12 Aug 2023 13:42:37
Any idea Ed's why Chelsea haven't just matched the Liverpool offer or whatever Brighton are asking for?

{Ed002's Note - They have two other transfers they are also dealing with today and have been in discussions with Brighton.}

1.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 13:47:48
What's to discuss? If they want the player they need to out bid us Ed? Simple stuff isn't it? Something smells incredibly fishy about this.

{Ed002's Note - What do you think is "fishy" about it. There is plenty to discuss.}

2.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 13:52:42
Melissa Reddy saying FFP and P/ S rules are a consideration and that Chelsea had hoped we would walk away and they could negotiate better terms. which is why we haven't. This is a complete farce in my eyes. We have been messed around royally here. So come on Chelsea. you know what you need to do.

{Ed002's Note - FFP and Sustainability rules are a consideration for all clubs.}

3.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 13:59:18
I get that Ed and appreciate your replies but what I don't understand is everyone is saying Chelsea are struggling to offer as they risk breaching FFP etc. They have had long enough to sort this out. Off loading Kepa now I see. The whole thing has been done poorly on both sides but Chelsea are under the spotlight now. When i say fishy, it just doesn't add up what's happened and what is happening now. I appreciate I'm not in your position of knowledge but there are a lot of professionals calling Chelsea out on this. No smoke etc.

{Ed002's Note - Chelsea did not want to pay more that £100M that Brighton wanted for Ceicedo - it was not related to to FFP. There has been interest in Kepa Arrizabalaga from three sides - and there is nothing "fishy" in that.}

4.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 14:15:01
can't see how there is an FFP issue with signing MC for 110m when they are also looking to sign Lavia as well.

5.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 14:15:59
So why haven't they bid more?

{Ed002's Note - I don't get your problem - you seem to have convinced yourself that there is some issue which simply doesn't exist. Chelsea and Brighton need to discuss the offer and a number of other matters - and that is ongoing and no doubt will be concluded shortly.}

6.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 14:59:33
The is some reports stating that Chelsea want the payments spread over 6 or so years while the selling club want an a more up front loaded payment which I assume Liverpool have offered, hence the being of the mindset they have a deal with Liverpool, all waste of everybodys time if he doesn't want to play for us.
Last 24 hours has been ridiculous.

{Ed002's Note - No, there is no such proposal. That will be from those who have misunderstood the amatorization in the accounts - just igore anything about the money.}

7.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:09:21
Hi Ed002, heard from SkySports that Chelsea will bid 115m before the game tomorrow. Do you see that Chelsea will finally end this Caicedo saga with this bid?

{Ed002's Note - That will be up to Liverpool.}

8.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:14:41
So Ed, Chelsea are trying to sell their keeper to raise funds and you say ‘there’s nothing fishy about that’. Well I for one definitely smell a kepa…. I’ll get my coat.

9.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:15:11
I agree Ed002, this is why Chelsea have been offering 7/ 8 year contracts as a common practice since the new owner came on the scene. It allows them to reduce the cost of the player by spreading the payments across the length of the contract.

Nothing wrong with it, just smart business and allowing the finances to be spread thinner in order to keep under any requirements that may be in place by a governing body.

{Ed002's Note - No, you don't understand - just ignore the finances. The payments are not spread over that period. Absolutely hopeless.}

10.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:32:06
Talking rubbish yesterday, a hopeless case today, I'm starting to feel the love on this site ?.

11.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:36:54
Thanks Ed002. I doubt Liverpool wants to be dragged into another bidding war, I hope not.

12.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:49:45
What do you mean by that the transfer depends on Liverpool, Ed? Do you think that Liverpool are also considering raising their bid after that next upcoming offer from Chelsea? With all these reports MC seems keen mostly on Chelsea so how can Liverpool get this deal done even if they raise the offer.

Thank you again on all your reports, that whole saga seems so confusing on both sides.

{Ed002's Note - If Liverpool wish to make a further offer there is nothing stopping them.}

13.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:05:17
We should offer the asking price for Lavia and move on.

14.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:10:17
Our offer was already way above what MC is worth IMO. Walk away and let Chelsea pay the £115m it's now going to take land him.

15.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:10:20
If LFC were to up the bid, I think I understand what Ed002 meant by LFC screwing around now ???. They did it with RL and now MC saga. Player wants Chelsea, just let him go if it’s 115m.

16.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 15:56:20
So you reckon that if Liverpool raise another bid Chelsea may back off? With all the fuss that this transfer has become how is that possible if we are talking about 5-10 million pounds above next Chelsea offer.

{Ed002's Note - No, I did not say that.}

17.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:15:36
I can’t understand why we’d want a player who admittedly doesn’t Want to play for Liverpool Football Club?

Why don’t we put in an offer for Marcus Rashford aswel. See if Gary Neville fancies a job on the coaching staff.

Pull out! It shouldn’t even be up for discussion. This summer has been a disaster I’m worried about how we’re running the club personally. We’re a mess.

18.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:19:37
How are Liverpool screwing around with MC? They have the only accepted bid from Brighton.

As for RL we obviously didn't want to pay £50m, which is why they haven't made an offer for that amount to Southampton and tried to negotiate a deal we were happy with.

19.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:02:27
“Everyone” is saying Chelsea are struggling to increase their bid……


But Ed002 has refuted that.

I know whose information I listen to, Ed002 has a history and his source has stood up to scrutiny over years. He says forget about the finances - I would take that advice.

Chelsea not raising their MC bid = fishy
Liverpool not increasing their RL bid =?

It’s about value isn’t it? Clubs place a value on a transfer and negotiate around that.

Thank you Ed002 for keeping us up to date over the last busy few days, I’m sure you have plenty of demands on your time. ?.

{Ed002's Note - Thanks Ron.}

20.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:26:58
Pretty sure that a new cap was I produced meaning transfer payments can only be spread to a maximum of 5 years moving forward, so even if the contract is 8 years, 5 years is the cap. I'm sure it is much more complex than that, but that's the basics, just so people stop going on about Chelsea.

{Ed002's Note - That is for the amortisation, not the payments- just move on from the finances.}

21.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:32:31
Ed002, have liverpool put forward an offer to the player regarding wages etc? If so, Could they increase this to try and convince him?

{Ed002's Note - Well if Chelsea were to make a better offer it wouldn’t help. All the player is doing is keeping his word.}

22.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:34:47
Ed's in your opinion, are both Lavia and MC going to end up at CFC?

{Ed002's Note - I really don’t know but they need two DM players so it is certainly possible.}

23.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:36:47
I am saying if CFC were to bid 115m and we were to continue this bidding war, it will drag on and we will have the Arthur Melo situation.

24.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:45:46
Oh my is this still going on?

Please let it go - no smokescreens, nothing ‘fishy’ just negotiations. We are not talking about what chocolate bar is best value for money - it’s excess of £100 mil.

He wants Chelsea (and why not) and they are negotiating, we should move on anti other targets and let MC and Chelsea get it done - I have no problem with this at all.

Maybe we could move on to other targets for position and maybe just look forward to the game tomorrow - could be a belter or very tentative!

25.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 16:49:04
Ok thanks. Would it be possible he’s just holding out for Chelsea, but if they don’t match our bid, it’s not completely out of the question that he may still come to liverpool? But if Chelsea indeed do make an acceptable offer to Brighton, that’s where the lad will end up… Chelsea’s communication to Brighton is presumably, we’ll make a better bid, but just need to tie up a few loose ends with other imminent arrivals before we can sit and discuss the structure of the deal etc. makes perfect sense to be fair.

{Ed002's Note - It is possible.}

26.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 17:54:27
I may be wrong here because I’m not on twatter where all the truth seems to be but I have not ever heard that Caicedo said he ‘doesn’t want to play for Liverpool’.

I’ve only heard that he prefers Chelsea where he’s thought he was going for the last 3 months or so. So being that Liverpool are in London this weekend (where I believe he is staying at present whilst refusing to train with Brighton) is there not a possibility that Liverpool will get a chance to sell him the project and he might decide to come to Liverpool after all?

Personally I think he’s worth half of what we offered and won’t be the transformative player people seem to think he will be but if he joins I’ll support the lad just like I support everyone else in a red shirt.

27.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 19:06:34
I hope MC comes to Liverpool.

28.) 12 Aug 2023
12 Aug 2023 20:26:15
Right I’ll try and explain amortisation as this is doing my head in. Amortisation is spreading the cost of a player over the life on their contract. Nothing to do with how it’s paid. Over however long of a contract they sign. How they pay for that player is irrelevant. That’s why chelsea were offering 7/ 8 year contracts to begin with as it was spreading the cost into their accounts. It now seems that FIFA / fa whoever it is that decides these things have now got wise to that and capped that ‘spreading’ period to 5 years regardless of how long they sign for .

29.) 13 Aug 2023
13 Aug 2023 01:11:11
Would have thought that the length of the player’s contract is irrelevant to how the transfer payments are made. That one seemed simple.

{Ed001's Note - they are. People are getting mixed up. The fee was just amortised in the accounts over the length of contract, nothing to do with when it is actually paid.}

30.) 13 Aug 2023
13 Aug 2023 16:15:09
The years on the deal likely are being added to reduce the leverage the player may have with outgoing transfers down the road, and from I can tell, that's the extent of it. Still important, but not beyond that.


Amortization and cash are two separate concepts. Amortization is now capped at 5 years by UEFA, so an 8 year deal is no longer used as a maneuver to circumvent the essence of FFP.


The payment schedule is whatever the buying and selling club agree to, and has no impact on FFP. Clubs have to always consider their cash flow, as you obviously need cash to run a company, so this is important. It's going to be appealing and a selling point to a buyer to get more cash up front, and likewise, a selling club needs to be careful not to overextend themselves but could also use this as an advantage if they're currently in a good cash position. Most PL clubs are not.