Adrien Silva

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimmy Lad

Well-Known Member
It seemed to me very odd that Silva was completely frozen out of the first team picture. I agree he struggled and in many respects looked out of his depth, but it got me wondering if there was more to it than meets the eye. He was/is clearly a talented player (Portuguese international) which he had yet to fulfil with us.

Somebody (on here I think) mentioned last week that if he played another game for us that we would have to fork out another £5 million of his fee to Lisbon which, if true, would make his absence from all games more sense. I believe that most payments (if not all) of transfer fees are structured in stages and include many variables (including appearances) which will impact on the final fee paid. It then got me thinking further into our own sale of Danny Drinkwater to Chelsea for a reported fee of £35 million. He has played a grand total of 12 games for them. This in turn could mean that we may have only received a fraction of that money for the same reasons given above.

Perhaps due to FFP reasons our lack of use of Silva may have been inextricably linked to Chelsea's lack of use of Drinkwater. Silva may have been a victim of circumstance. Allied to this the recent culling of the squad without replacement also points to us having to tighten of belts to meet FFP (not to mention the costs of the new training ground/stadium etc).

Not important, I know, just got me thinking!
 
It seemed to me very odd that Silva was completely frozen out of the first team picture. I agree he struggled and in many respects looked out of his depth, but it got me wondering if there was more to it than meets the eye. He was/is clearly a talented player (Portuguese international) which he had yet to fulfil with us.

Somebody (on here I think) mentioned last week that if he played another game for us that we would have to fork out another £5 million of his fee to Lisbon which, if true, would make his absence from all games more sense. I believe that most payments (if not all) of transfer fees are structured in stages and include many variables (including appearances) which will impact on the final fee paid. It then got me thinking further into our own sale of Danny Drinkwater to Chelsea for a reported fee of £35 million. He has played a grand total of 12 games for them. This in turn could mean that we may have only received a fraction of that money for the same reasons given above.

Perhaps due to FFP reasons our lack of use of Silva may have been inextricably linked to Chelsea's lack of use of Drinkwater. Silva may have been a victim of circumstance. Allied to this the recent culling of the squad without replacement also points to us having to tighten of belts to meet FFP (not to mention the costs of the new training ground/stadium etc).

Not important, I know, just got me thinking!
Or, he's as rubbish as he looked.
 
In a way it is. He wanted lots of money so he signed for a club he was never, ever going to play for in a mllion years ;)
reportedly turned down offers to move on loan too as it would require a pay cut, that's his choice but it shows where his priorities lie
 
reportedly turned down offers to move on loan too as it would require a pay cut, that's his choice but it shows where his priorities lie
Why would a loan move require a pay cut? His Chelsea contract would still be in effect. Sounds fake.
 
Why would a loan move require a pay cut? His Chelsea contract would still be in effect. Sounds fake.

It doesn't have to but if Chelsea don't want to pay any of his wages whilst he's out on loan and the loaning club don't want to pay his full wage, he would have to take a pay cut if he did want to play.

He doesn't have to do this though which is probably why he has stayed there.
 
Why would a loan move require a pay cut? His Chelsea contract would still be in effect. Sounds fake.
Chelsea didn't want to pay his wages during the loan and no club would pay him what he's on. Just repeating what i heard on a number of podcasts during the transfer window

It's happened with other players that were stuck in limbo at their club but the loaning club couldn't match their wages so they took a cut in order to get out and earn a permanent transfer elsewhere
 
Still sounds fake, a club can’t just opt out of paying what they owe. I don’t know for certain but I’m reasonably sure it’s not a thing.
 
Still sounds fake, a club can’t just opt out of paying what they owe. I don’t know for certain but I’m reasonably sure it’s not a thing.
happens all the time, its all part of the loan contract, we do it ourselves with people like Slimani
 
Of course not, but they can say that if a player goes out on loan, the loaning club has to pay all the wages.

If the loaning club doesn't want to do this then it doesn't happen unless the player is willing to only receive whatever the loaning club will pay.

Nothing underhand or illegal at all.

Dismissing it as 'fake' just makes you sound as credible as Trump or other feckwits that like to use the phrase.
 
Still sounds fake, a club can’t just opt out of paying what they owe. I don’t know for certain but I’m reasonably sure it’s not a thing.

A club can't opt out of paying what they owe. But they can give players the opportunity to go on loan and earn less.

Loan deals are often held up these days because players (and agents) have to agree terms with the club they're being loaned to.
 
Silva's next EPL appearance for us would be his 15th - it's possible to imagine a deal that paid out at a number like that. Drinkwater's would be his 13th, which seems less likely
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top