A loan massively reduces the risk for us. Yes it might cost abit more but at least we have a year to see what's like. Given the serious lack of options, I think a one year loan is worth the risk.

i like taking risks that could pay off big, drogba was a passenger most games and even when he scored its hard not to with a team like that round you, falcao could be s great bit of business..for some reason though I'd like to see us with 2 strikers on the pitch if we got him, can you imagine him and Costa firing on all cylinders..it's worth a punt

I just don't like this move. Not at all.

I don't think he'll work out for us if he comes here. 

 

But i think it will happen, if you score against us it pretty much guarantees you a transfer at some point(so much for our scouts).

 

Torres, Salah, Merieles, Eto'o...

I don't think he'll work out for us if he comes here. 

 

But i think it will happen, if you score against us it pretty much guarantees you a transfer at some point(so much for our scouts).

 

Torres, Salah, Merieles, Eto'o...

 

+ Willian and Remy!

I'm really in two minds..
our recent history of bringing in very expensive up front risks hasn't panned out too well.. BUT..
If he was to turn out to be the goal machine he once was (Blue tinted wishful thinking glasses on there me thinks !) then it would be a pittance in modern day terms for a top European striker.
So, as with all players the club brings in, i'll support him to the bitter end with other fans, but i'll have my reservations for the moment.. Big ones.. Until such time as he proves me wrong.

I don't think he'll work out for us if he comes here. 

 

But i think it will happen, if you score against us it pretty much guarantees you a transfer at some point(so much for our scouts).

 

Torres, Salah, Merieles, Eto'o...

 

I hope you're not being serious. Its nearly as stupid as when people said the only reason we bought Willian was to stop Spurs from buying him.

As much chance he flops as there is of him scoring 20 goals. Can't be 100% sure either way, so for a loan, take the chance. Give him a different manager and system to play in and see what happens. If he flops we send him back and perhaps use Bamford for 16/17 season or Falcao does excellent and we sign him up, thus meaning we sell Bamford probably (which I have always expected to happen)

I remember watching United play Arsenal a few weeks ago with Falcao up front. I know the United system doesn't suit his game at all but what was most striking to me was that he looked completely shot physically. It was as if his feet just wouldn't move as quickly as his brain. He looked, dare I say it, very Torres-esque.

£32.5m for Benteke is more ridiculous than paying 18 for Falcao, by some stretch.

 

Why? Benteke is much younger, a couple of years away from reaching his peak, quality goalscorer and has a resale value, if things don't go exactly as planned.

 

Falcao is turning 30 next season, hasn't been good since leaving Atletico two years ago and there's still a big question mark over his fitness levels and whether his speed and mobility can be regained. His confidence seems to be missing, too, along with his form. Much bigger wages and no resale value. Tellingly, no other top club seems to be interested. He's a big risk that no one apart from us is willing to take.

 

So if you take into consideration their age, wages, resale value and current form, I don't see how paying 18m for Falcao is more ridiculous than paying 32.5 for Benteke. Actually the Colombian may cost the club even more per season. His current wage is around 265,00 a week. Let's say, he cuts it to 165,000 a week. Given his age, injury history and recent form I can't see us offering him more than a three year contract, which would cost us (fee plus wages) around 14.5m a year.  According to this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3105040/Tim-Sherwood-ready-smash-Aston-Villa-s-wage-budget-striker-Christian-Benteke-offer-75-000-week.html  Benteke is being offered 75,000 a week to keep him at Villa. Say we give him 100,000 a week five year contract, which makes sense, being that he's only 24 now. That would cost us around 11.7m per year. Two or three years after signing Benteke we can still sell him for a good price, given his age.

No such luxury with Falcao.                                                                           

I think we'd be drastically overpaying in either of those scenarios to be honest.

It sucks for Falcao but players rarely recover from ACL injuries. Our own Essien was an example. 

Benteke would be immense but no way would he want to come here and be a back up.

It sucks for Falcao but players rarely recover from ACL injuries. Our own Essien was an example. 

 

If you are young, recovery is much easier, Azpilicueta and Van Nistelrooy are good examples of this. When you are in your late 20s or early 30's, it seems to have a really bad impact on your career.

Tevez is leaving Juve and would be a much better option.

Tevez is leaving Juve and would be a much better option.

Tevez is leaving Juve and would be a much better option.

I would much prefer tevez to falcao, but isn't he going back to south america?

I wouldn't touch Tevez, far to much of a prima Donna plus I doubt he'd come back over here

I'd love to have Tevez, I think he'd thrive playing in front of Hazard and Willian too.

 

Interesting that Falcao scored for Colombia today against Costa Rica, assisted by none other than our very own Juan Cuadrado.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_mcyF_fZ6Y

Edited June 7, 201511 yr by Jonty

I would definitely have Tevez, again provided that he's happy to play a backup role. He's the kind of grafter that Mourinho would love to manage as well, I suspect. In fact, we could conceivably play with two up front in certain situations, with Tevez playing off Costa. 

 

The only really issue with Tevez is his age (31), so I don't see him being here for more than a year or two. That said, there aren't many young options at the moment on the market that are of the required quality, so perhaps it would be better to take a 'stop-gap' type like Tevez for the foreseeable. 

Is this what happens when there are no good strikers available then? 

Realistically no talented young striker is going to want to come here and be a 2nd or even 3rd choice striker in a team that rotates very little, the role is suited to an experienced player seeking some money and medals at the tail end of his career that has the composure to step in on short notice and make an impact when needed in limited minutes.

Still plenty of scope for this Falcao deal not to happen. Mainly a demand for a hefty cut in wages and third-party ownership problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/11656790/Chelsea-Iron-Lady-Marina-Granovskaia-lays-down-law-on-transfers.html

Still plenty of scope for this Falcao deal not to happen. Mainly a demand for a hefty cut in wages and third-party ownership problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/11656790/Chelsea-Iron-Lady-Marina-Granovskaia-lays-down-law-on-transfers.html

I'm sure I read somewhere he isnt 3rd party owned anymore since Monaco bought him outright and owned him 100% which is why they had to pay like 50-55m euros or whatever it was.  Atletico Madrid never "owned" him as such, so the bulk of that 50m euros or so went to the 3rd party who in turn gave Monaco their share of the player.

 

I think

Edited June 7, 201511 yr by RickUK

I'm sure I read somewhere he isnt 3rd party owned anymore since Monaco bought him outright and owned him 100% which is why they had to pay like 50-55m euros or whatever it was. Atletico Madrid never "owned" him as such, so the bulk of that 50m euros or so went to the 3rd party who in turn gave Monaco their share of the player.

I think

Could it be that the third party owners are due some money if he's sold on though?