Chelsea are ready to cut their losses on out-of-form striker Fernando Torres and will accept an offer of £20m for the Spaniard in January. Their valuation represents a loss of £30m on the fee they paid Liverpool in January of this year.
Two things. One, I'd be shocked if someone paid even £20m right now for Torres. What team, other than Chelsea can or would take that kind of a risk on a player who provides no value at the moment?
Second, I think this type of transaction is what really illustrates the the difference between the haves and the have nots. And this is the same in soccer or even baseball. It's not necessarily that a team can spend big money to get a player, the real difference is that a team like Chelsea can take a loss like this.
As we've seen Liverpool can pop up and splash big money on players at times. But there's no way, even with the new ownership, that they can absorb a £30m loss in one year and feel no pain from it.
It's very similar the Yankees in baseball. Plenty of other teams can spend big money at times, but they're maybe the only one that can sign a guy like Carl Pavano for $40 million, get absolutely nothing from him, and feel no pain.
And I think if there's one thing that ought to be corrected or dealt with as far as finances in football it's this. If Chelsea want to spend £50m on a player, I'm really fine with that. But they should feel some pain if they need to take a £30m loss on him a year later.