Chelsea Transfer Report: Chelsea Set to Miss out on Hulk
Russian club Zenit St. Petersburg are believed to have put together an offer for the Porto striker—significantly above what Chelsea have offered the 26-year-old—bringing them ahead of the Blues in the pecking order.
According to The Daily Mirror, the Russian club are believed to have offered a £40 million deal for Hulk, who still has four years left on his contract.
Chelsea's hopes of landing Brazilian striker Hulk seem to be over after Zenit St. Peterburg offered to pay £40 million for the striker.
The Blues have refused to budge beyond their £30m valuation of the Porto man, and withdrew from negotiations in the hope that Hulk and his agent would force the Portuguese champions to come back to the table at a more realistic price.
But the involvement of Zenit, who have also offered to throw in Portugal central defender Bruno Alves as part of the deal, blows Chelsea's hopes of a change of heart by Porto out of the water.
After being strongly linked with the European champions, Hulk denied earlier in the transfer window that he was in talks with Chelsea about a deal and stated that he was more than happy to remain at his current club (via ESPN Soccernet).
I have four more years on my contract with Porto, and I'm focusing on the national team. I haven't talked to anyone.
As everyone knows, I don't follow negotiations closely as that will make me lose my focus. I let my agent deal with that stuff.
Thus with Hulk remaining at Porto and then Zenit St. Petersburg moving in ahead of the Blues, it seems that Chelsea have all but conceded defeat in the race to sign the star striker.
Not even Roman Abramovich will match Porto's £60 million valuation of Hulk, which is what it would likely take to force the club into selling their best player (per ESPN Soccernet).
Chelsea might have fallen behind the Russian club as far as the pecking order goes, but in reality, it won't matter what so ever. They weren't going to sign him anyway.
Is Hulk really worth £60 million?
Comment below or hit me up on Twitter: Follow @dantalintyre
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?