Transfer Talk Topic

[Miguelito07]

2 minutes ago, Ham said:

 

 

wowsers (if true)

[ROTG]

1 minute ago, Dale86 said:

I agree, sorry to see him go. Not sure he was ever utilised correctly but also unsure on just what his best position is. Undoubtedly a talented player, with time on his side, it's a shame he's gone to a rival.

4 coaches in 3 seasons doesn’t help. 

 it will be interesting to see if Kai replacement can be as influential in delivering silverware and get to competition finals in 3 seasons 

[Sleeping Dave]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Then why is he still here?

Maybe plenty would pay £8m for him if that didn't involve giving him £200k a week for 4 or 5 years. It's crystal clear that clubs were not lining up to do this. 

Is it? He was on his way last season only for us to fuck it up last minute so he had to stay. He's been on his way for some time. Of course his wages would have been a problem (if he expected to keep it), but the fee in itself of £8m is no big deal at all. 

[Sleeping Dave]

53 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I'm not as overjoyed by selling Havertz as it seems lots of Chelsea fans are. Ultimately he wants to go, but I think he is a better player and harder worker than he gets credit for.

Wonder if he'll learn to finish now?

I wouldn't have mind keeping him around as rotation option at AM and S2. But he isn't better than that imo and I'm at loss how Arsenal are ready to fork out £60m on him... Madness, whatever reputation he came here with has been seriously tarnished. The people who saw him as a generational talent surely don't hold that view anymore. So. It's a ballsy move by Arsenal. If he flops (i.e. performs on par with what he did here) they will be under heavy criticism from their fans for this move. Essentially I'm kind of happy that we have the balls to sell him despite the facts in the link above. He isn't good enough to be our pillar going forward. 

[Sleeping Dave]

42 minutes ago, Ham said:

 

 

Maybe they threw in free burgers in the deal? 

[chara]

Over simplified view from me I'm sure...I don't recall issues regarding players being recruited over here on the two "launch" occasions and no questioning of players moving to China a little while back..

To be in a position to raise the standard of a National League may be enviable but in itself not illegal ....a valid argument regarding wealth sourcing is not the same as the principal involved at the game level recruiting etc. anywhere.

Both Newcastle and Citeh are the beneficiaries of financial investment overload and such investment may well be open to question but the actual game transactions are within the "rules"

Chelsea nearly got destroyed because HMG disapproved of RA's financial base.....will they step in and use the same sort of rationale to stop the Saudi purchases?

(We know the answer to that..already answered.)

Gary N?...hmm perhaps he feels a bit envious that he missed the newly arrived latest gravy train for past best sale date players?

Again over simplified but........

[Original 21]

Well he came. Now he’s going…

[Miguelito07]

1 minute ago, Original 21 said:

Well he came. Now he’s going…

that's a loan no?

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, Original 21 said:

Well he came. Now he’s going…

I'd imagine this would be a loan move?

[thevelourfog]

28 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Is it? He was on his way last season only for us to fuck it up last minute so he had to stay. He's been on his way for some time. Of course his wages would have been a problem (if he expected to keep it), but the fee in itself of £8m is no big deal at all. 

On his way ... On loan. For 6 months.

Look, I said I didn't think we'd get £8m for him without a Saudi club coming in.  Because clubs obviously factor what wages they have to pay into what fees they offer selling clubs. I didn't say anything about what he is "worth" or what value I think he has. If you want to argue £8m is no big deal while also accepting wages would be a problem, fine. Seems a bit having your cake and eating it too, to me.

[chara]

I seem to see a bit of "The dog in a manger" syndrome through the transfer discussions.

I guess we all are a bit concerned that any player who didn't quite make it at Chelsea may go elsewhere and blossom...

Havertz, Pulisic and Ziyech never quite justified their transfer fee and have not featured significantly, for whatever reason, in recent times nor seem destined to in the future...

Add KK Lukaku Mendy to the mix and on recent and not so recent form is there any concrete reason to include them in forward plans?

CHO and RLC were "coming" players but again for whatever reasons are yesterday potentials only...unfortunate injuries but still in the move on category

To keep any player "just in case" they come back to haunt us is not a sensible approach!

KDB/Salah at first glance appear to be prime examples but both were not the same players they became ,eventually, after leaving Chelsea...most of the players listed above came with a hefty fee and "reputation".

Great,very good and good players have moved on over the years with regrets at the time but Chelsea remains (no thanks to HMG!)....Osgood.Hazard.Zola..the list goes on for ever...do any of the players listed above and throughout the topic come anywhere near the level of those three?

 

 

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, chara said:

I seem to see a bit of "The dog in a manger" syndrome through the transfer discussions.

I guess we all are a bit concerned that any player who didn't quite make it at Chelsea may go elsewhere and blossom...

Havertz, Pulisic and Ziyech never quite justified their transfer fee and have not featured significantly, for whatever reason, in recent times nor seem destined to in the future...

Add KK Lukaku Mendy to the mix and on recent and not so recent form is there any concrete reason to include them in forward plans?

CHO and RLC were "coming" players but again for whatever reasons are yesterday potentials only...unfortunate injuries but still in the move on category

To keep any player "just in case" they come back to haunt us is not a sensible approach!

KDB/Salah at first glance appear to be prime examples but both were not the same players they became ,eventually, after leaving Chelsea...most of the players listed above came with a hefty fee and "reputation".

Great,very good and good players have moved on over the years with regrets at the time but Chelsea remains (no thanks to HMG!)....Osgood.Hazard.Zola..the list goes on for ever...do any of the players listed above and throughout the topic come anywhere near the level of those three?

 

 

I'm conflicted on Havertz but the rest are fine and I'd prefer Mount stay but that bird has flown 

[Original 21]

4 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

The Daily Mail are claiming that PIF are "major investors" in Clearlake.  That simply isn't true, because if they were, questions would have been raised when Boehly & Co took over, given PIF essentially own Newcastle. Such a conflict of interest would have been flagged up then. There are clearly links between the two, but given the nature of Clearlake's business, that's hardly unusual. I've read elsewhere figures of around 5% of Clearlake's investments coming from PIF.

I'm sure some commentators will continue to complain, but I'd be very surprised if the PL or FA did anything other than confirm that they looked at Boehly & Cos bid carefully last year, were aware of business dealings with many groups and institutions as part of their commercial operations, and that they could see no conflict of interests.

You have to wonder why PIF would be so keen to help out a rival (ie CFC) rather than helping out the club it owns? Surely that in itself proves there's nothing inherently dodgy going on? Furthermore, it's not as if Chelsea are forcing the players to join the Saudi clubs. Tentative offers have been made. Some players have accepted, others haven't.

The conspiracy theorists will continue to snipe, but there really isn't anything to see here.

“Is Saudi Arabia funding Chelsea?

https://theathletic.com/4624201/2023/06/21/saudi-arabia-chelsea-funding/?source=emp_shared_article

This is behind a paywall but I managed to access the following…

Has PIF invested in Clearlake? Almost certainly.
Does this mean it will write a fat cheque so its Saudi Pro League clubs can give Chelsea £100million for £50m worth of footballers to get the west London club off the FFP hook?

“This feels like a nothing-burger,” says a partner at a different US-based private-equity firm, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect relations and business interests. “Clearlake is an incredible firm — they’ve made a ton of money for their investors. I’m not sure if PIF is a big investor but anyone who has been has been well rewarded.

“Wouldn’t PIF be using Newcastle United if this was their plan, not Chelsea? The reality is all the sovereign-wealth funds are in all the big, global private-equity funds, from Australia to Abu Dhabi, Canada to PIF.”
  
 Jordan Gardner is the former managing partner of a group that invested in Danish side FC Helsingor and is currently a consultant with sports consultancy Twenty First Group.
“People are reading way too much into the connections between PIF, Clearlake and Boehly,” Gardner says. “PIF is one of many, many investors in the entire portfolio of investments with Clearlake. At this level, there are many close relationships between various private-equity funds, sovereign-wealth funds and high-net-worth individuals.
“While the optics don’t look great, I’m sure this entirely comes down to existing relationships between these parties and has nothing to do with PIF’s investment in Clearlake. I don’t see any conflict of interest or conspiracy here whatsoever.”
That is the view in academia, too.
“The allegations don’t tally with the PIF’s modus operandi,” says Dr Christopher Davidson, an expert on the Middle East at the European Centre For International Affairs and the author of several books on the Gulf region. “While the Qatari sovereign-wealth funds have historically been more assertive and willing to use such multi-layered intermediaries, the Saudis are more traditional.
“In regards to why Gulf funds invest in American private-equity firms, the consensus is they are mostly after a more adventurous component for their portfolios beyond ‘safe’ investments in Western blue-chip companies, UK real estate and so on.”
And Philippou, who made the earlier point about “actual and perceived” conflicts of interest, believes this one is more the latter than the former.
“Yes, Chelsea have clearly been getting creative recently, such as longer contracts for amortisation purposes, but it’s also the case that a number of clubs — not just Chelsea — have been trying to shed some of their players for a while,” she explains.
“However, these sellers have faced difficulties as there are a very limited number of clubs able to afford them. It’s mainly been other Premier League clubs and a handful of the usual European suspects. But then Saudi Arabia declared that it is now a buying market and its clubs may be open to buying some of these unwanted but expensive players.”

Is Saudi Arabia football's new dumping ground - or a new frontier?
Neither the club nor the Premier League wanted to comment on the speculation about why SPL clubs might be looking to buy Chelsea players but both parties wanted to make it clear that the new owners at Stamford Bridge were carefully vetted for potential conflicts of interest by the league last year as part of the usual change of control process, and both the club and Clearlake have repeatedly, but privately, said no Saudi money was involved in the takeover.
 It should also be noted that under Premier League rules, all transactions, whether they are between associated parties or not, over the value of £1million are now checked to make sure they do not exceed “market value”. So, if one club were lucky enough to convince another to spend three times as much money on a player as the market thinks he is really worth, they could be told they cannot accept that windfall.
So, to recap, once we have actually considered the evidence properly, we probably have a sovereign-wealth fund investing in a very successful private-equity firm, along with lots of other sovereign-wealth funds and big global investors. This investment might be a big number but it will be a small percentage of the total pot and Saudi Arabia does not have a reputation for bossing private-equity firms about.
We have a club who are very popular in the Middle East and have several well-known players they badly need to get off the books, and we have a newly-flush league that is desperate to attract recognisable stars to raise the overall standard and profile of its competition.

[Miguelito07]

 

[Holymoly]

1 hour ago, Original 21 said:

Well he came. Now he’s going…

To be honest one of the Fofanas need to go to avoid confusion.

[Holymoly]

5 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

The Daily Mail are claiming that PIF are "major investors" in Clearlake. 

I'd be surprised if the Arabs weren't investing in the Clearlake investment portfolio. I wouldn't mind betting that most of the other premier league owners have investments in it.

[Backbiter]

2 hours ago, ChelseaJambo said:

 

There's two exemptions. Leverkusen and Wolfsburg.

 

Edit: that I know of anyway. May be more.

You're right about those two:

Quote

Bayer Leverkusen and Wolfsburg are two special cases in the Bundesliga, based on the fact that investors who have had an interest in a club for more than 20 years can be granted an exemption from the 50+1 rule.

Leverkusen was founded in 1904 by employees of German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which was based in the city. Affiliated with the local autoworks, meanwhile, VfL Wolfsburg was founded in 1945, just seven years after the city itself was created to house Volkswagen workers busy assembling the famous Beetle or “people’s car”. Those two clubs have always been owned by the respective companies, long before their arrivals in the Bundesliga, and are therefore exempt - not that all fan groups agree with that rule.

 

[ROTG]

45 minutes ago, chara said:

Havertz, Pulisic and Ziyech never quite justified their transfer fee

So winning the CL, Super cup, world club champions did not justify their transfer fee.  Let’s see if the £600m new kids on the block can deliver anyone of those trophies during their time at the club.  

[BMox81]

39 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I'm conflicted on Havertz but the rest are fine and I'd prefer Mount stay but that bird has flown 

One could argue as mentioned the manager turnaround but most players at Chelsea deal have to with that but it’s nothing to be conflicted about imo-hailed as a generational talent of which he was not, flattered to deceive more often than not.

Certainly not going to lose any sleep with him leaving even if it is to Arsenal.

[Original 21]

Lukaku saga is going to be fun…

[Ham]

2 minutes ago, Original 21 said:

Lukaku saga is going to be fun…

Back to Cobham. Either plays or rots in the reserves until he understands the purpose of signing a contract.  

 

[ROTG]

6 minutes ago, Ham said:

Back to Cobham. Either plays or rots in the reserves until he understands the purpose of signing a contract.  

 

I doubt he will give a poop either way, he’s still getting £350k per week plus bonuses. 

[Mark Kelly]

2 minutes ago, ROTG said:

I doubt he will give a poop either way, he’s still getting £350k per week plus bonuses. 

I really can't understand why you get so much pleasure from Lukaku and Inter having the club over. 

Had this happened under the TBSD you'd be chomping at the bit to dig them out. 

 

[Ham]

5 minutes ago, ROTG said:

I doubt he will give a poop either way, he’s still getting £350k per week plus bonuses. 

We were paying a fair proportion of that for inter.  He might feel that it's best to be trying hard for the Chelsea first team than rotting.  His ego won't allow that. 

Get him away from inter.  That's all I care about. 

[Ham]

ANOTHER WINGER!!!