HanoiVillan Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I think he will sign for chelsea They paid the same amount for Costa as they would have to pay for Benteke. I can't see it myself. Didn't they also pay a similar amount for Cuadrado (sp?), who wasn't exactly the first name on their team sheet. If Mourinho wants a player (and we have no reason to assume he does or doesn't want Benteke), then I'm sure Abramovich will pay what is required, whether it's overpriced or not. If it comes down to Falcao or Benteke i'm pretty sure they'll go with Falcao simply because he'll be far cheaper. Isnt he on 350k a week Dont see what Jose sees in him that will add to his squad, he be another Torres Personally, the only possible reason I can see for him going there is that Falcao is represented by Jorge Mendes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I think he will sign for chelsea They paid the same amount for Costa as they would have to pay for Benteke. I can't see it myself. Didn't they also pay a similar amount for Cuadrado (sp?), who wasn't exactly the first name on their team sheet. If Mourinho wants a player (and we have no reason to assume he does or doesn't want Benteke), then I'm sure Abramovich will pay what is required, whether it's overpriced or not. If it comes down to Falcao or Benteke i'm pretty sure they'll go with Falcao simply because he'll be far cheaper. Isnt he on 350k a week Dont see what Jose sees in him that will add to his squad, he be another Torres No idea but I'm sure he'd take a pay cut to stay in the PL. I don't really see it either but i'd imagine he would cost, in terms of the fee itself, a fraction of the £32.5m it would cost for Benteke so probably makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Falcao still has 3 years on his Monaco contract so would still cost a sizeable fee I'd have thought, on top of probably £200k a week at least, for a 29 year old who looked worse than Shevchenko, who Mourinho hated having. Benteke would be a no brainer for me. Even if he cost a bit more to start with, cost and value are different things and Benteke has so much potential at his age and would bang them in for years with the creative players Chelsea have, as well as Jose's general preference for a big guy up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Make of this what you will. A German football agent (a business associate of mine) touting a CF to Wolfsburg (CL) has been told that they are "very interested in Benteke" if Chelsea dont start a bidding war. Considering Plop are buying Ings - Spurs are very quiet (they'll have to move a few MF's on before they can buy big) Only ManU/C, Arsenal & Chelsea (PL & CL) can afford Benteke. Citeh are the only ones who dont need a striker. ManU & Chelsea do, Arsenal maybe not. However, him mentioning only Chelsea makes me think that Benteke will either go to Chelsea or Wolfsburg. Edited June 8, 2015 by Grasshopper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Dembélé and Townsend are good players but I'd want them plus the full £32M. Why would spurs do that when the 32.5m would activate the release clause? That post was in reply to a suggestion that we should accept £20M plus Dembélé and Townsend. If Tottenham want to fob us of with players that they don't want then so be it, but they still have to meet the release clause. If they meet the release clause without offering the players then fair enough. All I'm saying is that I'd want £32M from them. They only have to meet the release clause. Why on earth would they give us two players for nothing? Why don't you understand this? Why can't you understand that I'm not saying that if Tottenham offer us £32M and activate the release clause, we should refuse the bid and insist they give us an extra two players. I'm saying if they offer us £20M and a few players we should reject the bid and tell them that the release clause is £32M if they then want to offer us players too then that's up to them. What AntrimBlack is saying is that once they bid 32 million.. we cant refuse it..... they have activated a clause where they can automatically speak to him.. so effectively.. a fee is agreed. So there is no point in them offering players.. Dembélé and Townsend are good players but I'd want them plus the full £32M. Why would spurs do that when the 32.5m would activate the release clause? That post was in reply to a suggestion that we should accept £20M plus Dembélé and Townsend. If Tottenham want to fob us of with players that they don't want then so be it, but they still have to meet the release clause. If they meet the release clause without offering the players then fair enough. All I'm saying is that I'd want £32M from them. They only have to meet the release clause. Why on earth would they give us two players for nothing? Why don't you understand this? Why can't you understand that I'm not saying that if Tottenham offer us £32M and activate the release clause, we should refuse the bid and insist they give us an extra two players. I'm saying if they offer us £20M and a few players we should reject the bid and tell them that the release clause is £32M if they then want to offer us players too then that's up to them. What AntrimBlack is saying is that once they bid 32 million.. we cant refuse it..... they have activated a clause where they can automatically speak to him.. so effectively.. a fee is agreed. So there is no point in them offering players.. How many more times do I have to say the same thing? I wouldn't accept a bid of £20M plus players. If they activated the release clause then fair enough. I'm not saying we somehow reject it and demand that they offer us an extra two players. The idea of taking players in exchange from them isn't mine. I've already said that I think that's a bad idea. Even if they were 2 players Sherwood had on his shopping list and it saved us 5-10m on buying them separately as independent deals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 If Tottenham were to offer us Townsend and Dembélé, I don't think they'd be offering much more in the way of cash for Benteke to be honest. I doubt they'd be interested anyway, for reasons already mentioned, Kane and Benteke wouldn't make a good partnership and they couldn't really afford to leave one of them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Make of this what you will. A German football agent (a business associate of mine) touting a CF to Wolfsburg (CL) has been told that they are "very interested in Benteke" if Chelsea dont start a bidding war. Considering Plop are buying Ings - Spurs are very quiet (they'll have to move a few MF's on before they can buy big) Only ManU/C, Arsenal & Chelsea (PL & CL) can afford Benteke. Citeh are the only ones who dont need a striker. ManU & Chelsea do, Arsenal maybe not. However, him mentioning only Chelsea makes me think that Benteke will either go to Chelsea or Wolfsburg. There is no bidding war. Its £32.5m for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless he means bidding war in terms how much they offer for his contract. If Tottenham were to offer us Townsend and Dembélé, I don't think they'd be offering much more in the way of cash for Benteke to be honest. I doubt they'd be interested anyway, for reasons already mentioned, Kane and Benteke wouldn't make a good partnership and they couldn't really afford to leave one of them out. What do you value those two individually at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 For me Townsend is 6m and Dembele 10m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 If Tottenham were to offer us Townsend and Dembélé, I don't think they'd be offering much more in the way of cash for Benteke to be honest. I doubt they'd be interested anyway, for reasons already mentioned, Kane and Benteke wouldn't make a good partnership and they couldn't really afford to leave one of them out. What do you value those two individually at? It's not really what I value them at, it's what Tottenham would want, It sounds excessive but I think they'd be wanting around £15M at least for Townsend. I'm not sure about Dembélé to be honest but I imagine he'd be valued at around eight million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I could see Dembele and Townsend going to Southampton and making a big difference there. I'd rather we got the Benteke money in and bought from Europe as we still need good value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Make of this what you will. A German football agent (a business associate of mine) touting a CF to Wolfsburg (CL) has been told that they are "very interested in Benteke" if Chelsea dont start a bidding war. Considering Plop are buying Ings - Spurs are very quiet (they'll have to move a few MF's on before they can buy big) Only ManU/C, Arsenal & Chelsea (PL & CL) can afford Benteke. Citeh are the only ones who dont need a striker. ManU & Chelsea do, Arsenal maybe not. However, him mentioning only Chelsea makes me think that Benteke will either go to Chelsea or Wolfsburg. There is no bidding war. Its £32.5m for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless he means bidding war in terms how much they offer for his contract For example, Wolfsburg bid 32.5m - Wolfsburg can talk to Benteke Chelsea offer 35m (what's 2.5m to Abram....) Agent sends Benteke straight to Chelski for a medical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Make of this what you will. A German football agent (a business associate of mine) touting a CF to Wolfsburg (CL) has been told that they are "very interested in Benteke" if Chelsea dont start a bidding war. Considering Plop are buying Ings - Spurs are very quiet (they'll have to move a few MF's on before they can buy big) Only ManU/C, Arsenal & Chelsea (PL & CL) can afford Benteke. Citeh are the only ones who dont need a striker. ManU & Chelsea do, Arsenal maybe not. However, him mentioning only Chelsea makes me think that Benteke will either go to Chelsea or Wolfsburg. There is no bidding war. Its £32.5m for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless he means bidding war in terms how much they offer for his contract For example, Wolfsburg bid 32.5m - Wolfsburg can talk to Benteke Chelsea offer 35m (what's 2.5m to Abram....) Agent sends Benteke straight to Chelski for a medical That makes no sense. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Make of this what you will. A German football agent (a business associate of mine) touting a CF to Wolfsburg (CL) has been told that they are "very interested in Benteke" if Chelsea dont start a bidding war. Considering Plop are buying Ings - Spurs are very quiet (they'll have to move a few MF's on before they can buy big) Only ManU/C, Arsenal & Chelsea (PL & CL) can afford Benteke. Citeh are the only ones who dont need a striker. ManU & Chelsea do, Arsenal maybe not. However, him mentioning only Chelsea makes me think that Benteke will either go to Chelsea or Wolfsburg. There is no bidding war. Its £32.5m for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless he means bidding war in terms how much they offer for his contract For example, Wolfsburg bid 32.5m - Wolfsburg can talk to Benteke Chelsea offer 35m (what's 2.5m to Abram....) Agent sends Benteke straight to Chelski for a medical That makes no sense. Not really here to argue the toss but, if Chelsea want him and want "1st look" - Villa want as much as possible - Agent increases his cut. what doesnt make sense? Money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie09 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Didn't his agent state he wants to stay in the premier league? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 8, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 8, 2015 There's some really strange logic in this thread... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 It makes no sense because a release clause is a set fee. Chelsea bidding more than Wolfsburg doesn't stop them from talking to Benteke provided they met the set fee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 No one actually knows the details of the 'release clause'. It might no be as straight forward as someone people seem to think. Even if it's met, it's still has to be agreed upon on how it will be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 No one actually knows the details of the 'release clause'. It might no be as straight forward as someone people seem to think. Even if it's met, it's still has to be agreed upon on how it will be paid. Maybe so. I actually remember reading once that paying for transfers in installments is actually better for both clubs as the smaller chunks of money meant less tax was paid. Not sure how true that is though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 It makes no sense because a release clause is a set fee. Chelsea bidding more than Wolfsburg doesn't stop them from talking to Benteke provided they met the set fee. Doesn't Benteke have a say in it though? Just because someone meets the fee, doesn't mean we have to sell. We don't have to accept the bit, if the player doesn't want to go. For instance if Stoke bid £32.5m, that doesn't mean he's going to sign for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan81 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Make of this what you will. A German football agent (a business associate of mine) touting a CF to Wolfsburg (CL) has been told that they are "very interested in Benteke" if Chelsea dont start a bidding war. Considering Plop are buying Ings - Spurs are very quiet (they'll have to move a few MF's on before they can buy big) Only ManU/C, Arsenal & Chelsea (PL & CL) can afford Benteke. Citeh are the only ones who dont need a striker. ManU & Chelsea do, Arsenal maybe not. However, him mentioning only Chelsea makes me think that Benteke will either go to Chelsea or Wolfsburg. There is no bidding war. Its £32.5m for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless he means bidding war in terms how much they offer for his contract For example, Wolfsburg bid 32.5m - Wolfsburg can talk to Benteke Chelsea offer 35m (what's 2.5m to Abram....) Agent sends Benteke straight to Chelski for a medical That makes no sense. Not really here to argue the toss but, if Chelsea want him and want "1st look" - Villa want as much as possible - Agent increases his cut. what doesnt make sense? Money? didnt he state he wanted fo stay in england? with Hazard being at Chelsea and Chelsea beings champions all they'd need to do is trigger the clause and he'd be in talks in a flash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts