I hope he's worth it. 

Spoiler

That's a f**k ton of $$$ for an untried player.

 

10 minutes ago, Barrettinator said:

Obligatory bitter Brighton fan, despite making a killing from the transfer.

 

i like how she is a Brighton fan and has a beach related name 

Sandy gheheheheheheheh

I love how these “neutrals” conveniently forget we are the most successful English club both in Europe and Domestically in the past 20 years, and far more successful than Liverpool in the past 30 years. 
 

wHo REfuSeS LIvErPoOl OvER cHeLSeA?

Edited August 13, 20232 yr by Sconnie Blue

Hearing ‘significant’ sell on clause, what kind of percentage is this going to be? Better not be over 20%

1 minute ago, SimonH said:

Hearing ‘significant’ sell on clause, what kind of percentage is this going to be? Better not be over 20%

I saw 10% somewhere. Can't be more than 20%.

4 minutes ago, SimonH said:

Hearing ‘significant’ sell on clause, what kind of percentage is this going to be? Better not be over 20%

Makes no difference - he's not going anywhere anytime soon, and still waiting for him to arrive!

Edited August 14, 20232 yr by PhilH930

25 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I love how these “neutrals” conveniently forget we are the most successful English club both in Europe and Domestically in the past 20 years, and far more successful than Liverpool in the past 30 years. 
 

wHo REfuSeS LIvErPoOl OvER cHeLSeA?

Anyone who does not want to live in constant fear of having their home burgled or their tires slashed.

We've ruined football again 

 

 

I accept my knowledge of finance is next to non existent but how on this earth is FFP even legally enforceable? 

How can you limit what someone puts into their own business? What am I missing exactly?

Edited August 14, 20232 yr by Argo

2 minutes ago, Argo said:

 

 

What I find amusing about these types of arguments is that they are always the same people who want an Arab billionaire buying their club.

You hear it a lot from United fans who bang on about corruption and sport doping while they're all salivating at the mouth for Sheikh Jassim to buy them...

4 hours ago, Barrettinator said:

Wish I could pull out all the forum posts and tweets from rival fans when they thought we'd be down and out during the Roman turmoil last year. Clowns. We're just getting started.

Yeah. Was never bothered by all their comments. I saw clearly at the time that Roman sold Chelsea to the best group football wise.

I knew Boehly and co would be a great group. I am not surprised by what they did this transfer window. What you have seen with this saga is that it's tough to get top players. 

Brighton didn't want to sell him. So great job by Boehly and co. Other teams wants to continue to have success but they don't want Chelsea to have success again because they say the champions league in 2021 is enough for Chelsea.

After winning the Champions league in 2012, we never stopped working for success. I'm so suprised that some Chelsea fans in the past two years were almost content with mediocrity in the team just because we won the Champions league in 2021. It's unacceptable.

I hope we get back our winning mentality and move on.

 

Also what Liverpool did was disrespectful. Chelsea were working on a deal to sign a player for three months, on the day they wanted to wrap the deal, you wanted to hijack him.

We've seen hijacks in the past, but this is a different one, Chelsea needed this player so much, and they had been working on the deal for three months. That's not easy. Every Chelsea fan was refreshing their Twitter timelines for hours for three months.

Then, Brighton and Liverpool wanted to cause tears for Chelsea fans, they sold him to Liverpool within just two days of Liverpool asking. Caicedo wasn't bullied, he stood his ground despite Brighton and Liverpool wanting to be wicked.

24 minutes ago, hephzibah said:

Also what Liverpool did was disrespectful. Chelsea were working on a deal to sign a player for three months, on the day they wanted to wrap the deal, you wanted to hijack him.

We've seen hijacks in the past, but this is a different one, Chelsea needed this player so much, and they had been working on the deal for three months. That's not easy. Every Chelsea fan was refreshing their Twitter timelines for hours for three months.

Then, Brighton and Liverpool wanted to cause tears for Chelsea fans, they sold him to Liverpool within just two days of Liverpool asking. Caicedo wasn't bullied, he stood his ground despite Brighton and Liverpool wanting to be wicked.

To some degree that’s correct. Some might argue that we should have wrapped it up quicker or earlier - and just have bid the £100m Brighton wanted. It would seem as if we thought the deal was genuinly possibly at  £85-95m.

That being said… few would have foreseen Pool coming in with a massively higher bid; £110m + sell-on with and ideal payment structure.

In some way we us to thank, while Pool is part of the story as well.

IMO. The fee is too much. Should have been £90m at max - which was also the area our SD’s were working on. That part was defo influenced by Pool coming in with a record bid. However, I’m glad we got him. Even more so due them dropping that bid. Excited to see him alongside Enzo.

Quote

Redknapp 'shocked' Caicedo turned Liverpool down

Former Liverpool midfielder and Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp on the Essential Football Podcast:

"I'm obviously hugely biased in this one - but this is astonishing for me!

"Normally Liverpool would always, always win this one hands down. I just thought it was inevitable.

"I thought he would look great in that red kit. I thought he would be the perfect signing for Liverpool.

"I get the attraction of Chelsea. It's a huge club. They've won so many things over the years.

"But I think in terms of the history of the clubs, I'm amazed, especially with Caicedo joining up with Alexis Mac Allister, I thought it would be a perfect move."

 

1 hour ago, Hanzen said:

To some degree that’s correct. Some might argue that we should have wrapped it up quicker or earlier - and just have bid the £100m Brighton wanted. It would seem as if we thought the deal was genuinly possibly at  £85-95m.

That being said… few would have foreseen Pool coming in with a massively higher bid; £110m + sell-on with and ideal payment structure.

In some way we us to thank, while Pool is part of the story as well.

IMO. The fee is too much. Should have been £90m at max - which was also the area our SD’s were working on. That part was defo influenced by Pool coming in with a record bid. However, I’m glad we got him. Even more so due them dropping that bid. Excited to see him alongside Enzo.

You could also argue we did the same thing with Lavia.

At this very moment it looks like both Caicedo and Lavia are coming to Chelsea but that can change too. We could see how Liverpool absolutely needs a top DM as well. For Lavia Liverpool could look more tempting.

48 minutes ago, coco said:

 

In the words of the youngsters these days  “ Cry more””

🤣🤣🤣🤣

It looks like it's over, he's our player with the British transfer record of 115m over an 8 year period.

My birthday is coming up and this just feels like the right amount of lion's share news I mean we're so strong we don't even care about splashing on 2 midfielders for 100m CFC flying high. The cherry on top is that Moises rejected Liverpool pretty blatantly, he deserves a song already and no we're not spoiled we're just carefree!

 

How have Brighton managed to demand £100m up front with £15m add ons and then a sell on clause on top of that to boot. What kinda gangster strong arming is this for a player that isn't yet recognized as being world class?

3 hours ago, Argo said:

I accept my knowledge of finance is next to non existent but how on this earth is FFP even legally enforceable? 

How can you limit what someone puts into their own business? What am I missing exactly?

FFP, both UEFA and Premier League versions, are legally enforceable by contract. To be a Premier League club or compete in an UEFA competition, you need a licence from the governing body. You get a licence by signing a contract agreeing to abide by the conditions of licence and that you accept the penalties in the event of breach of contract. This process is what establishes the 'jurisdiction' of sporting governing bodies such as FIFA, UEFA, the Premier League etc. Contracts, in turn, are enforceable by the civil courts.

The Striani case was an attempt by a player agent to challenge UEFA's jurisdiction and ability to enforce FFP early on, in 2015. This was dismissed on procedural grounds as the ECJ stated it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and it needed to be raised either in a country's local jurisdiction as complaint about local law, or prove UEFA's systems violated laws in the Swiss jurisdiction which is notoriously favourable to the transnational organisations headquartered there.

Galasataray were the most recent club to challenge FFP in their CAS appeal of sanctions, but again were unsuccessful, albeit on perhaps more tenuous grounds. They simply did not have enough evidence to prove their case that FFP laws had an indirect anti-competitive effect on clubs, so were unable to prove a breach of EU law. Some people believe that this leaves it open to a club who can demonstrate actual losses or anti-competitiveness, especially given the stricter regulations coming up ahead.

7 hours ago, Argo said:

I accept my knowledge of finance is next to non existent but how on this earth is FFP even legally enforceable? 

How can you limit what someone puts into their own business? What am I missing exactly?

I just wish they'd make FFP fully transparent. 

Every year 1st September every club issues a break down of the amortized cost per player, a total wage bill and balance it against the revenue. Any club in breach is docked points and then asked to solve the issue by January. 

It would make all these tedious arguments go away. 

Other than of course, man city would continue to lie about their revenue. But ultimately I don't care too much about that as I don't really see any issue with clubs overspending at this level. 

Edited August 14, 20232 yr by bisright1

7 hours ago, Argo said:

I accept my knowledge of finance is next to non existent but how on this earth is FFP even legally enforceable? 

How can you limit what someone puts into their own business? What am I missing exactly?

There is no different between FFP to salary/cost cap for nba/nfl or even your neighborhood cooking competition. 

The organizer can set $100 budget. If you want to compete you have to follow the rule. It is that simple. 

 

6 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I just wish they'd make FFP fully transparent. 

Every year 1st September every club issues a break down of the amortized cost per player, a total wage bill and balance it against the revenue. Any club in breach is docked points and then asked to solve the issue by January. 

It would make all these tedious arguments go away. 

Other than of course, man city would continue to lie about their revenue. But ultimately I don't care too much about that as I don't really see any issue with clubs overspending at this level. 

Financial stuff is not always black n white though 

11 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Financial stuff is not always black n white though 

But FFP is

Total revenue.

Total spent on wages

Total spent on transfers. 

We have to report these figures to UEFA, but I'd love to see every club being forced to report them publicly on 1st September and to include line by line transfer cost per player. 

Wages and revenue can just be a total figure. 

Edited August 14, 20232 yr by bisright1

The price we've ended up paying for this guy is extremely embarrassing. 

I hope he's worth it but I've got a sinking feeling he won't prove anywhere near worth that price.