Mateo Kovacic

[thevelourfog]

5 minutes ago, Rob B said:

Isn't it the opposite of what you’ve just described?  ie their transfer fees are almost off the books so any fee you get is pure bunce on the bottom line?  

Unlike someone like Havertz (for example) where we probably have 3 years of his fee still to book? 

I did say in comparison to selling Gallagher or Chalobah, who would be pure accounting profit. What are we going to get for Kovacic with a year on his deal? I'd say not very much, probably just about what is on the books still.

[Bison]

6 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I did say in comparison to selling Gallagher or Chalobah, who would be pure accounting profit. What are we going to get for Kovacic with a year on his deal? I'd say not very much, probably just about what is on the books still.

I think that would be approximately 8m remaining come the end of the season (if I'm not mistaken).

Jorginho who is 2.5 years older than Kovacic and with only 5 months left on his deal was sold for 11m + 2m in achievable add-ons. I think 18-20m should be achievable for Kovacic.

You are right that any fee received for Kovacic won't help a great deal but if they can do similar deals for Pulisic, Ziyech etc it will add up and reduce the wage bill.

[FrankLampard8]

12 hours ago, Rob B said:

I’ve just realised what you’re saying (I think) -  because their transfer fees are almost booked, their future costs are less and therefore keeping them around is kinder in terms of FFP than someone who we owe a huge fee on - which I guess is true.

But you could look it at both ways…once their transfer fee is booked, selling a Pulisic or a Kovacic becomes no different to selling an academy product. If anything it’s better as their wages will be higher

Whilst that is probably true, I think the point being made is that transfers fees are spread over the length of their contract for the purposes of FFP. Kovacic signed a 5 year deal so say he cost £50m, then he costs us £10m a year on the books. In the summer he has 1 year left on his deal so effectively £10m left to pay. My understanding is anything over that £10m is "profit" and goes towards balancing our books. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

[Bison]

54 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

Whilst that is probably true, I think the point being made is that transfers fees are spread over the length of their contract for the purposes of FFP. Kovacic signed a 5 year deal so say he cost £50m, then he costs us £10m a year on the books. In the summer he has 1 year left on his deal so effectively £10m left to pay. My understanding is anything over that £10m is "profit" and goes towards balancing our books. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Correct. Kovacic was bought for 40m according to most reports.

[FrankLampard8]

8 minutes ago, Bison said:

Correct. Kovacic was bought for 40m according to most reports.

Thought so, thanks. So there is FFP gains to be made even though I would personally want to keep him. He HAS to be worth £20m come the summer - leaving us with about £12m off the books. 

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, FrankLampard8 said:

Thought so, thanks. So there is FFP gains to be made even though I would personally want to keep him. He HAS to be worth £20m come the summer - leaving us with about £12m off the books. 

Funny that because West Ham don't seem to think that counts where Declan Rice , who come summer has a year left apparently , is concerned , Moyes was saying yesterday he's expecting an English Transfer record to be broken.

However he is Scotch so ....

( that last line was just for Holy Moly ) 

[Bob Singleton]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Funny that because West Ham don't seem to think that counts where Declan Rice , who come summer has a year left apparently , is concerned , Moyes was saying yesterday he's expecting an English Transfer record to be broken.

However he is Scotch so ....

( that last line was just for Holy Moly ) 

West Ham have an option for a further year, so not as simplistic as to say Rice only has a year left. Furthermore, I remember we did pretty well selling Hazard to Real Madrid when he only had a year left on his contract! 😉

[Mark Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

West Ham have an option for a further year, so not as simplistic as to say Rice only has a year left. Furthermore, I remember we did pretty well selling Hazard to Real Madrid when he only had a year left on his contract! 😉

Ah right didn't know that but I still think Moyes is over egging the pudding here. 

[Bison]

I am being spoiled with good news today. The Kante contract extension and now this!

Thank you, Pep.

[FrankLampard8]

29 minutes ago, Bison said:

I am being spoiled with good news today. The Kante contract extension and now this!

Thank you, Pep.

He would be class for them.

[Bison]

2 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

He would be class for them.

That is exactly what we should be telling them when negotiating a 30m fee.

[FrankLampard8]

1 hour ago, Bison said:

That is exactly what we should be telling them when negotiating a 30m fee.

£50m in the bank will be great next season when Kova is at City and Mount is at Liverpool. Meanwhile both teams will probably finish above us in the league and we will be scrambling to replace them. 

[Bison]

48 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

£50m in the bank will be great next season when Kova is at City and Mount is at Liverpool. Meanwhile both teams will probably finish above us in the league and we will be scrambling to replace them. 

They finish above us anyway with both Kovacic and Mount in our team so it'd be nothing new.

[boratsbrother]

For me he's been one of our most overrated players of the last 20 years, so I for one will be happy to see him finally moved on. Trouble is, I can see us spending another ton of money on yet another midfielder who isn't much good at creating, scoring  or defending.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

For me he's been one of our most overrated players of the last 20 years, so I for one will be happy to see him finally moved on. Trouble is, I can see us spending another ton of money on yet another midfielder who isn't much good at creating, scoring  or defending.

Funny because I see him as one of the most underrated players we've had. 

[xceleryx]

9 hours ago, FrankLampard8 said:

£50m in the bank will be great next season when Kova is at City and Mount is at Liverpool. Meanwhile both teams will probably finish above us in the league and we will be scrambling to replace them. 

While our reward is tying down a 32 year old injury riddled Kante to a 3+1 year deal solely based on his reputation alone.

[Ham]

23 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

While our reward is tying down a 32 year old injury riddled Kante to a 3+1 year deal solely based on his reputation alone.

If he is now injury free, perhaps he has got a lot more in the tank. 

He's always been a freak of nature and who's to say he won't continue to surprise us?

Despite our current predicament, the club is not owned by idiots. To offer 3 years they must have received some very positive news from the medical team.

Hopefully he's the missing link in our new look midfield and attack.

 

 

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

If he is now injury free, perhaps he has got a lot more in the tank. 

He's always been a freak of nature and who's to say he won't continue to surprise us?

Despite our current predicament, the club is not owned by idiots. To offer 3 years they must have received some very positive news from the medical team.

Hopefully he's the missing link in our new look midfield and attack.

I think it's a little premature to consider him "injury free" when he's still yet to return.

Because it was evident before injury that he was already athletically declining? And as I've pointed out before if you look back historically at similar athletically gifted types of midfielders they've all tailed off quite substantially in their early 30's. For a player that has a playing style that heavily revolves around athleticism he's got very little to fall back upon once his body can't sustain the demand his game places upon it. 

Not suggesting it is owned by idiots, those are your words not mine. Positive news from the medical team is all well and good but until we actually see what a post-injury 32 year old present day Kante looks like it's all rather moot in a way. Even if he's still decent in the immediate short term, that's not necessarily going to be the same case at 33, 34 or 35. God forbid 36 if the option of a further year is true. 

I'm pretty confident he won't be for reasons I've addressed already re the sporting side of things and his fit with the current squad and our needs tactically. That's not to say he won't have some degree usefulness, but whether it's truly enough to make him genuinely worthwhile remains to be seen. If anyone is expecting Kante to kind of roll back the clock then I think they're setting themselves up for disappointment personally. 

[ROTG]

7 hours ago, Ham said:

Despite our current predicament, the club is not owned by idiots. To offer 3 years they must have received some very positive news from the medical team.

The club no longer has a medical team "TB sacked them", the club uses 3rd party consultants

 

7 hours ago, Ham said:

Hopefully he's the missing link in our new look midfield and attack.

Would that not depend on who is coaching the squad?

[martin1905]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

I think it's a little premature to consider him "injury free" when he's still yet to return.

Because it was evident before injury that he was already athletically declining? And as I've pointed out before if you look back historically at similar athletically gifted types of midfielders they've all tailed off quite substantially in their early 30's. For a player that has a playing style that heavily revolves around athleticism he's got very little to fall back upon once his body can't sustain the demand his game places upon it. 

Not suggesting it is owned by idiots, those are your words not mine. Positive news from the medical team is all well and good but until we actually see what a post-injury 32 year old present day Kante looks like it's all rather moot in a way. Even if he's still decent in the immediate short term, that's not necessarily going to be the same case at 33, 34 or 35. God forbid 36 if the option of a further year is true. 

I'm pretty confident he won't be for reasons I've addressed already re the sporting side of things and his fit with the current squad and our needs tactically. That's not to say he won't have some degree usefulness, but whether it's truly enough to make him genuinely worthwhile remains to be seen. If anyone is expecting Kante to kind of roll back the clock then I think they're setting themselves up for disappointment personally. 

I think you do him an injustice, yes he is an athletic player but he's far, far more than that. He may not be the most technical with the ball at his feet but he is one of the greatest players of all time without it, he's certainly the best I have ever seen and not just at Chelsea, and that's not just because of his athleticism.

His understanding of the game, his reading of the game, his awareness is unrivalled. And I'm sure you could make an argument that it's his athleticism that makes him so good at those other things and no doubt it helps but he's so much more than a Ramires for example.

And then there's his ability to win the ball which is what he's all about. Maybe he won't be running around all over the place like he used to. Maybe he will, he's not yet 32 and hasn't played that much football but either way I don't see why he can't adapt his game to not run around so much but still be effective. Yes he will never be a holding player, we both agree on that but somewhere in-between that and what he currently does there is definitely a role for him going forward.

You may or may not agree with me, I'm sure you don't but the biggest thing to consider here is he's our player already. We are not talking about buying him, if we were then I'd be like you but a new contract, after his surgery which will hopefully have fixed him, is a no brainer. I've said before it's a risk Vs reward thing with him. There is very little risk and the reward is huge.

[xceleryx]

23 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

I think you do him an injustice, yes he is an athletic player but he's far, far more than that. He may not be the most technical with the ball at his feet but he is one of the greatest players of all time without it, he's certainly the best I have ever seen and not just at Chelsea, and that's not just because of his athleticism.

His understanding of the game, his reading of the game, his awareness is unrivalled. And I'm sure you could make an argument that it's his athleticism that makes him so good at those other things and no doubt it helps but he's so much more than a Ramires for example.

And then there's his ability to win the ball which is what he's all about. Maybe he won't be running around all over the place like he used to. Maybe he will, he's not yet 32 and hasn't played that much football but either way I don't see why he can't adapt his game to not run around so much but still be effective. Yes he will never be a holding player, we both agree on that but somewhere in-between that and what he currently does there is definitely a role for him going forward.

You may or may not agree with me, I'm sure you don't but the biggest thing to consider here is he's our player already. We are not talking about buying him, if we were then I'd be like you but a new contract, after his surgery which will hopefully have fixed him, is a no brainer. I've said before it's a risk Vs reward thing with him. There is very little risk and the reward is huge.

I wouldn't see it as doing him an injustice, more just acknowledging that the technical part of the game is flawed enough to where it's not really something he can fall back upon once his legs go. 

As you've gone and touched on there's certainly an argument to be had that his superior athletic qualities have heightened his other qualities. If he physically can't get through the same workload, get into the same areas of the pitch, react as quickly, etc then how do these other aspects look? There's plenty of players out there that still have good qualities about them but once their body goes the standard they can produce at drops. There's every possibility Kante follows suit. It may not be immediate of course, but it's going to happen sooner rather than later. If we've then committed to a long term deal and he looks shot in another 8 months then we're sort of stuck. 

If Kante was going to adapt his game he would've started doing it several years ago now. The reality is, he has one way of playing, and that way has literally made him the player he's been. And sure, he may still be useful in a smaller role that's not quite as demanding of him but is that really what we're missing or need to maximise those that are going to be built around moving forward? 

Sure we aren't paying a fee but it's disingenuous to think he isn't going to cost us either. He'll get a nice signing bonus, we have no idea how he's contract will be structured as of yet so it's hard to speak on that, but if it's heavily based around a high guaranteed wage then it's imperative he is fit and can play at least 25-30 games a season at a high level. Up until now he's looked some way short of that outside of the odd isolated performance. So yeah, there's still plenty of risk to be had imo. And that's not even taking into account the cumbersome fit he provides in a pivot as Enzo's partner, or issues it creates further forward if we opt for a midfield three and having to sacrifice the central attacking mid. 

While some of this may take another 6-12 months to be answered, my biggest concern right now is our willingness to commit long term to a player that we've yet to see what a present day version of looks like in action first. 

[Thiago97]

4 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

I wouldn't see it as doing him an injustice, more just acknowledging that the technical part of the game is flawed enough to where it's not really something he can fall back upon once his legs go. 

As you've gone and touched on there's certainly an argument to be had that his superior athletic qualities have heightened his other qualities. If he physically can't get through the same workload, get into the same areas of the pitch, react as quickly, etc then how do these other aspects look? There's plenty of players out there that still have good qualities about them but once their body goes the standard they can produce at drops. There's every possibility Kante follows suit. It may not be immediate of course, but it's going to happen sooner rather than later. If we've then committed to a long term deal and he looks shot in another 8 months then we're sort of stuck. 

If Kante was going to adapt his game he would've started doing it several years ago now. The reality is, he has one way of playing, and that way has literally made him the player he's been. And sure, he may still be useful in a smaller role that's not quite as demanding of him but is that really what we're missing or need to maximise those that are going to be built around moving forward? 

Sure we aren't paying a fee but it's disingenuous to think he isn't going to cost us either. He'll get a nice signing bonus, we have no idea how he's contract will be structured as of yet so it's hard to speak on that, but if it's heavily based around a high guaranteed wage then it's imperative he is fit and can play at least 25-30 games a season at a high level. Up until now he's looked some way short of that outside of the odd isolated performance. So yeah, there's still plenty of risk to be had imo. And that's not even taking into account the cumbersome fit he provides in a pivot as Enzo's partner, or issues it creates further forward if we opt for a midfield three and having to sacrifice the central attacking mid. 

While some of this may take another 6-12 months to be answered, my biggest concern right now is our willingness to commit long term to a player that we've yet to see what a present day version of looks like in action first. 

Agree. You do get a bit of stick for your views on Kante….it does actually make me smile ! I think people take your comments on him personally , but it’s just objectively judging the situation without an over emotional attachment to the player.

Its not ante Kante in any way. 

[martin1905]

8 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

I wouldn't see it as doing him an injustice, more just acknowledging that the technical part of the game is flawed enough to where it's not really something he can fall back upon once his legs go. 

As you've gone and touched on there's certainly an argument to be had that his superior athletic qualities have heightened his other qualities. If he physically can't get through the same workload, get into the same areas of the pitch, react as quickly, etc then how do these other aspects look? There's plenty of players out there that still have good qualities about them but once their body goes the standard they can produce at drops. There's every possibility Kante follows suit. It may not be immediate of course, but it's going to happen sooner rather than later. If we've then committed to a long term deal and he looks shot in another 8 months then we're sort of stuck. 

If Kante was going to adapt his game he would've started doing it several years ago now. The reality is, he has one way of playing, and that way has literally made him the player he's been. And sure, he may still be useful in a smaller role that's not quite as demanding of him but is that really what we're missing or need to maximise those that are going to be built around moving forward? 

Sure we aren't paying a fee but it's disingenuous to think he isn't going to cost us either. He'll get a nice signing bonus, we have no idea how he's contract will be structured as of yet so it's hard to speak on that, but if it's heavily based around a high guaranteed wage then it's imperative he is fit and can play at least 25-30 games a season at a high level. Up until now he's looked some way short of that outside of the odd isolated performance. So yeah, there's still plenty of risk to be had imo. And that's not even taking into account the cumbersome fit he provides in a pivot as Enzo's partner, or issues it creates further forward if we opt for a midfield three and having to sacrifice the central attacking mid. 

While some of this may take another 6-12 months to be answered, my biggest concern right now is our willingness to commit long term to a player that we've yet to see what a present day version of looks like in action first. 

Which all may or may not happen. He may come back from surgery completely fixed and have 2 or 3 years still at the top level. He may not. But without a doubt worth the gamble in my opinion. He is the only midfielder we have in our squad, outside of Enzo, that is good enough for where we want to be. Even if he plays less games we will need his quality or we buy 3 or 4 new midfielders this summer, which just isn't going to happen.

I'd have been more likely to feel the same way you do if our squad was stacked with quality midfielders but with all the money spent we still lack there, massively. 

I always thought it was imperative we kept one of Jorginho or Kante, wasn't really bothered which one but we had to keep one of them.

[xceleryx]

7 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

Agree. You do get a bit of stick for your views on Kante….it does actually make me smile ! I think people take your comments on him personally , but it’s just objectively judging the situation without an over emotional attachment to the player.

Its not ante Kante in any way. 

Thank you. It's definitely not some anti-Kante agenda being ran, it's more just putting his reputation aside and trying analysing where he is right now as a player. 

[xceleryx]

31 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Which all may or may not happen. He may come back from surgery completely fixed and have 2 or 3 years still at the top level. He may not. But without a doubt worth the gamble in my opinion. He is the only midfielder we have in our squad, outside of Enzo, that is good enough for where we want to be. Even if he plays less games we will need his quality or we buy 3 or 4 new midfielders this summer, which just isn't going to happen.

I'd have been more likely to feel the same way you do if our squad was stacked with quality midfielders but with all the money spent we still lack there, massively. 

I always thought it was imperative we kept one of Jorginho or Kante, wasn't really bothered which one but we had to keep one of them.

He may do, and heck let's say that he does. Lets say Kante returns and we get another 2-3 decent years out of him, where does Kante fit in this side when you take his playing style, strengths, weaknesses, and those of his team mates into consideration? 

We all know Enzo needs a holding player alongside him to be fully maximised, we'd be insane thinking any other way when we forked out £100m+ for him. This doesn't change whether we opt for a double pivot or a midfield three. Then you look at Kante, he to needs a holding player alongside to allow him the freedom to get involved all over the pitch. Enzo is probably adequate enough to do this but it would mean sacrificing his own game, completely not worth it for us. We'd also be getting Kante high up the pitch which is virtually a black hole in the attacking third. No one wins here.

In a midfield three there's actually room for both Enzo and Kante together, with a holding midfielder in behind them both. This allows both players to be maximised properly without the fear of being exposed. However to get that third CM into the side it means taking from higher up the pitch, the likely candidate being the central attacking mid. This all of a sudden means Joao Felix (at present) having to either be dropped completely, or be shoehorned either upfront or out on the wing - neither of which do him any justice. This becomes a follow up problem with Nkunku next season, another player who's best position is just in behind the CF. We'd be dense signing another high tier talent to then shoehorn elsewhere just to accomodate a 32 year old Kante. 

Now, we could of course play a diamond formation of some variety where we could fit in three CM's and an AM. This however creates another problem, as we've just signed two out and out wingers in Mudryk and Madueke, plus already have Sterling who is another that prospers in the wider areas. Sounds super redundant, right? 

So even in a world where our midfield stocks right now are lacking in quality where does Kante fit best and benefit the side? No matter which way you look at it including Kante as a starting player means having to negate another's qualities, shoehorn others into alternative positions, or makes certain signings we've just made pointless and thus a waste of hundreds of millions. 

Where I do partially agree with you however is that we needed to be keeping one out of Jorginho and Kante, we however choice the wrong one. Jorginho, while having his own limitations, was a much better tactical and practical fit for where we are right now. Even with his own mobility limitations, he had more worth as a whole. Including from a leadership standpoint, another area we're sorely depleted in. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by xceleryx
spelling