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

Rekop dog

Whatever about his off field shenanigans, his attitude on the pitch is among the best in the entire world. He's an absolute warrior. And he's won a whole lot in the last few years. And he gets tonnes of players sent off, especially at his previous spell at Atleti, he's a master at it. I'm a huge fan.

Everyone's a winner here, Chelsea get a good fee, Atleti get one of the top strikers in the world.

Lukker-

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.

You are getting confused between buyout clauses and release clauses. Simply put, they aren't the same thing and a buyout clause is mandatory in Spain. Diego Costa paid his own release clause effectively acting as the intermediary between Chelsea and Atletico. They were like Barcelona, powerless to stop him going as the mandatory buyout clause inserted in his contract when he first signed was set at £32m. They could have gotten £50m for him if it wasn't for this. Even if PSG came in and offered £50m, (it would never happen, they would have to be braindead to do so), Costa can still choose to go to Chelsea because they met the buy out clause. Once he pays the contract, Atletico are powerless, which is what happened, people on the board back than suggested he was overcome with greed for forcing Atletico to sell him. FYI plenty of release clauses have been triggered in England too although they are less common. Demba Ba to Chelsea for £7m was a release that was triggered, his market value at the time would have been higher. The reason Suarez didn't transfer to Arsenal is more likely down to fine print in contract details that Suarez team weren't aware of, or the fact that the FA don't enforce contracts like the Spanish do.

You seem to think there is some conspiracy regarding FFP and Chelsea? Why would Atletico be doing Chelsea this nice big favour? Chelsea don't even need the money to be close to balancing FFP, they could have spent another 150m net and still not breach FFP.

The short and long of it is, Chelsea had no need to rush the sale, Atletico were desperate for another striker and promised Simeone that they would sign Diego Costa if would sign an extension. It worked out for all parties. Is the fee even that much? Costa has 59 goals in 120 games for Chelsea, with a season off in between. He's a £50m striker.

irishman86

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.

Well ignoring the signing kids thing :pac:

irishman86

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.

The spanish law clauses are different to what Suarez had. What he had wasnt a release clause, didnt he fire someone over the mistake

irishman86

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.

This is wrong, Suarez wanted the move it was Liverpool who stopped it due to it not being a release clause merely a clause that when activated it allowed clubs to speak to him

GavRedKing

irishman86 wrote: »

Well ignoring the signing kids thing :pac:

We've been investigated it twice already for it in recent years, nothing came of it.

Only time Chelsea had an issue was when we signed Gael Kakauta a few years back, got a transfer ban for 2 windows over it too, the ban was overturned by the CSA after an appeal.

KaiserGunner

irishman86 wrote: »

This is wrong, Suarez wanted the move it was Liverpool who stopped it due to it not being a release clause merely a clause that when activated it allowed clubs to speak to him

Yeah I remember hearing that at the time. Sounds like a completely pointless clause. So he can speak to a club who triggers it, yet Liverpool could reject any bid still? So what was the point?

Liam O

KaiserGunner wrote: »

Yeah I remember hearing that at the time. Sounds like a completely pointless clause. So he can speak to a club who triggers it, yet Liverpool could reject any bid still? So what was the point?

There was no legality behind rejecting it. Liverpool just sort of hoped they could bully Arsenal away. Like most things regarding Arsenal, it worked.

grumpymunster

irishman86 wrote: »

Well ignoring the signing kids thing :pac:

GavRedKing wrote: »

We've been investigated it twice already for it in recent years, nothing came of it.

Only time Chelsea had an issue was when we signed Gael Kakauta a few years back, got a transfer ban for 2 windows over it too, the ban was overturned by the CSA after an appeal.

You know well Gav when it comes to Chelsea the truth never gets in the way of a good story.

I am curious as to why when Chelsea bought Costa would PSG want to come in and offer more money to AM for him when they legally had to accept the Chelsea bid. If they matched the Chelsea bid and offered Costa a shed load more money that would make sense but offering AM more money is like going to the pub being told it is €5 for a pint and demanding they accept €6 for the pint.

KaiserGunner

Liam O wrote: »

There was no legality behind rejecting it. Liverpool just sort of hoped they could bully Arsenal away. Like most things regarding Arsenal, it worked.

See I find that really hard to believe. There was obviously more to it than Arsenal being bullied away. At the time Suarez was up for the move and if it was a genuine release clause, then the deal would have been completed and nothing to do with Liverpool bullying tactics.
More likely there wasn't an actual release clause or Suarez changed his mind about the move (Gerrard allegedly told him it would be a mistake to go to Arsenal).
We will never know anyway.

Liam O

Liam O wrote: »

There was no legality behind rejecting it. Liverpool just sort of hoped they could bully Arsenal away. Like most things regarding Arsenal, it worked.

There was nothing Arsenal could do.

They can't enforce a contract that exists between another club and a player. They had no grounds for a case, there is no privity of contract. Suarez could sue, obviously, but clearly he found that unpalatable. So the move couldn't happen.

irishman86

GavRedKing wrote: »

We've been investigated it twice already for it in recent years, nothing came of it.

Only time Chelsea had an issue was when we signed Gael Kakauta a few years back, got a transfer ban for 2 windows over it too, the ban was overturned by the CSA after an appeal.

I was joking
I have a lot of respect for the Chelsea system, i think its genius

~Rebel~

KaiserGunner wrote: »

See I find that really hard to believe. There was obviously more to it than Arsenal being bullied away. At the time Suarez was up for the move and if it was a genuine release clause, then the deal would have been completed and nothing to do with Liverpool bullying tactics.
More likely there wasn't an actual release clause or Suarez changed his mind about the move (Gerrard allegedly told him it would be a mistake to go to Arsenal).
We will never know anyway.

Yeah, I more get the impression that the wording of the clause was not as clear as it should have been, so was open to interpretation on both sides, which gave 'Pool enough ground to hang onto him. Especially once they/Gerrard convinced Suarez to wait an extra year with a bigger wage, and being allowed to leave for a bigger club than arsenal.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yeah, I more get the impression that the wording of the clause was not as clear as it should have been, so was open to interpretation on both sides, which gave 'Pool enough ground to hang onto him. Especially once they/Gerrard convinced Suarez to wait an extra year with a bigger wage, and being allowed to leave for a bigger club than arsenal.

I'd be very doubtful that a multi million contract that was pored over by legal experts was vague on such a crucial aspect. Plus there was no suggestion that there was some doubt about it.

It's really very simple. He had a release clause. But Arsenal can no more sue on the basis of it than you or I. The only person who can sue is Suarez. And evidently he didn't want to take legal action to enforce his contract.

rgace

Arsenal may also have been worried about the tapping up issue considering they knew the contents of Suarez contract. I remember Liverpool got fined for something similar when signing Ziege.