Transfer Talk Topic

[ROTG]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Tonali is a baller, but also not the finished article either. Should he settle quickly Newcastle will have arguably one of the best midfields in the league IMO. 

Which league?

[paulw66]

8 hours ago, Blue Kratos said:

I know we've had plenty of duds over the years and I know there are some obvious names I should include but this 10 I've done is based upon players that could have done more than what we got.

 

10.Falcao (United loan should have told us everything.)

9.Sheva (a little harsh but he lost all his pace and his career at Chelsea just faded.)

8. Veron (Never suited to the prem and questionable attitude.)

7. Koulibaly (came 4 years too late.

6. Ziyech ( I was so excited about him and to be fair he did have some moments here and there: his goal against spurs, but over all a one trick pony and didn't have the backbone for English football.)

5. Auba (Happy to collect his cheque and show nothing when he played. No desire or commitment.)

4. SWP (Was so excited about him joining but his limitations were more evident with us.)

3.Bakayoko (passing useless, tackling useless, infact just useless at everything. City got Silva, Liverpool got Fabinho and got a total lemon.)

2.Morata (Hoped he could help us replace Diego and started well but eventually fizzled out, seems to be the story of his career, had such talent but not the mentality.)

Dishonorable mentions.

Rahmen: useless

Drinkwater: useless and English.

Pato: came and went in a blink of an eye.

Maniche: helped inspire us to victory against west ham by getting sent off.

Zappacosta: useless

I know you guys will ask why I've not included Cucurella or Sterling but under the circumstances I want to give these guys one more season before they eventually get binned to sa like the others.

AND FINALLY:

1.Lukaku

At the time I was not convinced when he came back, I saw enough of his first time here and when he went to united from Everton to decide he was so limited in ability.

I said at the time I'd rather keep Tammy rather than splurge a massive fee on somebody who in my opinion wasn't that much superior.

I was told by friends that his time under Conte had made him a far better player than before. Better touch and control.

I don't know how things may have turned out if he never did that interview but having watched him for that second stint I can tell you he still looked the massive legless donkey from 2011.

His attitude is Pogba levels of delusional but atleast Pogba had talent.

Worst part was he cost us £97m and yet all his failures will always be somebody else's fault.

Anyway guys that's my list. Only my thoughts.

 

 

Drinkwater should be no2 on that list. Never was good enough on any level. An absolute shambolic signing for 35m, who then left years later for nothing!

At least some of those on the list, like Morata, we got most of our money back. He also scored some important goals, but he just wasn't cut out for the PL

[Chelsea_Matt]

Just now, paulw66 said:

Drinkwater should be no2 on that list. Never was good enough on any level. An absolute shambolic signing for 35m, who then left years later for nothing!

At least some of those on the list, like Morata, we got most of our money back. He also scored some important goals, but he just wasn't cut out for the PL

Made sense at the time for me as we had NG and Danny Eatfood was on the up. 

[paulw66]

1 minute ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Made sense at the time for me as we had NG and Danny Eatfood was on the up. 

Pound for pound he is arguably the worst.

35m. 5 year contract. played 23 games. left for nothing. 

I'd love (hate) to see the cost per minute, as I expect a chunk of those 23 games were as sub. 

[Mark Kelly]

13 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Pound for pound he is arguably the worst.

35m. 5 year contract. played 23 games. left for nothing. 

I'd love (hate) to see the cost per minute, as I expect a chunk of those 23 games were as sub. 

I think Lukaku has him trumped there , what did he play 20 games? Bought for £97m and we received £8m for loan fees but had to help them pay his wages .

[paulw66]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think Lukaku has him trumped there , what did he play 20 games? Bought for £97m and we received £8m for loan fees but had to help them pay his wages .

44 games and 15 goals.

I'll reserve full judgement depending on what we recoup in the end.

I don't suppose we recovered much on Drinkwater from his loans to Villa, Burnley, Reading, and some tinpot Turkish outfit. 

[asvaberg]

Bogarde, anyone ?

 

[paulw66]

1 minute ago, asvaberg said:

Bogarde, anyone ?

 

Modest outlay. Was a free transfer, even if the wages were high (for the time)

[Mark Kelly]

7 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

44 games and 15 goals.

I'll reserve full judgement depending on what we recoup in the end.

I don't suppose we recovered much on Drinkwater from his loans to Villa, Burnley, Reading, and some tinpot Turkish outfit. 

Wow I am genuinely surprised he played that many games , is this all since we bought him from Inter ?

[paulw66]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Wow I am genuinely surprised he played that many games , is this all since we bought him from Inter ?

Yup. Don't forget we had a LOT of games that season. WCC, plus getting to both domestic cup finals and QF of the CL 

[asvaberg]

4 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Yup. Don't forget we had a LOT of games that season. WCC, plus getting to both domestic cup finals and QF of the CL 

[ROTG]

3 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Yup. Don't forget we had a LOT of games that season. WCC, plus getting to both domestic cup finals and QF of the CL 

When he played he was not as much of a lame duck as some try to push on here. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Pound for pound he is arguably the worst.

35m. 5 year contract. played 23 games. left for nothing. 

I'd love (hate) to see the cost per minute, as I expect a chunk of those 23 games were as sub. 

Note “at the time”. 

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Drinkwater should be no2 on that list. Never was good enough on any level. An absolute shambolic signing for 35m, who then left years later for nothing!

 

Drinkwater was a very important player in a title winning team so I don't put any blame on our transfer dept for signing him. Probably paid too much for him, but all the same, we were buying a player who was proven to be a good premiership player at that time. He was never going to a be a star player for us but he definitely had enough ability to have been  a useful player for us.  A mystery as to why his form completely fell off a cliff the moment he joined us and was never close to being the same player again.

[Mark Kelly]

49 minutes ago, ROTG said:

When he played he was not as much of a lame duck as some try to push on here. 

No he was absolutely brilliant , providing he didn't need to walk, run or shift his position outside of a 5cm square where he wanted the ball delivered. 

[ROTG]

12 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

No he was absolutely brilliant , providing he didn't need to walk, run or shift his position outside of a 5cm square where he wanted the ball delivered. 

Shame the team did not have a player to provide the service he needed. 

[Blue Orca]

14 hours ago, Ham said:

Getting there......

 

Let's hope we don't pay £100m

[paulw66]

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

Drinkwater was a very important player in a title winning team so I don't put any blame on our transfer dept for signing him. 

So were Morgan, Huth, Albrighton, Simpson and Fuchs......... and we didn't sign any of those either, thankfully. An ordinary team with 3 or 4 star players miraculously won the title. Doesn't mean signing any of the ordinary players was a good idea

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

 

He was never going to a be a star player for us but he definitely had enough ability to have been  a useful player for us.  

But we paid 35m for him, which 6 years ago was a very lumpy fee. Utter madness, and it was obvious from the outset.

 

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

.  A mystery as to why his form completely fell off a cliff the moment he joined us and was never close to being the same player again.

The "mystery" was that he wasn't very good. 

[paulw66]

1 hour ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Note “at the time”. 

He was ordinary at the time, like almost all of that Leicester team bar Kante, Mahrez and Vardy

[Chelsea_Matt]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

He was ordinary at the time, like almost all of that Leicester team bar Kante, Mahrez and Vardy

The team that won the league. Anyway it’s subjective. I thought at the time he was good, turned out he wasn’t. 

[xceleryx]

 

[paulw66]

This is going to be a big week in the out tray

RLC looks agreed.

Mendy and Ziyech about to sign in SA

Kova to City and Havertz to Arsenal both close

 

[Miguelito07]

2 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

 

Should we have kept him at least as a squad player?

[Chelsea_Matt]

4 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

Should we have kept him at least as a squad player?

Why? Crap. In my view. 🤪🫶🏻

[xceleryx]

Just now, Miguelito07 said:

Should we have kept him at least as a squad player?

Nah, I think this is the right move to make for both parties. 

Financially he's hard to justify keeping around for the role he'd realistically hold here. 

From a playing perspective, and I touched on this a little earlier today in this thread, he'll probably find it hard to find a viable role here next season under Poch should we play his favoured 4231. He can't play as the DM in a pivot, and he's not really a good alternative to Enzo based on skillset and the needs of the role he'll have moving forward. A back four also removes the wingback positions, and there's no place for him higher up in the attack. 

With less games next season also being a factor games may also be harder to come by without injuries creating openings. 

This is a good move for Ruben to try and expand his career at the age that he is. He'll have far more responsibility placed upon him at AC Milan, so it's up to him to now step up and make something more of himself.