[Albion] Cesare Casadei

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

The fella asked a question I gave a reasonable response to how that might work

How many swap deals have we ever done? Why would we want to lose Caicedo by doing it? Why would we want this Herbert on loan? And why would we make the whole arrangement so complicated? Assuming the clubs agreed, if any one of the 3 objected the whole thing collapses.

Let's talk about daft rumours sure but do we need to tack on some silly swap nonsense to make them all dafter?

 

[The Fits]

Unless I'm totally getting this wrong there's absolutely no reason why they'd swap players. They need to make money to balance the books. If they buy Caicedo and we do get players in it'll be seperate but agreed transfers.
Better to sell Moises but agree to sell Colwill at xx millions than swap the players.

 

[albionfan37]

How many swap deals have we ever done? Why would we want to lose Caicedo by doing it? Why would we want this Herbert on loan? And why would we make the whole arrangement so complicated? Assuming the clubs agreed, if any one of the 3 objected the whole thing collapses.

Let's talk about daft rumours sure but do we need to tack on some silly swap nonsense to make them all dafter?

Firstly I never said anything about a swap but if you go on rumours they are seemingly interested in caicedo we clearly want colwill so I’d assume the club will say if u want caicedo we certainly want colwill and as we’re losing a star midfielder how about u Chuck us this lad casedai while we’re about it
I don’t think that’s overly complicated personally

 

[b.w.2.]

So are people saying Colwill was a failure? I think people are missing the point, we did a loan because we were very interested in signing him and IF Chelsea have to sell we at least are near the front of the queue because the player knows he fits our system. We should not just shut the door on loaners... people saying only here for a year leaves a gap etc. The reality is a good loanee will fill that gap we have and might stay longer. Also permanent contracts are no guarantee a player will stay . Just need to consider loanees as an option used when required.

But not required. Should not loan IMHO. If he is good enough, then buy. Why develop other club’s players then face the awful situation we are in now with Levi?

 

[b.w.2.]

Unless I'm totally getting this wrong there's absolutely no reason why they'd swap players. They need to make money to balance the books. If they buy Caicedo and we do get players in it'll be seperate but agreed transfers.
Better to sell Moises but agree to sell Colwill at xx millions than swap the players.

Why is that better? It isn’t

 

[Wardy's twin]

But not required. Should not loan IMHO. If he is good enough, then buy. Why develop other club’s players then face the awful situation we are in now with Levi?

It's not a good situation but could have been worse i.e. we had a quality player who helped us win games , had we not loaned him in then we might not have qualified for Europe. Sure I would rather buy players but that has its complications. On your last point... We are a club that develops talent , that's our MO, in this case it wasn't for our own profit BUT it did mean we didn't fork out 20 million.

 

[Carbonara]

He's playing in the U20 final tom night.

 

[The Fits]

Why is that better?

For Chelsea. They need to get money in this month.
Chelsea won't swap players. They'll sell them. They need to make cash.

 

[b.w.2.]

It's not a good situation but could have been worse i.e. we had a quality player who helped us win games , had we not loaned him in then we might not have qualified for Europe. Sure I would rather buy players but that has its complications. On your last point... We are a club that develops talent , that's our MO, in this case it wasn't for our own profit BUT it did mean we didn't fork out 20 million.

Well I think we agree. Subtle differences but I think, if you asked Tony, he would have preferred to buy Levi and will not accept a 2nd Levi loan or a loan for this guy, and for very good reasons

 

[b.w.2.]

For Chelsea. They need to get money in this month.
Chelsea won't swap players. They'll sell them. They need to make cash.

So, buying Moises for, say, 80, and selling Levi for, say, 40, is not different to buying Moises for 40 plus Levi.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

For Chelsea. They need to get money in this month.
Chelsea won't swap players. They'll sell them. They need to make cash.

I thought they needed to make cash too. But judging by Caicedo rumours and their other splash the cash targets, it looks a bit like Boehly will ignore FFP and answer questions later.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

So, buying Moises for, say, 80, and selling Levi for, say, 40, is not different to buying Moises for 40 plus Levi.

Actually it is different. If they buy Moises for 80m , over a 5 year contract that counts as 16m per year negative.

Selling Levi for 40m is a single positive of £40m this year.

So buying Moises for 80m and selling Levi for 40m in 2 separate transaction gives them a net positive balance of 24m for this year.

If they pay 40m plus Levi for Caicedo they are simply down 8m per year.

Academy players have be sold for Chelsea to dig themselves out of the hole they're in, as they count as pure profit, as there is no amoritised transfer fee to take into account.

The only way we could get Levi 'as part' of a Caicedo sale would be if we have an agreement with Chelsea that if we sell them Moises they will sell us Colwill after. That requires trust.

 

[Horses Arse]

It's not a good situation but could have been worse i.e. we had a quality player who helped us win games , had we not loaned him in then we might not have qualified for Europe. Sure I would rather buy players but that has its complications. On your last point... We are a club that develops talent , that's our MO, in this case it wasn't for our own profit BUT it did mean we didn't fork out 20 million.

Also meant that he wasn't loaned to another PL side. If Chelsea refused to sell and with City out of the cucurella deal then we'd have been daft to refuse on some no loan principle. That sort of inflexibility is counterproductive

 

[Baldseagull]

Well I think we agree. Subtle differences but I think, if you asked Tony, he would have preferred to buy Levi and will not accept a 2nd Levi loan or a loan for this guy, and for very good reasons

There is a reason that we could take a player on loan, if De Zerbi really wants them in his side and we cannot buy them. Yes, preferable to buy quality and develop for this club rather than Chelsea, and it weakens the pull of our academy as one where you will get chances in the first team if a Chelsea kid is getting in ahead of them, but if De Zerbi wants Colwill and we can't buy, I would rather not piss De Zerbi off.

 

[Baldseagull]

Actually it is different. If they buy Moises for 80m , over a 5 year contract that counts as 16m per year negative.

Selling Levi for 40m is a single positive of £40m this year.

So buying Moises for 80m and selling Levi for 40m in 2 separate transaction gives them a net positive balance of 24m for this year.

If they pay 40m plus Levi for Caicedo they are simply down 8m per year.

Academy players have be sold for Chelsea to dig themselves out of the hole they're in, as they count as pure profit, as there is no amoritised transfer fee to take into account.

The only way we could get Levi 'as part' of a Caicedo sale would be if we have an agreement with Chelsea that if we sell them Moises they will sell us Colwill after. That requires trust.

I think this may be the only way we get Colwill, but with both clubs over paying considerably, to give Chelsea a greater net positive for this year. Depends on them not making the fee they want for Mount, or other good sales.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Firstly I never said anything about a swap but if you go on rumours they are seemingly interested in caicedo we clearly want colwill so I’d assume the club will say if u want caicedo we certainly want colwill and as we’re losing a star midfielder how about u Chuck us this lad casedai while we’re about it
I don’t think that’s overly complicated personally

Really? 3 times players = 3 x times players choices (does count a little, not sure they like to get 'chucked' these days); 3 x agents arsing around; 3 x wage demands; 3 x (imputed) transfer value; 3 x one of the three playing fast and loose so that the whole deal collapses. Swap deals with two are rare, name me one involving 3.

 

[warmleyseagull]

That requires trust.

So deffo move on to next one, then.

 

[MJsGhost]

Actually it is different. If they buy Moises for 80m , over a 5 year contract that counts as 16m per year negative.

Selling Levi for 40m is a single positive of £40m this year.

So buying Moises for 80m and selling Levi for 40m in 2 separate transaction gives them a net positive balance of 24m for this year.

If they pay 40m plus Levi for Caicedo they are simply down 8m per year.

Academy players have be sold for Chelsea to dig themselves out of the hole they're in, as they count as pure profit, as there is no amoritised transfer fee to take into account.

The only way we could get Levi 'as part' of a Caicedo sale would be if we have an agreement with Chelsea that if we sell them Moises they will sell us Colwill after. That requires trust.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think a value for the players concerned is recorded in the accounts in full where a 'swap' deal happens.
It's related to what Juve are in trouble for - they inflated the amounts for the swapped players to look better for FFP.
The point being that an amount is entered into the books, so in your scenario, although £40m of actual cash changes hands, it's still recorded in the books (and for FFP purposes) as if £80m went one way and £40m the other. So Chelsea would still get the full benefit of a £40m positive for selling Colwill. As long as it's a fair figure, it's all legit.