Transfer Talk Topic

[Chelsea_Matt]

32 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I do hope they have an exceedingly nifty left back lined up to replace him then. 

They surely can't be planning on Chilwell and Colwill? That's a horrible combination. 

😬🙈 maybe they’re lining up some Brazilian child “wonderkid” who once signed will never  actually play for Chelsea.

Edited June 19 by Chelsea_Matt

[Bison]

28 minutes ago, Original 21 said:

“I think they would accept bids for Cucurella; whether they'd get any, I don't know.”

 

Of course not, not even the Saudis would pay Cucurella the 150k a week he's on. Cucurella is here until his contract expires.

[Bison]

11 minutes ago, chiswickblue said:

Another academy player being sold for "pure profit" without being given a real chance, other than a few cameos generally out of position. Another one going to a club playing at a higher level than Chelsea.

Meanwhile big money signings can play poorly for more than a season and are seemingly untouchable. Our squad is being built by accountants.

To be fair to the accounts, they're only cleaning up the mess created by the  amateur co-sporting directors.

The amateurs have wasted a huge amount of money assembling a squad that still needs major work so selling academy players to balance the books is the only option. Sunk costs will remain, promising academy players like Hall and valuable squad players like Chalobah and Gallagher will be sold. 

[Miguelito07]

52 minutes ago, chiswickblue said:

Another academy player being sold for "pure profit" without being given a real chance, other than a few cameos generally out of position. Another one going to a club playing at a higher level than Chelsea.

Meanwhile big money signings can play poorly for more than a season and are seemingly untouchable. Our squad is being built by accountants.

I dont disagree BUT we did also sell academy players whilst Roman was at the club. (and its very good money). My only concern is that we pay Villa £40m for Duran - now thats just silly

[Ham]

11 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

I dont disagree BUT we did also sell academy players whilst Roman was at the club. (and its very good money). My only concern is that we pay Villa £40m for Duran - now thats just silly

Oft forgotten fact 👍

[patThenevin]

On 18/06/2024 at 21:32, Ham said:

You'd be fun at parties.

Ratners level response 

Parties I've been to, you'd be tucked up in bed.....or better still, having your cereal

 

 

[chiswickblue]

46 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

I dont disagree BUT we did also sell academy players whilst Roman was at the club. (and its very good money). My only concern is that we pay Villa £40m for Duran - now thats just silly

Agreed, we sold academy players under Roman unnecessarily, often because we hired coaches that wouldn't make use of the young players. That we did something bad under Roman doesn't mean it isn't still bad when the new owners do the same and more.

This trend is continuing and even accelerating under Clearlake, even when the coach has shown he's willing to use the academy players - such as Hall breaking through last season.

We haven't successfully build a sustainable squad for about a decade now.

[Mark Kelly]

I don't know if anyone realised this but loads of clubs sell their academy players it's not Chelsea doing it in isolation .

Chelsea bought Man City academy player Cole Palmer 

Newcastle bought Everton youth player Anthony Gordon 

Fulham sold academy player Harvey Elliott to Liverpool

Everyone does it and especially now where the rules imposed on clubs make it especially lucrative.

[ROTG]

3 hours ago, Ham said:

Oft forgotten fact 👍

Also and often forgotten fact, the squad was of a  different caliber and level, making the path to the first team was limited.

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I don't know if anyone realised this but loads of clubs sell their academy players it's not Chelsea doing it in isolation .

Chelsea bought Man City academy player Cole Palmer 

Newcastle bought Everton youth player Anthony Gordon 

Fulham sold academy player Harvey Elliott to Liverpool

Everyone does it and especially now where the rules imposed on clubs make it especially lucrative.

Both Harvey and Elliot were brought by top 4 teams, only Palmer sale was in the other direction and with him putting chity in the same position as Chelsea a few seasons ago, with tomori, Geuhi being academy players wanting first team football and not prepared to sign another contract. 

[xceleryx]

8 hours ago, chiswickblue said:

Another academy player being sold for "pure profit" without being given a real chance, other than a few cameos generally out of position. Another one going to a club playing at a higher level than Chelsea.

Meanwhile big money signings can play poorly for more than a season and are seemingly untouchable. Our squad is being built by accountants.

Are people really that pressed over Maatsen? 

He's mediocre at best defensively, and we've seen more and more that your fullback have to be defensively capable to properly excel in a two way role that many managers request from the position. Maatsen is arguably the weakest in this area of our options. 

Sure, he's good going forward (albeit yet to be seen in the Premier League) but it's realistically not enough on its own (see the issues TAA has had as a good current example). While also a potential liability from a physical and aerial ability if specially targeted. 

Anything above £40m for him and I can't say I'll be losing any sleep over his sale. 

Also it's always been this way within football re big-money signings getting greater opportunities. We constantly did this under Roman's tenure, so it single out the current regime as if they're the only ones who've done, or are doing it, is incredibly selective. 

[Mark Kelly]

5 hours ago, ROTG said:

Both Harvey and Elliot were brought by top 4 teams, only Palmer sale was in the other direction and with him putting chity in the same position as Chelsea a few seasons ago, with tomori, Geuhi being academy players wanting first team football and not prepared to sign another contract. 

What does the league standings of the teams have to do with it , the point remains , every club sells their youth team players and then buys players they hope will be better than the ones they sold.

[east lower]

11 hours ago, chiswickblue said:

Another academy player being sold for "pure profit" without being given a real chance, other than a few cameos generally out of position. Another one going to a club playing at a higher level than Chelsea.

Meanwhile big money signings can play poorly for more than a season and are seemingly untouchable. Our squad is being built by accountants.

If the £40+ million figures being quoted are true, I’d take their arms off and wish him good luck. Not great defensively and ok going forward, but gives the ball up.

However I agree that the financials are having a far greater impact on squad building than they ever did, added to in our case by the incompetence shown during the first stage of the new owners stewardship.  All clubs are operating with increased focus on the financial ‘rules’, ours are made that bit more constrictive by the aforementioned self-imposed burden.

[martin1905]

So is this basically a swap deal for Duran but done this way for PSR reasons ?

[Sciatika]

Matt Law says we are planning a 75-game season next year. That's PL:38, FAC:6, LC:7, ECL:13, and CWC:7, or 71 games. I am not sure where the other four come from, as there are no replays in the domestic competition anymore. Maybe it's a rough figure. 

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Are people really that pressed over Maatsen? 

He's mediocre at best defensively, and we've seen more and more that your fullback have to be defensively capable to properly excel in a two way role that many managers request from the position. Maatsen is arguably the weakest in this area of our options. 

Sure, he's good going forward (albeit yet to be seen in the Premier League) but it's realistically not enough on its own (see the issues TAA has had as a good current example). While also a potential liability from a physical and aerial ability if specially targeted. 

Anything above £40m for him and I can't say I'll be losing any sleep over his sale. 

Also it's always been this way within football re big-money signings getting greater opportunities. We constantly did this under Roman's tenure, so it single out the current regime as if they're the only ones who've done, or are doing it, is incredibly selective. 

Yet you have continually tired to justify the 60m wasted on cucurella

Nothing new about your views on academy players 

[Morgs]

12 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

Matt Law says we are planning a 75-game season next year. That's PL:38, FAC:6, LC:7, ECL:13, and CWC:7, or 71 games. I am not sure where the other four come from, as there are no replays in the domestic competition anymore. Maybe it's a rough figure. 

That is ridiculous....

[boratsbrother]

4 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Are people really that pressed over Maatsen? 

He's mediocre at best defensively, and we've seen more and more that your fullback have to be defensively capable to properly excel in a two way role that many managers request from the position. Maatsen is arguably the weakest in this area of our options. 

Sure, he's good going forward (albeit yet to be seen in the Premier League) but it's realistically not enough on its own (see the issues TAA has had as a good current example). While also a potential liability from a physical and aerial ability if specially targeted. 

Anything above £40m for him and I can't say I'll be losing any sleep over his sale. 

Also it's always been this way within football re big-money signings getting greater opportunities. We constantly did this under Roman's tenure, so it single out the current regime as if they're the only ones who've done, or are doing it, is incredibly selective. 

Agree about Maatsen. Looked bang average when he played for us.

In all the years I can't think of a single academy player we've sold who became a great player at another club .Even the non academy players, the only two big mistakes in terms of selling were obviously KDB and Salah. So  overall, that's  a pretty good record of getting it right with the selling side of the business.

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, boratsbrother said:

Agree about Maatsen. Looked bang average when he played for us.

In all the years I can't think of a single academy player we've sold who became a great player at another club .Even the non academy players, the only two big mistakes in terms of selling were obviously KDB and Salah. So  overall, that's  a pretty good record of getting it right with the selling side of the business.

Declan Rice is doing OK for himself , Musiala at Bayern Munich too although we had no real option there . 

[Morgs]

1 minute ago, Mark Kelly said:

Declan Rice is doing OK for himself , Musiala at Bayern Munich too although we had no real option there . 

I'd add Livramento and to an extent Lamptey to that. Jack Cork before them had a very good career after leaving our youth. I was surprised Nat Chalobah didn't go on to bigger things when he was sold, I remember being amazed when he was allowed to go. Marcin Bulka was tipped to go right to the top when he went to PSG but for whatever reason it hasn't quite happened. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

I'm really not too worried about the potential sale of Maatsen. From the limited opportunities he had in the first team last season, he didn't look that great to me and I fear his height will be an issue as well. He didn't get many opportunities last season, but he also never took the chances when they came his way.

He had a decent season for Burnley in the Championship, but he was better going forward than defending and he then did well for Dortmund in the German league, which isn't saying too much.

We can't keep all the academy prospects just because they're home grown and if selling Maatsen means keeping Gallagher, then it's great business.

If he weren't at Chelsea and we were linked with him, the majority of fans wouldn't be happy.

[boratsbrother]

15 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Declan Rice is doing OK for himself , Musiala at Bayern Munich too although we had no real option there . 

Rice was only a  young teen when he left us and years away  from  possible first team contention, so I don't class that as a significant  mistake by the club. 

 

[boratsbrother]

16 minutes ago, Morgs said:

I'd add Livramento and to an extent Lamptey to that. Jack Cork before them had a very good career after leaving our youth. I was surprised Nat Chalobah didn't go on to bigger things when he was sold, I remember being amazed when he was allowed to go. Marcin Bulka was tipped to go right to the top when he went to PSG but for whatever reason it hasn't quite happened. 

Livermento is doing ok  but is he any better than what we already have?  I'd take James and Gusto over hm all day and every day.

[Bob Singleton]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

Matt Law says we are planning a 75-game season next year. That's PL:38, FAC:6, LC:7, ECL:13, and CWC:7, or 71 games. I am not sure where the other four come from, as there are no replays in the domestic competition anymore. Maybe it's a rough figure. 

Isn't the enlarged FIFA Club World Cup at the end of this season?

[Floyd25]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Are people really that pressed over Maatsen? 

He's mediocre at best defensively, and we've seen more and more that your fullback have to be defensively capable to properly excel in a two way role that many managers request from the position. Maatsen is arguably the weakest in this area of our options. 

Not particularly no, he was always going in this window and we’re getting a very nice fee for him. Decent young full back with room to grow still, but definitely better going forward than he is defensively, so it’s hard to disagree on this one.