Callum Hudson-Odoi

[manpe 10,855]

Just now, MUTU said:

A top reporter for Sky Deutschland

In metal terms, that'd be somewhere between platinum and rhodium.

I'm not a chemist so I don't know about that  What transfers has that reporter gotten right before?

[MUTU 37]

3 minutes ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

I'll be honest, I think Mr. Bayern is getting some undue stick.  But, he lost me when he suggested that if we don't sell CHO, and he doesn't get enough (unspecified amount) minutes, we should financially compensate CHO (above his current salary, it's not like he's free labour) for the rest of the season.  That would be absolutely unprecedented.

I understand why you must feel lost, because I feel lost about it. Either I really expressed myself poorly or I don't know, but I never suggested that. At least definitely not intentionally.

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

7 minutes ago, manpe said:

Haven't seen that post, need some context here..

It was in relation to me suggesting that we (as Chelsea) don't HAVE to do anything this window.  Regardless of whether or not Bayern or CHO like it.  The world does not revolve around them.

To which...

On 1/9/2019 at 4:48 PM, MUTU said:

The issue is the risk that CHO and Bayern see if they agree to sign a contract for summer, that Chelsea would just throw him in the stands and he'd never see the pitch again, basically what he's done for most of this season. If you want to keep him for 6 more months on the basis of 'needing him', then you should put your money where your mouth (when I say 'your' I obviously mean Chelsea) is and be held financially liable if he's not played purely for tactical reasons. It's unfair on CHO and Bayern having to wait 6 months to unite on the basis of Chelsea needing him but then not actually playing him. If Chelsea are serious about wanting to play him, then Chelsea should consider this option.

 

[MUTU 37]

3 minutes ago, manpe said:

I'm not a chemist so I don't know about that  What transfers has that reporter gotten right before?

Haha, think better than gold

I don't know particularly about Max Bielefeld, but in general Sky Deutschland are highly reliable and don't have a reputation of just making stuff up. In general, the German press is far, far more reliable than the English one anyway... even tabloids like BILD are considered reliable.

[MUTU 37]

5 minutes ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

It was in relation to me suggesting that we (as Chelsea) don't HAVE to do anything this window.  Regardless of whether or not Bayern or CHO like it.  The world does not revolve around them.

To which...

 

Give the full context to that though mate...

It was related to Bayern buying CHO in winter and loaning him back to Chelsea until the end of the season (like what you did with Pulisic), and Chelsea would have to pay Bayern (not CHO) for not playing the player... only fair because by not playing the guy he's not going to reach his potential and Bayern would end up suffering in the end. The non-playing fee gives a form of compensation to the owning club (which would be Bayern in this case) and allows the player (CHO) to have more trust in that he's going to be played.

[Clockwork 1,763]

8 minutes ago, Fernando said:

That's the issue, if he don't want to stay you got to let him go. 

Like I said in the past, it was not Sarri fault but the board dragging the contract situation. 

And as you can see with our current transfer dealing, they drag and drag and drag. Just to panic buy at the end. 

Really horrible, but of course they keep doing the same thing and we just blame the managers. 

It is absolutely Sarri fault, after the great pre season he had he placed Victor freaking Moses ahead of him. He showed no interest in playing him until Bayern came heavy for him. It was always the case with CHO that him signing a contract extension would depend on his playing time and faith of the manager. He didn't get much of that, and comes Bayern who are showing a lot of faith in his ability. 

 

 

[MUTU 37]

Just now, Clockwork said:

It is absolutely Sarri fault, after the great pre season he had he placed Victor freaking Moses ahead of him. He showed no interest in playing him until Bayern came heavy for him. It was always the case with CHO that him signing a contract extension would depend on his playing time and faith of the manager. He didn't get much of that, and comes Bayern who are showing a lot of faith in his ability.

... a lot of BS faith in his ability, IMO. When you have Coman and Gnabry not starting because Ribery and Robben kick up a fuss whenever they're benched or subbed out and the coach is almost scared of benching them... and also with the MULTIPLE daily dose hype from staff or players about new signing Alphonso Davies, he'd be lucky if he's even 5th choice for Bayern this season. Next season he'd be in a better situation. That said, Bayern's wingers are far more injury prone, so a 5th choice winger for Bayern is probably equal to a 3rd choice winger for Chelsea

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

1 minute ago, MUTU said:

Give the full context to that though mate...

It was related to Bayern buying CHO in winter and loaning him back to Chelsea until the end of the season (like what you did with Pulisic), and Chelsea would have to pay Bayern (not CHO) for not playing the player... only fair because by not playing the guy he's not going to reach his potential and Bayern would end up suffering in the end. The non-playing fee gives a form of compensation to the owning club (which would be Bayern in this case) and allows the player (CHO) to have more trust in that he's going to be played.

That was the full context.  I said that we don't have to sell him if we don't want to.  If both Bayern and CHO want it so bad, they can wait until the summer.  Then, that was your response.  Even if the wires got crossed, it still doesn't make any sense.  Why in God's name would we loan in our own player that we didn't want to sell and not play him?  And if CHO wants to leave now for more playing time, why would he agree to come back here on loan?  

Maybe you were responding to me but thinking of someone else's post, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But, as far as our back and forth goes, that was the full context.

 

[MUTU 37]

1 minute ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

That was the full context.  I said that we don't have to sell him if we don't want to.  If both Bayern and CHO want it so bad, they can wait until the summer.  Then, that was your response.  Even if the wires got crossed, it still doesn't make any sense.  Why in God's name would we loan in our own player that we didn't want to sell and not play him?  And if CHO wants to leave now for more playing time, why would he agree to come back here on loan?  

Maybe you were responding to me but thinking of someone else's post, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But, as far as our back and forth goes, that was the full context.

 

I was imagining a Pulisic-style buy-and-loan-back (you keeping him since you're claiming you need him), but if you claim you need him and don't play him... well, then it'd be fair that you'd pay up for stalling a Bayern player's career. Like, wouldn't you be pissed off if Pulisic was always in the stands till the end of the season?

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

22 minutes ago, MUTU said:

I was imagining a Pulisic-style buy-and-loan-back (you keeping him since you're claiming you need him), but if you claim you need him and don't play him... well, then it'd be fair that you'd pay up for stalling a Bayern player's career. Like, wouldn't you be pissed off if Pulisic was always in the stands till the end of the season?

Again....you may have gotten me mixed up with someone else, but your little ridiculous loan situation wasn't mentioned to me.  What you proposed was a solution to me saying that we don't have to sell him.  Again.....that's the whole context of our back and forth.  Again....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I should say that based on further replies, the margin is shrinking.  If we "claim" we need him as you like to say then another really good way of "putting our money where our mouth is" is to just not sell him.  

Since you're going to ask, the reason I think your loan situation is ridiculous is:

 If we "say" we need CHO why would we sell him now?

If the answer to that is:  We are selling him now because he wants to leave - maybe.  Then why the hell would he come back here on loan if neither he nor Bayern think he's getting play time (supposedly the reason for him leaving)?

The situation is not the same as Pulisic because we are buying and loaning him now to make the fee smaller.

And, no.  I wouldn't be upset if Dortmund benched Pulisic the whole time.  If they didn't need him they would just sell him outright.  If his minutes are shaved because someone else is better, I'd be more concerned that we bought a dud.  

Really, I didn't want to get in to this again with you.  I was responding to another post.  But since you wanted clarification, here we are.  

 

[MUTU 37]

8 minutes ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

Again....you may have gotten me mixed up with someone else, but your little ridiculous loan situation wasn't mentioned to me.  What you proposed was a solution to me saying that we don't have to sell him.  Again.....that's the whole context of our back and forth.  Again....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I should say that based on further replies, the margin is shrinking.  If we "claim" we need him as you like to say then another really good way of "putting our money where our mouth is" is to just not sell him.  

Since you're going to ask, the reason I think your loan situation is ridiculous is:

 If we "say" we need CHO why would we sell him now?

If the answer to that is:  We are selling him now because he wants to leave - maybe.  Then why the hell would he come back here on loan if neither he nor Bayern think he's getting play time (supposedly the reason for him leaving)?

The situation is not the same as Pulisic because we are buying and loaning him now to make the fee smaller.

And, no.  I wouldn't be upset if Dortmund benched Pulisic the whole time.  If they didn't need him they would just sell him outright.  If his minutes are shaved because someone else is better, I'd be more concerned that we bought a dud.  

Really, I didn't want to get in to this again with you.  I was responding to another post.  But since you wanted clarification, here we are.  

 

The answer to your question is easy. Imagine a hypothetical scenario (which I find quite possible) where the only way Chelsea would accept a winter sale would be if CHO is loaned back... and if that is the only way he's going to move to Bayern, then the three parties may agree, but two (Bayern and CHO) would need assurances that Chelsea would indeed be playing CHO. That's where the non-playing clause comes in.

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

21 minutes ago, MUTU said:

The answer to your question is easy. Imagine a hypothetical scenario (which I find quite possible) where the only way Chelsea would accept a winter sale would be if CHO is loaned back... and if that is the only way he's going to move to Bayern, then the three parties may agree, but two (Bayern and CHO) would need assurances that Chelsea would indeed be playing CHO. That's where the non-playing clause comes in.

That scenario is exactly like the one with Pulisic.  Except that there was no need for any stupid "don't play him clause".  That clause is for youth players going to lower league teams for their development.  Not for players you don't want to sell.

What your scenario is conveniently omitting is what differs from the Pulisic transfer (whole context, mate).  CHO supposedly wants to leave because he doesn't think he's going to get any game time.  So, in your scenario he's going to leave for a club that says "we'll play you so little that you can actually go back to that club you're moaning about".

In order for your scenario to play out it would mean that:

1.  Playing time has nothing to do with it

2.  Bayern don't need him more than we do for the next 6 months which again brings up the same question and answer again.  Why can't you just wait until the summer?  Just don't sell him this winter. 

[Vesper 27,310]

7 hours ago, MUTU said:

Does anyone have a list of players aged 18 or younger who transferred for more than £35m? I can only think of Vinicius Junior off the top of my head. £35m is not nothing; it's a massive amount of money.

Teenagers who cost £30m or more, inflation adjusted, and including add-ons. For euro-denominated buys, I used historical FOREX rates for the euro v GBP at time of sale and then calculated the resultant GBP amount into 2019 quid so we have a truly accurate snapshot,

Figures are in 2019 GBP

Antonio Cassano   Roma 2001  £43.5m 

Anderson Manc U  2007 £39m

Marquinhos   PSG 2013   £32m

Javier Saviola  Barca  2001  £55m   

Wayne Rooney   Manc U  2004   £50.5m

Gabriel Jesus  Manc Shitty  2017  £31m

Renato Sanches   Bayern   2016  £34m  

Lucas Moura     PSG  2013  £41m

Luke Shaw      Manc U  2014  £37.5m

Anthony Martial       Manc U  2015  £63m (huge amount of add-ons, almost all already hit)

Vinícius Júnior       Real Madrid   2018  £55.5m (with add-ons)

Kylian Mbappé       PSG   2017  £175m (loan plus fee plus add-ons, all of which have been already hit)

Rodrygo   Real Madrid (summer 2019 or December 2019 he comes (Santos are trying to keep him till end of the year, deal was done this summer, already paid for)   £41m

 

If anyone has anymore I would be happy to do the maths and give you the 2019 pound sterling rate, inflation adjusted.

[MUTU 37]

14 hours ago, Vesper said:

Teenagers who cost £30m or more, inflation adjusted, and including add-ons. For euro-denominated buys, I used historical FOREX rates for the euro v GBP at time of sale and then calculated the resultant GBP amount into 2019 quid so we have a truly accurate snapshot,

Awesome list! However I was talking about £35m at the time of sale, not including 19 year olds, and not including inflation.

For example, Cassano was £25.65m, and he was 19.

Anderson was around £20m, and he was 19.

Marquinhos was around £28m, and he was 19.

And so forth.

Out of the list, the <=18 year olds are:

- Rooney (£25.6m)
- Renato Sanches (£31.50m)
- Luke Shaw (£30m)
- Vinicius Junior (£54.90m)
- Kylian Mbappe (£121.50m)
- Rodrygo (£40.50m)

This means that Chelsea refused the 4th highest figure for a player aged 18 or under.

 

 

[MUTU 37]

15 hours ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

That scenario is exactly like the one with Pulisic.  Except that there was no need for any stupid "don't play him clause".  That clause is for youth players going to lower league teams for their development.  Not for players you don't want to sell.

What your scenario is conveniently omitting is what differs from the Pulisic transfer (whole context, mate).  CHO supposedly wants to leave because he doesn't think he's going to get any game time.  So, in your scenario he's going to leave for a club that says "we'll play you so little that you can actually go back to that club you're moaning about".

In order for your scenario to play out it would mean that:

1.  Playing time has nothing to do with it

2.  Bayern don't need him more than we do for the next 6 months which again brings up the same question and answer again.  Why can't you just wait until the summer?  Just don't sell him this winter. 

I disagree because I'm seeing a 3rd scenario which would be:

CHO: "I want to sign a contract with Bayern and leave ASAP!"
Chelsea: "We'll let you sign a contract for Bayern IF AND ONLY IF you come back on loan until the end of the season. Otherwise, no deal!"
CHO: "Hmm... I REALLY want to play for Bayern, but I'm still worried that I'm not going to be played enough. The sooner I leave the better, because I don't trust you to play me, so I'll have to sit out till summer, I guess"
Chelsea: "We are going to play you, promise! We want you to stay because we really need you!"
Bayern: "We need him too, but we really want him and if summer is the only way we can take him, we'll just have to wait. But we also don't trust you will play him, so prove it. If you don't play him, you pay a compensation fee."
Chelsea: "OK, deal!"

[Unionjack 7,531]

34 minutes ago, MUTU said:

Bayern: "We need him too, but we really want him and if summer is the only way we can take him, we'll just have to wait. But we also don't trust you will play him,

Why should Bayern care IF we play him or not after they have already bought him?

It's no skin off their nose if we don't utilize the player we just sold is it? They get him either way.

[MUTU 37]

4 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Why should Bayern care IF we play him or not after they have already bought him?

It's no skin off their nose if we don't utilize the player we just sold is it? They get him either way.

Is this a trick question or a serious one? Let me assume it's the latter... players develop fastest around the age of 18, when playing time is an absolute necessity. CHO not being played at all until Summer could be the difference between him becoming a top player and a total flop. In fact, if he's not played at all until summer I wouldn't even want him for £5m. It's make-or-break time for him, and he wants to have a great career. Is Chelsea ready to allow him to become a top player or not? How many of your top 20 players of all time can you name who were not playing regular football at the age of 18?

[Vesper 27,310]

1 hour ago, MUTU said:

Awesome list! However I was talking about £35m at the time of sale, not including 19 year olds, and not including inflation.

For example, Cassano was £25.65m, and he was 19.

Anderson was around £20m, and he was 19.

Marquinhos was around £28m, and he was 19.

And so forth.

Out of the list, the <=18 year olds are:

- Rooney (£25.6m)
- Renato Sanches (£31.50m)
- Luke Shaw (£30m)
- Vinicius Junior (£54.90m)
- Kylian Mbappe (£121.50m)
- Rodrygo (£40.50m)

This means that Chelsea refused the 4th highest figure for a player aged 18 or under.

 

 

You have to take into account inflation or it is not a legit comparison at all. And your basic figures are wrong, irregardless of inflation.

Furthermore, CHO will turn 19 two and half months into next season, if you get him in the summer, so it's not worth splitting up teens. To start to toss around 2 and a half months as some sort of significant paradigm-shifting cleavage is to engage in pettifogging.

Your statement is simply wrong, as I just showed. It wasn't the 4th highest offer ever, you have to apply valid comparative metrics, and if you refuse, you then are choosing to enter the realm of sophistry, at which point I suggest no one take you for someone with honourable intentions.

Finally, a nasty cheap shot from me, but a deserved one IMHO.

IF Eden leaves, and we buy no remotely adequate replacement (I doubt we will) and CHO STILL refuses to renew, even though he very well could be a semi-full time starter, then I hope we shut him down, mothball him, ban him from training until he leaves on a free, and I hope your club suffers all sorts of calamitous misfortune, and misery henceforth, really bad shit, up to and including ruinous injuries. I always was neutral about Bayern, and have called them, up intil this year, the best run club on the planet, along with Juventus. If this shit goes down in a bad way, I will hate 'em for life. I am haĺf Swedish, half-Bajan, two of the most grudge-for-life cultures. Add in being a born and raised London girl, and nope, will never give up the hate and ill wishes.

Book it.