11 Aug 2023 17:54:08
Heard from another forum that Liverpool only bid £111 mil to get Chelsea close to their FFP limit. Not sure how true that is as a lot of smokescreens around at this time. Could also have been to make Chelsea play their hand for MS and take their attention away from RL.

1.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 17:59:04
Someone is teasing you.

2.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:00:20
How would Liverpool possible know? Sounds like a load of rubbish that tbh mate.

3.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:10:11
Why would Liverpool do that? They wanted the player and thought he was worth the money so they bid. Why is that so hard to understand

Now it’s up to Liverpool to persuade him to come. There’s been no time for Liverpool to speak to the player to outline where he will play, what their plans are etc. I don’t blame him for taking a pause before jumping, this is his career.

He’s been speaking to Chelsea for weeks and probably has a house all lined up and knows exactly where he fits into their project. With us he has no idea.

Give it time, let’s just see what happens.

4.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:11:12
I'd love it to be 4d chess, however we were just interested in a player, however the player/ agent wanted another offer. We shot our shot, didn't come off. And we move on, nothing more to it imo.

5.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:15:56
So if everyone involved accepts that *9 figure bid* from Liverpool, would they have stepped back and smiled and said "just kidding! "

6.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:19:12
Ed002 if I can ask, could MC now put in a transfer request to make the Chelsea transfer easier? If he’d lose his 5% then Chelsea’s offer becomes closer to liverpools from last night, thus giving Brighton a similar figure? Presumably Chelsea’s wages would soon make up the difference of his lost 5%…?

{Ed002's Note - Brighton may insist and why do you think Chelsea wages would be more?}¥

7.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:23:11
That's hilarious. Might aswel put the lad on ebay if that's the case.

8.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:32:18
Pushing CFC to the FFP limit. FFP HAS to happen sooner or later. These prices can't go on, especially since the Saudis are now in the game.

{Ed002's Note - What FFP limit?}

9.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 18:52:49
Just the general consensus from the journalists, which admittedly is probably wide of the mark! A big chunk for him to forfeit though! If he’s prepared to do that and the wages on offer are similar, fair play to the lad, he’s obviously got his heart set on Chelsea.

10.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 19:31:51
Excellent @Davey, Ed002 was likely very proud of that ?.

11.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 20:59:37
I read that about the FFP as well. Hilarious ?

It’s been quite a funny transfer saga if I’m being honest. Caicedo would have been a great signing but if he wants Chelsea let them pay whatever it is for him and we move on.

What I’ve been told is Chelsea are signing Caicedo and Lavia but Lavia will be loaned directly to Brighton. Chelsea have also stepped away from Tyler Adams allowing Brighton to sign him.

If the Caicedo, Lavia and Olise deals are confirmed Boehly will have spent near 1 billions pounds on that Chelsea squad. Crazy crazy times.

12.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 19:30:09
Does now seem like a load of tosh as Chelsea looking to close on Lavia also. Bad day for LFC fan. I know Chelsea are offering long contracts and long payment terms to attempt to comply with FFP but seems they are able to spend what they want. Puzzles me how?

{Ed002's Note - You are making this stuff up "long payment terms to comply with FFP". Embarrassing.}

13.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 22:15:06
Lucho7 might be referring to amortisation of transfers that used to be partly based on contract term? However, this is no longer the case as I believe amortisation is limited to 5 years regardless of contract?
Transfers are just one part of the overall FFP calculations, of course.

14.) 11 Aug 2023
11 Aug 2023 22:05:06
Why is it embarrassing though Ed002 they only have to make sure they spend X within a 3 year financial period to comply with FFP unless the rules are different now? By offering longer payment terms that financial outlay is spread over a longer period, same with outgoing wages on contracts etc.

{Ed002's Note - Clearly you don’t understand.}