The Ultimate Football Thread 2013-2014 Vol. 4 EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A etc

eiddyfouw said:
I thought Costa would go for more than that.
Click to expand...

If true, he's tripling his weekly wages. Goal.com says it's believed Costa is currently earning £50,000 per week & will be paid £150,000 a week.

Now the question becomes who will Atletico get to replace Costa?

Looks like Jose responded to Hazard's comment about his squad after the CL defeat. Quote from his presser today...


The media was reporting that he was being critical, but there’s nothing critical in what he says,” Mourinho said. “Eden is a player who is not mentally ready to look back to his left-back and leave his life for him. When the comment come from a player like Eden, it’s normal because he’s not a player ready to sacrifice himself 100% for the team and the team-mates. And the comments weren’t critical. I’m not happy. I speak all season and I try to improve him all season.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the team Mr. Costa :smokin

Wow those are harsh words from Mourinho. I really hope this is not a sign of things to come for Mou in Chelsea. Should have left the attitude in Madrid :smh:
 
Last edited:
If Chelsea don't win the league or the CL next season, I can't wait to hear the excuses and stories.

Cause with a manager like Mourinho, and I believe there are more then enough quality players to win either trophy, after all Di Matteo just did it the other day.
 
abovelegit1 said:
 
Fear The Ibis said:
Nobody is nitpicking Lukaku. Don't believe me. Go ask Everton fans.

http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/lukaku-to-spurs.66225/page-38
Click to expand...
I'm not going through all of that, so there's no way to get a consensus. Seems like it's a thread about how he's off to Spurs, and a few posters are trying to rationalize why it's not all bad because if Chelsea want to sell, Everton won't be able to afford. I don't know any Evertonians myself, but when I caught Arsenal-Everton at the pub a few weeks ago, they were all quite happy with him. He's a 20 year old striker with massive potential, so you'd think a decorated manager like Mou would be able to get the best of him.

Anyway, you missed the point - as usual. He's better than any of Chelsea's current strikers, so that's an oversight on Mou's part. You also didn't address any of my other points, including why if Mou is so tactically perfect, his Chelsea teams have scored two goals in 6 semi final ties, so I guess I can leave it there.
Click to expand...
The point isn't that Lukaku is better than our current strikers. That's obvious. The point is that he needs to be getting as much match time as possible.

But i'm done arguing about this. This article sums up the Lukaku situation perfectly http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/4/7/5581102/jose-mourinho-romelu-lukaku-chelsea-everton
 
There is something weird about watching Diego Costa play. He doesn't dribble the ball like you would think a professional would. Its unorthodox to say the least, but I guess whatever it is it works :lol:
 
RoOk said:
Jose putting hazard on notice. Eden just shoulda kept his mouth shut
Click to expand...

His whole United/Chelsea transfer saga showed me that while he's extremely talented, he's very arrogant and can't keep his mouth shut.

That said, I still wish he played at United, cause he's a real wonder.
 
eiddyfouw said:
His whole United/Chelsea transfer saga showed me that while he's extremely talented, he's very arrogant and can't keep his mouth shut.

That said, I still wish he played at United, cause he's a real wonder.
Click to expand...
lets sign Thorgan!

I wasn't keeping up with Lille when Eden played their but Rudy Garcia coached him right?
 
eiddyfouw said:
 
Fear The Ibis said:
 
eiddyfouw said:
I thought Costa would go for more than that.
Click to expand...
Why?


He has a buyout clause. Plus Chelsea and Atletico have a great relationship right now since we're loaning them a world class keeper every year for peanuts. 
Click to expand...
Cause he's an in demand striker. I figured someone else would have come in and put in a bid.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter.

If more than one club decides to meet the buyout clause the player picks where he wants to go.

Contractually....the buyout clause is actually paid by the player themselves, not the club the player is transferring to. 

So for example...if Costa has a buyout of 32m and Chelsea wants to buy him...Chelsea would give Costa 32m and Costa uses the 32m to buy out his contract with Atletico. The Chelsea is free to sign him.

With a transfer....a club pays another directly to get the player. With a buyout, the buying club gives the player the money so that he can buyout his own contract with his current club and transfer to a new club. Same end result but a huge difference for tax and FFP purposes. 
 
Last edited:
Fear The Ibis said:
eiddyfouw said:
 
Fear The Ibis said:
 
eiddyfouw said:
I thought Costa would go for more than that.
Click to expand...
Why?



He has a buyout clause. Plus Chelsea and Atletico have a great relationship right now since we're loaning them a world class keeper every year for peanuts. 
Click to expand...


Cause he's an in demand striker. I figured someone else would have come in and put in a bid.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter.

If more than one club decides to meet the buyout clause the player picks where he wants to go.

Contractually....the buyout clause is actually paid by the player themselves, not the club the player is transferring to. 


So for example...if Costa has a buyout of 32m and Chelsea wants to buy him...Chelsea would give Costa 32m and Costa uses the 32m to buy out his contract with Atletico. The Chelsea is free to sign him.

With a transfer....a club pays another directly to get the player. With a buyout, the buying club gives the player the money so that he can buyout his own contract with his current club and transfer to a new club. Same end result but a huge difference for tax and FFP purposes. 
Click to expand...

So if I walked up to Costa and said, I'll take him for 50m, and gave him the 50m and he keeps the change?
 
Fear The Ibis said:
Doesn't really matter.

If more than one club decides to meet the buyout clause the player picks where he wants to go.

Contractually....the buyout clause is actually paid by the player themselves, not the club the player is transferring to. 


So for example...if Costa has a buyout of 32m and Chelsea wants to buy him...Chelsea would give Costa 32m and Costa uses the 32m to buy out his contract with Atletico. The Chelsea is free to sign him.

With a transfer....a club pays another directly to get the player. With a buyout, the buying club gives the player the money so that he can buyout his own contract with his current club and transfer to a new club. Same end result but a huge difference for tax and FFP purposes. 
Click to expand...

LOL no no and no. First of all the buout clause doesnt mean that the club has to sell him for that price. If that was the case, Arsenal would have Suarez. Thats why he prolly surprised that Costa didnt go for more then his buyout clause was at
 
BlackMomo said:
Fear The Ibis said:
Doesn't really matter.

If more than one club decides to meet the buyout clause the player picks where he wants to go.

Contractually....the buyout clause is actually paid by the player themselves, not the club the player is transferring to. 


So for example...if Costa has a buyout of 32m and Chelsea wants to buy him...Chelsea would give Costa 32m and Costa uses the 32m to buy out his contract with Atletico. The Chelsea is free to sign him.

With a transfer....a club pays another directly to get the player. With a buyout, the buying club gives the player the money so that he can buyout his own contract with his current club and transfer to a new club. Same end result but a huge difference for tax and FFP purposes. 
Click to expand...

LOL no no and no. First of all the buout clause doesnt mean that the club has to sell him for that price. If that was the case, Arsenal would have Suarez. Thats why he prolly surprised that Costa didnt go for more then his buyout clause was at
Click to expand...

:lol: I was still getting to that. But I'm still waiting to see where this goes.

If it was easy as triggering a clause and flying the player home, Suarez would be celebrating 4th instead of pushing for the trophy.

But things aren't that easy....

...but I'll wait.
 
EyeSeeSoles said:
eiddyfouw said:
His whole United/Chelsea transfer saga showed me that while he's extremely talented, he's very arrogant and can't keep his mouth shut.


That said, I still wish he played at United, cause he's a real wonder.
Click to expand...
lets sign Thorgan!

I wasn't keeping up with Lille when Eden played their but Rudy Garcia coached him right?
Click to expand...

Thorgan is a happy chappy being signed to Chelsea, and if he really does advance faster/better than Eden as many reports suggest, Chelsea will pay a kings ransom to keep him, until PSG decides to throw a small countries GDP at him.
 
Didn't Henry admit that Arsenal met/paid the buyout, but they ignored it and dared Arsenal to take them to court? I think he also admitted their lawyers had no idea what would happen if they did...
 
Costa probably went for as much as he did because their aren't many teams that are vying for his services and are willing to pay a premium for it. Who else is willing to pay 35 mill and doesn't already have a striker? PSG, Monaco, City, United and Bayern all have top strikers. I doubt Athletico would sell to Barca or Madrid, so that leaves Arsenal and Chelsea. And since Arsenal won't splash the cash, Chelsea it is.
 
Eden had already won Ligue 1 Player of the Year at Thorgan's current age, so I'm not really buying that hype...
 
laugh.gif
 @ those missed penalties 
 
BlackMomo said:
Fear The Ibis said:
Doesn't really matter.

If more than one club decides to meet the buyout clause the player picks where he wants to go.

Contractually....the buyout clause is actually paid by the player themselves, not the club the player is transferring to. 


So for example...if Costa has a buyout of 32m and Chelsea wants to buy him...Chelsea would give Costa 32m and Costa uses the 32m to buy out his contract with Atletico. The Chelsea is free to sign him.

With a transfer....a club pays another directly to get the player. With a buyout, the buying club gives the player the money so that he can buyout his own contract with his current club and transfer to a new club. Same end result but a huge difference for tax and FFP purposes. 
Click to expand...

LOL no no and no. First of all the buout clause doesnt mean that the club has to sell him for that price. If that was the case, Arsenal would have Suarez. Thats why he prolly surprised that Costa didnt go for more then his buyout clause was at
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

When did Suarez agree to leave for Arsenal? Never so that point is moot. It doesn't matter if a club meets the buyout if the player himself does not want to have the buyout in HIS contract activated.

It's all explained here http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom