12 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Bayern?! No chance they can afford Enzo.

If we can't offer him the wages, we can't afford the €120m. No other club is offering even €100m right now. No point in being sad, he is priced higher than his value. Be happy we are being sensible with our finances. 

You're also making a lot of assumptions about what contact weve had with Enzo. It's highly unlikely we told Enzo one thing and then did another, the most likely outcome is we told Enzo our intentions and then Benfica turned us down. 

He knows we want him, he clearly likes the sound of the project, we can go back in the summer and if we offer the best option to benfica and him, he will come. 

When Bayern wants a player they tend to get him, maybe they don't pay the buyout either but he might just choose to go there instead in a similar way once upon a time Thiago Alcantara decided to not stay in Barcelona when he was around the same age. We did offer for Haaland a lot, but ultimately not insane wages that he requested, I can guess that Lukaku was signed for a lower salary than Haaland is getting now at Man City. I'm not sure just how much would Bayern be willing to offer Enzo but they did manage to get Sane and Mane from the PL.

I think it's pretty clear that Enzo verbally agreed with us but that we changed our offer that Benfica rejected. At this point it doesn't matter to me if he's priced higher because even if his real value is lower we would be signing a top player now and the alternative is to face huge competition in the summer that would significantly lower the odds of him becoming our player. How much sensible are we if we were ready to pay over 80m for a 21 year old winger from the Ukraine, it's all relative and ultimately it all comes down to the fact that Enzo is the perfect profile that we want.

5 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

When Bayern wants a player they tend to get him, maybe they don't pay the buyout either but he might just choose to go there instead in a similar way once upon a time Thiago Alcantara decided to not stay in Barcelona when he was around the same age. We did offer for Haaland a lot, but ultimately not insane wages that he requested, I can guess that Lukaku was signed for a lower salary than Haaland is getting now at Man City. I'm not sure just how much would Bayern be willing to offer Enzo but they did manage to get Sane and Mane from the PL.

I think it's pretty clear that Enzo verbally agreed with us but that we changed our offer that Benfica rejected. At this point it doesn't matter to me if he's priced higher because even if his real value is lower we would be signing a top player now and the alternative is to face huge competition in the summer that would significantly lower the odds of him becoming our player. How much sensible are we if we were ready to pay over 80m for a 21 year old winger from the Ukraine, it's all relative and ultimately it all comes down to the fact that Enzo is the perfect profile that we want.

We were willing to pay £70m for a Ukrainian, we weren't willing to pay £110m for an argentinian. That's fair enough and it's a big difference.

I don't believe at all we ever changed our offer down. We spoke, they said a number, we said a number, then turned it down. We spoke some more and they still turned us down. They made a big public play but I'd take that with a pinch of salt. 

Bayern aren't spending 100m on a player. Doesn't matters what's happened in the past. Man city might come in for Enzo, and if they do, they get him. C'est la vie. They are the richer club, we need to be the smarter club of we are going to beat them. But adding 20m onto a transfer isn't smart, it's desperate and the same people who seem to be desperate for us to do that are stressing about us being idiots with money. 

If we can get benfica to accept 80 or 90m then I wouldn't be surprised if we are the only club in for him. Especially with Bellingham moving in the summer who is seen as a bigger star.

6 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

We were willing to pay £70m for a Ukrainian, we weren't willing to pay £110m for an argentinian. That's fair enough and it's a big difference.

I don't believe at all we ever changed our offer down. We spoke, they said a number, we said a number, then turned it down. We spoke some more and they still turned us down. They made a big public play but I'd take that with a pinch of salt. 

Bayern aren't spending 100m on a player. Doesn't matters what's happened in the past. Man city might come in for Enzo, and if they do, they get him. C'est la vie. They are the richer club, we need to be the smarter club of we are going to beat them. But adding 20m onto a transfer isn't smart, it's desperate and the same people who seem to be desperate for us to do that are stressing about us being idiots with money. 

If we can get benfica to accept 80 or 90m then I wouldn't be surprised if we are the only club in for him. Especially with Bellingham moving in the summer who is seen as a bigger star.

I would have chosen the 110m for Enzo instead of the 80m for a winger at this point in time, despite knowing that Potter needs a better attack. Maybe that's just me.

9 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

What I say below is what I've read about the situation, not information I've learned by reading the regulations myself.

Technically buying clubs can't pay the buyout clause. Only the player can do that. What happens in these circumstances is that the buying club gives the player the money to pay the clause. FFP regulations treat such payments to the player as wages, not as a transfer fee. The issue being that, while FFP allows transfer fees to be amortised across the length of the contract, wages have to be accounted in full during the season in which they are paid.

Clearly CFC has calculated that we will fail FFP if we have to account €120m for Enzo in the current season. Given the amount of spending we've done it's easy to see why.

Sounds plausible.  Benfica could easy accept a €120m bid so the fee can be amortised over the contract, they could accept €10 or €130m if they wanted.  It seems to me that Benfica just don't want to sell him, so if what you say is true its up to the player to buy himself out of his contact.  Unless Benfica change their stance I don't see us buying Enzo this window.

3 hours ago, Gol15 said:

I would have chosen the 110m for Enzo instead of the 80m for a winger at this point in time, despite knowing that Potter needs a better attack. Maybe that's just me.

We don't have a player that I feel can win us a game from seemingly nowhere. Enzo isn't that player. But mudryk might be, so that's why I'd go the other way. 

And as good as Enzo could be, there are cheaper alternatives. E.g. Caicedo. 

Id rather Caicedo and Mudryk, than Enzo and Madueke as an example. It's not really ever that simple, but it seems to me our owners are being as smart as they can with this lavish spending and avoiding overpaying for assets after learning some hard lessons last summer.

5 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

We don't have a player that I feel can win us a game from seemingly nowhere. Enzo isn't that player. But mudryk might be, so that's why I'd go the other way. 

And as good as Enzo could be, there are cheaper alternatives. E.g. Caicedo. 

Id rather Caicedo and Mudryk, than Enzo and Madueke as an example. It's not really ever that simple, but it seems to me our owners are being as smart as they can with this lavish spending and avoiding overpaying for assets after learning some hard lessons last summer.

We'll see how it turns out. Though I do think that Enzo is a guaranteed player that can solve a match, this is why I would have been happier if we had gone for him, instead of e.g. even mulitple players. But like I said, that's just me. I think this guy is born to play at the highest level.

4 hours ago, Gol15 said:

When Bayern wants a player they tend to get him, maybe they don't pay the buyout either but he might just choose to go there instead in a similar way once upon a time Thiago Alcantara decided to not stay in Barcelona when he was around the same age. We did offer for Haaland a lot, but ultimately not insane wages that he requested, I can guess that Lukaku was signed for a lower salary than Haaland is getting now at Man City. I'm not sure just how much would Bayern be willing to offer Enzo but they did manage to get Sane and Mane from the PL.

I think it's pretty clear that Enzo verbally agreed with us but that we changed our offer that Benfica rejected. At this point it doesn't matter to me if he's priced higher because even if his real value is lower we would be signing a top player now and the alternative is to face huge competition in the summer that would significantly lower the odds of him becoming our player. How much sensible are we if we were ready to pay over 80m for a 21 year old winger from the Ukraine, it's all relative and ultimately it all comes down to the fact that Enzo is the perfect profile that we want.

Not to mention they managed to secure De Ligt for £68m under our noses. 

Having said all this, Enzo will surely be a target for Man-City, as painful as that would be but most likely reality. 

It'll be Aguero 2.0. Simple really. 

4 hours ago, DarkMata said:

Sounds plausible.  Benfica could easy accept a €120m bid so the fee can be amortised over the contract, they could accept €10 or €130m if they wanted.  It seems to me that Benfica just don't want to sell him, so if what you say is true its up to the player to buy himself out of his contact.  Unless Benfica change their stance I don't see us buying Enzo this window.

Yes, I posted a while ago, either here or on TalkChelsea, to suggest that we could make a bid of €119,999,999.99 which, in terms of value, would clearly be acceptable to Benfica. Yet, since the deal was not completed that clearly didn't happen. In that earlier post I suggested that this might be because there is a different tax treatment to the income at Benfica's end depending on whether it comes from a transfer fee or a player exercising a buyout. Note I'm saying tax treatment, not FFP treatment.

I've made no effort whatsoever to look into this, but it also is plausible.

On the signing of Enzo; I have no opinion of the player myself but I've picked up the general excitement around here about the possibility. 

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by OhForAGreavsie

54 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Yes, I posted a while ago, either here or on TalkChelsea, to suggest that we could make a bid of €119,999,999.99 which, in terms of value, would clearly be acceptable to Benfica. Yet, since the deal was not completed that clearly didn't happen. In that earlier post I suggested that this might be because there is a different tax treatment to the income at Benfica's end depending on whether it comes from a transfer fee or a player exercising a buyout. Note I'm saying tax treatment, not FFP treatment.

I've made no effort whatsoever to look into this, but it also is plausible.

On the signing of Enzo; I have no opinion of the player myself but I've picked up the general excitement around here about the possibility. 

I think the simplest explanation is benfica see this as being a season where they could make some real history.

The only game they've lost in the league is when Enzo didn't play against Braga (who are second) and they have Bruges in the next round of CL after coming through a group top and undefeated that included Juve and PSG. 

Selling Enzo now is madness for them and the fans would be incensed if they sold for less than release clause value. They don't need the money having sold Nunez for a tonne.

Regardless of what happens (barring injury) they can make a similar sized transfer on Enzo in the summer and if Benfica reach the semis or even final of the CL it's pretty guaranteed someone's going to pay the release clause - even us.

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by bisright1

17 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Yes, I posted a while ago, either here or on TalkChelsea, to suggest that we could make a bid of €119,999,999.99 which, in terms of value, would clearly be acceptable to Benfica. Yet, since the deal was not completed that clearly didn't happen. In that earlier post I suggested that this might be because there is a different tax treatment to the income at Benfica's end depending on whether it comes from a transfer fee or a player exercising a buyout. Note I'm saying tax treatment, not FFP treatment.

I've made no effort whatsoever to look into this, but it also is plausible.

On the signing of Enzo; I have no opinion of the player myself but I've picked up the general excitement around here about the possibility. 

https://www.ruizcrespo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ruizcrespo-noticia-20190103-abogado-GSLTR9.pdf

Isn`t the buyout clause in Spain something the player himself has to actually pay, he basically has to buy his way out of the contract, though obviously in reality its the buying club that funds it. So it always has to be the buyout clause amount as a minimum

Edited January 20, 20233 yr by dkw

4 hours ago, charierre said:

https://www.ruizcrespo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ruizcrespo-noticia-20190103-abogado-GSLTR9.pdf

Ah, thank you.

Think we wait until the summer when its a new fiscal year for FFP purposes. 

 

He was man of the match last game for Benfica.

On 20/01/2023 at 13:49, Sconnie Blue said:

Think we wait until the summer when its a new fiscal year for FFP purposes. 

 

FFP is accounted over a three year cycle. It's not the case that clubs have tp pass FFP in any single year, it's that they have to pass it over three years added together.

News circling we're back in for Enzo today.  If true we need to be prepared to pay the buyout clause or else we might as well not bother.

20 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

News circling we're back in for Enzo today.  If true we need to be prepared to pay the buyout clause or else we might as well not bother.

I hope we get him! Just need to accept to pay his release clause.

38 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

News circling we're back in for Enzo today.  If true we need to be prepared to pay the buyout clause or else we might as well not bother.

I thought it had already been establsihed tahgt we cannot do that and meet FFP

5 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

I thought it had already been establsihed tahgt we cannot do that and meet FFP

Probably just 'journos' squeezing out the last rumour nonsense before the window closes.  Does anyone really know if we would be in violation of FFP if we did pay the release clause?  I'm guessing if we are back in for him it will be a Nkunku style deal so we can pay over the length of the contract.

42 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Probably just 'journos' squeezing out the last rumour nonsense before the window closes.  Does anyone really know if we would be in violation of FFP if we did pay the release clause?  I'm guessing if we are back in for him it will be a Nkunku style deal so we can pay over the length of the contract.

The issue with doing a deal by paying the release clause is that, in law, it is the player himself who buys out his contract. In practice of course the buying club gives him the money to pay for the buyout. The FFP problem for the 'buying' club is then two-fold; the money given to the player is counted as wages which: -

1. Attracts income tax so they have to pay him an amount which equals the buyout figure after tax, i.e. they have to pay more than the buyout figure. A lot more.
2. FFP rules mean wages have to be accounted for FFP in full during the season in which they are paid. So, an 'ordinary' transfer fee can be spread over the length of the contract, but paying a buyout clause creates a big FFP hit all at once.

To answer your question directly, no, I do not know if we could make the buyout clause fit into this FFP period's numbers. There is a potential light at the end of the tunnel however. Someone posted a link to the tax regulations surrounding buyout clause payments. I only had time to cherry pick which parts I read but, if I understood it correctly, Benfica pay less tax on the money they receive if the clubs agree a transfer, rather than a buyout. This would mean that both clubs win if it's a transfer, rather than a buyout.

My suspicion is that Benfica would not just settle for a transfer fee close to the buyout figure. Instead, my guess is that they would want to split the difference with Chelsea so they get half of what Chelsea save by paying a transfer fee, rather than paying Enzo 'wages' to pay the clause himself. To sum up there are some facts, and some guesswork here.

Edited January 23, 20233 yr by OhForAGreavsie

On 19/01/2023 at 13:09, DarkMata said:

Sounds plausible.  Benfica could easy accept a €120m bid so the fee can be amortised over the contract, they could accept €10 or €130m if they wanted.  It seems to me that Benfica just don't want to sell him, so if what you say is true its up to the player to buy himself out of his contact.  Unless Benfica change their stance I don't see us buying Enzo this window.

Buyout clause works like so: the player can buyout his own contract for that sum. Benfica has made his 120m€. So we can always go on and give Enzo that money and he buys out his contract. And makes a deal with us. So Benfica has no say if he wants to buy it out. 

29 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The issue with doing a deal by paying the release clause is that, in law, it is the player himself who buys out his contract. In practice of course the buying club gives him the money to pay for the buyout. The FFP problem for the 'buying' club is then two-fold; the money given to the player is counted as wages which: -

1. Attracts income tax so they have to pay him an amount which equals the buyout figure after tax, i.e. they have to pay more than the buyout figure. A lot more.
2. FFP rules mean wages have to be accounted for FFP in full during the season in which they are paid. So, an 'ordinary' transfer fee can be spread over the length of the contract, but paying a buyout clause creates a big FFP hit all at once.

To answer your question directly, no, I do not know if we could make the buyout clause fit into this FFP period's numbers. There is a potential light at the end of the tunnel however. Someone posted a link to the tax regulations surrounding buyout clause payments. I only had time to cherry pick which parts I read but, if I understood it correctly, Benfica pay less tax on the money they receive if the clubs agree a transfer, rather than a buyout. This would mean that both clubs win if it's a transfer, rather than a buyout.

My suspicion is that Benfica would not just settle for a transfer fee close to the buyout figure. Instead, my guess is that they would want to split the difference with Chelsea so they get half of what Chelsea save by paying a transfer fee, rather than paying Enzo 'wages' to pay the clause himself. To sum up there are some facts, and some guesswork here.

That’s why I think we’d go down the Nkunku route and agree with Benfica to pay over the buyout so we don’t need to pay it all up front.  However there’s a good chance Benfica simply don’t want to sell even for £200 million and will only accept the buyout because they have to.

Can't we just do what Barcelona do?  Regarding the FFP farce.  Just tell people to look away while we 'pull a lever' and then pretty much do what we like.

this jan window has been big.

3 big signings thus far

Mkyhailo Mudryk
Noni Madueke
Benoit Badiashile

2 signings for the long-term and the loan project

Andrey Santos
David Datro Fofana

1 loan signing for sh*ts and giggles

Jao Felix

And still time to sign Enzo apparently

1 hour ago, DarkMata said:

Probably just 'journos' squeezing out the last rumour nonsense before the window closes.  Does anyone really know if we would be in violation of FFP if we did pay the release clause?  I'm guessing if we are back in for him it will be a Nkunku style deal so we can pay over the length of the contract.

Depends if we can sell players this window? Maybe Boehly and Co are confident of making a significant amount of money this window to target Enzo.