Axel Disasi

[Canterbury Palace]

If he wants to come then this should have been negotiated at the same time as Lacroix.

So what's the delay? Club or player?

If Chelsea are playing hard ball then why did we agree to sell Lacroix?

If the player is hoping for something better then I don't want him. The Palace model should be players who want to play for the club, not players who have decided to settle for second best. (That's Everton and West Ham) 😀

Not sure if it's relevant but UEFA have a new rule where if two clubs sell each other players within 45 days of each other, it is classified financially as a swap deal rather than two separate sales.

So, for example, if we are looking for more wiggle room with PSR, we might want to buy Disasi outside that window so that the Lacroix fee goes onto our figures.

 

[Willo]

Not sure if it's relevant but UEFA have a new rule where if two clubs sell each other players within 45 days of each other, it is classified financially as a swap deal rather than two separate sales.

So, for example, if we are looking for more wiggle room with PSR, we might want to buy Disasi outside that window so that the Lacroix fee goes onto our figures.

PSR has been replaced by SCR (Squad Cost Ratio).

 

[taylors lovechild]

I reckon he'll come in on loan with an obligation to buy based on appearances, or something like that. If we buy him now, then the £15-20 million being floated in the rumour pages would seem reasonable, but nothing more. Get him for now, and Le Guen for the future, and that's the defence sorted.

 

[Badger11]

Not sure if it's relevant but UEFA have a new rule where if two clubs sell each other players within 45 days of each other, it is classified financially as a swap deal rather than two separate sales.

So, for example, if we are looking for more wiggle room with PSR, we might want to buy Disasi outside that window so that the Lacroix fee goes onto our figures.

If correct that would make sense.

 

[BromleyMonkey]

I reckon he'll come in on loan with an obligation to buy based on appearances, or something like that. If we buy him now, then the £15-20 million being floated in the rumour pages would seem reasonable, but nothing more. Get him for now, and Le Guen for the future, and that's the defence sorted.

Until we see them perform 🤣

 

[Plaistow Eagle]

28. How much are we paying? 30 million? And no resale value? I'm not a fan of these signings we are making for big bucks and potentially no resale.

If we’re paying £30M why not go back in for Matsima - younger with potential resale value.

On Desai - if we were interested why not do as part of the Lacroix deal..??

 

[BromleyMonkey]

If we’re paying £30M why not go back in for Matsima - younger with potential resale value.

On Desai - if we were interested why not do as part of the Lacroix deal..??

Probably because he’s going back to West Ham on a permanent deal

 

[doombear]

If correct that would make sense.

It is correct. It's not in our interest to buy him now but it is in Chelsea's to sell him. To get round the problem and buy him immediately we need to loan him with either an option to buy or a conditional obligation to buy. A straightforward loan with obligation is treated like a swap so there has to be conditions attached to the loan. They don't need to be complex just something like "if he makes 10 starts".

 

[palace99]

I reckon he'll come in on loan with an obligation to buy based on appearances, or something like that. If we buy him now, then the £15-20 million being floated in the rumour pages would seem reasonable, but nothing more. Get him for now, and Le Guen for the future, and that's the defence sorted.

I agree.

He's clearly not our 1st choice but we need a big CB in the centre if we are to play 343 so he'll be ideal.

With his age and high wages a loan with an obligation if he plays x games would make sense.

However, £15m max IMHO.

We have a young defence - Canvot and Riad are still 22 or under and have limited game time. If we buy the young French lad too we clearly need some experience in there. Not sure Richards can take on that role.

 

[eritheagle]

Not sure if it's relevant but UEFA have a new rule where if two clubs sell each other players within 45 days of each other, it is classified financially as a swap deal rather than two separate sales.

So, for example, if we are looking for more wiggle room with PSR, we might want to buy Disasi outside that window so that the Lacroix fee goes onto our figures.

But isn't 45 days after lacroix’s sale after the transfer window has closed?

Chelsea bought rogers and then villa got garnacho a few days or a week after. I think, and i may be wrong, you are allowed one buy each but then it's 45 days wait til next one. This has stopped the two clubs from making another purchase off one another.

 

[BuzzBeats]

But isn't 45 days after lacroix’s sale after the transfer window has closed?

Chelsea bought rogers and then villa got garnacho a few days or a week after. I think, and i may be wrong, you are allowed one buy each but then it's 45 days wait til next one. This has stopped the two clubs from making another purchase off one another.

This is where a loan with an option/obligation to buy becomes sensible. A bit like the Guessand deal, or the lesser mentioned Uche deal.

 

[Elphers40]

We’re going to need to replace leadership and experience in our back line. I thought he did very well at Wet Spam and if they’d have brought him in at the beginning of the season they might well have survived.
He looked strong, calm and assured on the ball in all of the games I watched and have to say the fact that he’s already had that big money move to a “Big club” and it didn’t work out might see him keen to settle down and enjoy his football in a stable environment…..at least for a couple of seasons!

Some have mentioned his age - but I think a blend of ages is essential and the resale aspect can sometimes get trumped by the more immediate need for quality and experience.

There’s a lot to like in this deal.

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

What about your Chelsea mates? Remember, at West Ham he replaced Kilman

I've only got 1 Chelsea mate and he can't remember 🙂

 

[Eagleman13]

We’re going to need to replace leadership and experience in our back line. I thought he did very well at Wet Spam and if they’d have brought him in at the beginning of the season they might well have survived.
He looked strong, calm and assured on the ball in all of the games I watched and have to say the fact that he’s already had that big money move to a “Big club” and it didn’t work out might see him keen to settle down and enjoy his football in a stable environment…..at least for a couple of seasons!

Some have mentioned his age - but I think a blend of ages is essential and the resale aspect can sometimes get trumped by the more immediate need for quality and experience.

There’s a lot to like in this deal.

We have already got 'leadership' in our back line, Richards. He has Captained the USMNT & is currently vice-captain of them, so, experience & leadership.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

We have already got 'leadership' in our back line, Richards. He has Captained the USMNT & is currently vice-captain of them, so, experience & leadership.

He'd be my choice. He's also confident in dealing with the media.

 

[Elphers40]

We have already got 'leadership' in our back line, Richards. He has Captained the USMNT & is currently vice-captain of them, so, experience & leadership.

I agree with you there Eagleman - but he’s unlikely to play all 60 (potentially) games and if he got injured we’d be exposed in that respect. We must improve our squad depth - we got lucky last season with most of our back line avoiding injuries - but there were times when fatigue took its toll and cost us points from a winning position.

 

[ASCPFC]

I agree with you there Eagleman - but he’s unlikely to play all 60 (potentially) games and if he got injured we’d be exposed in that respect. We must improve our squad depth - we got lucky last season with most of our back line avoiding injuries - but there were times when fatigue took its toll and cost us points from a winning position.

He does tend to get the odd injury every season. He's not the worst for it but he's also not the best.

 

[pssguy]

He'd be my choice. He's also confident in dealing with the media.

More than dealing with Lukaku, that's for sure

 

[Caterham]

But isn't 45 days after lacroix’s sale after the transfer window has closed?

Chelsea bought rogers and then villa got garnacho a few days or a week after. I think, and i may be wrong, you are allowed one buy each but then it's 45 days wait til next one. This has stopped the two clubs from making another purchase off one another.

According to the podcast I was listening to - the reason that it took a week was because Chelsea & Villa had to negotiate the conditions under which the Ganacho loan could take place, under the 45 day rule mentioned above & because of the cods up experienced by the Liverpool boy Harvey Elliot last season, the conditions of any loan now need to carry sufficient jeopardy to be considered as "not a done deal", for example its no longer enough to say we will buy him if he makes 10 starts, or plays some part in at least 10 games, which could be considered as pretty much certain (So its really a permanent transfer dressed up to look like a loan deal) this season, more acceptable conditions might be - 10 PL starts where the player plays at least 75 minutes in each of those games & scores at least 5 goals during the season, or some such wording which is acceptable to UEFA & both clubs -

So the same would apply to us if we take a Chelsea player during this window.

 

[JHB]

According to the podcast I was listening to - the reason that it took a week was because Chelsea & Villa had to negotiate the conditions under which the Ganacho loan could take place, under the 45 day rule mentioned above & because of the cods up experienced by the Liverpool boy Harvey Elliot last season, the conditions of any loan now need to carry sufficient jeopardy to be considered as "not a done deal", for example its no longer enough to say we will buy him if he makes 10 starts, or plays some part in at least 10 games, which could be considered as pretty much certain (So its really a permanent transfer dressed up to look like a loan deal) this season, more acceptable conditions might be - 10 PL starts where the player plays at least 75 minutes in each of those games & scores at least 5 goals during the season, or some such wording which is acceptable to UEFA & both clubs -

So the same would apply to us if we take a Chelsea player during this window.

Our clauses would probably be “must get at least one serious injury and either score a comedy own goal or create two goal for opponents when attempting back passes”