I don't want another Torres. Simply no.

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

Eto'o was signed as a stop gap because Rooney bottled out of forcing through a move to us so we needed someone on shirt notice.

With Costa and Remy we don't need that sort of a stop gap now, we can continue to build and improve the squad for the seasons to come.

The owner of the club Eto'o came from had his fortune wiped out overnight and couldn't sustain financing the club anymore which is a big reason Eto'o left and took a pay cut.

Eto'o was right place right time, simple as that. I'm certain we hadn't even considered him until the Rooney situation unfolded, as FC put so well. Our first choice backfired, someone felt lukaku wasn't worthy of a place, eto's owner hit this sh*t, we signed him. I honestly can't see how anyone can think falcao would be a good signing, he has shown at utd he isn't suited to sporadic appearances, and thats what he would get here. Plus his wages would be ridiculous no matter what drop he takes, he would still be a top earner. He looked dreadfully of the pace this season, and just not suited to our league, and completely against our recent transfer plan.there are dozens of better options, including using our youth.

Bamford should be the 3rd choice next season.

 

if it doesn't work out and he's not up to it, fair enough, but at least give the guy a chance.

Bamford should be the 3rd choice next season.

 

if it doesn't work out and he's not up to it, fair enough, but at least give the guy a chance.

 

How many minutes does he realistically get? How many does Solanke?

How is it possible for a loan player to take a paycut? The combined wages being paid by us and Monaco would have to amount to what he's earning in his contract, the only way we could be paying him substantially less is if Monaco were to pay most of his wages, and why would they do that?

How is it possible for a loan player to take a paycut? The combined wages being paid by us and Monaco would have to amount to what he's earning in his contract, the only way we could be paying him substantially less is if Monaco were to pay most of his wages, and why would they do that?

They can't afford to thankfully.

He should be avoided like the plague

How many minutes does he realistically get? How many does Solanke?

 

Well we know Costa is injury prone, plus he'll probably have suspensions at some point.

 

Remy should get more than last year, but also is a bit injury prone.

 

If we progress in all 4 comps, I can see Bamford getting about 900-1k minutes. He can also fill in on the wings like Remy does sometimes.

 

It's not as much as he might get on loan in the Championship, but training with Chelsea eveyr day and playing those minutes in the PL and CL will be better for him than minutes playing at a lower level.

Edited May 27, 201511 yr by Zeta Orionis

They can't afford to thankfully.

He should be avoided like the plague

 

Because the reports of his wage cut etc would indicate a permanent deal. Loan move is what many fans have conjured up

He seems to be done. No need for him even as a 3rd striker. He's not a game changer.

We should bring a new upcoming talent.

Well we know Costa is injury prone, plus he'll probably have suspensions at some point.

 

Remy should get more than last year, but also is a bit injury prone.

 

If we progress in all 4 comps, I can see Bamford getting about 900-1k minutes. He can also fill in on the wings like Remy does sometimes.

 

It's not as much as he might get on loan in the Championship, but training with Chelsea eveyr day and playing those minutes in the PL and CL will be better for him than minutes playing at a lower level.

 

Drogba didn't get that many minutes and Costa and Remy suffered injuries at the same time. I think it's very optimistic to think he'd get that many.

 

The other issue is how many minutes Solanke gets because I personally think it's more important he gets them, simply because he's a better prospect than Bamford. 400 minutes here and there whilst playing in the under-21s would be great for him which doesn't leave much for Bamford at all.

Chelsea FC is very close to being the new club of @FALCAO. Club and player are interested in the move. (via @luisferpo) 

 

 

I have no idea how reliable this guy is but he seems to be some sort of Colombian reporter.

Edited May 28, 201511 yr by Sheva

Chelsea FC is very close to being the new club of @FALCAO. Club and player are interested in the move. (via @luisferpo)

I have no idea how reliable this guy is but he seems to be some sort of Colombian reporter.

Noooooo!!!!!

 

Chelsea FC is very close to being the new club of @FALCAO. Club and player are interested in the move. (via @luisferpo) 

 

 

I have no idea how reliable this guy is but he seems to be some sort of Colombian reporter.

 

 

Well he was talking to Jose on Sunday 

I know it really is none of my concern but I'd only take him, loan or otherwise, if his wages are drastically reduced.

If someone could guarantee that he'd be even half as lethal as he was before the injury, I'd be OK with the transfer. I mean, it would be pretty funny if he suddenly scored a decent number of goals for us next season after the season he had at ManU.

I know it really is none of my concern but I'd only take him, loan or otherwise, if his wages are drastically reduced.

 

Let's not forget that Monaco will want a loan fee for his services, too. Apparently, United paid £6m for the loan on top of  his £265,000-a-week wages which makes it around £16m for the season.

 

Taking a chance on him at this point would only make sense if we get him on a free with greatly reduced wages which I don't see. It's a pity because I rate him as a player, but it's just too much money.

Edited May 29, 201511 yr by abramovich

Let's not forget that Monaco will want a loan fee for his services, too. Apparently, United paid £6m for the loan on top of  his £265,000-a-week wages which makes it around £16m for the season.

 

Taking a chance on him at this point would only make sense if we get him on a free with greatly reduced wages which I don't see. It's a pity because I rate him as a player, but it's just too much money.

 

That's a great point. It all comes down to what can be worked out between him, Monaco and us. There's also tax implications when it comes to his wages which makes it a little bit more complicated.

 

I'd trust the club on this one.

That guy has just scored 4 goals in 29 apps last season. Even Torres managed to get more than 10 for us every season. No thanks.

That guy has just scored 4 goals in 29 apps last season. Even Torres managed to get more than 10 for us every season. No thanks.

Aye but Falcao was good a few years ago so maybe he can rekindle that magic...

Just like Torres did with us

Just like Sheva did with us

I advise people to actually watch Falcao last season and I'd be baffled id they still thought he would be worth the expensive gamble.

That guy has just scored 4 goals in 29 apps last season. Even Torres managed to get more than 10 for us every season. No thanks.

 

True, but he was recovering from an injury. You'd expect him to be fitter this season but there's absolutely no guarantee.

 

Regarding form, I'd also be interested in Di Maria despite him underwhelming at United. I blame his form on Van Gaal's tactics. In fact who actually thrived in that team? Valencia? Young? Fellaini?

 

Doesn't make Mata, Rooney, Van Persie etc. bad players does it?

It wont happen.

True, but he was recovering from an injury. You'd expect him to be fitter this season but there's absolutely no guarantee.

 

Regarding form, I'd also be interested in Di Maria despite him underwhelming at United. I blame his form on Van Gaal's tactics. In fact who actually thrived in that team? Valencia? Young? Fellaini?

 

Doesn't make Mata, Rooney, Van Persie etc. bad players does it?

This player will be 30 in Feb, was absolutely abysmal last season.. yup I agree he wasn't fully recovered... but whats the gurantee that he could fully recover this season and starts banging goals... 

 

It's better to play Bamford than him it would less of a gamble imo and would solve our homgrown problems.

I agree would rather take a risk on Bamford than Falcao who even via a loan is an expensive acquisition. Tbh I think the links with us are all coming from his side really don't think we're in for him at all.

I'd even take Charlie Austin or Danny Ings (who as you know I don't see the fuss in) than Falcao.

I agree would rather take a risk on Bamford than Falcao who even via a loan is an expensive acquisition. Tbh I think the links with us are all coming from his side really don't think we're in for him at all.

I'd even take Charlie Austin or Danny Ings (who as you know I don't see the fuss in) than Falcao.

When your supposed potential 3rd place striker earns more than your top 2 put together it tell's it's own story.

It aint happening....thankfully.

Edited May 29, 201511 yr by Chelsbear