Transfer Talk Topic

[Chelsea_Matt]

Felix signs on a 7 year deal.

Where’s he supposed to play? I know, shift Palmer wide where he can’t be effective. Absolute clowns 🤡

I don’t care what anyone says - in two years they’ve turned us from a world-famous football powerhouse to a weird mid table youth prospect factory. 💩😐😐

[xceleryx]

45 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

If the going rate for Fofana was €80m and Disasi at €45m, £65m for Guehi sounds like a bargain. 

But of course, it stings knowing that we owned him and never should have sold him in the first place. 

Fofana joined Leicester at 19 for around £36.5m, then signed an extension in March of 22 until 2027 before joining us that August. We obviously paid a premium because of those circumstances.

Guehi chose to leave because he wanted to regularly play. That wasn't going to happen here at the time while he was behind better players, so he was rightfully sold per his request. Spending £65m to bring him back would only sting because it's a daft price for a player that isn't that much better than we already have, while simultaneously doesn't provide the desired profile of need. 

[Mark Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Felix signs on a 7 year deal.

Where’s he supposed to play? I know, shift Palmer wide where he can’t be effective. Absolute clowns 🤡

I don’t care what anyone says - in two years they’ve turned us from a world-famous football powerhouse to a weird mid table youth prospect factory. 💩😐😐

Patience Emojisan 

[asvaberg]

If Felix has language capabilities, he might be a captain type?

[Chelsea_Matt]

6 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Patience Emojisan 

🫠💀👀🤡 🌍 

[Thiago97]

5 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Fofana joined Leicester at 19 for around £36.5m, then signed an extension in March of 22 until 2027 before joining us that August. We obviously paid a premium because of those circumstances.

Guehi chose to leave because he wanted to regularly play. That wasn't going to happen here at the time while he was behind better players, so he was rightfully sold per his request. Spending £65m to bring him back would only sting because it's a daft price for a player that isn't that much better than we already have, while simultaneously doesn't provide the desired profile of need. 

The bit in bold. I don't think anywhere near enough time is spent focusing on this.

It's very easy to defend situations like this, whilst it's also very easy to have a moan about them too. If we focus on the specifics of this bit in bold, because its quite important imo.

We can all have views on if Guehi, Andersen, Kilman etc etc are an improvement on what we have or they are not an improvement. Personally, I believe they are, though its maybe not blindingly obvious.

However, we are always going to find it incredibly difficult finding an obvious clear upgrade, without the club paying  the wage that comes with an clear and obvious upgrade. This does not appear to be something they are willing to do, and it raises further questions, if/when it is something they are willing to do.

So the club is effectively hamstrung by its own strategy here. The same goes with the striker situation at the club, if not more prevalent there, as elite strikers command even higher top dollar wages.

If they are not going to hand out 200k-300k per week deals to sign the very elite, you then almost end up having to look at paying above and beyond on players by £10-£20 million their worth for marginal improvements, knowing that you will get away with paying them 100k per week.

We are always going to struggle to find major upgrades, whilst this strategy and salary structure is in place.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Sleeping Dave said:

If the going rate for Fofana was €80m and Disasi at €45m, £65m for Guehi sounds like a bargain. 

But of course, it stings knowing that we owned him and never should have sold him in the first place. 

Nice mixed use of pounds and euros for emphasis. 

[McCreadie]

1 minute ago, Ham said:

Nice mixed use of pounds and euros for emphasis. 

Seen that quite a few times in different places in the last few days as a means to exaggerate the Chelsea "disaster".

[McCreadie]

30 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

£65m to bring him back would only sting because it's a daft price for a player that isn't that much better than we already have, while simultaneously doesn't provide the desired profile of need. 

We have a 20% sell-on I think. 

So £65m is actually £52m.

Not that I think we should entertain buying him for cash, but given that Chalobah is definitely leaving, we could do worse than offering TC and £22m for Guehi.

[Miguelito07]

2 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

but given that Chalobah is definitely leaving

Is he though? Doenst seem to be much interest

[xceleryx]

4 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

We have a 20% sell-on I think. 

So £65m is actually £52m.

Not that I think we should entertain buying him for cash, but given that Chalobah is definitely leaving, we could do worse than offering TC and £22m for Guehi.

£22m plus a player, albeit like to be done in a separate deal, still wouldn't move the needle. If anything, we'd just be replacing one player without a suitable profile for another.

We'd be better off if Newcastle signed Guehi, get our 20% of that sale, sell Chalobah, and then sign someone else that ideally ticks the boxes of need better.

[Miguelito07]

25 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

Is he though? Doenst seem to be much interest

*Doesn't 

[Max Fowler]

43 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

The bit in bold. I don't think anywhere near enough time is spent focusing on this.

It's very easy to defend situations like this, whilst it's also very easy to have a moan about them too. If we focus on the specifics of this bit in bold, because its quite important imo.

We can all have views on if Guehi, Andersen, Kilman etc etc are an improvement on what we have or they are not an improvement. Personally, I believe they are, though its maybe not blindingly obvious.

However, we are always going to find it incredibly difficult finding an obvious clear upgrade, without the club paying  the wage that comes with an clear and obvious upgrade. This does not appear to be something they are willing to do, and it raises further questions, if/when it is something they are willing to do.

So the club is effectively hamstrung by its own strategy here. The same goes with the striker situation at the club, if not more prevalent there, as elite strikers command even higher top dollar wages.

If they are not going to hand out 200k-300k per week deals to sign the very elite, you then almost end up having to look at paying above and beyond on players by £10-£20 million their worth for marginal improvements, knowing that you will get away with paying them 100k per week.

We are always going to struggle to find major upgrades, whilst this strategy and salary structure is in place.

It's because the idea is IMHO that certain players like Palmer will become those players we need. The ones who don't succeed we can ship out and replace with more young players. I agree though, this is never going to work to move the needle enough while other clubs are going directly for players that they absolutely require and improve the first team.

See Arsenal - Calafiori - Man City - Gündogan.

[chara]

One more time.... IF any of us found ourselves involved in "soccer" over here we would go into it with all the experience and knowledge gathered from years of playing,watching and being immersed in the game as it is run/played in Europe.

Start with the title difference ..Soccer/Football..already a subtle difference in identity,

Add to all my previous remarks about the "treatment" of players in NFL....

During the interminably reported pre season training camps the "squads" are huge...by a cut off date players are CUT...and I mean cut,,,just dropped and not offered contracts...accepted by all..that is another built in business mode that our leaders are used to.

[Morgs]

4 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

It's because the idea is IMHO that certain players like Palmer will become those players we need. The ones who don't succeed we can ship out and replace with more young players. I agree though, this is never going to work to move the needle enough while other clubs are going directly for players that they absolutely require and improve the first team.

See Arsenal - Calafiori - Man City - Gündogan.

See, I'd bring in Gundogan on a free all day over KDrinkwaterHall for 30m. 

[xceleryx]

22 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

The bit in bold. I don't think anywhere near enough time is spent focusing on this.

It's very easy to defend situations like this, whilst it's also very easy to have a moan about them too. If we focus on the specifics of this bit in bold, because its quite important imo.

We can all have views on if Guehi, Andersen, Kilman etc etc are an improvement on what we have or they are not an improvement. Personally, I believe they are, though its maybe not blindingly obvious.

However, we are always going to find it incredibly difficult finding an obvious clear upgrade, without the club paying  the wage that comes with an clear and obvious upgrade. This does not appear to be something they are willing to do, and it raises further questions, if/when it is something they are willing to do.

So the club is effectively hamstrung by its own strategy here. The same goes with the striker situation at the club, if not more prevalent there, as elite strikers command even higher top dollar wages.

If they are not going to hand out 200k-300k per week deals to sign the very elite, you then almost end up having to look at paying above and beyond on players by £10-£20 million their worth for marginal improvements, knowing that you will get away with paying them 100k per week.

We are always going to struggle to find major upgrades, whilst this strategy and salary structure is in place.

I'd even say that there's greater need to understand, and also accept, that it may be more beneficial to sign a player with a lower ceiling but more useful qualities for the system, then to sign a better overall player who may not be as useful in those same things.

There's a misconception at times in which the belief that overall ability means better at doing everything, but that's not always the case. Sometimes a side is better off with a "lesser" player who can provide the traits needed.

If we're signing a CB then there's obviously gaps we need to fill from an attribute standpoint - we need a degree of pace, size, aerial ability, composure, leadership, and technical quality at ground level to play out from the back. 

There's no point in signing a CB that doesn't fill most of these needs. Now, it may be hard to find the perfect option that ticks all the boxes, but the aim should be to try and tick as many as possible. You do this with all your CB's (in this example) and realistically the outcome should be a well balanced group that can be seamlessly rotated for the most part, while not causing any great tactical or systematic disruption. 

I don't think it's a matter of us being unwilling to hand out big contracts, but with the way football cost are at present and the shrinking pool of truly elite talent, paying the "best of the rest" big money isn't necessarily the play either. You'd just about be better off putting that money into several younger players that have greater room for development. If you hit on one or two, awesome. If not, you're not stuck having to try and offload some massively inflated wage that less teams can viably take on - essentially narrowing the buyers pool and possibly costing millions in the process. 

Performance based contracts that still allow a player greater earning potential is a happy medium. It saves the club a bit of coin on the front end, and if the player meets or exceeds expectations then they'll be financially rewarded for doing so. The bubble of guaranteeing players £300k+ per week regardless is going to have to burst eventually.

 

[Blue Kratos]

17 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

I'd even say that there's greater need to understand, and also accept, that it may be more beneficial to sign a player with a lower ceiling but more useful qualities for the system, then to sign a better overall player who may not be as useful in those same things.

There's a misconception at times in which the belief that overall ability means better at doing everything, but that's not always the case. Sometimes a side is better off with a "lesser" player who can provide the traits needed.

If we're signing a CB then there's obviously gaps we need to fill from an attribute standpoint - we need a degree of pace, size, aerial ability, composure, leadership, and technical quality at ground level to play out from the back. 

There's no point in signing a CB that doesn't fill most of these needs. Now, it may be hard to find the perfect option that ticks all the boxes, but the aim should be to try and tick as many as possible. You do this with all your CB's (in this example) and realistically the outcome should be a well balanced group that can be seamlessly rotated for the most part, while not causing any great tactical or systematic disruption. 

I don't think it's a matter of us being unwilling to hand out big contracts, but with the way football cost are at present and the shrinking pool of truly elite talent, paying the "best of the rest" big money isn't necessarily the play either. You'd just about be better off putting that money into several younger players that have greater room for development. If you hit on one or two, awesome. If not, you're not stuck having to try and offload some massively inflated wage that less teams can viably take on - essentially narrowing the buyers pool and possibly costing millions in the process. 

Performance based contracts that still allow a player greater earning potential is a happy medium. It saves the club a bit of coin on the front end, and if the player meets or exceeds expectations then they'll be financially rewarded for doing so. The bubble of guaranteeing players £300k+ per week regardless is going to have to burst eventually.

 

Todd is that you? 😆😆😆😆

[Thiago97]

39 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

I'd even say that there's greater need to understand, and also accept, that it may be more beneficial to sign a player with a lower ceiling but more useful qualities for the system, then to sign a better overall player who may not be as useful in those same things.

There's a misconception at times in which the belief that overall ability means better at doing everything, but that's not always the case. Sometimes a side is better off with a "lesser" player who can provide the traits needed.

If we're signing a CB then there's obviously gaps we need to fill from an attribute standpoint - we need a degree of pace, size, aerial ability, composure, leadership, and technical quality at ground level to play out from the back. 

There's no point in signing a CB that doesn't fill most of these needs. Now, it may be hard to find the perfect option that ticks all the boxes, but the aim should be to try and tick as many as possible. You do this with all your CB's (in this example) and realistically the outcome should be a well balanced group that can be seamlessly rotated for the most part, while not causing any great tactical or systematic disruption. 

I don't think it's a matter of us being unwilling to hand out big contracts, but with the way football cost are at present and the shrinking pool of truly elite talent, paying the "best of the rest" big money isn't necessarily the play either. You'd just about be better off putting that money into several younger players that have greater room for development. If you hit on one or two, awesome. If not, you're not stuck having to try and offload some massively inflated wage that less teams can viably take on - essentially narrowing the buyers pool and possibly costing millions in the process. 

Performance based contracts that still allow a player greater earning potential is a happy medium. It saves the club a bit of coin on the front end, and if the player meets or exceeds expectations then they'll be financially rewarded for doing so. The bubble of guaranteeing players £300k+ per week regardless is going to have to burst eventually.

 

All sounds great and makes sense in isolation.......but it doesn't address problems now. 

We are highly likely to finish this season at least 12-15pts behind whoever wins the league. How does any of this address reduce that gap ? Sure, players will improve again, but we will still need additions to reduce that gap. So we just start this process again with another influx of value proposition gambles, rather than go and add potential gamechangers who will make a difference.

None of what we are doing is difficult to understand, it's not that difficult to accept either, if carried out in a much reduce manner of players in/out.

It will always be jam tomorrow. It's like 5-10 year sales plan for what the future will look like, but ignoring the massive sales gap that is present now!

 

 

[Max Fowler]

50 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

I'd even say that there's greater need to understand, and also accept, that it may be more beneficial to sign a player with a lower ceiling but more useful qualities for the system, then to sign a better overall player who may not be as useful in those same things.

There's a misconception at times in which the belief that overall ability means better at doing everything, but that's not always the case. Sometimes a side is better off with a "lesser" player who can provide the traits needed.

Sorry my friend, but this is (IMHO) well-articulated nonsense. 

Every team that does well and has done well in recent seasons signs players that improve the first-team XI and has a core of players who are vital each and every week.

Take our CBs - We don't have a Van Dijk, we don't have a Stones or Dias, we don't have a Gabriel or Saliba. We don't have a first-choice centre back who can clearly lead the rest of the team - that is our biggest problem.

Same is true for our GK, ST and even CM - and frankly all over the pitch bar a couple of notable exceptions.

Of course we can buy squad players who fit the system but if we really want to improve we needed to focus on improving the core of players which is frankly non-existent in this current squad.

No successful team has two cores of players with the right attributes who you can just switch in and out without massively impacting the team. Frankly, we do. And at that point it means we don't have a core of key players at all.

[martin1905]

9 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Sorry my friend, but this is (IMHO) well-articulated nonsense. 

Every team that does well and has done well in recent seasons signs players that improve the first-team XI and has a core of players who are vital each and every week.

Take our CBs - We don't have a Van Dijk, we don't have a Stones or Dias, we don't have a Gabriel or Saliba. We don't have a first-choice centre back who can clearly lead the rest of the team - that is our biggest problem.

Same is true for our GK, ST and even CM - and frankly all over the pitch bar a couple of notable exceptions.

Of course we can buy squad players who fit the system but if we really want to improve we needed to focus on improving the core of players which is frankly non-existent in this current squad.

No successful team has two cores of players with the right attributes who you can just switch in and out without massively impacting the team. Frankly, we do. And at that point it means we don't have a core of key players at all.

I think we do have a core of players who will start the majority of games when all fit.

Fofana, Colwill, Cucurella, James,  Caicedo, Enzo, Palmer, Nkunku and Jackosn.

[Sleeping Dave]

2 hours ago, Ham said:

Nice mixed use of pounds and euros for emphasis. 

You proved to be quite the mathematician the other day, so I'm sure converting between clearly stated € and £ before the figures is no match for you 🙂 

[My Blood Is Blue]

Question for all, who would this elite CB be that you think we should sign? As ever we’re ALL very good at saying who we shouldn’t sign, but I’m not seeing many names being put forward?

So, which top level elite CB should we sign, that we actually have a realistic chance of getting?

[Max Fowler]

6 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Question for all, who would this elite CB be that you think we should sign? As ever we’re ALL very good at saying who we shouldn’t sign, but I’m not seeing many names being put forward?

So, which top level elite CB should we sign, that we actually have a realistic chance of getting?

I'll put my name in for Guehi. I am not sure he is the next Van Dijk, but he walks into our first-team and improves it.

[Max Fowler]

27 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

I think we do have a core of players who will start the majority of games when all fit.

Fofana, Colwill, Cucurella, James,  Caicedo, Enzo, Palmer, Nkunku and Jackosn.

You are right that this generally looks like our most likely starters Martin, but my point is around building a truly elite core of players meaning having 6-7 players who are absolutely irreplaceable in the team.

Ideally, you want to get to a place where the players are practically irreplaceable in world football (see Man City with Haaland, Walker, De Bruyne, Stones, Rodri, Bernardo etc. etc. etc.) At that point, you are a proper team.

If we don't have that core of players, IMO we should look to strengthen our core as a priority. Rather than just buy more interchangeable squad players as @xceleryx suggested.

Out of the players you mentioned, only Palmer and Caicedo fit the bill as truly irreplaceable.

James isn't going to be fit so we can rule him out, neither are Nkunku or Fofana very likely. Enzo has shown nothing to suggest he is good enough to be a core PL player at the top of the league, neither have the two CBs, Cucurella or Jackson.

Of course, we can't improve all of this core at once. Which is why many of us would like us to simply sign a better CB than we currently have, a better GK, and a better ST. That would at least be a start.

[Ham]

40 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

I think we do have a core of players who will start the majority of games when all fit.

Fofana, Colwill, Cucurella, James,  Caicedo, Enzo, Palmer, Nkunku and Jackosn.

I think Lavia has to start at the moment. 

Unless we're playing 3 CMs, I'd take Enzo out currently but I don't think that's going to happen with him having been vice captain.