Wasting time how exactly.
2 Likes
The problem with Lavia is, if we were not interested at 50 (even before Caicedo drama), i dont see us going 55 now
I agree,but heâd have done his medical by now if he really wanted to
Assuming he does go to Chelsea, there are definitely questions to ask ourselves on how we got so far out publicly over our skis on a deal we werent able to close with the player.
Itâs not critical. At worst itâs a PR black eye, and there is nothing stopping us working on contingency plans in the interim. But at worst it has put us in a bad position for other deals, both with clubs (over the money they now know we have) and players, and suggests a less buttoned up process than weâve had in the past.
1 Like
Iâm pretty sure we arenât just sat there.
Was jokes on Lavia all week and then all of a sudden we bid 110m on Caciedo.
We may well have been lied to by the player/his agent,nothing we can do about that but take these people at face value.
folks naively taking our silence as us jus standing around watching the boehley show⌠Bet we moved on as soon as player had 2nd thoughts
1 Like
I think we have played a blinder , we have exposed how FFP is a sham for certain clubs, whilst providing a bid that put us in contention.
City , Chelsea and Newcastle are having to be creative in the ways they go about transfers âŚthey have not got the free reign they think they have & it also highlights how compromised the premier league is âŚseriously if only utd, arsenal and other teams could only organise themselves better to actually highlight the issues as we have done in recent years, then maybe we will get somewhere .
Until they and the premier league grow a pair, it looks as though we are standing alone .
3 Likes
Whilst probably also keeping in contact with Laviaâs agents.
1 Like
From all indication everyman and his dog assumed this was going through even Romano was saying that his was travelling for his medical. Then for whatever reason the narrative started changing around 10ish Friday you can speculate Chelsea had a hand this and im guessing its why Klopp was a bit sitty on the fence.
2 Likes
Latvia?
The biggest shit storm could still becoming if the Neves 2 year loan to Newcastle comes off literally weeks after his move to Saudi
3 Likes
Damn autocorrect
We spent 2 weeks negotiating with a club that wouldnât budge on a ÂŁ50m valuation, likely knew this from the get go but still proceeded to put in 3 bids which were all instantly rejected.
Then we hear Chelsea coming for Lavia which forces our hand to make a move on Caicedo (a player thatâs twirked for Chelsea all summer, Arsenal before that, Utd before that) and weâre still waiting on Chelsea to force us away.
Itâs a bit embarrassing tbh.
Chelsea sign both players for ÂŁ170m then what? Youâll still be asking what time we wasted? Come on.
Yes and no.
Klopp/scouts clearly have a strong interest in Lavia. Whether the valuation is deemed too high. Perhaps. But walking away then has to be the best move. More attractive option. Otherwise why are we walking away. Whether thatâs signing someone else or what have you. Otherwise just pay up the extra few million.
Klopp wonât be deciding on the valuation of certain players. Thatâs for the owners/management to decide.
He âtwerkedâ for Arsenal.
What would you take from that? The fact his heart is set on one team? Or he doesnât care so much?
They are doing this to get around FFP regulations. They are amortizing the fee over eight years instead of four or five, which lowers the amount they charge against revenues. They are betting that revenues will continue to rise such that this isnât going to be an issue several years from now. UEFA has said that they are changing the rule to disallow this, that for FFP, a club can only amortize a maximum of five years. However, I donât know if thatâs been implemented yet. Thatâs why theyâve been spending like drunken sailors over the past 13 months.
Itâs a dangerous strategy IMO. Itâs akin to when they put the salary cap in the NFL in the 1990s. What happened was teams would play around with the structure of contracts that allowed them to back-load costs against the cap so teams could win now. And sometimes they did. But usually, teams would just get into trouble a few years down the road. The problem for Chelsea following this model is that the NFL is a closed shop, the PL is not. Itâs possible that this side could get relegated in the next decade.
People bang on FSG, but Iâd rather follow FSGâs strategy rather than what Chelsea are doing. Chelseaâs ownership are betting that they can buy a whole bunch of great players, drive the value up, and possibly sell it a decade later. Or at least that what Clearlake is banking on.
I work in this business. I know these firms, and have met at least some of the people who are mentioned on these forums. My impression is that they found a legal loophole, then demonstrated they didnât know what they hell they were doing. Itâs like they were bidding or trying to buy every hot property on the back pages. If I ever sit down with these owners again, Iâll quiz them about it.
1 Like
Repeat after me:
Chelsea can not afford both. They may not even be able to afford Caicedo.
Repeat after me:
Chelsea spent ÂŁ600m net in the last 12 months.
And their still shit