Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest.
Would have happily paid someone to take him off our hands
Curious one by Levy as he is usually such a canny negotiator
I think that Levy has had some bargains so that becomes the "norm" when in fact £30m was £15m a couple of seasons ago, not exactly like Spurs can't afford it - most prem clubs are minted at the moment.
As for Sissoko's form? well Demelle was infuriatingly lazy / slow and went missing for entire games, now after one season with Pochettino, he is arguably our most missed player when not on the pitch.
I just can't understand why you'd buy him for that money when you already had Mason there (a serviceable and young English player) alongside a central midfield unit that is absolutely STACKED: Dier, Dembele, Wanyama, N'Koudou, Alli, Eriksen, Son, Lamela etc. I get the last four are more wide/attacking midfield minded, but the point applies that there's enough depth there already.
Fabregas did the same thing, many players that break through at a young age, go on to start lots of games, Rooney too, list as long as your arm really. It's the way Wilshere plays that created his injuries. He's a small slight guy but has the tenacious mentality of a defensive midfielder who loves to put a tackle in. 15yo kids aren't playing 10 games a year before they break through, they play for hours everyday. Fitness is not the issue, it's the strength of a kid that matters more. like i said, Wilshere has never helped himself with having literally the polar opposite mentality to his physical attributes. He's finally realising it now, that's why he doesn't get stuck in half as much as he used to.
I think it was an interesting move to Bournemouth. Firstly, I'm not sure I would go as far as to say Howe is the best manager for a while, but I certainly think he is a good manager and even better, he has a footballing philosophy.
Wilshire was linked with three clubs; Roma, Bournemouth, and Crystal Palace. The obvious choice, in terms of quality is Roma! However, it's a change of culture, and there is no guarantee of starting. Wilshire faced tough competition for places in that Roma midfield, however I heard that he was 'happy' to join, Roma would pay ~4~ million euro a year and cover the majority of his wages but there was no guarantee over starting matches given the competition.
He was given much more promise of playing time at Bournemouth and Palace, but then it became personal preference. Apparently he met Pardew and promptly signed for Bournemouth
.I like Howe, Wilshire could do well under him providing he stays fit. I see this in a similar way, his last chance, as his contract is fast running out. I just don't rate him as highly as the Arsenal lot, I think he's nothing more than a good midfielder and as happens so often, has failed to live up to his potential.
Also; Sideshow Bob is back at Chelsea... amazing! Such a last minute buy!
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,847
- Location
- Leeds
I am so happy we got 30 mill for sissoko.
If spurs have a bad season and don't qualify for the champions league he'll start again.....arsenal this and arsenal that
If spurs have a bad season and don't qualify for the champions league he'll start again.....arsenal this and arsenal that
It is an effective way to spread the payment out over a longer period of time.
What? Are you talking about it being beneficial for Juve? If so I can't see how it would make any difference. Any fees clubs pay (whether they pay in lump sums or installments) are spread over the players contract.
Juve are paying Chelsea a loan fee of €5m per season but have the option of signing him for a total of €25m (including any loan fee they pay). If Juve bought him outright for €25m and gave him a 5 year contract they'd only record still be recording an expense of €5m per season (€25m/5years).
The only way I can make sense of this deal is that Juve didn't want to committ to spending €25m on him and took the safer option of loaning him with the option to buy him. And from Chelsea's point of view it's better for them from a FFP point of view to accept this sort of deal rather than a reduced transfer fee to get rid of him altogether. If they sold him now for less than his book value they'd record a loss at whatever the difference is. By loaning him at €5m per season that €5m will go a long way to covering him amotisation (the cost Chelsea record per season based on his initial fee/contract)
Very simply put Juve are covering their backside. They're only committing to paying €15m with the option of paying an extra €10m to keep him.
It's an excellent move; it allows Chelsea to lower Cuadrado's annual cost significantly without making a potential ~big~ loss on him (saw somewhere that this could be ~10.5m annual down to under 1m) with regard to financial fair play (Juve are paying an annual fee + bonuses, + wages, then potential final fee).
I just articulated myself badly.
Juve are paying loan fee + wages + bonuses, then a potential future fee and then outlay on contract.
I suppose that over 5 years it might make little difference, but it could work out at longer depending on contract length when/if signed by Juve.
I just articulated myself badly.
Juve are paying loan fee + wages + bonuses, then a potential future fee and then outlay on contract.
I suppose that over 5 years it might make little difference, but it could work out at longer depending on contract length when/if signed by Juve.
You're looking at figures comparing keeping him to loaning him rather than a sale or loan. Had Chelsea sold him then there would no longer be any annual costs - there'd be a one-off loss on this set of accounts and that would be it. The only advantage to Chelsea is rather than losing £x in one go, they can spread that £x over the life of the loan.
Juve announced the deal as €5m per year with the option to purchase him for a total cost of €25m (including the loan fee paid). There's nothing to say wages are included in that €5m so I'd assume it isn't.
I would be surprised if his wages are included, it has been named as a loan fee, the loan fee would barely cover his wage cost per year.
That's true, but I'd imagine there is more room for potential profit in a deal like this for Chelsea. I think it is excellent business.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Or schneiderlin or Fellaini or Memphis depay or mikhataryn
Why? The overall effect is the same whether they sold him outright for €25m now or this loan + option to buy. The only two reasons for the deal being structured like this is that it gives Juve a get out if he flops and Chelsea can spread any loss they may make over 3 years rather than it all going on this years books.
The deal is agreed though. It's €25m total including any loan fee Juve pay. Whether they sell him for €25m now or spread it over 3 years, it's still only going to be €25m.
As above it's just away of them spreading any loss over 3 years rather than taking it all now.