Transfer Talk Topic

[Sleeping Dave]

5 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

The framing of Mount as being disloyal or a "brat" is just ridiculous. 

Here is what we actually know or can feel safe assuming. He has a year left on his deal. There have been some nature of negotiations between him and the club, so far with no mutual agreement reached. He has made himself available for training, matches and media responsibilities whenever able. The club, or someone close to it, has repeatedly briefed since the end of 2022 that they will sell him this summer if he doesn't sign a new deal. 

Over time there have been different reports and briefings on what the issue with negotiations have been. Some seem more likely to have come from Mount's camp, other's from the club's. For those reasons, they should each be taken with a pinch of salt.

I have seen absolutely no reporting or briefing that Mount has actually asked or pushed  to go this summer. His best interests would almost certainly be served by leaving at the end of his deal for free, rather than agreeing a deal with someone who also has to cough up at least £50m for him. It's the club who are better served by him being sold this summer (as compared to losing him for free, not as compared to him signing a new deal).

When these owners have made so many ridiculous, self-destructive decisions in just a year, it does surprise me to see so many adopt as a default that Mount must be the problem.

I also think it is wise to contemplate that Mount has been on relatively small wages (I’ve seen figures ranging from £60-£80k/week) since that breakout season. He has also been one of our best players for seasons now so I can definitely understand if he’s slightly annoyed by the whole situation. It is seldom a good deal long-term to underpay your biggest assets for a prolonged period of time. That said person is almost always going to expect to be compensated for that when a new contract is to be signed. The big mistake here is that Mount wasn’t offered a reasonable 5 year deal in the summer of 2020 or at least by 2021. 

[Sleeping Dave]

23 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

In late news Ziyech has gone to Moscow to party with Quincy Promes who has been accused of running a cocaine smuggling operation whilst playing in the league .

Please just get rid. 

Oh dear. The lad is just bad news. How the hell can a club like Chelsea sign an individual like that? Bad attitude, bad judgement and overall just a massive bellend. The sooner he’s tossed away the better. Come to think about it we should fine him for even going to Moscow and hang out with coke dealers. It’s remarkable if the club doesn’t act on this imo. 

[Sleeping Dave]

25 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

I've got a feeling that he is staying

Impossible. He has zero chance to flourish in a Pochettino side. The lad has issues running. He isn’t fast. How is he supposed to deliver on the physical aspects of the game that Pochettino demands? If he stays he won’t see much if any playing time. 

[Bob Singleton]

2 hours ago, Original 21 said:

Not a great start to the window. Sounds like we were being used by Ugarte’s agent to force PSG into a deal. I don’t think we were ever in with a chance. It was all a smokescreen and we got played. When we realised it was all a game, we withdrew.

This Ugarte fiasco reminds me of the last Summer window when we were allegedly going for Kounde, Raphinha and Tchouameni, when they were going all along to Madrid and Barca and our interest was used to make sure they didn’t miss out.  In the end, we got Zakaria on loan because we’d wasted so much time. Was hoping we’d be a lot smarter this window but it doesn’t bode well. 

Firstly, Tchouameni was summer 2022, not last year. We never had a chance of signing him (nor did any other club), in spite of all the (UK) media claiming we were interested. He only ever wanted Madrid. We never (as far as I'm aware) made any offers, either to the player/agent or to Monaco. Madrid knew he wanted Madrid. Monaco knew he wanted Madrid. Nobody was 'used' to push up a price or to 'hurry up' a club to do a deal. Given the announcement was made on 11th June 2022, it suggests the deal was probably mostly sorted before the season had ended.

Kounde was a player we were interested in. We had targetted him under Cech/Granovskaia. We had agreed a fee with Sevilla. We had agreed terms with the player. Then we had new owners who cooled on the idea of signing him. We messed him about, not his agent messing us about. Kounde himself wasn't unhappy with moving to Barca, but nonetheless, at some point before moving there, he believed he was about to be announced as a Chelsea player.

As for Raphina, he never once pretended that Barca was his preferred destination. Leeds wanted a certain price for him to be paid in full in one go, which we offered. Personal terms were also agreed. However, the player, knowing Barca wanted to sign him, wanted to wait to see if Barca could "pull the necessary financial levers" in order to sign AND register him. Barca made various offers (mostly part payments). In the end they did offer what Leeds wanted, which they also accepted. Once Barca's offer was accepted, given the player's preferences, we were out of the running. We made offers knowing we were second choice. We made offers knowing we might not be successful. 

 

[Blue Orca]

5 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

No as far as I recall , from memory it was £65m

Even so the point still remains that in asking for £100m but happy to take a player in part exchange when his previous price was £65m is Brighton exploiting us and if we choose as a club to give in to that we deserve everything we get .

What we should be doing is signing their first choice for a replacement to Caicedo. 

If they want a player they can have Cucarella and 30m? 

[Bob Singleton]

From The Athletic

 

 

Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea’s battle over Manuel Ugarte

Adam Crafton

8–10 minutes

---

Paris Saint-Germain this week expect to conclude the transfer of Uruguay international Manuel Ugarte from Portuguese club Sporting Lisbon.

Ugarte, 22, is set to complete his move to Paris after the French champions triggered the €60million (£51.8m; $64.1m) release clause in the central midfielder’s contract. He had his medical on Monday afternoon.

On the surface, therefore, this appears a straightforward transaction. Yet this deal hung in the balance over the weekend because Chelsea of the Premier League competed fiercely for Ugarte’s signature. And, on Sunday, relations between the three clubs involved appeared to teeter.

It began with a report by French newspaper L’Equipe, soon picked up by others, which claimed that Chelsea, who also met the player’s release clause, were offering to also take care of the additional costs involved in the transfer. The same report also said that Chelsea had discussed the possibility of not only acquiring Ugarte but also taking a minority stake in Sporting, who finished fourth in the Portuguese top flight this season.

Both Sporting and Chelsea declined to comment. Sources close to the process — who, like others in this article wished to remain anonymous to protect relationships — between Sporting and Chelsea denied that the west London club wanted to buy a stake in the Lisbon side as part of any transfer or that any discussions were taking place as part of the possible deal for Ugarte. They insisted the process was as simple as two clubs — Chelsea and PSG — triggering the release clause and the player involved being allowed to make up his own mind on where he’d go.

PSG, though, were sufficiently concerned by the media reports on Sunday evening that the club drafted a legal letter which they intended to send to Sporting.

This draft letter, seen by The Athletic, cites the media coverage and says PSG believed they had a deal in place with both Sporting and the player. It also expressed concern Sporting may have agreed the transfer of Ugarte to Chelsea and went on to inquire about the possibility that “such transfer is contingent on a minority stake in Sporting CP by Chelsea F.C.”

According to sources at PSG, the French club became convinced Sporting were encouraging Ugarte to join Chelsea.

PSG’s draft letter then outlined their concerns over the “integrity” of the proposed transfer to Chelsea, pointing first of all to the challenges it may pose in club competitions run by UEFA, European football’s governing body.

UEFA regulations state that clubs cannot hold shares in or have management control of another side taking part in any of its three competitions — Champions League, Europa League and Europa Conference League.

Chelsea have not qualified for any UEFA competition next season after a bottom-half finish in the Premier League, while Sporting’s fourth place in Portugal means they will play in the 2023-24 Europa League. Yet it is likely that the two clubs, as regulars at European level, will at some point in the near future be in the same tournament.

PSG’s letter stated that, when participating in UEFA competitions, the “holding or dealing in the shares or securities of one club by another club is prohibited”.

The letter further pledged to “take all necessary and regulatory steps” to ensure the interests of PSG and Ugarte, before requesting that Sporting provide a comprehensive explanation of any investment to be made by either Chelsea, as a club, or anybody in the ownership group connected to the Premier League side. The letter ended by warning that the matter would be escalated to UEFA if Sporting failed to provide a satisfactory response within 24 hours.

There is an irony to PSG’s complaint, in that the French club have a stake in a different Portuguese club, Braga, who also compete in UEFA club competitions. However, Qatar Sport Investment, the owners of PSG, have a 21.67 per cent stake which they believe has been carefully managed to comply with the regulations; meaning they have no shareholder control, no board positions and no influence on transfers.

In the case of Chelsea, PSG were concerned that a possible minority stake in Sporting — which, we should stress again, the two parties deny even discussing — may have had a material impact on transfers if the Ugarte deal was a pathway towards the investment.

The concerns over the hypothetical nature of an investment into Sporting are cited in the draft letter, which adds: “It is prohibited for one club to be a member of another club, and for a club to have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of another club.”

[xceleryx]

11 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I also think it is wise to contemplate that Mount has been on relatively small wages (I’ve seen figures ranging from £60-£80k/week) since that breakout season. He has also been one of our best players for seasons now so I can definitely understand if he’s slightly annoyed by the whole situation. It is seldom a good deal long-term to underpay your biggest assets for a prolonged period of time. That said person is almost always going to expect to be compensated for that when a new contract is to be signed. The big mistake here is that Mount wasn’t offered a reasonable 5 year deal in the summer of 2020 or at least by 2021. 

Mount signed his current contract of £80k pw upon returning from his Derby loan and before kicking a competitive ball for us. He may be underpaid relative to where he is now, but he was also paid extremely well for where he was initially. Subsequent form would've also financially rewarded had he signed the extension put forward to him under Roman's tenure, as you've also mentioned. I can understand wanting to be paid your worth, but its also hard to feel sorry for him when he took a gamble initially and now it's kinda backfired. 

[asvaberg]

Missing out on Ugarte reminds me, sadly, on how we've been with transfers in the last years.

If we don't sign any decent players soon, I fear 23-24 season will be similar to the one we've just finished.

[Chelsea_Matt]

2 minutes ago, asvaberg said:

Missing out on Ugarte reminds me, sadly, on how we've been with transfers in the last years.

If we don't sign any decent players soon, I fear 23-24 season will be similar to the one we've just finished.

Patience, my Scandy friend 

[CarefreeMuratcan]

PSG are the biggest hypocrites in the World with that letter. Whoever read it at UEFA should have laughed in the face of the letter. 

[Bert19]

17 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Oh dear. The lad is just bad news. How the hell can a club like Chelsea sign an individual like that? Bad attitude, bad judgement and overall just a massive bellend. The sooner he’s tossed away the better. Come to think about it we should fine him for even going to Moscow and hang out with coke dealers. It’s remarkable if the club doesn’t act on this imo. 

Says a lot about our transfer strategy over the last few years of Roman's tenure that no one questioned why a player that was supposedly so talented was still in the Dutch League at 27 and hadn't had a list of suitors despite his obvious ability on the pitch? 

He's clearly a bad egg.  We were pretty dumb not to spot that the sulking on the pitch was the tip of the iceberg. 

17 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Impossible. He has zero chance to flourish in a Pochettino side. The lad has issues running. He isn’t fast. How is he supposed to deliver on the physical aspects of the game that Pochettino demands? If he stays he won’t see much if any playing time. 

So like now then? I think we'll struggle to get rid of him without just giving him away on a free.  The player looks like he has very few problems loitering about and collecting his pay, so I think the Board might have to get a bit creative now that PSG move is seemingly dead. 

[Sleeping Dave]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Mount signed his current contract of £80k pw upon returning from his Derby loan and before kicking a competitive ball for us. He may be underpaid relative to where he is now, but he was also paid extremely well for where he was initially. Subsequent form would've also financially rewarded had he signed the extension put forward to him under Roman's tenure, as you've also mentioned. I can understand wanting to be paid your worth, but its also hard to feel sorry for him when he took a gamble initially and now it's kinda backfired. 

How has it back-fired for him? The biggest club in the country is willing to pay him £250k/week. As for him being offered deals, how do you know? You don’t. All we know is that he hasn’t signed a deal. Also, £80k/week for one of the best players in the Championship and being called up to the England squad is hardly being overpayed. It was clear after his first season he should have been offered a much improved deal. 

It has back-fired on the club though. Selling your biggest asset for £50m because you failed to tie him down to a long-term deal. Unforgivable. Amateurish! 

[Mark Kelly]

11 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

It has back-fired on the club though. Selling your biggest asset for £50m because you failed to tie him down to a long-term deal. Unforgivable. Amateurish! 

I think we can blame the previous administration for that .

[xceleryx]

42 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

How has it back-fired for him? The biggest club in the country is willing to pay him £250k/week. As for him being offered deals, how do you know? You don’t. All we know is that he hasn’t signed a deal. Also, £80k/week for one of the best players in the Championship and being called up to the England squad is hardly being overpayed. It was clear after his first season he should have been offered a much improved deal. 

It has back-fired on the club though. Selling your biggest asset for £50m because you failed to tie him down to a long-term deal. Unforgivable. Amateurish! 

It's backfired in the sense that he's arguably lost out earning around £100k pw more than he has in the last couple of seasons by turning the extension he was offered down when Roman was here. Maybe signing the deal avoids the situation we're in now, at the very least it delays it. Of course, he if does leave to sign a bigger deal elsewhere then it'll tarnish his reputation here if that's the underlying reason. Whether that matters to Mount personally remains to be seen. 

As for his £80kpw deal, that was an overpay for a Championship player, which is exactly what he was at the time. He went on to out perform that contract quickly but it doesn't mean he wasn't paid extremely well for a kid who'd proven nothing at the top level yet. 

We've failed to tie Mount down because he's seemingly unwilling to sign new deals. It's not as if he's been offered fish feed by reports, he's had good deals proposed to him. You can't really blame the club for not trying,

I wouldn't be paying him £250k pw or anything close if it was me either. He's had an awful season, his G/A output is massively inflated through set pieces and scoring against the fodder. He averages 2 open play assists per season in the Premier League, while has 1 league goal against the top 6 in 4 years. I'd be wanting a lot of more for £250k pw personally, but that's just me. 

Edited June 6, 2023 by xceleryx
spelling

[Bob Singleton]

1 hour ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

PSG are the biggest hypocrites in the World with that letter. Whoever read it at UEFA should have laughed in the face of the letter. 

Had you read the article more carefully, you would have known that it was a draft that was never sent to Sporting, let alone UEFA

[thevelourfog]

7 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Mount signed his current contract of £80k pw upon returning from his Derby loan and before kicking a competitive ball for us. 

...

39 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

As for his £80kpw deal, that was an overpay for a Championship player, which is exactly what he was at the time. He went on to out perform that contract quickly but it doesn't mean he wasn't paid extremely well for a kid who'd proven nothing at the top level yet.

So he signed the deal after the Derby loan, but was a Championship player at the time? Cart leading the horse logic.

Which further falls down when you consider that, at £80k a week, Mount was underpaid even by "youth product who hasn't done anything of note in blue" standards at that time. Hudson-Odoi and Loftus-Cheek were both on anything between £100-150k a week according to reports. He was paid decidedly averagely when compared to what Chelsea youth products were and had been paid.

I'm not pleading poverty for a 20 year old taking home over a quarter of a million quid a month, but there really is no sense to this argument that he was, even for a short period, overpaid by any reasonable standard.

[Chelsea_Matt]

Tielemans is available for free. Yes please!

[paulw66]

2 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Tielemans is available for free. Yes please!

You're joking, surely?

[Max Fowler]

Sounds like Kante is off now, plus Kovacic, Azpi, Jorghi already gone, + Mount and Havertz (now two of our most experienced players).

Will be interesting to see who we go for because at this current time we are heading towards having one of the least experienced squads the league has ever seen and as talented as they are, I am far from convinced Nkunku and Caicedo make up for that.

[Chelsea_Matt]

9 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

You're joking, surely?

No. I think he’s great! They were talking £40m for him a season or two ago. 

[ROTG]

3 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think we can blame the previous administration for that .

yeah - that stupid administration which got 100m for a 30 year old with one year left on his contract, got the money back on morata, sold academy players with a year left on their contract and said they would not renew in excess of 25m each

Yeah a real dumb administration - lets see how much this administration can get for the likes of KK, PEA, Cucurella, Charka 

Edited June 6, 2023 by ROTG

[paulw66]

16 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

No. I think he’s great! They were talking £40m for him a season or two ago. 

Absolute liability out of possession. 

He'll end up at a mid table team at best.

[boratsbrother]

If we are struggling to sign the players we want and need this summer, under no circumstances should we consider any more players who are 3rd, 4th or even 5th choices, as we did in last summers disastrous splurge.

Better to save our money until the right quality players do want to come here rather waste it on more rubbish who don't improve the team, or in our case, make it worse.

 

25 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

No. I think he’s great! They were talking £40m for him a season or two ago. 

Looked very promising a few years ago but has regressed alarmingly. Certainly not the level we need to help us start moving forward again.

[ROTG]

12 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Absolute liability out of possession. 

He'll end up at a mid table team at best.

Isn’t that where the club is a the moment?

Sorry just jesting. 

[Sleeping Dave]

3 hours ago, xceleryx said:

It's backfired in the sense that he's arguably lost out earning around £100k pw more than he has in the last couple of seasons by turning the extension he was offered down when Roman was here.

As for his £80kpw deal, that was an overpay for a Championship player, which is exactly what he was at the time. He went on to out perform that contract quickly but it doesn't mean he wasn't paid extremely well for a kid who'd proven nothing at the top level yet. 

We've failed to tie Mount down because he's seemingly unwilling to sign new deals. It's not as if he's been offered fish feed by reports, he's had good deals proposed to him. You can't really blame the club for not trying,

Are you Mason Mount, Todd Bowhly or Marina Granovskaia? If not, this is mere speculation on your behalf and you do have a hard time arguing with someone presenting their opinions as facts. It’s your opinion he’s been offered contracts, but you do not know whether that’s true or not. A fact is that his contract is running out. If the club would have offered him a deal that matched his performances and he turned that down you’d have a point. But my OPINION is that it’s highly unlikely that scenario ever played out. 

It was also clear as day that Mason Mount was not a championship player. He was an automatic starter from day one the season he came back.