Tomas Kalas

[WhiteJC]

 
Chelsea priced Fulham out of a permanent move for Tomas Kalas
Defender rejoined Whites on loan this summer, but could have signed a permanent deal

Getting Tomas Kalas back on loan was one of Fulham's key pieces of business this summer.

The 24-year-old was an integral part of the Whites side that made it into the Championship play-off places last season, only to be denied by this weekend's opponents Reading in the two-legged semi-final.

Much like every other Chelsea loan star, Kalas signed a contract extension at Stamford Bridge and then rejoined Fulham on a season-long loan deal, despite interest from relegated Hull City.

And in an interview with ctsport.cz , the Czech international has admitted he only had eyes for Craven Cottage.

He said: "It was my choice. I was waiting for my offers, and Fulham was a priority given the choice. I've been living with the team, especially with the style of football they play. I think it can move on and on.

"Everybody probably heard of Hull, there was also interest from several other clubs, but I really wanted Fulham."

And Kalas has revealed that his parent club priced him, and team-mate Lucas Piazon, out of a permanent move to Fulham.

He added: "Fulham asked about the availability of me and Piazon. Chelsea said two sums that Fulham said was too much for them. And it was done.

"I did not expect that amount when I had the final year of my contract. Chelsea, on the other hand, is not in the position to need to sell players at a price and get some money. It is quite understandable."



http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/chelsea-priced-fulham-out-permanent-13463230

[Tabby]

Good lad that Kalas. Hope we manage to get him on a permanent next season.

[PokerMatt]

Good lad that Kalas. Hope we manage to get him on a permanent next season.

Except the price will surely be higher than the one we couldn't pay this summer, seeing as he'll have three years on his contract instead of one. So we won't get him.

Can't stand Chelsea.

[Tabby]

Good lad that Kalas. Hope we manage to get him on a permanent next season.

Except the price will surely be higher than the one we couldn't pay this summer, seeing as he'll have three years on his contract instead of one. So we won't get him.

Can't stand Chelsea.

Might be possible if we manage to get promoted.

[PokerMatt]

Good lad that Kalas. Hope we manage to get him on a permanent next season.

Except the price will surely be higher than the one we couldn't pay this summer, seeing as he'll have three years on his contract instead of one. So we won't get him.

Can't stand Chelsea.

Might be possible if we manage to get promoted.

But then I'd question paying over the odds for a player who we don't know is good enough for the PL.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tomas, but think we'd be looking for an improvement in defence if we do go up.

[Marcel_Gecov]

Was there not a loan to buy agreement in the first deal? How did they wriggle out of that?

[gezkc]

The question is, why do players like Kalas, who know they're never going to play in Chelsea's first team, continue to sign contract extensions tying them to the club?
Surely they would be better off moving to a club that actually wants them than being farmed out every season?
Big wages I guess...

[Marcel_Gecov]

I'm certain I read there was, but could be wrong. Read so much stuff about Fulham and Fulham's players that it all melts into one.

[aaronmcguigan]

The question is, why do players like Kalas, who know they're never going to play in Chelsea's first team, continue to sign contract extensions tying them to the club?
Surely they would be better off moving to a club that actually wants them than being farmed out every season?
Big wages I guess...

chelsea need a resale value. Kalas needs to play.  The only compromise was a contract and loan, while they hold out for an acceptable figure. If he didn't sign a contract he wouldn't play for anyone , then leave with his stock so low no one would want him .
The loan keeps him in the shop window for all clubs and maximises the chances of exposure to any team who wants to pay the fee

[MJG]

The question is, why do players like Kalas, who know they're never going to play in Chelsea's first team, continue to sign contract extensions tying them to the club?
Surely they would be better off moving to a club that actually wants them than being farmed out every season?
Big wages I guess...

My take on Chelsea this summer is they have told players they can go (but fee is massive) or they can go on loan but only if they sign a long contract.
If they dont sign a contract Chelsea would rather take the hit and let the player kick a ball against a wall for a whole season in Cobham rather than let them play for someone else. Blackmailing them basically. Want to play football...sign here. I wonder if its some accounting thing as well. how they value their 'assets'

[nose]

everything in football seems to have gone mad
the transfer system
stat based transfers
£190M transfers with massive payments to agents
Billions paid by sky and others
pricing ordinary people out of the stadiums
treating us clients not fans
cheating ion the pitch
cheating by the authorities..for 25 years plus I said FIFA was corrup and for 20ish was shouted down
the FA and Premier league are no better but not investigated

too much money not enough integrity

who knows why chelsea keep kalas if they do not intend to ever play him, should not be allowed.

[Milo]

Well...anyway! He's ours for a season! Wooooo

[filham]

The whole transfer system, players wages, wage caps, transfer windows needs to be reviewed.

[grandad]

I suppose to a large extent us supporters must take some of the blame for the money madness.
Supporters who have subscriptions with Sky, have a TV License, buy shirts at phenominal prices are the ones providing clubs with the money.
If every one cancelled their Sky sub for a month panic would set in.
The bubble has to burst sometime. Sooner rather than later is my wish. Let clubs survive on gate receipts, programme sales & matchday food as they had to do before .

[nose]

I suppose to a large extent us supporters must take some of the blame for the money madness.
Supporters who have subscriptions with Sky, have a TV License, buy shirts at phenominal prices are the ones providing clubs with the money.
If every one cancelled their Sky sub for a month panic would set in.
The bubble has to burst sometime. Sooner rather than later is my wish. Let clubs survive on gate receipts, programme sales & matchday food as they had to do before .

i understand your point but do not think the public is to blame as such.
i honestly think the authorities are to blame for not having a stop on the money.... or legislating that a certain proportion of key games are protected and free