Stipe Perica from Watford to Maccabi Tel Aviv on a free.
Hamza Rafia from Juventus to Standard Liege on loan.
Darko Churlinov from Stuttgart to Schalke loan.
Aleix Vidal from Sevilla to Espanyol on loan.
Michy Batshuayi from Chelsea to Besiktas on loan.
I read an article on the Athletic from Sam Lee, where he mentioned their plan was to go for Kane last summer, but then they dropped everything when Messi wanted out of his contract with Barca. I had no idea about this, didn’t know it’s been in motion for so long.
Plans do change obviously, but it does very much seem like they have decided Kane is their guy.
I do wonder if Chelsea loaning players like Batshuayi is sometimes used as a deliberate ploy to reduce the interest in players like Origi who the club would be looking to sell.
I don’t know, but I don’t think he would have written it like that if it wasn’t the case. Doesn’t tend to say or write things in a definite sort of way unless it’s actually true, seems to have good sources within the club.
Not much of it makes sense without there being some accounting trickery that is beyond me. I understand the contract extension if you’re looking to get a fee for him, or in a situation like with Haaland where you’re trying to finalize the terms of his eventual exit and need to pay him more money in the short term to finalize that. I don’t get it for situations likes this where we’re still just looking to farm him our, presumably while paying at least some of his wages.
Is it some trick to amortize the cost of the purchase over a longer period or something like that?
I can’t speak to whether this is a motivating factor, but it definitely does spread any remaining book value of the contract over a longer period. One would think that the sums would be insignificant at this point, but . Edit 2: and anyway, surely the last remaining “expense” of the transfer coming off the books (as well as the wages) via the contract ending would be the most beneficial from a FFP perspective? There has to be some value to retaining the player from the club’s perspective here.
Edit: more likely to me is that a contract extension remains neutral from a wage standpoint (unlikely to earn much of a pay bump and I assume the loan clubs are paying the player) while still allowing the club to earn money from loan fees and keep the possibility of earning a transfer fee at some point on the table.
That is the bit that doesnt seem right, as one of the reasons these lads stick around so long is the money they get at Chelsea is higher than anyone else would pay them.
More than anyone would be willing to commit over a long term contract, certainly. More than they are willing to pay for a 1 year rental? Might be possible.
Hmm…he doesn’t question what City tell him though until what he’s shown to have related has turned out to be bollocks. See his “reporting” on the UEFA FFP stuff in Nov/Dec 2019.
I haven’t read the article, The Athletic no longer appeals to me, but I presume it doesn’t take into account what may or may not have been going on from Messi or Kane’s side of things?
Do Chelsea continue to pay his wages while on loan? according to Transfermarkt, he has been loaned out previously for fees of about 1m. This year his loan fee is reported to be much lower at only 135k.
I think the new contract spreads his cost to the club over a longer period so will continue to help reduce taxable income figures by a small margin. At the same time the loan through the fee, and if wages are covered, will generate an income for the club. If they need to sell a player to raise funds to meet FFP requirements he is still an option.
I also wonder if this is part of a networking scheme where they get to be involved in more conversations with clubs about available talent.
Then there is the prospect of this being a way Roman can keep money in assets outside of Russia…?
If he stays for the duration that’ll be 8 years of his career at Chelsea including his prime years and he’ll have barely played for them.
Got to think the money he’s making there will make him very comfortable for the rest of his life but surely you’d look back in a few years time and feel a bit like you wasted your one shot at this.
He’s no world beater but he’s better than just being farmed out on loan to progressively worse and worse clubs.
I thought there was a rule being introduced to limit the number of players one club could have out on loan?
It’s basically just a sentence in an article about Messi and the transfer that never happened, and why they didn’t go for him this time:
"City put the wheels in motion before Messi sent his infamous burofax to Barca and put the football world into overdrive. For the next 10 days, City watched and waited. On the day Messi gave an interview outlining he would be staying after all, he rang City to tell them he still would like to sign for them.
Guardiola was not happy. City had been working on a move for Harry Kane when Messi called last summer and quickly shelved their plans.
He then left them empty-handed and that is largely why, insiders say, Guardiola cut such a moody figure at the start of last season."
Harry Kane has not travelled with the Spurs squad to Portugal, for their Europa Conference League game. He’s stayed behind to “work on his fitness” apparently. Read into that what you will.
Could be true. He missed a chunk of pre-season training. I suspect Nuno isn’t in a rush to put him in the team either, particularly following the weekend’s performance.