Is Valverde twice as good as Caicedo or have Chelsea lost the plot?
The continued and somewhat tedious pursuit of Brighton midfielder Moises Caicedo by Chelsea appears to have taken another twist.
Numerous reports have indicated that Chelsea – determined not to overpay for Caicedo by meeting the Albion’s rumoured £100 million asking price – have come up with a masterstroke alternative of spending £112 mllion on 25-year-old Federico Valverede from Real Madrid instead.
There are three scenarios to consider when looking at this latest development in a saga which has been running all summer.
First, that there is no truth in the story linking the Blues with Valverde. In which case, I apologise for wasting more of your time reading pointless words on Caicedo’s future and the egg is well and truly on your correspondent’s face.
Second, this is an inspired bluff to ensure Brighton lower their demands, see reason and let Chelsea have Caicedo for the price they want to pay.
The prospect of the Albion missing out on £100 million because Chelsea have their eyes on somebody else is meant to shake some sense into Tony Bloom.
As numerous Chelsea fans have observed, Brighton only paid £4.5 million for Caicedo. Their behaviour in demanding such profit is completely outrageous theft.
All the evidence available though suggests that trying to bluff the poker playing Bloom is a pointless exercise. Chelsea might have shown themselves demonstrably stupid since Todd Boehly bought the club last summer, but even they would surely not hit on such a tactic… would they?
The third and final scenario is that the story is true. Chelsea have moved on from an unreasonable fee of £100 million for Caicedo to the better value-for-money option of paying £112 million for an older player with no experience of Premier League football.
There are many reasons to question the logic of Chelsea in switching from Caicedo to Valverde, not least because the player has publicly said he does not want to leave Madrid.
Valverde told reporters from Goal.com when asked about a move to Stamford Bridge: “No, no, I am at Real Madrid. I try to enjoy and value every moment. I want to leave my mark on this team, which is the best in the world, and also continue to win titles for the fans.”
Real’s summer transfer business may admittedly lead to a change of heart. Jude Bellingham and Turkish wonderkid Arda Guler have been brought to the Bernabeu to strengthen a set of midfield options already containing Toni Kroos, Luka Modric, Eduardo Camavinga and Aurelien Tchouameni.
If Valverde fears a lack of first team football and Real want to cash in on a player who may not feature very much, then perhaps a move to Chelsea will materialise.
But choosing Valverde over Caicedo would be less in keeping with Boehly’s alleged vision for prioritising long-term building over short-term success.
Boehly said upon appointing Graham Potter as Blues boss last September: “We look forward to supporting him, his coaching team, and the squad in realising their full potential in the coming months and years.”
Of course, that commitment to time, patience and trusting the process lasted all of seven months before Boehly sacked Potter.
Chelsea have found their vision it a little easier to stick too when it comes to transfer business. They have targeted young players and put them on contracts lasting up to eight years.
Caicedo and Valverde have been linked with five-six year deals with Chelsea. Come the end of a six-year contract, Valverde would be 31 and have limited resale value (Saudi sportwashing apart). Caicedo at the end of a six-year contract would be 27 and fitness permitting, at the peak of his powers.
Chelsea could either expect to recoup the £100 million paid for Caicedo or look forward to a further five years of him at Stamford Bridge. It is no exaggeration to say Caicedo can be a mainstay of the Blues’ midfield for the next decade.
In terms of wages, Valverde is on a reported £150,000 a week at Real. One presumes Chelsea would have to pay at least the same salary to snap him up. Caicedo would be on a lower figure than that.
When you compare the transfer fees, salaries and resale value of the two players, Valverde is going to cost Chelsea around an extra £20 million per year compared to Caicedo. Over a six year contract, the Blues will be paying £120 million more for Valverde.
The only way it therefore makes sense that Boehly is willing to pay £112 million for Valverde but thinks £100 million for Caicedo is extortionate is that Chelsea view Valverde as twice as good as Caicedo.
Valverde is clearly a top player and is coming off the best season of his career at Real – even if the biggest headline he made in 2022-23 was an alleged post-game assault on Villarreal winger Alex Baen.
Chelsea fans have delighted in the news that their club is now targeting Valverde, hailing him a much better option than Caicedo. None of this is sour grapes over Bloom refusing to lower his asking price, of course.
The best way to see through sour grapes is with facts and figures. Do the stats support the contention that Valverde is two, three or four times the player of Caicedo?
Seemingly not. Any Chelsea fans who think the Real midfielder is better would do well to read the detailed analysis of the two on the 1vs1 website.
It concludes: “Given all statistical values we believe that Moises Isaac Caicedo Corozo is the better player at the moment.”
And if the still improving 21-year-old Caicedo is as good or better than Valverde is at the age 25, what about the likely comparison of them both aged 25?
Why then would Chelsea pick the more expensive Valverde over Caicedo? There is clear logic that Boehly believes his club cannot be seen to continue to “give in” to other clubs demands.
Chelsea have already paid well over the odds for the likes of Enzo Fernandez and Marc Cucurella and their scattergun approach has given selling clubs more confidence in holding them to ransom. Hence the logic of walking away from Caicedo.
That has to be weighed up though with the requirement to strengthen a depleted midfield and keep Mauricio Pochettino happy. Buying Valverde bolsters Pochettino’s options whilst showing Chelsea are not going to pay whatever Brighton ask for in the transfer market.
And yet despite all that, an extra £12 million in transfer fee and £20 million per year more on a player four years older than Caicedo who is no better? All to try and prove a point to Brighton and the rest of the football world?
Do they have the phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face” in the United States, Mr Boehly?
Peter Finn
