Transfer Talk Topic

[east lower]

32 minutes ago, ROTG said:

tell yer - trying to cancel something with sky is mind blowing, long and anal - over an hour so far and still going around in circles. the latest there are 35 callers in front of me trying to cancel sky applications 

Perhaps they do that on purpose 🤔

The devious 💩’s

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

oops 6 spaces for the magical bullseye 

tell yer - trying to cancel something with sky is mind blowing, long and anal - over an hour so far and still going around in circles. the latest there are 35 callers in front of me trying to cancel sky applications 

Just wait until something breaks then you'll understand just how much they care! 

They don't. 

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, JaneB said:

Surprised you can get Sky where you are 🐑

Believe it or not I do have family and a home and in Blighty. 

Have up after 2 hours of  trying to cancel sky, and will give it another go on Monday.

Can you imagine how much two hours of being on hold would have cost me at the parish whilst watching the flock 😳

[paulw66]

On 13/10/2023 at 22:08, Chelsea_Matt said:

It’s what I meant. But to clarify for you: I don’t think buying South American children who’ll never play for us should be the priority. No matter if it’s yet another “generational” talent. 

1. Who said it was a priority?

2. What makes you think he'll never play for us?

3. Do you honestly think, bearing in mind we have spent somewhere in the region 800-900m that the 15-20m allegedly spent on Kendry has stopped us signing any players in positions that were/are a priority? Was it really a him over someone else situation?

[Chelsea_Matt]

10 hours ago, paulw66 said:

1. Who said it was a priority?

2. What makes you think he'll never play for us?

3. Do you honestly think, bearing in mind we have spent somewhere in the region 800-900m that the 15-20m allegedly spent on Kendry has stopped us signing any players in positions that were/are a priority? Was it really a him over someone else situation?

I didn’t say anyone said it was.

Because he won’t. We have spent millions on players on 8 year contracts or whatever. 

Whether it was or not, for me, it’s still a waste of time and money. 

[paulw66]

1 minute ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

 

Because he won’t. 

You've convinced me. 

 

[Chelsea_Matt]

40 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

You've convinced me. 

 

Awesome. 😁 I don’t try and convince anyone of anything. It’s a forum so it’s just an opinion 🤷🏿 

[martin1905]

Great news, if true.

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, martin1905 said:

Great news, if true.

Good news in the sense he'll not walk for free at the end of the season, or possibly sign a pre-contract with a team outside of England in January. Probably doesn't change a whole lot beyond that though. Still imperative he signs a proper extension by the summer otherwise we're going to be left with little choice but to sell.

[Dwmh]

57 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Good news in the sense he'll not walk for free at the end of the season, or possibly sign a pre-contract with a team outside of England in January. Probably doesn't change a whole lot beyond that though. Still imperative he signs a proper extension by the summer otherwise we're going to be left with little choice but to sell.

How much do we want him on an 8 year contract?  Has he proven to be a top class player yet?  
Not sure myself.  And most of us haven't seen him play LB.

[Chelsea_Matt]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Good news in the sense he'll not walk for free at the end of the season, or possibly sign a pre-contract with a team outside of England in January. Probably doesn't change a whole lot beyond that though. Still imperative he signs a proper extension by the summer otherwise we're going to be left with little choice but to sell.

Hopefully he’ll be shown a pathway to where he could be, he’ll show Poch what he can do and he’ll sign a new deal. I reckon he will, too.

[paulw66]

Another great goal from the 16 year old wonderkid who'll never play for us. 

Gonna be great player for someone 

[Michael Tucker]

6 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Another great goal from the 16 year old wonderkid who'll never play for us. 

You seem pretty sure of this. Based on?

6 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Gonna be great player for someone 

So why not 'us'?

[Sleeping Dave]

1 hour ago, Michael Tucker said:

You seem pretty sure of this. Based on?

So why not 'us'?

I think you missed Paul’s sarcasm directed towards Matt. 

[Michael Tucker]

9 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I think you missed Paul’s sarcasm directed towards Matt. 

You could be right. My mistake - as you were people! 

[thevelourfog]

On 19/10/2023 at 10:54, martin1905 said:

Great news, if true.

Idk, if we actually have resorted to using a clause that was always there after failed attempts to agree a different contract, that suggests to me he is very much not staying and is being sold. 

[martin1905]

6 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Idk, if we actually have resorted to using a clause that was always there after failed attempts to agree a different contract, that suggests to me he is very much not staying and is being sold. 

I 100% agree, I meant it was great news in the sense that we will now hopefully get a half reasonable fee for him, as opposed to him walking away for nothing.

I've said time and again I imagine he's got the raging hump, watching Chilwell playing left wing, Colwill and now Cucurella play left back whilst he sits on the bench getting a few minutes here and there all over the place. He was never going to sign a new contract, or maybe he might have if he had been given any opportunity to show what he can do for us at left back.

It's one that I feel will really come back to bite us, when he leaves, especially if we are left with an injury prone Chilwell and Cucurella.

Edited October 23, 2023 by martin1905

[thevelourfog]

19 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

It's one that I feel will really come back to bite us, when he leaves, especially if we are left with an injury prone Chilwell and Cucurella.

LB does feel like a position where a really difficult decision has to be made next summer. I really rate Chilwell (appreciate that isn't universal here) but we simply cannot have first choice players who you know will miss 50% of the season, and at some point availability has to trump quality. 

I guess the challenge is we have two LBs already on huge, long contracts where there are significant question marks over their ability, one way or another. I don't know that another significant contract for a player who ultimately is not proven at PL level, let alone the CL level we aspire to, is a good idea, anyway. It feels to me that any significant investment there, be that via fee or contract, has to be on someone it is clear can do it. The risk of having three LBs sat on deals and not contributing what is needed is otherwise too high. It's really unfortunate that Maatsen's contract means we have to make that decision soon, just another year on his deal and we'd have been much more comfortable. 

Alphonso Davies would be ideal, but the reality is we'll be nowhere near those conversations.

[paulw66]

5 hours ago, martin1905 said:

 

It's one that I feel will really come back to bite us, when he leaves, especially if we are left with an injury prone Chilwell and Cucurella.

Chilwell, Cucurella, and Colwill as viable options. Plus there is that lad we nicked off Everton, Samuels-Smith.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12269661/Everton-wonderkid-Ishe-Samuels-Smith-closing-4m-Chelsea-move.html

It is difficult to keep everyone happy. 

[Ham]

36 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

 

It is difficult to keep everyone happy. 

Particularly now we don't pay way more wages than other clubs. 

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

Particularly now we don't pay way more wages than other clubs. 

particularly when we have decided to have twice as many starters at most clubs for contracts twice as long.
There is going to be a huge number of failures picking up a Chelsea cheque for the next decade.  Some of them might not even be failures, just never got to be first choice.

[xceleryx]

13 hours ago, martin1905 said:

I 100% agree, I meant it was great news in the sense that we will now hopefully get a half reasonable fee for him, as opposed to him walking away for nothing.

I've said time and again I imagine he's got the raging hump, watching Chilwell playing left wing, Colwill and now Cucurella play left back whilst he sits on the bench getting a few minutes here and there all over the place. He was never going to sign a new contract, or maybe he might have if he had been given any opportunity to show what he can do for us at left back.

It's one that I feel will really come back to bite us, when he leaves, especially if we are left with an injury prone Chilwell and Cucurella.

As I've expressed before, I'm not sure Maatsen has helped himself either by not committing his future. There's no incentive for us to be playing a player that's not willing to extend his contract longer term, not when we've got other options on hand. I get that playing him more may be what's needed to convince him but there's also the possibility it changes nothing. 

Then if you look at the way we're playing, our LB has generally been tasked with sitting back a bit more rather than maundering forward - more so now that Mudryk seems to be starting most games on the left wing. For a player like Maatsen this virtually neutralises his strengths. Maybe things change if we've got a fully fit team, that's a big if though.

Maatsen not getting fullback minutes during pre-season was a clear sign that he was low in the pecking order and that if he was to play, it was likely to happen further up the pitch plugging gaps. I don't think he should be that shocked by the role he's had so far this season personally. 

[Dwmh]

10 hours ago, xceleryx said:

As I've expressed before, I'm not sure Maatsen has helped himself either by not committing his future. There's no incentive for us to be playing a player that's not willing to extend his contract longer term, not when we've got other options on hand. I get that playing him more may be what's needed to convince him but there's also the possibility it changes nothing. 

He is a marginal player short term, and probably long term too.
Given the Chelsea way of spending £30 to 100m on a new player then Maatsen has probably decided his best interests are elsewhere, and in particular his best interests are in playing regular championship or PL football again.

Imagine if the club offered him a 7 year contract today - what would it be?  £30k?  He is far better off moving on and not locking himself in.  This problem wouldn't happen if Chelsea were offering him a 3 year contract.

[xceleryx]

44 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

He is a marginal player short term, and probably long term too.
Given the Chelsea way of spending £30 to 100m on a new player then Maatsen has probably decided his best interests are elsewhere, and in particular his best interests are in playing regular championship or PL football again.

Imagine if the club offered him a 7 year contract today - what would it be?  £30k?  He is far better off moving on and not locking himself in.  This problem wouldn't happen if Chelsea were offering him a 3 year contract.

What we spend has little relevance with respect to Maatsen's position in the team, we simply have other options and he's deemed bottom of that pile. 

He also had every chance to leave in the summer but turned down a move to Burnley, so not having played much to date shouldn't have come as any huge surprise either. 

I'm happy to keep Maatsen, and do think he can be a tidy player, but I also wouldn't give him any sort of meaningful role within the team without his future being locked down. Seems redundant to give a player like him minutes only to see him possibly leave in January or walk for nothing in the summer (assuming this year extension clause has no validity).

[east lower]

3 hours ago, Dwmh said:

He is a marginal player short term, and probably long term too.
Given the Chelsea way of spending £30 to 100m on a new player then Maatsen has probably decided his best interests are elsewhere, and in particular his best interests are in playing regular championship or PL football again.

Imagine if the club offered him a 7 year contract today - what would it be?  £30k?  He is far better off moving on and not locking himself in.  This problem wouldn't happen if Chelsea were offering him a 3 year contract.

By triggering the year's extension (probably on the clubs' terms as much as Maatsen's) they've probably put £5+million on his transfer fee.