Transfer Talk Topic

[Floyd25]

28 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Hall's 600 odd minutes really isn't much of a sample size to be presuming he's going to be this foregone conclusion. The reality with Hall is quite simple at the end of the day - he's a midfielder by trade that wasn't better than anyone we have, arguably not suited to a pivot role, isn't a fullback and barely featured there, nor was better than anyone we currently still have in that position.

Where as about ten minutes out of the trio of Ugochukwu, Santos and Casadei is enough of a sample size to come to the conclusion that they are a forgone conclusion, compared to the talents of Hall and was Cucurella honestly better than him last season?

Does Casadei’s good form at the under 21 tournament or Santo’s minutes in Série A make them a sure bet in comparison? Look I like both of them, but I’m waiting until they play for us until I judge them, we don’t have a sample size to go on yet. 

[xceleryx]

4 minutes ago, Floyd25 said:

Where as about ten minutes out of the trio of Ugochukwu, Santos and Casadei is enough of a sample size to come to the conclusion that they are a forgone conclusion, compared to the talents of Hall and was Cucurella honestly better than him last season?

Does Casadei’s good form at the under 21 tournament or Santo’s minutes in Série A make them a sure bet in comparison? Look I like both of them, but I’m waiting until they play for us until I judge them, we don’t have a sample size to go on yet. 

Not suggested any of those are foregone conclusions? Ugochukwu has two first team seasons at Rennes under his belt, with last season he played more. Santos was playing first team football for Vasco before we signed him, while Casadei arrived without any senior experience before heading off to Reading last January and doing well. They might not have the Chelsea games behind them but they all have more senior level football generally speaking. Cucurella was excellent at Brighton and a stand out player in the league at the time, obviously struggled last season here as did virtually everyone outside of Thiago Silva and Kepa.  

The issue with Hall is that he's played wingback for us, a position that'll not exist in our 4231. Hard to justify Hall as a fullback when he's not really played there, and from a profile perspective he's probably more suited to a midfield three than a two if he was to feature in his natural position. 

Judging any of them is all premature at this stage for a variety of reasons. 

As I've expressed before I'd have been happy to keep Hall, but also not pressed that we've more or less sold him either. 

[kev61]

18 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

That's nice, Kev. Thankfully I couldn't care less. 

I don't mean to single you out - but your analysis of players and a manager is just silly and over complicated.

 

[Floyd25]

33 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Not suggested any of those are foregone conclusions? Ugochukwu has two first team seasons at Rennes under his belt, with last season he played more. Santos was playing first team football for Vasco before we signed him, while Casadei arrived without any senior experience before heading off to Reading last January and doing well. They might not have the Chelsea games behind them but they all have more senior level football generally speaking. Cucurella was excellent at Brighton and a stand out player in the league at the time, obviously struggled last season here as did virtually everyone outside of Thiago Silva and Kepa.  

The issue with Hall is that he's played wingback for us, a position that'll not exist in our 4231. Hard to justify Hall as a fullback when he's not really played there, and from a profile perspective he's probably more suited to a midfield three than a two if he was to feature in his natural position. 

Judging any of them is all premature at this stage for a variety of reasons. 

As I've expressed before I'd have been happy to keep Hall, but also not pressed that we've more or less sold him either. 

They have more senior minutes under their belt, which came at clubs where it’s easier to obtain those minutes, end of this season Hall will likely have more prem experience than them. Just a shame it’s a permanent switch and not a loan in my opinion, would’ve been good to have the option to assess Hall after a loan. 

Perhaps his versatility has worked against him, as we’re not able to fully judge what his best position would be, as he develops we’ll obviously find out. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Floyd25

[Chelsea_Matt]

54 minutes ago, kev61 said:

I don't mean to single you out - but your analysis of players and a manager is just silly and over complicated.

 

“I don’t mean to single you out…but I will” 🤣

[xceleryx]

23 minutes ago, Floyd25 said:

They have more senior minutes under their belt, which came at clubs where it’s easier to obtain those minutes, end of this season Hall will likely have more prem experience than them. Just a shame it’s a permanent switch and not a loan in my opinion, would’ve been good to have the option to assess Hall after a loan. 

Perhaps his versatility has worked against him, as we’re not able to fully judge what his best position would be, as he develops we’ll obviously find out. 

And Hall only got minutes here because we were horrendous and had injuries. Had a more routine season taken place he may not have sniffed a senior game at all, so context is also important. As I've always said, I'd have preferred to have kept Hall but equally also as unbothered by us selling him. He's a complete unknown quantity as a midfielder - his primary position, and just as much as a fullback - the position he looks to have been signed for purely on the basis of a small sample of minutes as a wingback. 

As you sort of expressed, his versatility has probably worked against him a little because who really knows as of yet where his best position is going to be at this level, and if the output warrants the fee paid or distress over his sale. He may end up a poor mans James Milner for all we know. 

[kev61]

6 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

“I don’t mean to single you out…but I will” 🤣

Did anyone tell you- you are hilarious Matt.There is nothing wrong with being Mark Kelly's greatest fan,but it doesn't look good to a casual observer.

[Chelsea_Matt]

17 minutes ago, kev61 said:

Did anyone tell you- you are hilarious Matt.There is nothing wrong with being Mark Kelly's greatest fan,but it doesn't look good to a casual observer.

They have, and I get to live with myself 24 hours a day! 

I’m glad also to be casually observed by you, Dr Kev. But you can keep your conclusions to yourself. Have a wonderful Wednesday! 💙

[kev61]

14 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

They have, and I get to live with myself 24 hours a day! 

I’m glad also to be casually observed by you, Dr Kev. But you can keep your conclusions to yourself. Have a wonderful Wednesday! 💙

Now you have made me feel guilty.I apologise for comments made.

[Chelsea_Matt]

32 minutes ago, kev61 said:

Now you have made me feel guilty.I apologise for comments made.

There’s no need - it’s just an internet forum 🙃

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, kev61 said:

Did anyone tell you- you are hilarious Matt.There is nothing wrong with being Mark Kelly's greatest fan,but it doesn't look good to a casual observer.

I think I am my greatest own fan thanks Kev!

[kev61]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think I am my greatest own fan thanks Kev!

Your modesty is endearing  Mark.I have no doubt you are as big a tit as the rest of us.

[Sciatika]

The situation with Hall is going to happen increasingly in the future. It is part of the club's strategy to bring in the best players available without breaking the rules. We can only do that by maximising the revenue streams - sponsorship, TV revenues, tickets, merchandising and so on. One of those streams is the output of our academy. It seems funny to me to think of it this way because I have always considered the academy part of CSR, like the Foundation. That was wrong on my part. We have been fairly woeful in using it as a resource from a business perspective. Too often, we develop players and then let them go very cheaply (or are simply released). I liked Lewis Hall. I thought he might have a future with us, but the word "might" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, just as it did with Gilmour, Anjorin, Bertrand, and so on. In reality, it was going to be difficult to deploy him in a midfield with, arguably, some of the best young players in the world, assuming they do finally get off the treatment table. So, we made a club decision to cash in and allow him to go to another club. We would bank the income against next year's outgoings. We will make similar decisions for CHO as we have for RLC. We have to generate a sequence of players from the academy who can book tens of millions in order to be able to afford even one Nkunku.

[Bones]

Our transfer strategy is based on finding players with the right haircut!

[Bones]

11 hours ago, Blue_in_TX said:

Oh, to have Casadei back

Welcome to CFCNET.

I was surprised to see him go on loan, I thought he looked more than decent in pre-season and easily could have challenged for the 1st team. He has KDB vibes around him.

[Chelsea_Matt]

11 minutes ago, Bones said:

Our transfer strategy is based on finding players with the right haircut!

 Doesn’t North Korea have a list of authorised hairstyles? 🤣 Maybe the supreme leader should add these to the list 🤣

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

The situation with Hall is going to happen increasingly in the future. It is part of the club's strategy to bring in the best players available without breaking the rules. We can only do that by maximising the revenue streams - sponsorship, TV revenues, tickets, merchandising and so on. One of those streams is the output of our academy. It seems funny to me to think of it this way because I have always considered the academy part of CSR, like the Foundation. That was wrong on my part. We have been fairly woeful in using it as a resource from a business perspective. Too often, we develop players and then let them go very cheaply (or are simply released). I liked Lewis Hall. I thought he might have a future with us, but the word "might" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, just as it did with Gilmour, Anjorin, Bertrand, and so on. In reality, it was going to be difficult to deploy him in a midfield with, arguably, some of the best young players in the world, assuming they do finally get off the treatment table. So, we made a club decision to cash in and allow him to go to another club. We would bank the income against next year's outgoings. We will make similar decisions for CHO as we have for RLC. We have to generate a sequence of players from the academy who can book tens of millions in order to be able to afford even one Nkunku.

 It took 10 years from the original concept of RA and Frank Arnesen setting up an elite academy for the club to reap the rewards, initially at youth level and thereafter at senior level, with some progressing at other clubs, as you said it a business and not all can play for Chelsea

IMO with the club trying to sweep up any prospect globally, the end result will be parents selecting other top teams over the academy knowing their child has very little if any chance of making to the senior squad especially when you see the like of Hall being shown the door in favour of some very expensive recruited misfits.

I will be interesting to see in 5 years time "if i am not pushing up the daisies" how many of the clubs, current youths players aged between 12 - 16 make it to play for the 1st team squad or are still with the club.

 

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

The situation with Hall is going to happen increasingly in the future. It is part of the club's strategy to bring in the best players available without breaking the rules. We can only do that by maximising the revenue streams - sponsorship, TV revenues, tickets, merchandising and so on. One of those streams is the output of our academy. It seems funny to me to think of it this way because I have always considered the academy part of CSR, like the Foundation. That was wrong on my part. We have been fairly woeful in using it as a resource from a business perspective. Too often, we develop players and then let them go very cheaply (or are simply released). I liked Lewis Hall. I thought he might have a future with us, but the word "might" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, just as it did with Gilmour, Anjorin, Bertrand, and so on. In reality, it was going to be difficult to deploy him in a midfield with, arguably, some of the best young players in the world, assuming they do finally get off the treatment table. So, we made a club decision to cash in and allow him to go to another club. We would bank the income against next year's outgoings. We will make similar decisions for CHO as we have for RLC. We have to generate a sequence of players from the academy who can book tens of millions in order to be able to afford even one Nkunku.

Here's my  objections to all of that.

We are prepared to give young foreign players the time to develop into the level of player we need, but not our own young players.

We are taking three Hall level fees to buy one Mudryk or W Forfana. 

What we are losing  our soul and identity🙁

[ROTG]

5 hours ago, xceleryx said:

We're taking punts on players from elsewhere for a variety of reasons, one of which I addressed the other day which more or less covered the notion of people complaining for years about our scouting not picking up young players sooner before they get big and have massive fees attached to them. So now that we've gone out and been proactive in trying to get some of these young talents in earlier, at a cheaper price point, people still complain and see it as wasted money or blocking academy players. It's a winless situation because people ultimately complain either way, unsurprising given the fickle nature of football fans as a whole really.

 

The recruitment policy over the past two windows has come from  winstanley and stewart (the dynamic duo) ex-club or from ex-clubs scouting list, with the exception on Enzo which come for another source maybe Veil or Eggy's & Todds Ego's

Maybe it just coincidence however players which has no link to the dynamic duo seems to have either turned the club down.

Now the cupboard is bare from pillaging your previous employers, it is going to be interesting moving forward on the clubs recruitment pattern.

[My Blood Is Blue]

1 hour ago, Bones said:

Welcome to CFCNET.

I was surprised to see him go on loan, I thought he looked more than decent in pre-season and easily could have challenged for the 1st team. He has KDB vibes around him.

Agree to a point, but also we’re using hindsight to a point here. He probably would have been behind Nkunku and Chukwuemeka for that no.10/AM position and possibly Gallagher and Jackson as well, so he wouldn’t have expected to see much game time… what we didn’t account for was Nkunku and Chukwuemeka getting injured straight away as the season started.

[ROTG]

24 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Here's my  objections to all of that.

We are prepared to give young foreign players the time to develop into the level of player we need, but not our own young players.

We are taking three Hall level fees to buy one Mudryk or W Forfana. 

What we are losing  our soul and identity🙁

Also we are stuck with the likes of Mudryk and D & W Fofana for 8 years

[Sciatika]

I am happy with a mix of homegrown and transferred-in players. But I also recognise that they have to be paid for, and sometimes we have to let them go, preferably as a sale. Of course, we can and do argue about individual cases, who and how much should have been paid (as if we get to set the fee), contractual conditions and so on. However, we should also bear in mind that young players are inconsistent. I think it is too soon to make some of the judgements I hear here and elsewhere. We also need to make the right comparisons. Is Hall better than Enzo, Caicedo, Lavia, Gallagher, Chilwell, Maatsen? In my opinion, not yet. Will he be? He might, and he might not.

[chiswickblue]

One thing about the transfer strategy is that it has to slow down after this bumper summer - we've signed so many younger players on long contracts, that hopefully from now onwards we should have a more sustainable 2/3 in and 2/3 out per summer. We won't be able to achieve and sustain any level of success with the amount of turnover we've had in recent years.

[Bones]

17 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Agree to a point, but also we’re using hindsight to a point here. He probably would have been behind Nkunku and Chukwuemeka for that no.10/AM position and possibly Gallagher and Jackson as well, so he wouldn’t have expected to see much game time… what we didn’t account for was Nkunku and Chukwuemeka getting injured straight away as the season started.

True

[McCreadie]

12 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I am happy with a mix of homegrown and transferred-in players. But I also recognise that they have to be paid for, and sometimes we have to let them go, preferably as a sale. Of course, we can and do argue about individual cases, who and how much should have been paid (as if we get to set the fee), contractual conditions and so on. However, we should also bear in mind that young players are inconsistent. I think it is too soon to make some of the judgements I hear here and elsewhere. We also need to make the right comparisons. Is Hall better than Enzo, Caicedo, Lavia, Gallagher, Chilwell, Maatsen? In my opinion, not yet. Will he be? He might, and he might not.

I had just written a long post much like this but you did it more eloquently.

I dont think Hall gets in front of any of the 2 LBs you listed or the 4 midfilders or Chuckwuemaka.

So 3rd choice LB or 6th choice midfield utility option. I like Hall, he might develop into a very good player, but this season, he was never going to play.

 

Mind you, if we end up selling Maatsen as well, I will be very cross!