The Not Villa Summer Transfer Window 2023

[Sulberto21]

Oh dear the plucky club only offering £60m or so for Lavia. How amazing it is that they are able to compete with such financial constraints. 

[jacketspuds]

1 hour ago, Sulberto21 said:

Oh dear the plucky club only offering £60m or so for Lavia. How amazing it is that they are able to compete with such financial constraints. 

Doesn’t matter. Lavia has apparently said that he would rather go to Chelsea anyway. 

[LondonLax]

Quote

Southampton midfielder Romeo Lavia has decided to snub Liverpool to join Chelsea, according to reports.

Liverpool and Chelsea have been battling it out to sign the 19-year-old Belgian and he looks set to turn down Anfield to head to Stamford Bridge instead.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/08/14/southampton-romeo-lavia-snubs-liverpool-for-chelsea-in-transfer-twist-19332806/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.whatsapp

Edited August 15, 2023 by LondonLax

[Genie]

Chelsea must be blowing Liverpool out of the water with contract offers. 

[Genie]

10 hours ago, jacketspuds said:

Doesn’t matter. Lavia has apparently said that he would rather go to Chelsea anyway. 

Lavia has confirmed Chelsea will pay him much more, for longer, is more likely the truth imo.

[gwi1890]

https://x.com/skysportspl/status/1691390360285569026?s=46&t=gr5LJ8Imr7-Zq9qMcJ9bEA

 

Lavia to Chelsea 

Edited August 15, 2023 by gwi1890

[jacketspuds]

£175m on 2 players. One was relegated in his first full season, and the other has played in the PL for 18 months. Both are very good players but it’s just insane.

Blowing every other team out of the water on fees and wages.

Spending more than most clubs have since the PL since its inception, but in just 12 months.

And apparently all without breaking any FFP rules.

What a time to be a football fan.

 

[Genie]

I bet the West Ham fans are loving him already 

https://x.com/bbcmotd/status/1691404805434929152?s=46&t=4cAqfxZAexKaQ7gdDKP31w

[villaglint]

Turning into a horrow show summer for Palace. Terrific end to last year and they go and lose Zaha and Olise for £35m. 

Going to need some very shrewd moves and some excellent management from Roy or they could easily find themselves in trouble. 

[Villatillidie95]

35 mil for Olise is cracking business tbf, very surprised its taken this long for someone to activate it as it seems like its been an open secret for a while

[villa89]

8 hours ago, Genie said:

Chelsea must be blowing Liverpool out of the water with contract offers. 

I've been hearing about the "Klopp Factor" from Liverpool fans for a few years. According to them it gave them an advantage in the transfer market and made them more appealing to players. Perhaps the truth is more in line with the notion that he's an arse and players go where they get paid the most. 

[villa89]

12 minutes ago, Villatillidie95 said:

35 mil for Olise is cracking business tbf, very surprised its taken this long for someone to activate it as it seems like its been an open secret for a while

Is he as good as Sunday Olise? 

[rbcuk]

Brighton getting another decent young player, Barco from Boca juniors a left back 

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

I've been hearing about the "Klopp Factor" from Liverpool fans for a few years. According to them it gave them an advantage in the transfer market and made them more appealing to players. Perhaps the truth is more in line with the notion that he's an arse and players go where they get paid the most. 

I'd love to know if these Chelsea contracts actually suit Chelsea more than the player and how both parties view it

In theory a player signs a standard 5 year deal, in year 3 they negotiate an extension and a pay rise - Chelsea don't have that problem - should he be a sucess term the player potentially earns less

But at the same time should the player fail or get injured he'd guaranteed good money for longer than what he would on a standard deal

Both parties benefit in different ways

[villa89]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

I'd love to know if these Chelsea contracts actually suit Chelsea more than the player and how both parties view it

In theory a player signs a standard 5 year deal, in year 3 they negotiate an extension and a pay rise - Chelsea don't have that problem - should he be a sucess term the player potentially earns less

But at the same time should the player fail or get injured he'd guaranteed good money for longer than what he would on a standard deal

Both parties benefit in different ways

Caiciedo's contract is supposedly worth around the same his transfer fee. The player's aren;t signing long term contracts in exchange for a reduced weekly wage. They are getting huge wages and long term deals. We made Chuckwuemeka a very big offer but he still went to Chelsea.

[villa4europe]

4 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Caiciedo's contract is supposedly worth around the same his transfer fee. The player's aren;t signing long term contracts in exchange for a reduced weekly wage. They are getting huge wages and long term deals. We made Chuckwuemeka a very big offer but he still went to Chelsea.

If he signs a 5 year deal on £200k a week then in theory he'll see 3 years of it out before negotiating a new 5 year deal at £250k a week, in 8 years he'll earn £96m

Instead he signs a 8 year contract at £200k a week and he earns £83m

That's what I'm saying - Chelseas benefit is they don't have the wage increase from a contract renewal

The player has the benefit of being locked in for 8 years no matter what

[Hank Scorpio]

Chelsea are adopting an NFL approach to contracts then basically.

[villa89]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

That's what I'm saying - Chelseas benefit is they don't have the wage increase from a contract renewal

I understand the theory but the assumption is that all of your signings will be successes and that there will be huge wage inflation across football generally. At the moment they are overpaying players they sign with very high salaries (comparative to what other teams would pay) and giving them long term deals. Its a recipe for disaster. Also it doesn't allow for the fact that if you sign a player, for example Chuck, at a young age on a long term deal and he does become a superstar there's nothing stopping him from throwing his toys out of the pram and demanding a new contract eventhough he might have 4 years left on his current one. 

The only positive I can see from Chelsea's point of view is that they won't lose any players to bosman free transfers, they will remain in control of that. 

[gwi1890]

 

[gwi1890]

really like Tavares