Transfer Talk Topic

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, JaneB said:

I've bought into the narrative that he doesn't want to go and is being forced out.

And the awful thing is, it's been so long since James played in the team regularly that I'd forgotten (momentarily) that he was our captain.  And I don't have much faith that he won't get injured again very quickly, the same with Chilwell.

He may well be "being forced out" anything we are reading in the media and it's not a lot (as TVF says above ) says " Gallagher is looking forward to working with Maresca" 

I really want him to stay but then again I really wanted Mount to stay and that has worked out OK in the end.

I suppose if we're being hyper critical , the skill set that Gallagher brings is more easily replaced than that which someone like Palmer brings . 
 

He's a great lad , home grown and had risen to every challenge the club has asked of him , what's not to like? 

However , it's football and these decisions are made at every club on every continent on a daily basis whether we agree or like it or not. 

in the media Clearlake are portrayed as utterly clueless , mercenary , grifters despite investing huge amounts so far whereas they're strangely reticent to call out other clubs who's owners are taking a hell of a lot more out than ours so far. 

[chiswickblue]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

He may well be "being forced out" anything we are reading in the media and it's not a lot (as TVF says above ) says " Gallagher is looking forward to working with Maresca" 

I really want him to stay but then again I really wanted Mount to stay and that has worked out OK in the end.

I suppose if we're being hyper critical , the skill set that Gallagher brings is more easily replaced than that which someone like Palmer brings . 
 

He's a great lad , home grown and had risen to every challenge the club has asked of him , what's not to like? 

However , it's football and these decisions are made at every club on every continent on a daily basis whether we agree or like it or not. 

in the media Clearlake are portrayed as utterly clueless , mercenary , grifters despite investing huge amounts so far whereas they're strangely reticent to call out other clubs who's owners are taking a hell of a lot more out than ours so far. 

With MM at least the club could argue that his form had dipped, although this was linked to injuries and being overplayed, and that supposedly he didn't want to renew as he wanted to move to his Dad's favourite club (whether that was true or not is another thing). Gallagher is just off a season where he only missed one match. How do you argue that this is a sale that is in the club's best interest?

It isn't and every effort should be made to keep him. Given how everything the club wants to do or thinks about doing is leaked in advance to their favourite journalists, it's a big surprise that we haven't been told yet that Gallagher has rejected a new deal. The fact that this hasn't been leaked is what gives me hope that he will sign, possibly after 1 July.

[Bert19]

19 minutes ago, JaneB said:

I've bought into the narrative that he doesn't want to go and is being forced out.

And the awful thing is, it's been so long since James played in the team regularly that I'd forgotten (momentarily) that he was our captain.  And I don't have much faith that he won't get injured again very quickly, the same with Chilwell.

I'd say Conor has been a better Captain too (despite obviously having to grow into the role) - between Reece's injuries and some frankly appalling discipline, Conor's beaten him hands down by a) being there and b) being reliable when it comes to keeping his head.  

I'm sure Reece is more assertive and probably a more "natural leader" type, but Conor's done a pretty good job in my opnion - especially for someone that hadn't been Captain or even a senior player before

[Bob Singleton]

15 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

The Athletic reporting productive talks with Villa to sell Gallagher ...

Given Villa really do need to sell before they can buy - in order not to fall foul of PSR rules -  I think it's more a case of "wishful thinking" on the part of whoever is reporting this.   Villa may well be 'interested' in Gallagher (what club wouldn't?) but I highly doubt they're currently manoeuvring to strike a deal.

[Mark Kelly]

21 minutes ago, chiswickblue said:

With MM at least the club could argue that his form had dipped, although this was linked to injuries and being overplayed, and that supposedly he didn't want to renew as he wanted to move to his Dad's favourite club (whether that was true or not is another thing). Gallagher is just off a season where he only missed one match. How do you argue that this is a sale that is in the club's best interest?

It isn't and every effort should be made to keep him. Given how everything the club wants to do or thinks about doing is leaked in advance to their favourite journalists, it's a big surprise that we haven't been told yet that Gallagher has rejected a new deal. The fact that this hasn't been leaked is what gives me hope that he will sign, possibly after 1 July.

I'm not arguing it's in the clubs best interest , I'm saying that if he won't sign his new contract £50m is in the clubs best interest , the investment rules that have been plucked out of someone's anus are also not in the club or for that matter UK footballs best interests either . 

[Bob Singleton]

32 minutes ago, JaneB said:

I've bought into the narrative that he doesn't want to go and is being forced out.

And the awful thing is, it's been so long since James played in the team regularly that I'd forgotten (momentarily) that he was our captain.  And I don't have much faith that he won't get injured again very quickly, the same with Chilwell.

Whilst the club may accept an offer, Gallagher doesn't have to. If he doesn't want to leave, he won't. He has a year left on his current contract, which he can run down if he so choses. He's in a position of strength. If he does leave, it'll be on his terms. He'll go to the club he thinks will be best for him, not necessarily to the club that CFC have agreed the best deal with.

I can't believe a coach would leave him to rot on the bench even if the owners wanted to punish his 'stubbornness'; and if he did it really wouldn't look good to the rest of the world. It could impact business deals (such as sponsors) who might not want to be associated with a club that 'mistreats' players in such a way.

[Sleeping Dave]

This club continues to do squad building all wrong. 

I've been saying for the best part of the last decade that the way we as a club can compete is by having a solid foundation of the squad being made up of academy players the club has developed. 

Instead we sell them all, replacing them with more expensive (and in an not insignaficant amount of cases, inferior) foreign imports with no feeling for the club or the country. 

Imagine if we had a base of:

RB: James, Livramento

CB: Chalobah, Colwill, Tomori

LB: Maatsen

CM: Loftus-Cheek, Gallagher, Hall, Ampadu

AM: Mount, Hudson-Odoi

S: Abraham

I'm not saying any of these players are necessarily world class, but they are all, beyond a shadow of a doubt, good enough to be part of a Chelsea squad. Also, I'm not arguing all of them should, but say at least 8-10 of them? Instead we are doing the opposite where it's only likely that Colwill and James will stay on beyond this summer. With such a solid base of academy produced players you can cherry pick the sprinkling on top with truly world class players. Financially it's the sound model to use. 

Best case scenario would be if UEFA imposed squad rules stating that every club needs at least 15 academy products in their squads. In a funny way, that would help us being better than what we are today. Imagine wishing UEFA to step in to save the club from its owners?

It's disgraceful how badly run we are. Clearlake doesn't have a clue what they are doing. I hate them and wish they'd fuck off. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Poch left because he did not want to lose Chalobah and Gallagher but the club refused to entertain that idea. Him picking them continuously at the very first moment he could kind speaks in favour of that theory.

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

1 hour ago, JaneB said:

I've bought into the narrative that he doesn't want to go and is being forced out.

And the awful thing is, it's been so long since James played in the team regularly that I'd forgotten (momentarily) that he was our captain.  And I don't have much faith that he won't get injured again very quickly, the same with Chilwell.

Don't forget James will be missing the first 3 games of next season as well, so we could well start the season with someone like Enzo having the armband for the first few games (i'm presuming Chilwell gets injured again or Cucurella stays ahead in the pecking order).

[My Blood Is Blue]

20 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

This club continues to do squad building all wrong. 

I've been saying for the best part of the last decade that the way we as a club can compete is by having a solid foundation of the squad being made up of academy players the club has developed. 

Instead we sell them all, replacing them with more expensive (and in an not insignaficant amount of cases, inferior) foreign imports with no feeling for the club or the country. 

Imagine if we had a base of:

RB: James, Livramento

CB: Chalobah, Colwill, Tomori

LB: Maatsen

CM: Loftus-Cheek, Gallagher, Hall, Ampadu

AM: Mount, Hudson-Odoi

S: Abraham

I'm not saying any of these players are necessarily world class, but they are all, beyond a shadow of a doubt, good enough to be part of a Chelsea squad. Also, I'm not arguing all of them should, but say at least 8-10 of them? Instead we are doing the opposite where it's only likely that Colwill and James will stay on beyond this summer. With such a solid base of academy produced players you can cherry pick the sprinkling on top with truly world class players. Financially it's the sound model to use. 

Best case scenario would be if UEFA imposed squad rules stating that every club needs at least 15 academy products in their squads. In a funny way, that would help us being better than what we are today. Imagine wishing UEFA to step in to save the club from its owners?

It's disgraceful how badly run we are. Clearlake doesn't have a clue what they are doing. I hate them and wish they'd fuck off. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Poch left because he did not want to lose Chalobah and Gallagher but the club refused to entertain that idea. Him picking them continuously at the very first moment he could kind speaks in favour of that theory.

 

I think the point @Mark Kelly has been making is a big part of the reason why this hasn't happened. Clubs are bizarrely rewarded for cashing in on the homegrown talent, meaning from a business POV, it is more appealing and sadly, better business sense, to cash in on the homegrown talent when the offers are good enough. The incentive to hold on to them to be the foundation of a squad just isn't there. The players either need to be elite quality (Reece James) or they are too appealing as pure profit.

If you look around the league, not many teams have more than a handful of homegrown players. We had 6 this season (although Broja then went out on loan), which is probably quite high for a top 6 side.

[Thiago97]

20 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I think the point @Mark Kelly has been making is a big part of the reason why this hasn't happened. Clubs are bizarrely rewarded for cashing in on the homegrown talent, meaning from a business POV, it is more appealing and sadly, better business sense, to cash in on the homegrown talent when the offers are good enough. The incentive to hold on to them to be the foundation of a squad just isn't there. The players either need to be elite quality (Reece James) or they are too appealing as pure profit.

If you look around the league, not many teams have more than a handful of homegrown players. We had 6 this season (although Broja then went out on loan), which is probably quite high for a top 6 side.

Yep. The rules here are just bizarre from the perspective of the team with the strong academy, but it does open up opportunities for other clubs to get hold of some of these players, when they would normally struggle a little.. The one name that keeps being linked with a Villa sale is Jacob Ramsay, off the back of them selling Cameron Archer last season. Villa really like Archer and didn't want to make that sale, but in order for them to invest in new talent and progress as a club, the rules almost creates a funnel where decisions like this are inevitable.  

Personally, I would make Gallagher 80/20 in favour of leaving. I fully expect him to be starting the season at another club.

 

[thevelourfog]

1 hour ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

 @Mark Kelly

If you look around the league, not many teams have more than a handful of homegrown players. We had 6 this season (although Broja then went out on loan), which is probably quite high for a top 6 side.

What is interesting about this is it actually tells you having a core of home grown players isn't a path to success, because irrespective of how many of those players anyone would like us to have, we have had more than others for a few years now without it at all helping us.

Some of the players Sleeping Dave named are still here, while others were here for literally years and moved on just as any player eventually does. The idea that there is a mad rush to sell home grown players has always been nonsense. These owners have been in a mad rush to sell everyone.

[chiswickblue]

1 hour ago, thevelourfog said:

What is interesting about this is it actually tells you having a core of home grown players isn't a path to success, because irrespective of how many of those players anyone would like us to have, we have had more than others for a few years now without it at all helping us.

Some of the players Sleeping Dave named are still here, while others were here for literally years and moved on just as any player eventually does. The idea that there is a mad rush to sell home grown players has always been nonsense. These owners have been in a mad rush to sell everyone.

I don't see how you can conclude that our recent circumstances tell you that having a core of home grown players isn't a path to success. There are so many exceptional circumstances involved that it isn't possible to make any conclusions relating to the presence of home grown players.

[Sciatika]

Everyone wants our players to do well - to be the best they can be. As a kid, that meant youngsters from the community around the club getting a chance. I suppose you dreamed of being on the pitch rather than in the stands and wanted that for others. Obviously, it's not like that now, but the feeling remains. They become "our players" through various routes, only one of which is being from the academy. These days, we judge our players by people who always seem to put in the effort, those who respect the club and its fans, and those who put in extra time on the training pitch or in the foundation, among other things. I saw a video a couple of years ago during lockdown of Mason Mount spending time talking to an old lady in a care home who had very little contact with the outside world. It was a dramatic statement about how ordinary these extraordinary players can be. All these things are laudable in their own right. In the end, we want players to be the best that they can be. If a particular player does not fit into the strategy, then it is better for them that they move. However, I am not convinced that can be said about Conor. It seems to me that a possession-based side needs to value those who press well, and Conor is brilliant at that.

[Sleeping Dave]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I think the point @Mark Kelly has been making is a big part of the reason why this hasn't happened. Clubs are bizarrely rewarded for cashing in on the homegrown talent, meaning from a business POV, it is more appealing and sadly, better business sense, to cash in on the homegrown talent when the offers are good enough. The incentive to hold on to them to be the foundation of a squad just isn't there. The players either need to be elite quality (Reece James) or they are too appealing as pure profit.

If you look around the league, not many teams have more than a handful of homegrown players. We had 6 this season (although Broja then went out on loan), which is probably quite high for a top 6 side.

I don’t agree entirely with this point. 

It has some merit, but it’s not nearly big enough incentive imo. Selling an academy product for £20m and buying an inferior foreign player for the same or more can never be a solid business case long term. 

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, Sleeping Dave said:

I don’t agree entirely with this point. 

It has some merit, but it’s not nearly big enough incentive imo. Selling an academy product for £20m and buying an inferior foreign player for the same or more can never be a solid business case long term. 

What about selling an academy product for £57m and buying a far superior player for £45m ? 

I think that's where they're aiming .

They've fucked up a lot , but I still think this side has the potential to be way superior to the side we saw under Potter before they made a decision that for whatever reasons that  the likes of RLC and Pulisic had outstayed their welcome . 

 

[Sleeping Dave]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

What is interesting about this is it actually tells you having a core of home grown players isn't a path to success, because irrespective of how many of those players anyone would like us to have, we have had more than others for a few years now without it at all helping us.

Some of the players Sleeping Dave named are still here, while others were here for literally years and moved on just as any player eventually does. The idea that there is a mad rush to sell home grown players has always been nonsense. These owners have been in a mad rush to sell everyone.

I have no ide what point you think you’re making here, not how it is remotely relevant to the case I’m making. At no point in time have we adopted the strategy I’m proposing. The closest we’ve been is during Lampard first season back, but we didn’t add the top class players on top of the academy youth. 
 

There are clubs who have adopted this strategy somewhat - Barca, Real and to an extent Bayern Munich. I’m claiming we have to rely even more on the academy than have done in the past.

30 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

What about selling an academy product for £57m and buying a far superior player for £45m ? 

I think that's where they're aiming .

They've fucked up a lot , but I still think this side has the potential to be way superior to the side we saw under Potter before they made a decision that for whatever reasons that  the likes of RLC and Pulisic had outstayed their welcome . 

 

Great. You gave me one outlier. That should really teach me! 

[chara]

22 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

The closest we’ve been is during Lampard first season back, but we didn’t add the top class players on top of the academy youth. 

The second season in theory Chelsea did but unfortunately..FOR WHATEVER REASONS...the "Lost Three" were exactly that.

[Mark Kelly]

49 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I have no ide what point you think you’re making here, not how it is remotely relevant to the case I’m making. At no point in time have we adopted the strategy I’m proposing. The closest we’ve been is during Lampard first season back, but we didn’t add the top class players on top of the academy youth. 
 

There are clubs who have adopted this strategy somewhat - Barca, Real and to an extent Bayern Munich. I’m claiming we have to rely even more on the academy than have done in the past.

Great. You gave me one outlier. That should really teach me! 

C'mon Dave, we really haven't sold great players for nothing and replaced them with expensive rubbish. Of all the Players we let go last season many of them were at the end of expensive contracts like Kante and ready to go and there really isn't anything wrong with the new players at all. 

Maybe CHO and Mudryk but even that's a stretch given how his loan in Germany was so dreadfully underwhelming that they literally couldn't wait to get rid of him.

Many of us in an ideal World want to keep Gallagher and Chalobah. 

But thanks to a "shoot yourself in your own foot policy" from the Premier League it now transpires that home grown players are worth three or four times their book price and are almost worth their weight in gold. 

I don't like it, you don't like it but surely we can see the reasoning behind it. 

[Rob B]

16 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

But thanks to a "shoot yourself in your own foot policy" from the Premier League it now transpires that home grown players are worth three or four times their book price and are almost worth their weight in gold. 

I don't like it, you don't like it but surely we can see the reasoning behind it. 

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this referred to.  What policy is it please? 

[Mark Kelly]

36 minutes ago, Rob B said:

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this referred to.  What policy is it please? 

I don't pretend to understand exactly how it works but I believe whatever you earn represents twenty percent of what you can get away with spending on new players  so £50m for Gallagher is worth very roughly £200m in transfer fee spend  to the club. 

The maths and the explanation are shonky as hell but it's something like that, I'm sure someone else will be able to explain it better than I can. 

[JaneB]

6 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Don't forget James will be missing the first 3 games of next season as well, so we could well start the season with someone like Enzo having the armband for the first few games (i'm presuming Chilwell gets injured again or Cucurella stays ahead in the pecking order).

Enzo?  Don't even want him in the team!!! 🤣

[Sciatika]

The more I think about the Gallagher situation, the more it seems inevitable. It's not down to Maresca or the owners; Maresca hasn't arrived yet, and the owners would probably freely admit to not knowing the detailed nuances of possession-based play, inverted backs or similar. Let's be very clear. This is down to Winstanley and Stewart. They planned the strategy and decided to bring in a raft of players even when those players were well over budget. Am I the only person who wondered how we could afford all those purchases? I am sure I remember others questioning it.  The pie does not grow that fast. That means we have to offload academy players to meet the PSR rules.  W&S  have to take full responsibility for the decisions that have been made.

[thevelourfog]

4 hours ago, chiswickblue said:

I don't see how you can conclude that our recent circumstances tell you that having a core of home grown players isn't a path to success. There are so many exceptional circumstances involved that it isn't possible to make any conclusions relating to the presence of home grown players.

Well ... Are we "successful"? It's an honest question, and I'm open to different views on what success is. 

I don't think a core of home grown players is decisive either way. We've had a very successful season not too long ago with that sort of core. We've had plenty of success in the years earlier without one.

I think it's completely possible to reach a conclusion that the quality of player is most important. The value of quality home grown players is that they're quality, not that they're home grown.

2 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I have no ide what point you think you’re making here, not how it is remotely relevant to the case I’m making. At no point in time have we adopted the strategy I’m proposing. The closest we’ve been is during Lampard first season back, but we didn’t add the top class players on top of the academy youth. 
 

There are clubs who have adopted this strategy somewhat - Barca, Real and to an extent Bayern Munich. I’m claiming we have to rely even more on the academy than have done in the past.

I think you do get it, you just don't agree with it so it suits you to act like it doesn't make sense. And I didn't respond to you, because I wasn't responding specifically to what you said and making a tangential/related point.

There has been no wholesale clear out of youth players by this ownership. There has just been a massive clear out entirely, and inevitably that has included some home grown players. The idea that we'd be in any meaningfully better position for keeping hold of players like Loftus-Cheek and Hudson-Odoi, who were here for literally years without really adding much, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. 

At no point have we adopted a strategy of building the core of the squad around home grown players ... because it's patently ridiculous and would never work, unless you happened to have a once-in-a-generation core of kids come through at the same time. It isn't something any elite club is doing as a matter of course, or has done for well over a decade.

[Chelsea_Matt]

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

C'mon Dave, we really haven't sold great players for nothing and replaced them with expensive rubbish. Of all the Players we let go last season many of them were at the end of expensive contracts like Kante and ready to go and there really isn't anything wrong with the new players at all. 

Maybe CHO and Mudryk but even that's a stretch given how his loan in Germany was so dreadfully underwhelming that they literally couldn't wait to get rid of him.

Many of us in an ideal World want to keep Gallagher and Chalobah. 

But thanks to a "shoot yourself in your own foot policy" from the Premier League it now transpires that home grown players are worth three or four times their book price and are almost worth their weight in gold. 

I don't like it, you don't like it but surely we can see the reasoning behind it. 

As you’ve fairly laid out as well, it could be that Conor won’t sign. IF that’s true I’d love to know why as he plays every game.  I wouldn’t imagine money being an issue but maybe he’s asking too much? Or another reason?

It’s easy to blame the club when popular players leave but it isn’t always their fault.

We will never know but imo he’ll be a massive loss, not just because it’s Conor and all he brings but also because IMO he makes Caicedo look like a player worth approaching the huge fee we paid.

And given all that, why we bought Enzo is a mystery. IMO.

 

Edited June 5 by Chelsea_Matt

[Rob B]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

I don't pretend to understand exactly how it works but I believe whatever you earn represents twenty percent of what you can get away with spending on new players  so £50m for Gallagher is worth very roughly £200m in transfer fee spend  to the club. 

The maths and the explanation are shonky as hell but it's something like that, I'm sure someone else will be able to explain it better than I can. 

Thanks Mark, that is absolutely bonkers if true.