34 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

No way we recoup the whole fee on Lukaku. We're just pissing in the wind with that ... the swap deal with Martinez is the only viable option with Inter by the sound of it - otherwise we are stuck with him. If he loses 10 kg in the off season then he might be useful. 

Give them Lukaku and cash for Martinez and Bastoni or Berella.

I don't think Lautaro or Dybala is any better than Lukaku. It is very easy to just throw names you know from Fifa or something. We need an attacker we need. I trust our scouting dept know what we should get. 

3 minutes ago, evissy said:

I don't think Lautaro or Dybala is any better than Lukaku. It is very easy to just throw names you know from Fifa or something. We need an attacker we need. I trust our scouting dept know what we should get. 

It's not that they're just fifa names all of these players futures are linked. Inter's original plan we are led to believe was for an Argentine front line of Dybala and Martinez.

Lukaku then comes on the market and they think maybe we can reuinte our front two from last season that won us the league. In this case Dybala would be unlikely to come because they can't afford the wage of all three "Superstars". 

Chelsea have therefore,  according to one of my sources proposed Martinez for Lukaku or if not Martinez someone else, but it has to be a player of worth to Tuchel and his system like Bastoni.

CFC's plan guys in any proposed deal for Lukaku is for the rest of the transfer fee owed to Inter to be scrapped and Inter essentially reimburse us what we have paid so far in transfer fees for Lukaku. This is where the figures get slightly muddy, I'm unsure of what has been paid and what is left to be paid. 

However if reports are to be believed we would want a €20-25m loan fee and then an obligation to purchase at €60-5m. Furthermore CFC are not willing to cover any of Lukaku's wages hence him agreeing to take a wage cut. As it stands though Inter are maintaing they can't pay a transfer fee at least this summer. 

It's all up to Chelsea, the board has total power, Inter have told Lukaku to put the pressure on CFC to make the deal happen. Marina is very smart I suspect she may drag this out for a little while and there is no reason not to, since other teams have and may still sniff around Lukaku.

It's already reported Bayern and Barca may be interested. Barca if they miss out on Lewandowski and Bayern although I don't think he's necessarily the right fit could replace Lewandowski with him. 

Marina and the board know how fickle Lukaku is so just purely from my own perspective I could see them fishing him around and seeing who bites and if its a team Lukaku would see himself at for example Bayern and they're willing to pay a transfer fee unlike Inter then this could be the preference for the board. Then we see how badly he wants Inter or if he's willing to go anywhere he deems big enough for him.

Loyalty could play a part AC Milan have been mentioned before as holding an interest and only the past 24 hours or so some reports claiming Conte wants him. Seems like lazy journalism linking the two but if Conte wants him, he is currently spurning his offers with Inter his main and only priority as it stands.

Again nothing is certain at this point, but Chelsea are the ones who have the say atm. Lukaku's will to Inter doesn't diminish our bargaining power. CFC know he has a 4 year contract and despite the money he cost, CFC is operating with 0 debt atm. Tuchel can have him in his squad and use him however he wants if he doesn't leave. Lukaku knows its a world cup year and he can't afford another bad season or lack of game time. Therefore, emphasis on Lukaku and his agents to make a deal work

Thing is Inter know he wants to leave, we want rid, and he only wants Inter.  They hold all the cards, but they can’t seriously expect  to pay nothing for a player we paid them nearly £100 million for less than a year ago.  

Do we not still owe £60 million or so for Lukaku?  Can’t we just call it quits and give him back and just not pay the rest?

6 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Thing is Inter know he wants to leave, we want rid, and he only wants Inter.  They hold all the cards, but they can’t seriously expect  to pay nothing for a player we paid them nearly £100 million for less than a year ago.  

Do we not still owe £60 million or so for Lukaku?  Can’t we just call it quits and give him back and just not pay the rest?

See my message above mate, it's all quite convoluted as things stand. But, Chelsea's plan is to try and get there money back and as much as possible. Scrap whats owed and reimbursed what's been paid. Now if this has to be done over 2 seasons no problem, but the stance is we won't pay Lukaku's wages in the mean time. 

Chelsea will try to remain firm, let's see what happens. Me, personally I think we're actually in a good position, don't forget whilst TT and Todd have given Lukaku their blessing to leave, they never said they wanted him gone.

My understanding is TT is happy to have Lukaku in the squad it is only Romelu pushing for Inter. He knows he shouldn't have left, big mistake messed around two clubs and two fanbases and could end up being hated by both very unlikely he's not hated by at least one by the end of the window.

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by LongtimerLurker

6 hours ago, axman2526 said:

He won't be. He is too expensive and no one in their right minds will take him.

TT will have to find a way of making him somewhat useful.

can be a useful option from the bench...ofcourse if thats the case if there are no takers for him...

Its a new ownership and fresh account books. Moreover Roman signed off his loan amount.

So does it really matter if Romelu is sold for a loss?

Any sale amount will be a welcome revenue for new owners... Wouldnt it?

Sorry if thats my financial naievity and lack of understanding of fotball business speaking here!!

1 hour ago, acidicleo said:

Its a new ownership and fresh account books. Moreover Roman signed off his loan amount.

So does it really matter if Romelu is sold for a loss?

Any sale amount will be a welcome revenue for new owners... Wouldnt it?

Sorry if thats my financial naievity and lack of understanding of fotball business speaking here!!

His fee isn't paid off so in cash terms it isn't through the balance sheet nor isbit fully charged to the expenditure account. The outstanding fee will be a creditor on the balance sheet.

So it is still a financial hit.

Modern football in a nutshell geezer doesn't  like all the trappings of being a millionaire he just want's that little bit more. People who can't afford to watch him play or in our case can't because of sanctions have to watch his half arsed efforts for the last few months do one mate.

Been said a few times before, Weve only paid £20m n his wages

Send him full pelt on a free we had the demo but dont want the full game, fanx

 

job done

8 hours ago, LongtimerLurker said:

Latest update: 

CFC have presented Inter with two options as it currently stands.

Number 1: Include Bastoni in Loan deal for Lukaku and cash to CFC

Number 2: Swap Lautaro with Rom. Inter replace Martinez presumably with Dybala who Inter are close to securing deal, but put on the back burner to focus on Lukaku.

My source says they will know more on Monday.

Personally I don't know if Bastoni is even on the market, but supposedly he is closer to signing for Spurs according to my source.

Dybala offered to a number of big clubs, Spurs rejected him because agent asked for £/€280-90k a week. Assuming CFC also turned him down for the same reason. He does have a deal in principle with Inter and this could be the key to Lukaku deal.

I'll update as I learn more

Your source being this Twitter account? 

Edited June 4, 20224 yr by Blue Exile

11 hours ago, loz said:

His fee isn't paid off so in cash terms it isn't through the balance sheet nor isbit fully charged to the expenditure account. The outstanding fee will be a creditor on the balance sheet.

So it is still a financial hit.

I think the only financial benefit will be the positive on FFP, if that's even a thing anymore. As far as I remember sales and purchases are handled differently in it with with sales having bigger positive than purchases are negative.

12 hours ago, Blue Exile said:

Your source being this Twitter account? 

Yup grimes is one of my sources, she tends to be ahead of the curve for some deals. Definitely an account I'd recommend to follow although there is often random twitter arguments with others trying to discredit her so be prepared for that 😂

10 minutes ago, LongtimerLurker said:

Yup grimes is one of my sources, she tends to be ahead of the curve for some deals. Definitely an account I'd recommend to follow although there is often random twitter arguments with others trying to discredit her so be prepared for that 😂

I’ve just stumbled across her account, and yeah there are a lot of comments trying to discredit her - she has plenty of support too though. She looks to have been correct and one of the first on Dembele though if he signs, which is looking more and more likely now.

7 hours ago, dkw said:

I think the only financial benefit will be the positive on FFP, if that's even a thing anymore. As far as I remember sales and purchases are handled differently in it with with sales having bigger positive than purchases are negative.

Transfer fees paid are amortised over the contract length awarded.

When you sell a player the amount classed as profit is the difference between the fee received the residual value of the player. That would all hit your Profit and Loss in one go.

I could be talking nonsense but if our debt is back at zero and we only owe £40-50 million for Lukaku.  If we manage to sell him for £50-60 million I guess we could be in a crazy situation where we could actually make profit on the transfer?

15 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

I could be talking nonsense but if our debt is back at zero and we only owe £40-50 million for Lukaku.  If we manage to sell him for £50-60 million I guess we could be in a crazy situation where we could actually make profit on the transfer?

No. We paid about £90m and he signed a 5 year contract. So his fee is written off over 5 years and his residual value decreases by the same amount. So after one year his residual value is £72m so a sale for £50m would require a loss on sale of £22m to be recognised. 

 

7 minutes ago, loz said:

No. We paid about £90m and he signed a 5 year contract. So his fee is written off over 5 years and his residual value decreases by the same amount. So after one year his residual value is £72m so a sale for £50m would require a loss on sale of £22m to be recognised. 

 

I know clubs determine the overall cost of transfers over a players contract length, but it doesn’t mean that the fee paid to Inter is in those yearly instalments.  Transfers can be paid all up front or partially depends on what’s negotiated.  Don’t know the ins and outs of Lukakus transfer but I remember Inter needing to sell to conform with FFP or something similar and doubt we’ve only paid £18 million so far.  I’m no expert though.

6 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

I know clubs determine the overall cost of transfers over a players contract length, but it doesn’t mean that the fee paid to Inter is in those yearly instalments.  Transfers can be paid all up front or partially depends on what’s negotiated.  Don’t know the ins and outs of Lukakus transfer but I remember Inter needing to sell to conform with FFP or something similar and doubt we’ve only paid £18 million so far.  I’m no expert though.

The timing of the fee being paid is not relevant when calculating profit or loss. That's just a balance sheet transaction. 

You could pay all 90m in year one and sell them for 100m in year 2. Doesn't mean you gave a 90m loss in year one and a 100m profit in year two. 

It's very similar accountancy to a company buying a fixed asset

 

11 minutes ago, loz said:

The timing of the fee being paid is not relevant when calculating profit or loss. That's just a balance sheet transaction. 

You could pay all 90m in year one and sell them for 100m in year 2. Doesn't mean you gave a 90m loss in year one and a 100m profit in year two. 

It's very similar accountancy to a company buying a fixed asset

 

I know what you mean, but wouldn’t the balance sheet be £0.00 once the club was taken over?  If we did pay the full £90 million up front last year and we’ve now been taken over, debts wiped why would we need to calculate a yearly loss to a fee we don’t need to account for?  Lukaku would have been paid for by Roman, anything Boehly sells him for would be money back to the club.  

2 hours ago, loz said:

Transfer fees paid are amortised over the contract length awarded.

When you sell a player the amount classed as profit is the difference between the fee received the residual value of the player. That would all hit your Profit and Loss in one go.

But isn't the incoming fee costed fully instantly with FFP, so we should be able to spend more this season than if he stays? 

21 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

I know what you mean, but wouldn’t the balance sheet be £0.00 once the club was taken over?  If we did pay the full £90 million up front last year and we’ve now been taken over, debts wiped why would we need to calculate a yearly loss to a fee we don’t need to account for?  Lukaku would have been paid for by Roman, anything Boehly sells him for would be money back to the club.  

No. The asset sits on the balance sheet. Its so the profit and loss account takes a hit for each year the asset is used up. Its the accountancy rule that the total  cost of an asset should be charged to the profit and loss account over the useful life of the asset. 

Simplifying a little if  we pay the 90m in one go (assuking a 5 year contract) then you see

1. A hit to the cash balance of 90m straight away

2. A new asset of 90m straight away 

3. End of  year one a charge to the profit and loss account of 18m

4. End of year one a reduction to the asset of 18m.

If we say pay 50m up front and 40m over 5 years you see

1. Hit to cash balance straight away of 50m

2. A creditor created straight away of 40m

3. A new asset straight away of 90m

4. End of year one a charge to profit and loss of 18m

5. End of year one a reduction  in the asset of 18m

6. In year two when you pay your first 8m instalment you see hit to cash balance of 8m, a reduction to the creditor  of 8m. You also see the charge of 18m to the profit and loss and 18m reduction in the asset 

 

Just realised how boring I'm being!

 

 

10 minutes ago, dkw said:

But isn't the incoming fee costed fully instantly with FFP, so we should be able to spend more this season than if he stays? 

Incoming is if we sell.

Say we sell for 50m when he has a residual value of 72m but the whole fee has been paid off. Then..I think!

50m increase to cash balance 

72m wiped off the balance sheet to remove the asset

22m hit to the profit and loss as we sold for less than his residual value.

 

 

36 minutes ago, loz said:

Incoming is if we sell.

Say we sell for 50m when he has a residual value of 72m but the whole fee has been paid off. Then..I think!

50m increase to cash balance 

72m wiped off the balance sheet to remove the asset

22m hit to the profit and loss as we sold for less than his residual value.

 

 

Is that not just for the clubs financials though, I'm looking at it for FFP which is done differently.

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Is that not just for the clubs financials though, I'm looking at it for FFP which is done differently.

Oh f**k knows about that. You could throw eggs, milk, cheese and tomato at that and the twats couldn't create an omelette out of it.