Wesley Fofana - He is no more - finished - forgotten.

[Collymore]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Will be pure chaos start to the season though.

The thought of having money to spend weeks from the transfer deadline sends shivers down my spine. We're not a club that has ever filled me with confidence working under tight deadlines. Just look at the Kasper situation -  every day that ticks where we haven't signed the backup keeper tells me it's quite possible that we hadn't even planned the replacement when they will have known for months or maybe even a year that they'd be in this position. 

 

 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

What doesn’t add up to me from Chelsea’s side is, if our interest was genuine for Colwill why have they gone and sent him on loan when they could have used him to reduce the fee?

The player may prefer the south coast 

 

who knows ??

[FoxesWalk]

11 minutes ago, Bert said:

We’d accept £85m. We must also remember that then brings the fee down to £68m. 

Is the sell on clause not 20% of the profit? If it’s the whole fee then Puel played a blinder 

Edited 5 August 2022 by FoxesWalk

[weller54]

4 minutes ago, Collymore said:

The thought of having money to spend weeks from the transfer deadline sends shivers down my spine. We're not a club that has ever filled me with confidence working under tight deadlines. Just look at the Kasper situation -  every day that ticks where we haven't signed the backup keeper tells me it's quite possible that we hadn't even planned the replacement when they will have known for months or maybe even a year that they'd be in this position. 

 

 

Finances tight so can't see us signing a GK. Iversen will be given the gig.

 

[Bert]

6 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Surely it is 20% of profit rather than 20% of the whole fee to Saint-Etienne? So would be £75m

 

I don't think you ever see the latter

I’m not sure. But either way we won’t be seeing the full fee. 

6 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

So with Cucurella (62m) that take Chelsea spending to 160m odd. 

 

Be surprised to see the spending another 85m, that's would be a whopping 245m in one window excluding other targets they have been linked with.

 

 

Bare in mind that due to their sanctions, they’ll have plenty of room to play with FFP regulations because it’s over a certain amount of time isn’t it. 

[SecretPro]

This is FOOKING RIDICULOUS now - I need to know whether he's likely to play on Sunday as if he isn't I need to bin him from ym Fantasy team

[whoareyaaa]

30 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

If Lil Wes goes, Cags will come in and be phenomenal again.

 

Tellin yoh

Yup we will be fine, Fofona is a great player but 80m we should be looking at taking.

[jv1]

2 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

This is FOOKING RIDICULOUS now - I need to know whether he's likely to play on Sunday as if he isn't I need to bin him from ym Fantasy team

he wont play sunday- phantom injury

[Chelmofox]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

Surely it is 20% of profit rather than 20% of the whole fee to Saint-Etienne? So would be £75m

 

I don't think you ever see the latter

Yes - my understanding its on profit. As much as he is the bees knees, they won't offer 100mil. He's another good season away from getting near that and as last season was somewhat cobbled together i just can't see Chelsea stretching to it. I think 85 ish will be the ceiling. And i think we will take that.

 

On a separate note, this is the first season i've paid much attention to what goes on twitter. Its bloody horrible. All the the 'Wes belongs in a Chelsea shirt' bollocks is nauseating.  

[Collymore]

Just now, weller54 said:

Finances tight so can't see us signing a GK. Iversen will be given the gig.

 

I mean I agree, I even questioned in another thread whether we actually needed a new keeper and many posters came back and gave good logical explanations to why we did. So I'd be very surprised if we didn't sign one but not surprised if we have only just started looking now.

[FoxesWalk]

1 minute ago, SecretPro said:

This is FOOKING RIDICULOUS now - I need to know whether he's likely to play on Sunday as if he isn't I need to bin him from ym Fantasy team

Why would you pick him in fantasy anyway? We have 2x 4.0 keepers and Justin/Castagne pretty nailed at full back for the same price as Fofana if you wanted one of our defenders  

[SecretPro]

2 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

Why would you pick him in fantasy anyway? We have 2x 4.0 keepers and Justin/Castagne pretty nailed at full back for the same price as Fofana if you wanted one of our defenders  

True that

[Chelmofox]

6 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Finances tight so can't see us signing a GK. Iversen will be given the gig.

 

Is Iversen not a GK?

[Sharpe's Fox]

Signing Fofana was a massive pain and keeping him or letting him go is even more of one. More drama with this lad than going out with a woman with kids.

[coolhandfox]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

I’m not sure. But either way we won’t be seeing the full fee. 

Bare in mind that due to their sanctions, they’ll have plenty of room to play with FFP regulations because it’s over a certain amount of time isn’t it. 

Fair point

[weller54]

4 minutes ago, Collymore said:

I mean I agree, I even questioned in another thread whether we actually needed a new keeper and many posters came back and gave good logical explanations to why we did. So I'd be very surprised if we didn't sign one but not surprised if we have only just started looking now.

Just think there's bigger priorities in different positions!

Iversen should get a chance now to prove himself.

[ARM1968]

22 minutes ago, Bert said:

Not that easy or simple when it’s that amount of money along with a players head that’s been turned. 

No Bert, agreed. However we do not need to sell him and we don’t know how badly his head has been turned. A good season again, which he will have, sees £100 million as the price next summer. He will get over the disappointment- we all do in life. 

[turtmcfly]

17 minutes ago, Bert said:

I’m not sure. But either way we won’t be seeing the full fee. 

Bare in mind that due to their sanctions, they’ll have plenty of room to play with FFP regulations because it’s over a certain amount of time isn’t it. 

 

Keep seeing the question about sell on clause basis. 

 

The concept that someone would sign a 'sell on clause' to include the full amount just beggars belief. Surely the point of one is for the selling club to hedge to grab some of the future potential they're losing, and for the buying club to offset payment now for larger payment later and one which only kicks in if the player is a success.

 

Obviously I don't know every case where a sell on clause has been agreed, and I'm not saying that it's not possible someone buying a player has been stupid enough to agree to a full amount clause, but if we've agreed to one I'll eat a bowl of Bird's custard

 

 

Edited 5 August 2022 by turtmcfly

[StanSP]

17 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

This is FOOKING RIDICULOUS now - I need to know whether he's likely to play on Sunday as if he isn't I need to bin him from ym Fantasy team

Keep him in regardless. You get a good defender in Leicester or Chelsea colours... 

[LCFCABC]

34 minutes ago, Bert said:

We’d accept £85m. We must also remember that then brings the fee down to £68m. 

[Hamilton Fox]

32 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

So with Cucurella (62m) that take Chelsea spending to 160m odd. 

 

Be surprised to see the spending another 85m, that's would be a whopping 245m in one window excluding other targets they have been linked with.

 

 

They did spend £3bn or so buying right, no one’s spending that much if they are not going to give it a go

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, AjcW said:

On the third. If we GENUINELY cannot flog them in some way or another, why are we determined to be so nice and keep them as part of a squad?

 

What happened to the days where people who hadn't performed and couldn't be sold had to play with the U21's? I'm sick of us being so nicey nice to everyone, every player, every club we deal with. 

....in this instance we are not being nice!!!

Keeping them on the books means we continue to pay their wages in this financial year, buying out their contracts means, we will have to stump up loyalty bonuses as they have not asked to be released by the club. There will be a tidy sum having to be put aside from our available budget to put this into practice. With the transfer budget now reduced, we will seek to bring in other players who also have wages we will need to pay, all in the same financial year. We will have a heavy wage bill to meet and because it will not be offset by an incoming transfer fee, along with our present situation, it is not a good option to take on.

  

Edited 5 August 2022 by sacreblueits442
Update

[whoareyaaa]

Sell Fofona get youri and soy to sign a new deal and let's go win the league 

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, AjcW said:

On the third. If we GENUINELY cannot flog them in some way or another, why are we determined to be so nice and keep them as part of a squad?

 

What happened to the days where people who hadn't performed and couldn't be sold had to play with the U21's? I'm sick of us being so nicey nice to everyone, every player, every club we deal with. 

Would you rather the U21's were used for all that development talent we have? Put the 100mil training facilities into good use, rather than use it to piss senior players off? 

[Tanya]

I cant believe we only got to see Wes for one season in a Leicester shirt.