January Transfer Window 2014

First topic message reminder :

I'm gonna open this up now as I contemplate watching the shower of poop I'm about to watch.

What strong rumours have we heard? What do teams need? Where do you think the money will be spent?

I shall start you off with rumours surrounding Lambert maybe considering West Ham and similarly West Ham going to Spurs cap in hand to request a loan of Defoe or Adebayor (sources not so tight haha)

Cant think of a worse place for him to go to be honest. Well Monaco or united..

He needs to go to a team that well play him regular

What's Ince got left at Championship level. Blackpools miracle already happened once. Time to step up. Tbh I think he'll play centrally at a higher level anyway. Not pacy enough really

Yes step up but dont step up into a team he cant get a game at!

Club confirm Wessi has handed in a transfer request.

Oh Wes

I'm still enjoying Nicks suggestion that lower league clubs will be fined 50m for overspending

I need to read up on it.

Is spending going to be based/factored on turnover then?

If you lose less than 3m nothing happens

3m-8m your owner can cover the losses

Over 8m you get a transfer embargo

If you spend more than 8m and get promoted you pay a fair play tax

Right so it's based on profits not turnover.

Well creative accountants will just sort it out. Look out for inflated players worth on the balance sheets

Our owners company sponsors the club.

I just found it hilarious Nick thinks the FL is going to act against clubs losing money by fining them a crippling amount

Lol so all they have to do is pay more in sponsorship to bring any potential loss back up

We can add Patrick Herrmann to Moyes' scouting list.

Presumably

Chelsea would be idiots to let Mata join us, you just don't sell a player of that quality to a rival team. Were he to join it would be a clear signal of intent from the club; we might be struggling but we can still buy world class players with or without champions league football.

The earlier point is right. Man United have to play City and Arsenal yet. Chelsea are done with United. United will spend on big players in the summer anyway, no difference it being Mata

Would you swap him for Rooney?

Because that is the only way I can see it coming off

The only way the deal comes off is if Rooney isn't involved, we bring in Mata and a couple more, write this season off giving the new players time to gel before the madness of Summer then get Rooney to sign a new deal.

For as good as Mata is he's not better than Rooney, he provides less assists and scores far less.

It won't happen then. Reports suggest the only complication is that Chelsea still want Rooney

Reports i've read suggest they either want approx £32mil cash up front OR a deal involving Rooney, they sure as hell wont be getting Rooney in part exchange.

Again, if United are going to buy quality anyway, it won't "Mata" to Chelsea who that quality is and if they're selling him, they could probably rinse United a little bit. Plus he gets to play against their rivals.

That's the thing; Chelsea aren't weakened by selling Mata whereas we would be by selling Rooney.

Yeah, that was my point you picked out DZ. I just kind of thought it would be a kind of a Jose' mischievous thought, trying to see or gain any advantage he could get, in an attempt to harm City or Arsenal's title run-in. Chelsea are playing mind games. They've clearly sent out a message through whatever means, that Mata is available at a price. They know United are desperate & just want to put Mata out there as bait, in an attempt to see what happens & what offer comes in.

Point is though Chelsea won't sell to you otherwise and if you don't swap now , Rooney will still be gone soon enough and mata will be in Spain.

So united will be worse off

I think they'll sell regardless of Rooney being part of the deal personally Mysti nothing to suggest the deal rests on that aspect.

Mourinhio is playing media games mate. Athletico want mata. He will go there for a fee less than what united want to play. They are only entertaining united to see if they will breakdown over Rooney

Time will tell, to be honest he knows he wont be getting Rooney so has absolutely nothing to gain from trying mind games with a team he isn't directly competing against.

Rooney can legally buy himself out of contract. and chelsea could also loan/sell Mata to athletico. then what would you do.

I think the above is very unlikely. But it is possible.

If I was chelsea and thought Rooney was impossible. I would personally say ok 40m plus Zaha and you can have mata.

That is 40m plus a better player who they can straight away loan to palace

Everyone is happy then. Including Palace- who need to be included in the happiness scale.

Any player can legally buy themselves out of a contract but it never happens, for a player on a £200k a week contract the costs are astronomical and the buying club can end up paying well over the odds. It's often thought that you buy out the remainder of your contract which the player himself has to do but the club he then moves to has to pay compensation based on an approximate market value and the loss of earnings incurred by the seller.

no not every player.

and the settlement is nothing to do with market value-Its based on wages from the buy out point to the contract end.

Edit see below- the above isnt totally correct but it may be

"Rooney and Cabaye are reported to be outside their "protected period" (the first three years for a contract signed before a player turns 28, the first two years otherwise) and can therefore terminate their contracts without receiving a ban.

Compensation will be due, however, with the player and his new club jointly liable to pay it. The amount of compensation is the key uncertainty and some journalists appear to believe that the calculation would be based on the wages the player is due to receive on the unexpired portion of the contract."

Any player three years after signing a contract under the age of 28 can or after two years if older than 28. Chelsea would end up having to stump up well in excess of £40mil to get Rooney to buy out his contract which then leads to legal difficulties regarding tapping up.

40m is what he is worth or less than he is worth anyway.

That's not astronomical.

but if we go on wages

is he on 250k a week.

that's not exactly much is it!!

something like 20m till the end of his contract.


When I mean not much I mean in context.. So I kind of agree that the journos may have got it wrong. Because if they haven't you would see a lot more players leaving clubs in that manor..

The top players will have clauses in their contracts which make it almost impossible for them to move in such a way.

It would be £15mil to buy out the contract plus market value for the player which would be approx £30mil+ (Falcao and Cavani could be used as indicative of his transfer value) plus any monetary loss the club would incur from losing him. £40mil was a conservative estimate but it could end up well above that. It's a ruling that the journeyman players will benefit from not the elite.

Why do you think it would be 15m plus market value?

You have to understand that it will be heavily weighted on time left on the contract - that is why journos are suggesting is will be based on wages to come within a contract length.

To buy yourself out of contract with 6 months to go is going to be a lot cheaper than buying out with 4 years to go

I think that Mysti because it is, the original transfer of Webster from Hearts to Wigan dragged on for years as suitable compsensation was agreed, it has never been purely buying out the remainder of the contract.

Well, tomorrows papers go with Madrid bidding for Rooney (summer move). Also claim Mata deal has been sanctioned by Chelsea, figure on the one I saw was £37m. Both from the Telegraph. Times also go back page with both of those stories actually. Two id trust more, if I'd ever trust a newspaper.

Not sure I see Madrid doing their summer business now, nor United accepting any summer deals now. I hope this Mata move is on though, what a lovely player Mourinho is wasting. Functionality and Mourinho go hand in hand.

I'm not saying this because we've been linked with him but Mata is Chelseas best player, I said at the start of the season Mourinhos treatment of him was mind boggling.

United fans are gonna be over the moon if they truly are going to get Mata!!

I wonder if Ent will change his tune. He keeps saying united cant use him in the system blah blah.. My guess is yes

Cant believe Madrid are going for rooney. I would have though Suarez would have been the player they would be looking at..

Maybe they can afford another 80m signing!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm not saying this because we've been linked with him but Mata is Chelseas best player, I said at the start of the season Mourinhos treatment of him was mind boggling.

Hazard is better.

But yes I agree Mounrinhio just hates him.. Managers and there pet hates hey

He doesnt fit the formula. I dont dislike Mourinho's teams and football, but he knows Mata is a better player than Willian, but Willian does the work Mata won't and still possesses skill. Mourinho will forever be the man that ruined Joe Cole, just be thankful Mata hasnt conformed.

Mata, Rooney,

Spoiler:

RVP and Junazi would be one hell of a front 5 for united

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He doesnt fit the formula. I dont dislike Mourinho's teams and football, but he knows Mata is a better player than Willian, but Willian does the work Mata won't and still possesses skill. Mourinho will forever be the man that ruined Joe Cole, just be thankful Mata hasnt conformed.

totally disagree with this, Cole became a much better player under Mourinho, it was the subsequent managers who really ruined him, they couldn't decide what his best position was, and he virtually never got a run of games. Under Mourinho he was excellent. Yes he got him working hard (as he does) but there's nothing wrong with that.

As for Mata it's an odd one, granted, but he simply doesn't fit the Mourinho system. It's not just a question of Mata tracking back to put in his defensive duties for me, there's more to it than that: lack of pace (not saying he's slow, but Mourinho's sytem needs his three attacking midfielders to be really quick, particularly on the break), and sometimes a bit "ponderous" on the ball. For whatever reason he doesn't fit, and a team like Chelsea can't afford to base their whole system around one player if it's going to make several others less effective.

You have only to look at the Southampton away game. Mata played pretty well (as an individual performance), but while he was on the field Chelsea created very little. Oscar and Willian comes on, and Chelsea immediately look more dangerous and run out easy winners. So yes, Mata may be a better player than Willian, but Chelsea are a better team with Willian than with Mata on this season's evidence.

mystiroakey wrote:Mata, Rooney,

Spoiler:

RVP and Junazi would be one hell of a front 5 for united

Carrick would have to put in a hell of an amount of work for that front five to come off...

mystiroakey wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm not saying this because we've been linked with him but Mata is Chelseas best player, I said at the start of the season Mourinhos treatment of him was mind boggling.

Hazard is better.

But yes I agree Mounrinhio just hates him.. Managers and there pet hates hey

In the Summer i'd have said Mata was currently a better player than Hazard but lack of game time and Hazards improvement has seen him take the mantle.

Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

socal1976 wrote:Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

yep, Mourinho is terrible. If you're a fan of another team

if Chelsea were a better team with Mata playing, Mourinho would play him. We aren't, so he doesn't. Managers should win matches, not deliver "beautiful football" (whatever that means, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

Exactly what I was going to say MFC, at the end of the day Chelsea fans want to see their team win if that comes about because of 'beautiful football' even better but 'beautiful football' without winning is pretty pointless.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

yep, Mourinho is terrible. If you're a fan of another team

if Chelsea were a better team with Mata playing, Mourinho would play him. We aren't, so he doesn't. Managers should win matches, not deliver "beautiful football" (whatever that means, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

Mourinho is an accomplished manager, he wins trophies. But I root for him and his tactics to fail wherever he goes. MFC I have nothing against Chelsea in fact really enjoyed watching them win the CL trophy. I don't live in England so I don't have a tribalistic distaste for other clubs. I want to watch beautiful football, if that makes me naive or whatever that is fine, but as a neutral Chelsea is just about the last top team that I want to watch. If Mourinho succeeds he will create a dozen clones of his brutal and negative football, there will be a dozen AVB types popping up in jobs across Europe. He is anti-football in my mind, nothing against Chelsea.

Arsernal = beautiful football.

I'm also not entirely sure where this "boring Chelsea" thing comes from. The only game we've played in which has been really dull was the Man u away one (remember this was when people still thought Man u were a decent team ), which was as much Moyes's fault as Mourinho (someone, maybe on another thread, said that Man u were too cautious at the start of the season, this is one game which typified that: a draw at home to Chelsea for Everton is a decent result, not for Man u).

Apart from that, and the Newcastle and Basle away games (both dreadful performances) I think Chelsea have had more shots than their opponents in every game.