Summer transfer thread 17/18 season (NEYMAR TALK IN OTHER THREAD)

Lucas Hood

emmetkenny wrote: »

That's what I got from the BBC article. Maybe I picked it up wrong.

Bbc article did say closed for both but they've changed it now saying sales are still allowed.

TitianGerm

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Bbc article did say closed for both but they've changed it now saying sales are still allowed.

Yea just saw that now.

Mr.H

Why would they have been closed from selling. The English clubs can still sell to any league that has its window open this second.

This new rule only makes things harder for English clubs and is a ridiculous decision.

Wait until players like DaGae Coutinho Hazard and Gabriel all force a move late next August and their respective clubs can't replace them because of this stupid rule

Quazzie

Mr.H wrote: »

Why would they have been closed from selling. The English clubs can still sell to any league that has its window open this second.

This new rule only makes things harder for English clubs and is a ridiculous decision.

Wait until players like DaGae Coutinho Hazard and Gabriel all force a move late next August and their respective clubs can't replace them because of this stupid rule

No club will sell after the deadline unless a MASSIVE fee is being paid. Simple as that. Much better for the league as whole in my opinion.

KERSPLAT!

What if a release clause is met? No choice then. I assume they'll be removed in new contracts?

Mr.H

Quazzie wrote:

No club will sell after the deadline unless a MASSIVE fee is being paid. Simple as that. Much better for the league as whole in my opinion.

But you can already refuse to sell.....

I just don't see how this is better when it literally is the opposite

Benzino

Yeah I agree. If a club meets the release clause for your player after the league has started, you are screwed. Not sure why clubs agreed to this.

yabadabado

Strange move by the club's,should just scrap the windows and go back to the old way of a block on transfers only in the closing weeks of the season (was it 6 weeks)

ianob7

All future release clauses should have a date contained so that it can't be activated after the window to buy has closed.. Iirc fellaini had two different clauses within one contract so can't imagine it being an issue

CantGetNoSleep

yabadabado wrote: »

Strange move by the club's,should just scrap the windows and go back to the old way of a block on transfers only in the closing weeks of the season (was it 6 weeks)

Can't do that because of FIFA rules, even the Championship had to change after an adaptation period.

This whole idea only works because PL clubs now have so much money that selling players who want to leave just doesn't matter so much any more. Just look at VVD, Coutinho, Sanchez and Costa this summer as an example.

Release clauses would be a problem but these are not that common in England. I'd suspect that if they are in contracts in the future they will be time limited (and not like a Spanish buy out clause which is required by their rules)

yabadabado

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Can't do that because of FIFA rules, even the Championship had to change after an adaptation period.

This whole idea only works because PL clubs now have so muh

I'm saying it should be scrapped across the board not just England.Its of no benefit and only fuels panic buys imo.

Lucas Hood

Vincent Janssen gone on loan to Fenerbahce for season.

Rekop dog

Wonder how all the clubs with their want away stars are going to fare now the league is back after international break. I'm looking at Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton mainly.

Conte took the most admirable stance by getting Costa as far away from the team as possible, it's part of what makes him the great manager he is and what sets him apart from the rest.

It's all well and good the players themselves coming out after they didn't get their desired moves declaring they'll give their all but them getting back in the sides is pretty poor for squad moral imo.

Agent Coulson

Southampton have VVD, West Brom have Johnny Evans, Spurs have Danny Rose, Leicester City have Mahrez I'd be pretty sure every team has at least one player who wanted out but is still there.

Rekop dog

Rekop dog wrote: »

Wonder how all the clubs with their want away stars are going to fare now the league is back after international break. I'm looking at Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton mainly.

Conte took the most admirable stance by getting Costa as far away from the team as possible, it's part of what makes him the great manager he is and what sets him apart from the rest.

It's all well and good the players themselves coming out after they didn't get their desired moves declaring they'll give their all but them getting back in the sides is pretty poor for squad moral imo.

They are pros. No big deal.

Coutinho won't just walk back into the team, but when he does get back in he'll be as good as he was. If he isn't he'll lose his place in the Brazil team with the WC around the corner.

alchemist33

Rekop dog wrote: »

Wonder how all the clubs with their want away stars are going to fare now the league is back after international break. I'm looking at Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton mainly.

Conte took the most admirable stance by getting Costa as far away from the team as possible, it's part of what makes him the great manager he is and what sets him apart from the rest.

It's all well and good the players themselves coming out after they didn't get their desired moves declaring they'll give their all but them getting back in the sides is pretty poor for squad moral imo.

Not so sure that makes Conte great. They're paying Costa's wages while they have him isolated, while Liverpool and Arsenal may have heir wantaway players contribute to their seasons.

Amd if Chelsea actually need a striker (e.g. if Morata gets injured) the club has burned its bridges with Costa.

Rekop dog

RoboKlopp wrote: »

They are pros. No big deal.

Coutinho won't just walk back into the team, but when he does get back in he'll be as good as he was. If he isn't he'll lose his place in the Brazil team with the WC around the corner.

Lol not a hope he loses his place in the Brazil side regardless. He's been an integral part of a there side last few years. If anything it benefits him more to no risk injury and take it handy before the world cup this year. That's his main priority not his want away club.

Big fan of what Klopp has done at Liverpool but Coutinho shouldn't be allowed near the first team. Ask yourself what the great Fergie did with want away players or potential bad eggs in the dressing room.

Rekop dog

alchemist33 wrote: »

Not so sure that makes Conte great. They're paying Costa's wages while they have him isolated, while Liverpool and Arsenal may have heir wantaway players contribute to their seasons.

It's a much bigger negative keeping a wantaway player in the dressing room imo. They can be all sorts of disruptive. Moral is a massive factor in a teams success.

Agent Coulson

Rekop dog wrote: »

It's a much bigger negative keeping a wantaway player in the dressing room imo. They can be all sorts of disruptive. Moral is a massive factor in a teams success.

Wantaway Costa was in the dressing room last season and they won the title.

~Rebel~

Rekop dog wrote: »

Wonder how all the clubs with their want away stars are going to fare now the league is back after international break. I'm looking at Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton mainly.

Conte took the most admirable stance by getting Costa as far away from the team as possible, it's part of what makes him the great manager he is and what sets him apart from the rest.

It's all well and good the players themselves coming out after they didn't get their desired moves declaring they'll give their all but them getting back in the sides is pretty poor for squad moral imo.

I think Conte's handling of that situation has been disastrous. Telling one of the main reasons they won the league last season that he's not required for the coming season and can go find another club. And allowing all this to go public. Where was the positive of that?

Costa didn't seem to be very 'want-away' at all actually, until he was told to go do-one. And as it happens, the only club he wants to join is banned from signings for another few months, so now with Conte having well and truly destroyed that relationship, everyone just has to wait. And again because Conte made all this public, Atleti can bid pretty much whatever they want, as Chelsea have no other options to get Costa off their books. He should be going for 100m. He'll probably go for 30 or less.

Trigger

Rekop dog wrote: »

It's a much bigger negative keeping a wantaway player in the dressing room imo. They can be all sorts of disruptive. Moral is a massive factor in a teams success.

Mauricio Pellegrino must be your idol so

irishman86

Rekop dog wrote: »

Lol not a hope he loses his place in the Brazil side regardless. He's been an integral part of a there side last few years. If anything it benefits him more to no risk injury and take it handy before the world cup this year. That's his main priority not his want away club.

Big fan of what Klopp has done at Liverpool but Coutinho shouldn't be allowed near the first team. Ask yourself what the great Fergie did with want away players or potential bad eggs in the dressing room.

I dont agree hes a integral player to Brazil, i think right now hes a starter ignoring the last game
I'm sure Ronaldinho/Kaka/Robinho in the past thought they would never get dropped
The same with Higuain and Argentina, super teams always find new options this isnt England or Ireland where players like Rooney and Whelan get played till they retire

~Rebel~

Rekop dog wrote: »

Lol not a hope he loses his place in the Brazil side regardless. He's been an integral part of a there side last few years. If anything it benefits him more to no risk injury and take it handy before the world cup this year. That's his main priority not his want away club.

Big fan of what Klopp has done at Liverpool but Coutinho shouldn't be allowed near the first team. Ask yourself what the great Fergie did with want away players or potential bad eggs in the dressing room.

1) There is no way a player who hasn't played for a year is going to be an automatic starter for his country. Especially a country with as much talent as Brazil.

2) It sounds like you've been reading too many newspaper reports, where every development if blown up beyond any sense of proportion, or simply fabricated altogether. He's already back at normal team training, smiling happily and messing around with the other lads. And i'd be very confident that within a month, he'll be putting in high-quality performances again.

Klopp has already said that Coutinho has completely accepted the situation, he wanted to move to Barca, it didn't happen, he's ready to get on with it and continuing doing his profession, like any normal adult.

ThunbergsAreGo

Rekop dog wrote: »

Lol not a hope he loses his place in the Brazil side regardless. He's been an integral part of a there side last few years. If anything it benefits him more to no risk injury and take it handy before the world cup this year. That's his main priority not his want away club.

Big fan of what Klopp has done at Liverpool but Coutinho shouldn't be allowed near the first team. Ask yourself what the great Fergie did with want away players or potential bad eggs in the dressing room.

Play them like he did with Ronaldo?

Rekop dog

irishman86 wrote: »

I dont agree hes a integral player to Brazil, i think right now hes a starter ignoring the last game
I'm sure Ronaldinho/Kaka/Robinho in the past thought they would never get dropped
The same with Higuain and Argentina, super teams always find new options this isnt England or Ireland where players like Rooney and Whelan get played till they retire

This Brazil team were still starting Paulinho every game when he was based in the terrible Chinese league, they're really not as concerned about club form as you may believe.

Coutinho is integral to that sides success, you don't change a winning formulae that's destroyed a high quality qualification league. He's on that plane no matter what, it's delusional to believe anything else or convince yourself he *needs* to be playing well at Liverpool this season.

~Rebel~

Rekop dog wrote: »

This Brazil team were still starting Paulinho every game when he was based in the terrible Chinese league, they're really not as concerned about club form as you may believe.

Coutinho is integral to that sides success, you don't change a winning formulae that's destroyed a high quality qualification league. He's on that plane no matter what, it's delusional to believe anything else or convince yourself he *needs* to be playing well at Liverpool this season.

If another player in the same role was having a cracker of a season, for instance Luan at Gremio, there is of course every possibility they would displace a guy in the starting XI who wasn't playing any football at all.

But this is obviously all moot anyway, because Coutinho will be playing football, because thankfully this whole ordeal hasn't involved a bunch of emotionally immature children.

Rekop dog

Rekop dog wrote: »

Lol not a hope he loses his place in the Brazil side regardless. He's been an integral part of a there side last few years. If anything it benefits him more to no risk injury and take it handy before the world cup this year. That's his main priority not his want away club.

Big fan of what Klopp has done at Liverpool but Coutinho shouldn't be allowed near the first team. Ask yourself what the great Fergie did with want away players or potential bad eggs in the dressing room.

Ugh, shouldn't have bothered

Fromvert

Having players that want out only becomes an issue if they're disruptive in the dressing but I've only read/heard that Sanchez and Coutinho are well liked by the players in both clubs so I doubt it'll be an issue.

Coutinho will sit out a game or two or three and come back in.
It also looks like Can is running down his contract to leave, should Klopp not play him too. Of course not, he's not disruptive and he offers the team something.

~Rebel~

Fromvert wrote: »

Having players that want out only becomes an issue if they're disruptive in the dressing but I've only heard that Sanchez and Coutinho are well liked by the players in both clubs so I doubt it'll be an issue.

Coutinho will sit out a game or two or three and come back in.
It also looks like Can is running down his contract to leave, should Klopp not play him too. Of course not, he's not disruptive and he offers the team something.

Indeed - with the possible exception of the rare occasional 'hometown-heroes' every player has a place they would rather be. They all always exist in some state of 'want-away', but as with all things it's not black or white. Preferring to be somewhere else does not mean that the present situation is untenable. It's just a reality of life.

irishman86

Rekop dog wrote: »

This Brazil team were still starting Paulinho every game when he was based in the terrible Chinese league, they're really not as concerned about club form as you may believe.

Coutinho is integral to that sides success, you don't change a winning formulae that's destroyed a high quality qualification league. He's on that plane no matter what, it's delusional to believe anything else or convince yourself he *needs* to be playing well at Liverpool this season.

Thats the key he was still playing
I dont think you know Brazil as you think buddy, they have more players than you think
Coutinho isnt integral to the side, hes a starter. Neymar is integral thats about it. Brazil have changed before but now you think there mantra will all off a sudden swing for a Liverpool player :rolleyes:
Its even more delusional to think hes a auto Brazil player without playing well for Liverpool. Giuliano is a ready made replacement and thats ignoring other options from the Seria A

rwbug

A good read on West Ham and their transfer dealings, they make Arsenals deadline day look professional.

http://thehlist.blogspot.ie/2017/09/west-ham-and-year-of-long-knives.html

GavRedKing

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2017/09/diego-costa-transfer-agreed.html

Diegos off back to Atletico. Reported fees of about £55-58m, which IMO, is an amzing piece of business by Chelsea.

29 in a few weeks and hasnt trained/played in 4 months with under 18 months left on his deal.

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2017/09/diego-costa-transfer-agreed.html

Diegos off back to Atletico. Reported fees of about £55-58m, which IMO, is an amzing piece of business by Chelsea.

29 in a few weeks and hasnt trained/played in 4 months with under 18 months left on his deal.

Greizmann to Utd confirmed

Royale with Cheese

How do Chelsea keep getting so much money for these players? Their transfer record over the past few years is fairly healthy.

GavRedKing

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Greizmann to Utd confirmed

In the summer maybe, no chance its in January and not for as "cheap" as this summer.

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

How do Chelsea keep getting so much money for these players? Their transfer record over the past few years is fairly healthy.

We do really well selling, its the buying we're not so good at, well, not in terms of buying ready made stars. We've missed out on a raft of players in the last few seasons.

rwbug

Good price but glad he is going, imo Chelsea are a much more frightening proposition with him in the side.

Cookiemunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

In the summer maybe, no chance its in January and not for as "cheap" as this summer.

It was reported that his release clause dropped back to €100m after the summer window closed. So if true, exactly as cheap as last summer.

Deise Vu

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

How do Chelsea keep getting so much money for these players? Their transfer record over the past few years is fairly healthy.

I don't know what you are insinuating. The Chelsea manager texts his player to tell him he is not wanted, the guy stays in Brazil getting fat and mouthing to the world that he is a slave. He says he will only transfer to one team and, tragically, they have a transfer ban in place. He is 29 in three weeks and presumably on a vastly higher wedge than when AM sold him. Its only natural Athletico would come in and buy him back for a 50% mark-up on what they sold him for three years ago.

Doesn't sound one bit suss at all. I'd trust all Russian and Chinese businessmen with my life. Thank God for FFP too.

GavRedKing

rwbug wrote: »

Good price but glad he is going, imo Chelsea are a much more frightening proposition with him in the side.

Impossible to tell really, Morata still hasnt played properly with Hazard, Chelseas best player by some distance.

He wont manage to take on and occupy 2 CBs on his own, its not his game really but his movement off the ball into space is very good.

I reckon by the end of the season he'll be in and around 20 league goals too, Costas stats are somewhat distorted, first few months of both title wins he blitz the scoring charts and then disappeared down the home stretch but still finished on 20 league goals in each campaign.

yabadabado

GavRedKing wrote: »

In the summer maybe, no chance its in January and not for as "cheap" as this summer.

Agreed with you regarding a January move but why do you think his fee will increase if he moves ?

GavRedKing

Deise Vu wrote: »

I don't know what you are insinuating. The Chelsea manager texts his player to tell him he is not wanted, the guy stays in Brazil getting fat and mouthing to the world that he is a slave. He says he will only transfer to one team and, tragically, they have a transfer ban in place. He is 29 in three weeks and presumably on a vastly higher wedge than when AM sold him. Its only natural Athletico would come in and buy him back for a 50% mark-up on what they sold him for three years ago.

Doesn't sound one bit suss at all. I'd trust all Russian and Chinese businessmen with my life. Thank God for FFP too.

In todays market, if Costa has a 4 year contract hes worth 80m, easily. Tthe transfer market has moved on vastly from 2014 but when Chelsea paid £32m for him back then they met his buy out clause, he was arguably worth far more.

Luckily Chelsea have never failed to meet the FFP criteria, unlike City or PSG, Chelseas business and money making is more transparent than some suspect accounts and Arab investment from within the same groups.

GavRedKing

yabadabado wrote: »

Agreed with you regarding a January move but why do you think his fee will increase if he moves ?

FWIW though, I do think he'll leave in the summer, could be that he only signed the summer extension to stay through the transfer ban and remain loyal through a difficult time for them.

It will be interesting to see him in the PL, thats if he does go to Utd.

Deise Vu

GavRedKing wrote: »

In todays market, if Costa has a 4 year contract hes worth 80m, easily. Tthe transfer market has moved on vastly from 2014 but when Chelsea paid £32m for him back then they met his buy out clause, he was arguably worth far more.

Luckily Chelsea have never failed to meet the FFP criteria, unlike City or PSG, Chelseas business and money making is more transparent than some suspect accounts and Arab investment from within the same groups.

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

GavRedKing

Deise Vu wrote: »

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

In atelticos case, they needed the money for Costa, he never wanted to leave but at the time was their most saleable asset. That rings through when you understand that from the end of his first title winning season, hes tried and failed every window to move back to Atletico for a number of reasons.

Chelsea hold all the power here, Atletico want him, Costa wants out, it was a case of Chelsea giving them a price and either them paying it or Costa spending the next 18 months on the beach in Brazil not getting paid and moving to Atletico on a free in 2019. they could have wait until January 2018, the price wouldnt change, Chelsea dug in over this due to Costas attitude is my guess.

As I pointed out above, hes always wanted to go back to Atletico, no problem there at all in that but for Costa to come out and play the victim in all of this is why I'd guess Chelsea played hard ball.

Lukker-

Deise Vu wrote: »

I don't know what you are insinuating. The Chelsea manager texts his player to tell him he is not wanted, the guy stays in Brazil getting fat and mouthing to the world that he is a slave. He says he will only transfer to one team and, tragically, they have a transfer ban in place. He is 29 in three weeks and presumably on a vastly higher wedge than when AM sold him. Its only natural Athletico would come in and buy him back for a 50% mark-up on what they sold him for three years ago.

Doesn't sound one bit suss at all. I'd trust all Russian and Chinese businessmen with my life. Thank God for FFP too.

Lukker-

Deise Vu wrote: »

A buyout clause means the player can talk to any club who meet the price, it is not compulsory, just ask Wenger, Liverpool & Suarez. No-one else came in above 32M so that was the market price.

In any case I don't care what the market is at, Athletico cannot sign Costa until January by which time he wont have played any football for over six months. What was their hurry to get this done? Costa said he would only go to AM and his attitude has stunk out Stamford Bridge from January until he took off on a six month holiday. Chelsea virtually sacked him and he himself ruled out a move to any other club. If AM really are paying nearly a 100% mark-up (apologies for my gross understatement in the previous post) in those circumstances I have a second-hand bridge for sale in London that they might be interested in too.

So you are saying Barcelona could have rejected the Neymar transfer? Quick someone tell Barcelona!

I'd imagine they want to sign him so they can get him back to the club and get him fit in time for January, something they can't do otherwise. Potentially loan him out too.

GavRedKing

Lukker- wrote: »

So you are saying Barcelona could have rejected the Neymar transfer? Quick someone tell Barcelona!

I'd imagine they want to sign him so they can get him back to the club and get him fit in time for January, something they can't do otherwise. Potentially loan him out too.

Thats their main and immediate issue around this transfer.

Costa I imagine will have known about this move for some weeks so if hes not breaking his bo**ocks trying to get fit in Brazil or more likely, hes alread in Madrid, hes mad.

Its a WC year and he'll be fighting with Chelseas new #9 for a place in the Spanish WC squad.

RobertKK

So Chelsea sell Costa to Atletico so United can in January or next summer sign Griezmann

Deise Vu

Lukker- wrote: »

So you are saying Barcelona could have rejected the Neymar transfer? Quick someone tell Barcelona!

I'd imagine they want to sign him so they can get him back to the club and get him fit in time for January, something they can't do otherwise. Potentially loan him out too.

What bit about the Wenger £40M +1 bid do you not understand? Arsenal made the bid, spoke to the player and he told them to GTFO. Liverpool would have been obliged to accept the bid if Suarez agreed terms. Just because the buyout is met also doesn't another team couldn't come along and bid higher. It's not a difficult concept really. Do you think Athletico were going "Dammit Chelsea paid Costa's buyout of £32M and we would have got £40M off PSG"? Neymar bought the contract himself so he was out the door once the buyout was met.

Again, for the final time, Athletico have just thrown a quarter of their annual turnover at a player who said he wouldn't play for anyone else, a player they cannot use until January, a player whose attitude stinks and who hasn't kicked a football since last May. Sounds like the deal of the century alright.

Liam McPoyle

Deise Vu wrote: »

What bit about the Wenger £40M +1 bid do you not understand? Arsenal made the bid, spoke to the player and he told them to GTFO. Liverpool would have been obliged to accept the bid if Suarez agreed terms. Just because the buyout is met also doesn't another team couldn't come along and bid higher. It's not a difficult concept really. Do you think Athletico were going "Dammit Chelsea paid Costa's buyout of £32M and we would have got £40M off PSG"? Neymar bought the contract himself so he was out the door once the buyout was met.

Again, for the final time, Athletico have just thrown a quarter of their annual turnover at a player who said he wouldn't play for anyone else, a player they cannot use until January, a player whose attitude stinks and who hasn't kicked a football since last May. Sounds like the deal of the century alright.

I could be wrong but i was under the impression thst Suarez openly agitated for the move but was persuaded to stay for a nice increase and a promise to be allowed leave the following year if Barca came in.

He wanted to move to Arse but the LFC chairman (or whoever) chanced his arm and declined the bid, IIRC someone connected with the club publicly confirmed this a year or two back.

Maybe some of the LFC lads has a better handle on it.

Anyway, cracking result for Chelsea.

Couple of titles out of him and and heading for double what they paid for him.

Thats savage business for a player that every man and their dog knows isn't wanted