Chelsea Transfer News: Blues Are Unlikely to Acquire Radamel Falcao
After much speculation, Radamel Falcao will likely be staying with Atletico Madrid instead of joining Chelsea.
According Harry Harris of ESPN, the club does not want to spend the current asking price of £48 million on the forward. A source told Harris, "Chelsea will never pay such massive prices for a player again."
This refers to the £50 million spent on striker Fernando Torres in 2011. It does not make sense for the team to now turn around and spend a similar amount of money to improve the same part of the field.
Despite the Blues' want for another forward, the team is far from desperate. With six wins and 19 total points, the club already has a comfortable lead in the English Premier League. The defense has been outstanding and only Manchester United has scored more goals.
Still, the team expects the best. After winning the Champions League last year, Chelsea wants to return to that level again in 2013. A draw against Juventus in the first phase is good, but not exceptional.
Chelsea also was able to see how good Radamel Falcao was first-hand at the end of August. The club was defeated 4-1 by Atletico Madrid, with Falcao earning a hat trick in the first half. The Colombian is skillful with the ball, knows how to finish around the net and is still improving.
If the club is able to add a player of this caliber, who knows what it can accomplish.
Falcao has little experience playing against elite competition and it is unknown how he will react in a bigger spotlight.
If this potential deal does fall apart like expected, Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain are also involved. These teams are capable of reaching the asking price, which could be up to £60 million, according to ESPN's Miguel Delaney.
Whichever club ends up with Falcao will have acquired a tremendous talent. However, it will also acquire a very large bill that could likely prevent many future deals.
Hopefully, the decision-makers do not have any regret.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?