Transfer Talk Topic

[Thiago97]

2 hours ago, Morgs said:

How long until we are allowed to have a frank conversation about Caicedo, thankyou please? 

I didn’t think he was poor last night. He’s simply not a £100m footballer really. He never was at Brighton, but he is one of these players who produced a few high quality , all action performances, that many people overreacted too. Personally, I think we have him too deep to be as effective as he could be. I think Lavia could be a more suitable partner for Caicedo. I would be thinking of Caicedo as a Kante replacement, his biggest asset is energy and chasing the ball down and putting pressure on the opposition. 

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think seeing as he'd been unwell there's a chance that he was rushed back too soon .

He wasn't great last night but wasn't helped by the fact that the bone headed defenders kept passing to him when he had at least one and often two players on him .

But to say there's room for improvement would be a masterclass of understatement.

Whilst I don’t disagree here. This is the way Brighton used him, he was the main receiver under a press. He just seemed to do it better there and here. Not sure the reasons why, maybe the position of his teammates at Brighton made it work better. I think Brighton make the pitch wider and bigger, far better than we do. 
I’m coming to the conclusion that Gallagher and Caicedo are a bit too similar to each other. They are both at their best doing the same things. That not to say they cannot play with each other, but i think we will always be making one of them less affective together . 

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[Miguelito07]

3 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

 

So were going to sell one of our only injury-free midfielders? these "journalists" do like to post bullsh1t.

Also, I think he is a good player but no team will bid £45-50m for him and especially not during the jan transfer window

Edited December 28, 2023 by Miguelito07

[Dwmh]

34 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

So were going to sell one of our only injury-free midfielders? these "journalists" do like to post bullsh1t.

 

incredibly Gallagher has been unavailable for only 4 games in his whole career going back to 2017.
You'll never guess why...
https://www.transfermarkt.com/conor-gallagher/ausfaelle/spieler/488362

[Chelsea_Matt]

51 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

incredibly Gallagher has been unavailable for only 4 games in his whole career going back to 2017.
You'll never guess why...
https://www.transfermarkt.com/conor-gallagher/ausfaelle/spieler/488362

I’m guessing - because he was on loan?

[Miguelito07]

3 hours ago, Dwmh said:

incredibly Gallagher has been unavailable for only 4 games in his whole career going back to 2017.
You'll never guess why...
https://www.transfermarkt.com/conor-gallagher/ausfaelle/spieler/488362

he eats THREE shredded wheat?

[Floyd25]

Surely even these owners aren’t dense enough to make our squad even thinner than it is, with our injury list? Or maybe they really are.

[Max Fowler]

44 minutes ago, Floyd25 said:

Surely even these owners aren’t dense enough to make our squad even thinner than it is, with our injury list? Or maybe they really are.

Selling Gallagher is pure profit in FFP terms - the owners love selling our academy players.

[xceleryx]

9 hours ago, Thiago97 said:

I didn’t think he was poor last night. He’s simply not a £100m footballer really. He never was at Brighton, but he is one of these players who produced a few high quality , all action performances, that many people overreacted too. Personally, I think we have him too deep to be as effective as he could be. I think Lavia could be a more suitable partner for Caicedo. I would be thinking of Caicedo as a Kante replacement, his biggest asset is energy and chasing the ball down and putting pressure on the opposition. 

Said this before also.

Caicedo isn't really a defensive midfielder that's going to sit and shield the defence to an elite standard, his best qualities lie similarly to Kante where he can move around the pitch and win the ball back. Longer term, if we're to continue a three man midfield, I see us playing a truer DM in behind with Caicedo sort of playing that box-to-box type role, then either a Enzo, Gallagher or whoever as a third. 

[Rob B]

8 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Said this before also.

Caicedo isn't really a defensive midfielder that's going to sit and shield the defence to an elite standard, his best qualities lie similarly to Kante where he can move around the pitch and win the ball back. Longer term, if we're to continue a three man midfield, I see us playing a truer DM in behind with Caicedo sort of playing that box-to-box type role, then either a Enzo, Gallagher or whoever as a third. 

Now that Lavia and Nkunku have returned and Chuk looks close, centre of the park is going to get extremely crowded all of a sudden. 

We have Caicedo, Gallagher, Ugochukwu, Enzo, Lavia, Chukwuemeka, Palmer and Nkunku for essentially 3 positions.  Fortunately, the latter two can play elsewhere, but other than Big Les and perhaps Carney, I suspect all of them will expect to start.  And that’s before factoring in Andrey Santos and Casadei on loan. 

Counter argument I suppose is based on the last two seasons, we can expect 2-3 to be injured at any given time, as we’ve just seen recently with Enzo, Lavia and Big Les. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

13 minutes ago, Rob B said:

Now that Lavia and Nkunku have returned and Chuk looks close, centre of the park is going to get extremely crowded all of a sudden. 

We have Caicedo, Gallagher, Ugochukwu, Enzo, Lavia, Chukwuemeka, Palmer and Nkunku for essentially 3 positions.  Fortunately, the latter two can play elsewhere, but other than Big Les and perhaps Carney, I suspect all of them will expect to start.  And that’s before factoring in Andrey Santos and Casadei on loan. 

Counter argument I suppose is based on the last two seasons, we can expect 2-3 to be injured at any given time, as we’ve just seen recently with Enzo, Lavia and Big Les. 

Great summary, Rob. Personally, for £200,000,000+ (let that sink in) I’m not convinced of Enzo or Moises, you know. Lavia did more in his cameo for me than Enzo since he joined, pretty much.  I do like Carney and Big Les isn’t too bad.

I think Nkunku is more a 10 or even 9 than an 8. 

Gallagher is imo superb as is Palmer. If we sell Gallagher that may well be it for me tbh. 

[thevelourfog]

10 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Selling Gallagher is pure profit in FFP terms - the owners love selling our academy players.

lol, I think they've sold two so far? Three if you include Hall's loan. And one of those is Hudson-Odoi.

What they've done is far worse than gleefully sell of kids. It's make terrible decisions again and again, overspending while reducing our income, cornering us into needing to sell home grown players.

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, Rob B said:

Now that Lavia and Nkunku have returned and Chuk looks close, centre of the park is going to get extremely crowded all of a sudden. 

We have Caicedo, Gallagher, Ugochukwu, Enzo, Lavia, Chukwuemeka, Palmer and Nkunku for essentially 3 positions.  Fortunately, the latter two can play elsewhere, but other than Big Les and perhaps Carney, I suspect all of them will expect to start.  And that’s before factoring in Andrey Santos and Casadei on loan. 

Counter argument I suppose is based on the last two seasons, we can expect 2-3 to be injured at any given time, as we’ve just seen recently with Enzo, Lavia and Big Les. 

Don't think it'll be as crowded as it looks on paper. 

Having the numbers we do have is probably a good problem to have anyway, as you touched on we're generally always missing a couple, and I think over the last few years having only four main options has bitten us in the arse at times. 

It's a pretty flexible group as well, with Nkunku, Palmer, and Chukwuemeka all tending to play more advanced roles anyway. 

I suppose we'll see what we do in due course.

[Rob B]

53 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Great summary, Rob. Personally, for £200,000,000+ (let that sink in) I’m not convinced of Enzo or Moises, you know. Lavia did more in his cameo for me than Enzo since he joined, pretty much.  I do like Carney and Big Les isn’t too bad.

I think Nkunku is more a 10 or even 9 than an 8. 

Gallagher is imo superb as is Palmer. If we sell Gallagher that may well be it for me tbh. 

Totally agree on Gallagher and Palmer. 

I like Caicedo and Enzo, but we've definitely overpaid, no two ways about it - particularly when you consider our rivals are picking up the likes of Guimaraes for £42m,  Maddison £40m,   Ward-Prowse £30m,  Mac Allister £35m,  Tielemens free,   Szoboszlai £60m.  I'm not saying any of these are better or worse, just that there is value out there. 

But back to my original point though, the issue isn't so much around the quality or the price, but moreso around the number.  We bought Enzo, Caicedo, Ugochukwu, Lavia, Nkunku, Palmer and Chukwuemeka within a 12 month period.    I hear what you're saying about Nkunku being more of a 10, but in a 4-2-3-1 formation, it's still fundamentally 3 positions - two in the pivot and one more advanced in a 10.   This is before Gallagher don't forget. 

That just reeks of poor planning.   Surely it should have been Ugochukwu OR Lavia, Palmer OR Chukwuemeka,  Caicedo OR Gallagher etc and then you use the cash to buy a world class GK and striker?   Seems to me like the Sporting Directors (we also had Vivell at the time) all had their own project case and what we've ended up with is an unbalanced mess.   That is what happens when there isn't a hierarchy and clear reporting lines / accountability. 

 

[ROTG]

19 minutes ago, Rob B said:

That just reeks of poor planning. 

No

It's the consequence of letting a scouts and owners play football manager, without have a football coach & DoF to advise / explain how real football teams operate 

[ROTG]

16 hours ago, Dwmh said:

incredibly Gallagher has been unavailable for only 4 games in his whole career going back to 2017.
You'll never guess why...
https://www.transfermarkt.com/conor-gallagher/ausfaelle/spieler/488362

He got a pep purchase written all over him if Kalvin Philips goes on loan or sold, unless big Ange/ Daniel jumps in early 

[Thiago97]

23 minutes ago, ROTG said:

He got a pep purchase written all over him if Kalvin Philips goes on loan or sold, unless big Ange/ Daniel jumps in early 

I would be staggered. Gallagher simply not good enough with the ball at his feet to be a Pep player. He does not have the technique to receive the ball and play at the speed and skill required for a Pep team.

He’s pivotal to us right now, but that’s cos we are a bit of a mess. Realistically, he’s not good enough for the qualities Chelsea have had in their midfield for the last 10-15 years. 
 

 

[Dwmh]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

lol, I think they've sold two so far? Three if you include Hall's loan. And one of those is Hudson-Odoi.

What they've done is far worse than gleefully sell of kids. It's make terrible decisions again and again, overspending while reducing our income, cornering us into needing to sell home grown players.

Mount, RLC, CHO and Hall last summer.
Gilmour went the year before.  So 5, not counting Christensen (nor really Academy) and  Clarke-Salter who was 25 but now playing regularly in the Championship with QPR.

I agree it is not many compared to the non-Academy players who moved on, 
Part of that is that the talent tap dried up when everyone else copied the "train them from the age of 8" concept and we could no longer monopolise young talent with parents willing to drive a lot of miles.

Terrible decisions absolutely.  In particular the squad make-up and the willingness to go down to the bottom of the mountain to get a better view of where the top is.
 

17 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

I would be staggered. Gallagher simply not good enough with the ball at his feet to be a Pep player. He does not have the technique to receive the ball and play at the speed and skill required for a Pep team.

Maybe.  Certainly the main attribute of Gallagher is that he is playing like an adult in a team of kids.
I had real doubts about Kovacic at City.  He has excellent technique but doesn't seem to look up enough to see where the rest of his team is.  Gallagher is the reverse, he always knows where his colleagues are.
Kovacic is surviving at City.  I think that is because Pep has very clear ideas about where he wants his players to be at any moment.  So Kovacic doesn't even have to look up to know where to pass.

But I suspect the real reason he won't go there is simply because he is just so much value for a team that struggles to win the ball back.  He will turn your team from a 35% possession team into a 45% possession team.  He makes much less difference to a 65% possession team.

17 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

He’s pivotal to us right now, but that’s cos we are a bit of a mess. Realistically, he’s not good enough for the qualities Chelsea have had in their midfield for the last 10-15 years. 

Well possession is the one thing we have at elite levels so I am not sure he makes that much difference now except in attitude and leadership.  But remember we had Kante for 7 years in midfield, and Gallagher is a lot better on the ball than Kante.

[Max Fowler]

He’s teasing us…

 

 

[Chelsea_Matt]

2 hours ago, Rob B said:

Totally agree on Gallagher and Palmer. 

I like Caicedo and Enzo, but we've definitely overpaid, no two ways about it - particularly when you consider our rivals are picking up the likes of Guimaraes for £42m,  Maddison £40m,   Ward-Prowse £30m,  Mac Allister £35m,  Tielemens free,   Szoboszlai £60m.  I'm not saying any of these are better or worse, just that there is value out there. 

But back to my original point though, the issue isn't so much around the quality or the price, but moreso around the number.  We bought Enzo, Caicedo, Ugochukwu, Lavia, Nkunku, Palmer and Chukwuemeka within a 12 month period.    I hear what you're saying about Nkunku being more of a 10, but in a 4-2-3-1 formation, it's still fundamentally 3 positions - two in the pivot and one more advanced in a 10.   This is before Gallagher don't forget. 

That just reeks of poor planning.   Surely it should have been Ugochukwu OR Lavia, Palmer OR Chukwuemeka,  Caicedo OR Gallagher etc and then you use the cash to buy a world class GK and striker?   Seems to me like the Sporting Directors (we also had Vivell at the time) all had their own project case and what we've ended up with is an unbalanced mess.   That is what happens when there isn't a hierarchy and clear reporting lines / accountability. 

 

One positive though is that by accident or design we seem to have a decent goalie now in Petrovic. 

[Bones]

On 20/12/2023 at 19:14, Dwmh said:

Not sure 8 year contracts was all about avoiding Amortisation.

On the Amortisation side, instead of averaging over say 5 years the fees get averaged over 7 or 8.  But in turn that means we are still paying off the fee (in the P&L) in 2030.  That makes life much harder come 2028 if we want to buy new players then.
But FFP averages P&L over 3 years, and there are also rules to permit high years (after averaging) to be offset by low years.  So the gain is pretty small.

The real "advantage of 7 year contracts is that you can keep superstars on a £60k a week contract for the better part of their footballing careers.
At least that is the theory.

So yes it is about wages not fees.

Arguably it is the new kids arriving that "really don't understand football economics".
And the ones refusing to sign that do.

So the question is Does a team on 7 year contracts give you a slave force or a Riot?
I'm guessing that Mount did the decent thing and decided that a long term contract would never give him another opportunity to get a further big rise in his pay levels.  So rather than sign and make trouble, he quit to take both a shorter contract and better terms.

I'm guessing that quite a few of our new players have just dumbly jumped at a big wage rise and not thought it through.

And I'm guessing that more than one or two of their agents are already thinking that the last 4 years of the contracts are just options for them, not the club.
I reckon the club is going to get severely burnt with the 7 year contracts - both the ones it has to fulfill, and the ones the players refuse to fulfill.
 

They are signing 6 year deals when alread a year or two older than the ones we buy.
Chalobah signed a 4 1/2 deal in Nov 2021 and extended it in Nov 2022 out to 2028.

It also always come down to the actual performance on the pitch right - if Mount isn't performing at MU he will not get another raise anyway.

[Chelsea_Matt]

6 minutes ago, Bones said:

It also always come down to the actual performance on the pitch right - if Mount isn't performing at MU he will not get another raise anyway.

Is he getting a game for them? 🦴 🦴 

[Thiago97]

49 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Mount, RLC, CHO and Hall last summer.
Gilmour went the year before.  So 5, not counting Christensen (nor really Academy) and  Clarke-Salter who was 25 but now playing regularly in the Championship with QPR.

I agree it is not many compared to the non-Academy players who moved on, 
Part of that is that the talent tap dried up when everyone else copied the "train them from the age of 8" concept and we could no longer monopolise young talent with parents willing to drive a lot of miles.

Terrible decisions absolutely.  In particular the squad make-up and the willingness to go down to the bottom of the mountain to get a better view of where the top is.
 

Maybe.  Certainly the main attribute of Gallagher is that he is playing like an adult in a team of kids.
I had real doubts about Kovacic at City.  He has excellent technique but doesn't seem to look up enough to see where the rest of his team is.  Gallagher is the reverse, he always knows where his colleagues are.
Kovacic is surviving at City.  I think that is because Pep has very clear ideas about where he wants his players to be at any moment.  So Kovacic doesn't even have to look up to know where to pass.

But I suspect the real reason he won't go there is simply because he is just so much value for a team that struggles to win the ball back.  He will turn your team from a 35% possession team into a 45% possession team.  He makes much less difference to a 65% possession team.

Well possession is the one thing we have at elite levels so I am not sure he makes that much difference now except in attitude and leadership.  But remember we had Kante for 7 years in midfield, and Gallagher is a lot better on the ball than Kante.

You will have Kev come after you for these Kante comments 😂

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

 

 

Gallagher is a lot better on the ball than Kante.

He is now but that's only because he's improved enormously over the last year.

Probably the most improved player in the league over the last year. Add a few more goals and we could be looking at the best all-round midfielder in the league by this time neat year. Honestly wouldn't  sell him for £100m now!