We have gems in Bamford, Solanke and Abraham. You could even include Traore in that who I don't include for some weird reason despite him being perhaps the most talented. That's four great young talents aged 21, 19, 18 and 18 (I think).

 

Again, what is the opportunity cost (as barak said) of this signing? Who is the player we're not buying? 

 

Is it Mandzukic? Is it Tevez? Is it 'Kezman like player' with his luscious locks and cheeky smile?

 

Ok let's say it is that player. Let's just say that we once again sign PSV's free-scoring prospect....well actually his name is Memphis and he's costing United £25 million but let's just pretend that he's not, that he's £5 million. What is the opportunity cost of signing that player? Is it perhaps the development or integration of a youngster 12 months from now? That's a possibility.

 

Falcao will not be as bad a deal as Torres or Shevchenko. The problem with their deals wasn't that they were so bad in their first season, it's that we had to keep them for a second. We don't have that with Falcao. The initial outlay may be steeper than any of us would like but the rest of the deal is upside.

 

Question is, why take a chance at all? If we're after top quality strikers past their best, how about Zlatan or Tevez? Apparently they're both available. I'm not advocating us going for either, but at least with them we'll have a striker that can still deliver. I look at Falcao and I see Torres. We had to endure three-and-a-half seasons of that, why make the same mistake? Notice, how no other club is competing for his signature. Seems that everyone knows something we don't.

 

Perhaps it's a favor to Mendes in order to get someone like Griezmann, and maybe as a third choice striker Falcao would do fine, but at this particular moment it doesn't look like a good deal to us, loan or no loan.

Edited June 16, 201510 yr by abramovich

He might not be as bad a deal as Sheva and Torres cost wise but he could be as much of a disaster performance wise.

Truth is, I just don't want another stop-gap striker. We've had Eto and Drogba and for me Falcao will just be another striker living on past reputation to plug the gap again. I thought we were building for the future? If we could have got him when he was at his peak at Madrid and pre-injury yes, but for me that time has past and I don't want Chelsea being his 5th club in 4 years.

On my phone so can't post what I want which is 'we have Costa' over and over. Jusr imagine I've put that every fourth word.

Isn't a stop gap exactly what we need? We have not only a first choice, but a good back up and four extremely exciting youngsters. People keep saying who they don't want but it's more difficult to say who we do want.

The market is hardly overflowing with quality options. If he works out then it's a great deal. If he doesn't then we cut ties and reassess when either the market is stronger or we promote someone.

I'm not sure if there are many options who aren't stop gaps.

Question is, why take a chance at all? If we're after top quality strikers past their best, how about Zlatan or Tevez? Apparently they're both available. I'm not advocating us going for either, but at least with them we'll have a striker that can still deliver. I look at Falcao and I see Torres. We had to endure three-and-a-half seasons of that, why make the same mistake? Notice, how no other club competing for his signature. Seems that everyone knows something we don't.

Perhaps it's a favor to Mendes in order to get someone like Griezmann, and maybe as a third choice striker Falcao would do fine, but at this particular moment it doesn't look like a good deal to us, loan or no loan.

Agreed.

There is no one else in for him for a reason and it's the same reason United punted him out the door the first day his loan duration ended (and they didn't even want to discuss any deal for him).

Loaning him means another stop gap, it's not long term and he's on huge wages. He's a proven flop in EPL terms and looks a shadow of the player of 3/4 years ago.

The only upside so far is we still have Costa and Remy and I can see the latter moving on if this goes through as why would he want to play second fiddle to a washed up has been when he's clearly a far better striker these days?

Question is, why take a chance at all? If we're after top quality strikers past their best, how about Zlatan or Tevez? Apparently they're both available. I'm not advocating us going for either, but at least with them we'll have a striker that can still deliver. I look at Falcao and I see Torres. We had to endure three-and-a-half seasons of that, why make the same mistake? Notice, how no other club is competing for his signature. Seems that everyone knows something we don't.

Perhaps it's a favor to Mendes in order to get someone like Griezmann, and maybe as a third choice striker Falcao would do fine, but at this particular moment it doesn't look like a good deal to us, loan or no loan.

How many years do Tevez and Zlatan ask for? If they don't score the goals you're guaranteeing (which is possible) then how much do they cost us in year two? How much in year 3?

We won't endure three years of him. It's a one year loan.

Worst case scenario: Falcao comes, Remy wants to leave, Costa gets injured early on and we're left with a crooked Falcao as our first striker.

 

I want to believe our board also sees this and won't let this happen but our transfer business hasn't looked as good as it once was. 

 

Nothing is confirmed yet and there is still plenty of time I guess, lets hope we get our squad together!

A reasoned post.

 

I am trying ever so hard to get on board with this and can accept some of the logical positive points in relation to the year long loan in the sense that it gives us the flexibility to review the situation of our young promising youth players  in 12 months time without  being financially crippled..... however....

 

 

Not just our own young players but the market as a whole, because it seems rather bare at the moment which will be pertinent to the recurring question of 'if not Falcao, who?'.

 

 

I just can't see this being a success.

We have the rare advantage of already having seeing how he would cope as a back up striker getting cameo appearances in the Premier League, for one of our competitors, and it wasn't pretty. In fact, it was bloody awful to Torres proportions. He was utter sh*t, let's be honest here.

 

 

First, what's a success? Our third choice striker last year scored 4 goals, same as Falcao, so is replicating that a success?

 

How good was that competitor, especially in terms of suiting Falcao's style of play?

 

 

When I watched him last year I just thanked my lucky stars it wasn't us with the 'has been' striker on insane wages getting wheeled out on rare occasions only to fail week in/week out. We have been there.

 

 

But...we were there weren't we? With Didier? Maybe not insane wages but washed up in the extreme which is an awful thing to say about a legend. My view, I only say Falcao play in person once and that was against us. He was better than Didier that day in my opinion.

 

 

If we keep Costa & Remy and simply replace Drogba with Falcao then we are arguably better off than last season. Combined with the fact we can let him go after a year then it's not going to cause us any long lasting damage....

 

I still just can't help but think we would be better off letting this one go..... exactly as United have.

 

Agree with the first part, but the second part leads me back to my first question.

 

If not Falcao, who?

Don't challenge the all knowing one, the guy loves to repeatedly hammer you with the same points over and over.

Don't challenge the all knowing one, the guy loves to repeatedly hammer you with the same points over and over.

 

Ok I'll give you a go. Which point am I repeatedly hammering home? If you want to argue the point then feel free because the one thing I'm not is all-knowing. In fact I'm very fallible such is human nature.

 

But if I think a view I have holds merit then I will argue it, That doesn't mean I can't be persuaded otherwise as I've demonstrated numerous times on here.

 

In fact my starting point on this whole thing is that I DON'T f**kING KNOW but I can see the value in going for someone like Falcao. But who exactly are the alternatives?

Who would have thought after he destroyed us a few years ago in super cup that majority of us would all feel so underwhelmed at the prospect of signing him...

Somebody please tell Abramovich that this is really a bad deal.

How many years do Tevez and Zlatan ask for? If they don't score the goals you're guaranteeing (which is possible) then how much do they cost us in year two? How much in year 3?

We won't endure three years of him. It's a one year loan.

 

Why endure it at all? Even if it's one season, it's still a lot of money (his loan fee plus wages) and he'll still take somebody else's spot in the squad. Somebody else, who unlike him can actually do the business on a pitch.

 

Zlatan and Tevez are scoring goals now. Not two-three years ago. That's why clubs are chasing them and that's why they don't have to accept year loans and don't need to take wage cuts. Nothing is guaranteed, but it bothers me that we're the only club willing to take a chance on Falcao and spend money on him, given his atrocious recent form.

Why endure it at all? Even if it's one season, it's still a lot him can actually do the business on a pitch.

Zlatan and Tevez are scoring goals now. Not two-three of money (his loan fee plus wages) and he'll still take somebody else's spot in the squad. Somebody else, who unlike years ago. That's why clubs are chasing them and that's why they don't have to accept year loans and don't need to take wage cuts. Nothing is guaranteed, but it bothers me that we're the only club willing to take a chance on Falcao and spend money on him, given his atrocious recent form.

And our record of signing past it strikers!

If there was one club who you would think would go for a former world class striker on the rapid decline it's sad to say it's us.

Why endure it at all? Even if it's one season, it's still a lot of money (his loan fee plus wages) and he'll still take somebody else's spot in the squad. Somebody else, who unlike him can actually do the business on a pitch.

 

Because there's a chance that he does score goals for us. Whose spot is he taking in the squad? 

 

 

Zlatan and Tevez are scoring goals now. Not two-three years ago. That's why clubs are chasing them and that's why they don't have to accept year loans and don't need to take wage cuts. Nothing is guaranteed, but it bothers me that we're the only club willing to take a chance on Falcao and spend money on him, given his atrocious recent form.

 

Not only does Zlatan have a year left on his contract (transfer fee) he'd almost certainly want a 2-3 year contract. Same with Tevez. That's what players that age want usually, security. It's why Milner went to Liverpool and there's nothing wrong with that because 'keep getting dem cheques'.

 

But if they don't score, what happens? How do we get rid of them? How does Liverpool get rid of Balotelli?

 

Maybe we're looking at him because we already have Diego Costa as number one. We can take a chance on someone like Falcao who is in poor form because it doesn't affect our short-term or long-term success to a great degree. 

 

The Torres and Shevchenko comparisons are superficial at best. We're in a different position now and we can take chances both on youth like Loftus-Cheek and also on undervalued assets like Falcao who have the potential (because that's all ANY transfer has - potential. There are no certainties and that applies to both Ibrahimovic and Tevez) to provide something to the squad.

 

And if it doesn't work out then we're in a great position in 12 months to reassess. 

I really don't understand the pessimism about us signing Falcao for a year

 

Yes he is past it but he still is an upgrade on Drogba of last year and with Remy and Costa having had a season to gel with the squad they will only improve this coming season.

 

I believe we have 2 competent strikers that we can afford to take a gamble with Falcao, 2 years ago we could only dream of having both Costa and Falcao and now belatedly this could be a reality. I would prefer playing Falcao up front in a CL 1/4 or 1/2 final than play Oscar or Bamford with Costa and Remy out injured.

 

It appears there are slim pickings in this window but if we gain Sterling, Falcao and some young English defender (Stones) and lose Drogba and Salah, I'll see that as an improvement and a successful transfer window.

2 years ago Falcao was a player who scored goals.

He got crocked and is now a striker who doesn't score goals.

There is a reason we are the only folk who want to sign him....

We are not signing him to be our no.1 striker he is going to be replacing Drogba

 

If our other 2 strikers were Ba and Torres I would agree it is the wrong decision but he is worth a punt as the third striker behind Remy and Costa

We are not signing him to be our no.1 striker he is going to be replacing Drogba

If our other 2 strikers were Ba and Torres I would agree it is the wrong decision but he is worth a punt as the third striker behind Remy and Costa

You honestly see Remy staying and think Falcao is a direct replacement to Drogba?

Why would we be spending such a large amount of cash on a 3rd choice?

It's clear to me he will be ahead of Remy in the pecking order.

Who would have thought after he destroyed us a few years ago in super cup that majority of us would all feel so underwhelmed at the prospect of signing him...

 

Just goes to show how true that old cliche is of a week being a long time in football, never mind 3 years and also not forgetting the fact a bad cruciate injury in the meantime.

I honestly would have Remy as No.2 ahead of Falcao however Mourinho may beg to differ

 

But even in the scenario of Falcao being no.2 I can see 2 possible outcomes-

 

1. He starts banging in the goals and it's happy days

2. He struggles and Remy moves up the pecking order

 

However my main fear with the signing of Falcao is if Remy decides to leave but if he stays than I am happy seeing Falcao at the bridge on a season long loan.

Ok I'll give you a go. Which point am I repeatedly hammering home? If you want to argue the point then feel free because the one thing I'm not is all-knowing. In fact I'm very fallible such is human nature.

But if I think a view I have holds merit then I will argue it, That doesn't mean I can't be persuaded otherwise as I've demonstrated numerous times on here.

In fact my starting point on this whole thing is that I DON'T f**kING KNOW but I can see the value in going for someone like Falcao. But who exactly are the alternatives?

Maybe the fact you keep saying the same stuff over and over. Like about the cost of Falcao compared to Torres and Sheva etc.

Alternatives for me are guys like Austin who scored plenty of goals last season unlike Falcao.

We are not signing him to be our no.1 striker he is going to be replacing Drogba

 

If our other 2 strikers were Ba and Torres I would agree it is the wrong decision but he is worth a punt as the third striker behind Remy and Costa

 

That's exactly why I was against us signing Eto'o two seasons back. It's one thing to bring a guy like him or Falcao in to be first choice and another to have him as back-up.

 

That to me is the wrong type of 'stop-gap' but when you've got Costa who is very much first-choice then you have the opportunity to take a risk and as you rightly say, we're talking about replacing Drogba who was a shadow of his former self last season.

 

 It's also different from the Torres or Shevchenko signings who were both intended to be first choices (Torres definitely, Sheva to a lesser extent perhaps). If we must compare him to a former signing then isn't George Weah most apt? Brought in on loan when we had Sutton, Flo and Franco ahead of him yet he managed to contribute before we decided against signing him at the end of the season.

I was pretty disappointed this time last year when we sold lukaku and brought back drogba. It looked like we were going into the season with an unproven costa, torres and drogba as our strike force. Then we managed to swap torres for remy and by the end of the window I was feeling confident.

I guess I am trying to say it may be better to wait and see how we are looking when the window closes rather than worry about it now.

Costa/remy/falcao is as strong if not stronger than last season. The club seems to be playing their cards close to there chest this summer, this time last year we had already landed costa, fabregas, and luis. I think there are a number of situations waiting to transpire before it kicks off.

I'm sure the current set of players would be excited about the prospect of playing with a superstar like falcao, so that would be good for morale.

Here's a hypothetical question for those of you who aren't completely opposed to this signing, and maybe even for those of you who are (although I think I know what your answer will be) - Let's just go into dreamland for a second and say Falcao scores 15 goals by overtaking Remy to 2nd choice through sheer weight of performances, and shows major signs of returning to his best, even challenging Costa for his spot along the way. Would you then pay the rumoured 35m fee for a 30 year old with injury issues and buy him permanently?

 

As someone who is pro-Falcao relative to the mood of the thread (by which I mean I'm in the "eh, this wouldn't kill us" camp), this is the scenario that has me most conflicted about bringing him over. Because if the answer to that question is "yes", we'd then genuinely be looking at a potential Torres situation, and that scares me. It would also almost definitely mean the end of Remy and perhaps even Bamford's Chelsea careers. So what is the best-case scenario here? Are you (the pro-Falcao crew) hoping he just has an okay but not great season where he's much better than Drogba but nowhere near good enough to be paid what Monaco are asking for, or are you hoping that he rediscovers his form and confidence and bangs them in, and we end up paying 35m for him with all the risks that that will bring? Because I think Monaco and Mendes will ensure there'll be a clause in there that won't let us have him for a 15-goal season loan and then not buy him.

 

If the short-term risk we're advocating actually pays off, we might end up having a massive long-term problem on our hands. I'm confused now.

 

PS - Let's all ruefully laugh at this post a year from now when Falcao is at CSKA Moscow after ending our season with a total of 2 goals, one of them deflected off his hand.

I was in dreamland with Torres for over 3 seasons, when you see something that is damaged it usually means it's damaged.

Here's a hypothetical question for those of you who aren't completely opposed to this signing, and maybe even for those of you who are (although I think I know what your answer will be) - Let's just go into dreamland for a second and say Falcao scores 15 goals by overtaking Remy to 2nd choice through sheer weight of performances, and shows major signs of returning to his best, even challenging Costa for his spot along the way. Would you then pay the rumoured 35m fee for a 30 year old with injury issues and buy him permanently?

As someone who is pro-Falcao relative to the mood of the thread (by which I mean I'm in the "eh, this wouldn't kill us" camp), this is the scenario that has me most conflicted about bringing him over. Because if the answer to that question is "yes", we'd then genuinely be looking at a potential Torres situation, and that scares me. It would also almost definitely mean the end of Remy and perhaps even Bamford's Chelsea careers. So what is the best-case scenario here? Are you (the pro-Falcao crew) hoping he just has an okay but not great season where he's much better than Drogba but nowhere near good enough to be paid what Monaco are asking for, or are you hoping that he rediscovers his form and confidence and bangs them in, and we end up paying 35m for him with all the risks that that will bring? Because I think Monaco and Mendes will ensure there'll be a clause in there that won't let us have him for a 15-goal season loan and then not buy him.

If the short-term risk we're advocating actually pays off, we might end up having a massive long-term problem on our hands. I'm confused now.

PS - Let's all ruefully laugh at this post a year from now when Falcao is at CSKA Moscow after ending our season with a total of 2 goals, one of them deflected off his hand.

Impossible to say one way or the other as none of us know what will happen.... but I think everyone would quite gladly see the club pay 35M if he was to get back to his old ways, would be more than worth it for a few seasons.