13 minutes ago, coco said:

Rome is a beautiful city for snakes.

I'm still pretty sure Jose is going to grab him for a year on a cut price loan. 

A €5m loan and half his wages covered when there are no other offers out there, yep I could see that happening.

Let's be honest if he is not moved out and doesn't play for us for a season, he'll likely spend most of his time with his Portuguese conditioning coach, Senor Nando's 

Edited August 25, 20232 yr by WhiteWall

31 minutes ago, coco said:

Rome is a beautiful city for snakes.

Even in Roman times he had his critics.

 

58 minutes ago, evissy said:

If this was some another club I'd be pretty sure we are okay. Because it is Chelsea I am not 100% confident this case is as simple as that. 

Shush, Coombsie is upset enough as it is.

 

But unfortunately you may be right 

2 hours ago, Valerie said:

Shush, Coombsie is upset enough as it is.

 

But unfortunately you may be right 

Thanks for thinking of me Valerie x

Jose to the rescue, what a bloke !!

1 hour ago, coombsie said:

Thanks for thinking of me Valerie x

Anything for your peace of mind, Coombsie.

After all this we cave and give up a loan spot to kick the can on to next season when the issue returns.

If Santos heads to Forrest on loan, as has been speculated, means nobody else can go on loan as we will have used up our loan spits under the new rules I think.

6 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

After all this we cave and give up a loan spot to kick the can on to next season when the issue returns.

If Santos heads to Forrest on loan, as has been speculated, means nobody else can go on loan as we will have used up our loan spits under the new rules I think.

Don't 100% understand how this FIFA loan limit works. Anyone know definitively ?

Does Ziyech (for example) count as one slot, even though there is an obligation to buy at the end of the "loan" ? That's tantamount to a sale in my book, but I bet it counts as a loan in FIFA's eyes.

As it stands, I think we already have loan spots filled by Fofana, Hutchinson, Angelo, Casadei, Kepa, Ziyech and Santos.  That's 7 already ? Don't think any of them would count as Home Grown and U21, as you still have to be have been with current club for 3 years (ruling Hutchinson out). So don't see how we could subsequently loan Lukaku, or anyone else come to that.

8 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Here is the biggest problem with letting Lukaku back into the team. It is not he will be bad influence bla2. 

It will just set precedence that you can say that you want to leave but you can get back to the team easily an you will start. 

Easily and start? Yes, If he is match fit he will be on the bench on the next game and if you have watched our last two games, you would have have seen that Jackson is very good but he threw his body n leg everywhere. He is just one mistimed tackle or move away from 2 months out. 

So who is next in line? If you say Borja you must really hate Borja. Burstow? Asking a kid to start week in week out as CF in PL is not a good idea. 

TBH Bob, I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Look, some things are bigger than performances and results on a football pitch. Personally I really couldn't care less if I could look into a crystal ball and see that Lukaku would score 25 goals for Chelsea this season if he was let back in. It's too late. It's gone too far. He has massively disrespected the club and us the fans and he has shown not one jot of remorse for his actions. He is so deluded. In his head I'm sure he truly believes he hasn't done anything out of order, and that he also believes he is one of the top strikers in the world. I really doubt he even has the self-awareness to grasp the reality of his own situation, that not one team, apart from a tin-pot team in cash rich Saudi Arabia, has wanted to make an offer for him.

I'd love it if we simply wrote him off. Forget the cost, keep him contracted, engage with him as little as legally possible and just watch his career slowly wither and die. It's exactly what he deserves.

12 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Don't 100% understand how this FIFA loan limit works. Anyone know definitively ?

Does Ziyech (for example) count as one slot, even though there is an obligation to buy at the end of the "loan" ? That's tantamount to a sale in my book, but I bet it counts as a loan in FIFA's eyes.

As it stands, I think we already have loan spots filled by Fofana, Hutchinson, Angelo, Casadei, Kepa, Ziyech and Santos.  That's 7 already ? Don't think any of them would count as Home Grown and U21, as you still have to be have been with current club for 3 years (ruling Hutchinson out). So don't see how we could subsequently loan Lukaku, or anyone else come to that.

From FIFA:

 

- From 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, a club may have a maximum of eight professionals loaned out and eight loaned in at any given time during a season. 
- From 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, the same configuration applies but with a maximum of seven professionals. 
- Finally, from 1 July 2024, the same configuration will apply but limited to a maximum of six professionals.

*    Players aged 21 and younger and club-trained players will be exempt from these limitations.

1 minute ago, dermott said:

*    Players aged 21 and younger and club-trained players will be exempt from these limitations.

But isn't it a condition of this but that they have to be have been with current club for at least 3 years in both cases ? The only player on loan who meets that criteria is Hall (who I excluded for that reason)

11 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

But isn't it a condition of this but that they have to be have been with current club for at least 3 years in both cases ? The only player on loan who meets that criteria is Hall (who I excluded for that reason)

Maybe you are confusing that with this?

At domestic level, FIFA’s member associations will be granted a period of three years to implement rules for a loan system that is in line with the principles established at international level.

 

Also from the Athletic. 

But not every player will be impacted by the new rules. The incoming regulations will not apply to players aged 21 and younger, while club-trained players will also be exempt.

The regulations are expected to be given final approval by the FIFA Council. They were originally due to be implemented ahead of the 2020-21 season but were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The changes are part of a wider reform of the transfer system which FIFA instigated in 2017.

https://theathletic.com/4183348/2022/01/20/fifa-announces-new-loan-rules-to-clamp-down-on-player-hoarding/

11 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Maybe you are confusing that with this?

At domestic level, FIFA’s member associations will be granted a period of three years to implement rules for a loan system that is in line with the principles established at international level.

 

Also from the Athletic. 

But not every player will be impacted by the new rules. The incoming regulations will not apply to players aged 21 and younger, while club-trained players will also be exempt.

The regulations are expected to be given final approval by the FIFA Council. They were originally due to be implemented ahead of the 2020-21 season but were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The changes are part of a wider reform of the transfer system which FIFA instigated in 2017.

https://theathletic.com/4183348/2022/01/20/fifa-announces-new-loan-rules-to-clamp-down-on-player-hoarding/

The site I was looking at said this: 

1 minute ago, Sexyfootball said:

The site I was looking at said this: 

What site did you get that from?

If true than the likes of Moreirra and Washington would likely play with the development team. 

I got it from here: https://blog.transferroom.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-fifas-new-loan-rules 

 

And also from this link, which seems to be an actual FIFA page  : https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/785652de48694c8c/original/Explanatory-Notes-on-the-New-Loan-Provisions-in-the-Regulations-on-the-Status-and-Transfer-of-Players.pdf

From First page: 

With some further reading, I think the loan limitations are only in respect of international loans ?

So presumably Casadei to Leicester, Hutchinson to Ipswich, and Santos to Forest don't count as one of the seven we are allowed ?

In which case we have plenty of slots for Lukaku. He's fat enough to take up at least two slots after all ... 🙂 

Only counts for loans outside of English football as well, so Santos, Casadei etc dont count

Edit: @Sexyfootball beat me to it!

Edited August 25, 20232 yr by Niall1905

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but clearly we made a big mistake in rejecting Inter's 30 million bid back in July.

€10m loan fee + Roma covering his wages. 

Not terrible. Hopefully he does well and Roma want him permanently. 

10 hours ago, OriginalS said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but clearly we made a big mistake in rejecting Inter's 30 million bid back in July.

No way! We may have lost a bit of money in the process but Inter can get f**ked with their sh*tty deals bordering outright disrespect towards us. We already did plenty of concessions to both them and Lukaku last season and now they tried to take advantage yet again while always demanding obscene amounts for Onana or Barella, Martinez etc. 

I'm glad we didn't cave in and now they're still looking for a striker and Lukaku is bound to be at a new "favourite team" as surely he'll soon be saying that he always loved Rome and Mou. 

10 hours ago, OriginalS said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but clearly we made a big mistake in rejecting Inter's 30 million bid back in July.

I don't think so.

I did the math on the whole back on this thread, but if my memory recalls correctly, selling at under £40m would have left us significantly worse off.

If the loan deal with Roma is correct, a £10m loan fee and then covering his wages is far more beneficial for ffp purposes.

5 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I don't think so.

I did the math on the whole back on this thread, but if my memory recalls correctly, selling at under £40m would have left us significantly worse off.

If the loan deal with Roma is correct, a £10m loan fee and then covering his wages is far more beneficial for ffp purposes.

 

Here it was. In short - a loan bringing us £10m will give us a 9.5m loss against ffp this year. Selling him for £30m would have netted us a loss of £30m for the year. 

 

Purchase price = £97m.

Contract length = 5 years

Total cost of Transfer fee per year = £19.5m ish

 

Salary per week = £325k

Total cost of salary per year =  £16.9m ish

 

TOTAL COST PER YEAR FOR FFP = £36.5m ish....

3 Years remaining on his contract

 

Scenarios:

1) We keep him and pay his salary. We are Liable for £36.5m on him against FFP each year.

2) We sell him for £60m. We break even against current FFP requirement and save £16.9m salary (but future salary savings are irrelevant for FFP purposes.)

3) We sell him for £30m. We are minus £30m (ish) against the current FFP period., but again save £16.9m salary (but future salary savings are still  irrelevant for FFP purposes.)

4) We sell him for £45m. We are minus £15m (ish) against the current FFP period. but again save £16.9m salary ( future salary savings are blah blah blah)

5) We loan him out for £5m loan fee per season. Loaning club covers salary. We register a £15m ish hit against FFP for the loaned season.

 

Obviously, option 2 is the ideal situation....but also the least likely.

From a club perspective, Option 5 is probably preferable to option 3. Although we would save future wages by selling, the short term hit on the books, at a time when the books are already tight, means that a loan with a small loan fee would be preferable to selling for the £30m mark. Realistically, we would need at least £40-45m  to make a sale viable.

17 hours ago, just said:

TBH Bob, I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Look, some things are bigger than performances and results on a football pitch. Personally I really couldn't care less if I could look into a crystal ball and see that Lukaku would score 25 goals for Chelsea this season if he was let back in. It's too late. It's gone too far. He has massively disrespected the club and us the fans and he has shown not one jot of remorse for his actions. He is so deluded. In his head I'm sure he truly believes he hasn't done anything out of order, and that he also believes he is one of the top strikers in the world. I really doubt he even has the self-awareness to grasp the reality of his own situation, that not one team, apart from a tin-pot team in cash rich Saudi Arabia, has wanted to make an offer for him.

I'd love it if we simply wrote him off. Forget the cost, keep him contracted, engage with him as little as legally possible and just watch his career slowly wither and die. It's exactly what he deserves.

I absolutely agree with you @just, I want him gone. Although, I personally don't care too much about interview( that kind of stuff never bother me) But he want to leave and if you want to go,just go. 

 

It’s some achievement to be disliked by every club you have played for recently even clubs you almost signed for hates you. Take a bow son you achieved the impossible!!