Chelsea in for Falcao?

[Sheva]

We would all love our front 3 of Costa, Remy and Bamford but if Jose does not have faith in Bamford for next season then why not get someone in like Falcao for a year? I really don't understand how is that such a bad option. A year, not 3 - 4 years. If we sign Benteke on a 4 - 5 year contract that will hinder someone like Bamford more.

Blue Daze has done a great job at explaining the benefits of this and the negatives. We wouldnt be looking at signing a 1st choice striker here, we would be looking at signing a back up striker with a lot of experience. An Eto'o, Drogba signing who is a lot younger than both of those with a huge amount of experience. 

This probably wouldnt happen but I wouldnt be surprised if this is an option we are considering. I do stress though, I think this would only be a good option for us if he did take a big pay cut and I think he knows that.

 

[Blue Daze]

We would all love our front 3 of Costa, Remy and Bamford but if Jose does not have faith in Bamford for next season then why not get someone in like Falcao for a year? I really don't understand how is that such a bad option. A year, not 3 - 4 years. If we sign Benteke on a 4 - 5 year contract that will hinder someone like Bamford more.

Blue Daze has done a great job at explaining the benefits of this and the negatives. We wouldnt be looking at signing a 1st choice striker here, we would be looking at signing a back up striker with a lot of experience. An Eto'o, Drogba signing who is a lot younger than both of those with a huge amount of experience. 

This probably wouldnt happen but I wouldnt be surprised if this is an option we are considering. I do stress though, I think this would only be a good option for us if he did take a big pay cut and I think he knows that.

I like Benteke but you're talking about a first-choice striker joining a club where he's firmly second-choice (at best) on a five-year contract at roughly £11 million per year. That's a £55 million commitment over the lifetime of his contract which doesn't mean it can't happen but if you're making that move then you have to be all-in on him being here for the long-haul.

It also means selling Remy who is probably approaching his prime, relatively cheap but still capable of bringing in a decent fee (£12-15 million I'd guess).

Bamford as third choice is certainly an option but for me it's minutes. Not just first-team minutes but even under-21 minutes to remain match-fit which Solanke would also need.

Then there's the Icardis, Dybalas etc. who fall more into the Benteke-bracket but are either younger or cheaper. Each has their merits but again, you're talking about these guys being happy with limited minutes which is a big question mark.

Falcao is the pragmatic choice in my opinion. If we can get a favourable deal then I think he's worth a punt but again, I'm on the fence. What I don't think we can do is dismiss any option out of hand, especially when Mendes is involved somewhere along the line.

 

[Izanagi]

We would all love our front 3 of Costa, Remy and Bamford but if Jose does not have faith in Bamford for next season then why not get someone in like Falcao for a year? I really don't understand how is that such a bad option. A year, not 3 - 4 years. If we sign Benteke on a 4 - 5 year contract that will hinder someone like Bamford more.

Blue Daze has done a great job at explaining the benefits of this and the negatives. We wouldnt be looking at signing a 1st choice striker here, we would be looking at signing a back up striker with a lot of experience. An Eto'o, Drogba signing who is a lot younger than both of those with a huge amount of experience. 

This probably wouldnt happen but I wouldnt be surprised if this is an option we are considering. I do stress though, I think this would only be a good option for us if he did take a big pay cut and I think he knows that.

A back up on more money that 9/10 of our squad.

Avoid him like the f**king plague. 

 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

Really dont see the point in having him, at all. If it is purely to play backup, then promote one of the youngsters. Hopefully we will sign Griezmann who can play up top if the young guns dont work out. We do not need Falcao. If we were getting him for absolutely nothing, and not paying any of his wages, then fine. 

Mourinho has openly spoken about wages being an issue, and having been to a recent FFP conference at Stamford Bridge, presented by the CFC Finance Director, there absolutely is a wage structure in place at Chelsea. 

Mourinho on di maria and falcao: 

"Mourinho, who insists he didn't want either player, cited the effect of their wages on his dressing room when explaining why he passed up the opportunity to sign them. [SIZE=1.2em]In new book [/SIZE][SIZE=1.2em]The Key to Mendes[/SIZE][SIZE=1.2em], Mourinho said: 'I can't have a player earning €10m when others earn three, four or five. That would have caused an explosion.'[/SIZE]

 
Even if falcao was on half of what he currently earns, he'd be blowing everyone in the dressing room out of the water. Thankfully I think this rumour is just that and it is a pathetic attempt by Falcao, or indeed his agent, to drum up some interest in him. He's rank rotten, not suited to our game as exemplified by an absolutely chronic season in England, and in no way worth risking a squad place for when we have talented, hungry, home grown youngsters who can surely operate as third choice behind our main man Costa, and his very capable replacement Remy. 

Falcao, in my opinion, is absolute turd and we would be well advised to steer clear. Cant see this happening in a million years, and if it does, then there goes Jose's promise to start promoting youth. 29 years old, 2 cruciate injuries, and couldnt score in a barrel of fannies. 

No. 

 

[Chelsbear]

A back up on more money that 9/10 of our squad.

Avoid him like the f**king plague.

Exactly.

And an option that totally bombed this season in England, do folk think he's magically going to become the player he was 3/4 years ago?

If so they clearly have not watched the Falcao of the past 2 seasons, he's nowhere near that level anymore and his time at United summed where he is now in football.

 

[Chelsbear]

Really dont see the point in having him, at all. If it is purely to play backup, then promote one of the youngsters. Hopefully we will sign Griezmann who can play up top if the young guns dont work out. We do not need Falcao. If we were getting him for absolutely nothing, and not paying any of his wages, then fine.

Mourinho has openly spoken about wages being an issue, and having been to a recent FFP conference at Stamford Bridge, presented by the CFC Finance Director, there absolutely is a wage structure in place at Chelsea.

Mourinho on di maria and falcao:



"Mourinho, who insists he didn't want either player, cited the effect of their wages on his dressing room when explaining why he passed up the opportunity to sign them. In new book The Key to Mendes, Mourinho said: 'I can't have a player earning €10m when others earn three, four or five. That would have caused an explosion.'

Even if falcao was on half of what he currently earns, he'd be blowing everyone in the dressing room out of the water. Thankfully I think this rumour is just that and it is a pathetic attempt by Falcao, or indeed his agent, to drum up some interest in him. He's rank rotten, not suited to our game as exemplified by an absolutely chronic season in England, and in no way worth risking a squad place for when we have talented, hungry, home grown youngsters who can surely operate as third choice behind our main man Costa, and his very capable replacement Remy.

Falcao, in my opinion, is absolute turd and we would be well advised to steer clear. Cant see this happening in a million years, and if it does, then there goes Jose's promise to start promoting youth. 29 years old, 2 cruciate injuries, and couldnt score in a barrel of fannies.

No.

This.

Jose is a smart guy, he will see Falcao is damaged good that Man United couldn't wait to see the back of.

We have learned since the Veron days.

Stay clear of him, he's not better than our 2 mains strikers and is on more than both their wages put together.

 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

This.

Jose is a smart guy, he will see Falcao is damaged good that Man United couldn't wait to see the back of.

We have learned since the Veron days.

Stay clear of him, he's not better than our 2 mains strikers and is on more than both their wages put together.

Totally agree. 

Costa / Remy / Bamford or Solanke 

Sign Griezmann who can play up top if Bamford or Solanke arent up to it. 

We have limited squad spaces for overseas players. Aren't we maxed out as it currently stands? With Drogba and possibly Cech leaving, that frees up two spaces. There is no f**king way we should waste one on Falcao. 

 

[axman2526]

Falcao would have to start on under 100k Imo to make this even possible.

 

[Blue Daze]

Really dont see the point in having him, at all. If it is purely to play backup, then promote one of the youngsters. Hopefully we will sign Griezmann who can play up top if the young guns dont work out. We do not need Falcao. If we were getting him for absolutely nothing, and not paying any of his wages, then fine. 

Griezmann is a decent option because he can play a couple of positions but he is a very expensive option (it's possible he'd cost more next season than Falcao and if it didn't work out then you're commited to him for 5 years - ironically that type of situation would be more like the Torres deal than Falcao's could be).

Bamford needs minutes and it's unlikely he gets them here. Solanke is an option.

"Mourinho, who insists he didn't want either player, cited the effect of their wages on his dressing room when explaining why he passed up the opportunity to sign them. [SIZE=1.2em]In new book [/SIZE][SIZE=1.2em]The Key to Mendes[/SIZE][SIZE=1.2em], Mourinho said: 'I can't have a player earning €10m when others earn three, four or five. That would have caused an explosion.'[/SIZE]

 
Even if falcao was on half of what he currently earns, he'd be blowing everyone in the dressing room out of the water. Thankfully I think this rumour is just that and it is a pathetic attempt by Falcao, or indeed his agent, to drum up some interest in him. He's rank rotten, not suited to our game as exemplified by an absolutely chronic season in England, and in no way worth risking a squad place for when we have talented, hungry, home grown youngsters who can surely operate as third choice behind our main man Costa, and his very capable replacement Remy. 

But surely if you were into football finances then you'd also take account of transfer fees in any deal. Di Maria wasn't just earning a lot, he costs about £12 million in amortised transfer fees something that may not be an issue with Falcao depending on the deal. Again, it depends on what his wage demands would be which is why rather than dismissing something out of hand it should (and will be) at least considered.

Yes we have Costa and Remy....and yet Drogba played over 850 minutes last season.

We have limited squad spaces for overseas players. Aren't we maxed out as it currently stands? With Drogba and possibly Cech leaving, that frees up two spaces. There is no f**king way we should waste one on Falcao. 

Cech and Drogba are gone, if we get and English back-up goalkeeper in and even move on someone like Luis, Mikel or Ramires then it probably isn't an issue.

 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

Griezmann is a decent option because he can play a couple of positions but he is a very expensive option (it's possible he'd cost more next season than Falcao and if it didn't work out then you're commited to him for 5 years - ironically that type of situation would be more like the Torres deal than Falcao's could be).

Bamford needs minutes and it's unlikely he gets them here. Solanke is an option.

But surely if you were into football finances then you'd also take account of transfer fees in any deal. Di Maria wasn't just earning a lot, he costs about £12 million in amortised transfer fees something that may not be an issue with Falcao depending on the deal. Again, it depends on what his wage demands would be which is why rather than dismissing something out of hand it should (and will be) at least considered.

Yes we have Costa and Remy....and yet Drogba played over 850 minutes last season.

Cech and Drogba are gone, if we get and English back-up goalkeeper in and even move on someone like Luis, Mikel or Ramires then it probably isn't an issue.

I work as a forensic accountant and regularly attend seminars, not least sports ones. 

Investment in Griezmann may be perceived as less risky. Yes there is a considerable fee to be amortised, however the wages commanded will not be anywhere near what we would have to pay for Falcao. Given that age is on his side, he is more recently proven to be the business on the park and knows how to put the ball in the net, and is an international footballer with decent pedigree - the resale value would be unlikely to plummet to such an extent whereby we found ourselves burned. 

Additionally, his ability to play in a variety of positions makes him a more realistic, and more feasible and less risky purchase than that of falcao for a season. 

I wouldnt think it wise to move on a CM or a left back to make way for an overseas player who is a f**ked 29 year old on extortionate wages to play 3rd choice backup striker. 

Why does bamford need minutes any more than falcao? Play reserve football to keep your fitness up, play him in the "lesser" games, rotate the squad, thats what it is for. Signing falcao will only stifle youth in a position which clubs absolutely yearn to have homegrown talent occupy; and we have two promising kids who could help solve the age old problem of scoring goals, without having to shell out tens of millions to lure someone in from outside the club. Select one who is good enough, and rotate them accordingly so as to provide said minutes. Falcao, if not selected regularly, would also need to keep his fitness up and would be playing reserve football, as he has been at United. Why pay for the privilege? And how much more development does Bamford need? An award winning player proven at least at championship level, give him a run in the side for a season rotating him with other players, then reconsider next season how to manage him. Better he be scoring goals from the bench for chelsea than shipping him off to another premier league club to most probably sit on the bench there anyway, as do so many of our loan talents. Loaning Bamford out in the prem doesnt mean he'll play.

You're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to convince me that signing falcao is anything other than a sh*t idea, i'm afraid my mind is made up. He's rotten, expensive, and unnecessary. 

We can do better. 

 

[Sheva]

A back up on more money that 9/10 of our squad.

Avoid him like the f**king plague. 

I wish people would actually bother reading posts instead of just spurting out rubbish. You may want to read the end of my post and me highlighting that It would be a good option if he took a pay cut. It's the whole point of why we are having this discussion. An article which indicates that he is willing to take a pay cut.

 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

I wish people would actually bother reading posts instead of just spurting out rubbish. You may want to read the end of my post and me highlighting that It would be a good option if he took a pay cut. It's the whole point of why we are having this discussion. An article which indicates that he is willing to take a pay cut.

what constitutes a pay cut? 

50%???

he'd be earning the same as JT if he took a 50% pay cut. 

that is a f**king sh*t deal. 

 

[axman2526]

Is similar to the eto'o signing is it not?

Player well past their prime, viewed as a short term back up, on huge wages in an average league.

Eto'o took over a 50% pay cut to join us, but was still on around 120k a week with us.

On a one year loan I could see us doing the same with Falcao

 

[Sheva]

what constitutes a pay cut? 

50%???

he'd be earning the same as JT if he took a 50% pay cut. 

that is a f**king sh*t deal. 

Do you remember Eto'o, the guy who was probably earning more than Falcao in Russia. He seem to fit into the system and I imagine he was on a lot of money here and it was for a year. I don't believe we paid a transfer fee for him also.

I actually don't want Falcao here, I'd like to give Bamford that third option. I just know it's even harder to defend the title and there is more pressure on us doing well in Europe. I don't think Jose would be willing to take the risk on him and I can honestly see Falcao being considered.

 

[axman2526]

Pretty sure United also paid Monaco a 10mill loan fee too though. Hope we would not be offering that to them.

 

[Blue Daze]

I work as a forensic accountant and regularly attend seminars, not least sports ones. 

Investment in Griezmann may be perceived as less risky. Yes there is a considerable fee to be amortised, however the wages commanded will not be anywhere near what we would have to pay for Falcao. Given that age is on his side, he is more recently proven to be the business on the park and knows how to put the ball in the net, and is an international footballer with decent pedigree - the resale value would be unlikely to plummet to such an extent whereby we found ourselves burned. 

Additionally, his ability to play in a variety of positions makes him a more realistic, and more feasible and less risky purchase than that of falcao for a season. 

1. We don't know what Falcao's wages would be, nor would one expect Griezmann to be that cheap. What are we talking about the difference being at most? £50,000?

2. Griezmann's value after a poor season could fall to a level where it's simple uneconomical to sell him. That's the worst case scenario but it's happened before to us. Twice.

3. What about other costs, like Cuadrado? Are we just burning him off now because that's probably a necessity if we get Griezmann. Again, it's not something I'm totally against but when weighing up the financial implications of signing Falcao or Griezmann, it certainly needs to be factored in.

I wouldnt think it wise to move on a CM or a left back to make way for an overseas player who is a f**ked 29 year old on extortionate wages to play 3rd choice backup striker. 

It makes financial sense to move on Luis regardless of what happens. He's going to cost us £18 million over the next two seasons and have no re-sale value at all.

Why does bamford need minutes any more than falcao? Play reserve football to keep your fitness up, play him in the "lesser" games, rotate the squad, thats what it is for. Signing falcao will only stifle youth in a position which clubs absolutely yearn to have homegrown talent occupy; and we have two promising kids who could help solve the age old problem of scoring goals, without having to shell out tens of millions to lure someone in from outside the club. Select one who is good enough, and rotate them accordingly so as to provide said minutes. Falcao, if not selected regularly, would also need to keep his fitness up and would be playing reserve football, as he has been at United. Why pay for the privilege? And how much more development does Bamford need? An award winning player proven at least at championship level, give him a run in the side for a season rotating him with other players, then reconsider next season how to manage him. Better he be scoring goals from the bench for chelsea than shipping him off to another premier league club to most probably sit on the bench there anyway, as do so many of our loan talents. Loaning Bamford out in the prem doesnt mean he'll play.

Again, this is a point I've already addressed but here goes.

Bamford needs Premier League minutes, and he needs more than he'd likely get here. Even Drogba got less than 1000 minutes despite Remy and Costa both being injured at the same time for a considerable period. Yes he could get minutes in the under-21s, but Solanke needs those as well because Abraham needs the under-18 minutes. It's all linked isn't it?

Loaning Bamford doesn't mean he'll play, but it does mean he's more likely to play for the simple reason that he's not good enough for us yet. Love the lad, think he's got a great future but don't cut off his momentum now to play under-21 football.

You're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to convince me that signing falcao is anything other than a sh*t idea, i'm afraid my mind is made up. He's rotten, expensive, and unnecessary. 

We can do better. 

And that's where I differ. I'm undecided because I simply don't know. I seem to be taking into account more of the factors at play here but that's because I'm a bit of a nerd about things affecting the club in terms of youth development and finances.

I've been on the fence the whole time because I don't think there are right and wrong answers. You seem a little more decided and that's fine, but I think the club will be looking at all options simply because any responsible organisation has to in the modern game.

what constitutes a pay cut? 

50%???

he'd be earning the same as JT if he took a 50% pay cut. 

that is a f**king sh*t deal. 

Again, you can't just look at it in terms of wages. On the FFP books that type of wage puts him around 8th most expensive item. He'd cost roughly the same as Matic and Oscar and not a huge amount more than Remy.

That's if we get a favourable deal. If not then it's definitely not worth the risk.

 

[Sheva]

1. We don't know what Falcao's wages would be, nor would one expect Griezmann to be that cheap. What are we talking about the difference being at most? £50,000?

2. Griezmann's value after a poor season could fall to a level where it's simple uneconomical to sell him. That's the worst case scenario but it's happened before to us. Twice.

3. What about other costs, like Cuadrado? Are we just burning him off now because that's probably a necessity if we get Griezmann. Again, it's not something I'm totally against but when weighing up the financial implications of signing Falcao or Griezmann, it certainly needs to be factored in.

It makes financial sense to move on Luis regardless of what happens. He's going to cost us £18 million over the next two seasons and have no re-sale value at all.

Again, this is a point I've already addressed but here goes.

Bamford needs Premier League minutes, and he needs more than he'd likely get here. Even Drogba got less than 1000 minutes despite Remy and Costa both being injured at the same time for a considerable period. Yes he could get minutes in the under-21s, but Solanke needs those as well because Abraham needs the under-18 minutes. It's all linked isn't it?

Loaning Bamford doesn't mean he'll play, but it does mean he's more likely to play for the simple reason that he's not good enough for us yet. Love the lad, think he's got a great future but don't cut off his momentum now to play under-21 football.

And that's where I differ. I'm undecided because I simply don't know. I seem to be taking into account more of the factors at play here but that's because I'm a bit of a nerd about things affecting the club in terms of youth development and finances.

I've been on the fence the whole time because I don't think there are right and wrong answers. You seem a little more decided and that's fine, but I think the club will be looking at all options simply because any responsible organisation has to in the modern game.

Again, you can't just look at it in terms of wages. On the FFP books that type of wage puts him around 8th most expensive item. He'd cost roughly the same as Matic and Oscar and not a huge amount more than Remy.

That's if we get a favourable deal. If not then it's definitely not worth the risk.

Couldn't have of summed it up better. Just reasonable thinking and looking at it objectively. 

 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

Do you remember Eto'o, the guy who was probably earning more than Falcao in Russia. He seem to fit into the system and I imagine he was on a lot of money here and it was for a year. I don't believe we paid a transfer fee for him also.

I actually don't want Falcao here, I'd like to give Bamford that third option. I just know it's even harder to defend the title and there is more pressure on us doing well in Europe. I don't think Jose would be willing to take the risk on him and I can honestly see Falcao being considered.

Eto'o? nah must have missed him. I just buy a season ticket not to use it. 

We are past the stage of plugging gaps, and should not be squad-filling just because someone who once played well is now available. 

1. We don't know what Falcao's wages would be, nor would one expect Griezmann to be that cheap. What are we talking about the difference being at most? £50,000?

2. Griezmann's value after a poor season could fall to a level where it's simple uneconomical to sell him. That's the worst case scenario but it's happened before to us. Twice.

3. What about other costs, like Cuadrado? Are we just burning him off now because that's probably a necessity if we get Griezmann. Again, it's not something I'm totally against but when weighing up the financial implications of signing Falcao or Griezmann, it certainly needs to be factored in.

It makes financial sense to move on Luis regardless of what happens. He's going to cost us £18 million over the next two seasons and have no re-sale value at all.

Again, this is a point I've already addressed but here goes.

Bamford needs Premier League minutes, and he needs more than he'd likely get here. Even Drogba got less than 1000 minutes despite Remy and Costa both being injured at the same time for a considerable period. Yes he could get minutes in the under-21s, but Solanke needs those as well because Abraham needs the under-18 minutes. It's all linked isn't it?

Loaning Bamford doesn't mean he'll play, but it does mean he's more likely to play for the simple reason that he's not good enough for us yet. Love the lad, think he's got a great future but don't cut off his momentum now to play under-21 football.

And that's where I differ. I'm undecided because I simply don't know. I seem to be taking into account more of the factors at play here but that's because I'm a bit of a nerd about things affecting the club in terms of youth development and finances.

I've been on the fence the whole time because I don't think there are right and wrong answers. You seem a little more decided and that's fine, but I think the club will be looking at all options simply because any responsible organisation has to in the modern game.

Again, you can't just look at it in terms of wages. On the FFP books that type of wage puts him around 8th most expensive item. He'd cost roughly the same as Matic and Oscar and not a huge amount more than Remy.

That's if we get a favourable deal. If not then it's definitely not worth the risk.

for someone who is undecided, you sound fairly decided. 

As for taking a number of factors into account, I am too, as are a number of other posters in here who are against it. You consider some factors, I, along with others, consider different factors, and my conclusion is that he is not the answer. 

As for Sheva highlighting your post as well balanced and considered, I think that is doing the rest of the forum a disservice as the majority in here have made their mind up based on the facts available. 

 

[Blue Daze]

for someone who is undecided, you sound fairly decided. 

God just blessed me with the ability to argue points objectively.

As for taking a number of factors into account, I am too, as are a number of other posters in here who are against it. You consider some factors, I, along with others, consider different factors, and my conclusion is that he is not the answer. 

I have no doubt people are against it. I'm also fairly certain I could dig up a Torres thread started immediately after he was signed that would contain lots of people in favour of his arrival. If things were either right or wrong then there would be no point in discussing them.

The factors I'm considering are financial and footballing. Others seem focused on his form last season which is a perfectly valid thing to consider, but certainly shouldn't be the only thing.

As for Sheva highlighting your post as well balanced and considered, I think that is doing the rest of the forum a disservice as the majority in here have made their mind up based on the facts available. 

Plenty of facts are available but does everyone consider each of them? I'm not sure. That's not to say I'm aware of everything because my view throughout has been that I simply don't know. 

But I think I know enough to not simply say 'he's gash, no chance'.

 

[Blue Exile]

Not sure how it could ever be a cheap option, even if loaned.

He has a 300k a week contract, we'd be expected to pay the Lions share of that, if not all of it, plus a loan fee.

Would probably be between 15-20m for a season.

I can't see for the life of me how anybody would find that appealing, for that player.