult concept really. Do you think Athletico were going "Dammit Chelsea paid Costa's buyout of £32M and we would have got £40M off PSG"? Neymar bought the contract himself so he was out the door once the buyout was met.

Again, for the final time, Athletico have just thrown a quarter of their annual turnover at a player who said he wouldn't play for anyone else, a player they cannot use until January, a player whose attitude stinks and who hasn't kicked a football since last May. Sounds like the deal of the century alright.

I could be wrong but i was under the impression thst Suarez openly agitated for the move but was persuaded to stay for a nice increase and a promise to be allowed leave the following year if Barca came in.

He wanted to move to Arse but the LFC chairman (or whoever) chanced his arm and declined the bid, IIRC someone connected with the club publicly confirmed this a year or two back.

Maybe some of the LFC lads has a better handle on it.

Anyway, cracking result for Chelsea.

Couple of titles out of him and and heading for double what they paid for him.

Thats savage business for a player that every man and their dog knows isn't wanted

Rekop dog · 21-09-2017 07:10PM

Whatever about his off field shenanigans, his attitude on the pitch is among the best in the entire world. He's an absolute warrior. And he's won a whole lot in the last few years. And he gets tonnes of players sent off, especially at his previous spell at Atleti, he's a master at it. I'm a huge fan.

Everyone's a winner here, Chelsea get a good fee, Atleti get one of the top strikers in the world.

Lukker- · 21-09-2017 07:18PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

What bit about the Wenger £40M +1 bid do you not understand? Arsenal made the bid, spoke to the player and he told them to GTFO. Liverpool would have been obliged to accept the bid if Suarez agreed terms. Just because the buyout is met also doesn't another team couldn't come along and bid higher. It's not a difficult concept really. Do you think Athletico were going "Dammit Chelsea paid Costa's buyout of £32M and we would have got £40M off PSG"? Neymar bought the contract himself so he was out the door once the buyout was met.

Again, for the final time, Athletico have just thrown a quarter of their annual turnover at a player who said he wouldn't play for anyone else, a player they cannot use until January, a player whose attitude stinks and who hasn't kicked a football since last May. Sounds like the deal of the century alright.

You are getting confused between buyout clauses and release clauses. Simply put, they aren't the same thing and a buyout clause is mandatory in Spain. Diego Costa paid his own release clause effectively acting as the intermediary between Chelsea and Atletico. They were like Barcelona, powerless to stop him going as the mandatory buyout clause inserted in his contract when he first signed was set at £32m. They could have gotten £50m for him if it wasn't for this. Even if PSG came in and offered £50m, (it would never happen, they would have to be braindead to do so), Costa can still choose to go to Chelsea because they met the buy out clause. Once he pays the contract, Atletico are powerless, which is what happened, people on the board back than suggested he was overcome with greed for forcing Atletico to sell him. FYI plenty of release clauses have been triggered in England too although they are less common. Demba Ba to Chelsea for £7m was a release that was triggered, his market value at the time would have been higher. The reason Suarez didn't transfer to Arsenal is more likely down to fine print in contract details that Suarez team weren't aware of, or the fact that the FA don't enforce contracts like the Spanish do.

You seem to think there is some conspiracy regarding FFP and Chelsea? Why would Atletico be doing Chelsea this nice big favour? Chelsea don't even need the money to be close to balancing FFP, they could have spent another 150m net and still not breach FFP.

The short and long of it is, Chelsea had no need to rush the sale, Atletico were desperate for another striker and promised Simeone that they would sign Diego Costa if would sign an extension. It worked out for all parties. Is the fee even that much? Costa has 59 goals in 120 games for Chelsea, with a season off in between. He's a £50m striker.

irishman86 · 21-09-2017 09:12PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

In todays market, if Costa has a 4 year contract hes worth 80m, easily. Tthe transfer market has moved on vastly from 2014 but when Chelsea paid £32m for him back then they met his buy out clause, he was arguably worth far more.

Luckily Chelsea have never failed to meet the FFP criteria, unlike City or PSG, Chelseas business and money making is more transparent than some suspect accounts and Arab investment from within the same groups.

Well ignoring the signing kids thing :pac:

irishman86 · 21-09-2017 09:14PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

The spanish law clauses are different to what Suarez had. What he had wasnt a release clause, didnt he fire someone over the mistake

irishman86 · 21-09-2017 09:16PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

What bit about the Wenger £40M +1 bid do you not understand? Arsenal made the bid, spoke to the player and he told them to GTFO. Liverpool would have been obliged to accept the bid if Suarez agreed terms. Just because the buyout is met also doesn't another team couldn't come along and bid higher. It's not a difficult concept really. Do you think Athletico were going "Dammit Chelsea paid Costa's buyout of £32M and we would have got £40M off PSG"? Neymar bought the contract himself so he was out the door once the buyout was met.

Again, for the final time, Athletico have just thrown a quarter of their annual turnover at a player who said he wouldn't play for anyone else, a player they cannot use until January, a player whose attitude stinks and who hasn't kicked a football since last May. Sounds like the deal of the century alright.

This is wrong, Suarez wanted the move it was Liverpool who stopped it due to it not being a release clause merely a clause that when activated it allowed clubs to speak to him

GavRedKing · 22-09-2017 12:43PM

irishman86 wrote: »

Well ignoring the signing kids thing :pac:

We've been investigated it twice already for it in recent years, nothing came of it.

Only time Chelsea had an issue was when we signed Gael Kakauta a few years back, got a transfer ban for 2 windows over it too, the ban was overturned by the CSA after an appeal.

KaiserGunner · 22-09-2017 12:51PM

irishman86 wrote: »

This is wrong, Suarez wanted the move it was Liverpool who stopped it due to it not being a release clause merely a clause that when activated it allowed clubs to speak to him

Yeah I remember hearing that at the time. Sounds like a completely pointless clause. So he can speak to a club who triggers it, yet Liverpool could reject any bid still? So what was the point?

22-09-2017 12:59PM

KaiserGunner wrote: »

Yeah I remember hearing that at the time. Sounds like a completely pointless clause. So he can speak to a club who triggers it, yet Liverpool could reject any bid still? So what was the point?

There was no legality behind rejecting it. Liverpool just sort of hoped they could bully Arsenal away. Like most things regarding Arsenal, it worked.

grumpymunster · 22-09-2017 01:13PM

irishman86 wrote: »

Well ignoring the signing kids thing :pac:

GavRedKing wrote: »

We've been investigated it twice already for it in recent years, nothing came of it.

Only time Chelsea had an issue was when we signed Gael Kakauta a few years back, got a transfer ban for 2 windows over it too, the ban was overturned by the CSA after an appeal.

You know well Gav when it comes to Chelsea the truth never gets in the way of a good story.

I am curious as to why when Chelsea bought Costa would PSG want to come in and offer more money to AM for him when they legally had to accept the Chelsea bid. If they matched the Chelsea bid and offered Costa a shed load more money that would make sense but offering AM more money is like going to the pub being told it is €5 for a pint and demanding they accept €6 for the pint.

KaiserGunner · 22-09-2017 01:33PM

Liam O wrote: »

There was no legality behind rejecting it. Liverpool just sort of hoped they could bully Arsenal away. Like most things regarding Arsenal, it worked.

See I find that really hard to believe. There was obviously more to it than Arsenal being bullied away. At the time Suarez was up for the move and if it was a genuine release clause, then the deal would have been completed and nothing to do with Liverpool bullying tactics.
More likely there wasn't an actual release clause or Suarez changed his mind about the move (Gerrard allegedly told him it would be a mistake to go to Arsenal).
We will never know anyway.

Summer transfer thread 17/18 season (NEYMAR TALK IN OTHER THREAD)

Comments