Rumoured Luke Shaw

[Pizy 17,860]

I see the muppets on twitter going wild because Shaw has just followed a bunch of United players. Looks like this one is edging closer and closer with " talks set to resume today" between the clubs.

It's almost certainly going to be one we'll regret letting slip away from us in the future, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[xPetrCechx 13,548]

I see the muppets on twitter going wild because Shaw has just followed a bunch of United players. Looks like this one is edging closer and closer with " talks set to resume today" between the clubs.

It's almost certainly going to be one we'll regret letting slip away from us in the future, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Like Aguero...

[Pizy 17,860]

Like Aguero...

Fortunately finding a good fullback will be much easier (and cheaper) than signing a world class striker.

Just fucking imagine how incredible we'd be with Agüero right now...

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

Does Jose Mourinho guarantee playing time to anyone? An 18 yr old LB will not be the exception.

[MrBlueGuy 1,552]

Also with Filipe Luis agent saying his client might not be interested in leaving Atletico we are a bit fucked. With Liverpool also bid 16m for Moreno, I think they will get him too. Basically from 4 good options to choose from now we are possibly down to only Rodriguez-who we are not even linked with.

Really really hope we do a Hazard on MU with Shaw, find out what Southampton accepted and offer the same, while at the same time promise Shaw bigger wages than MU will.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

If we're not going to buy him, I hope he stay at Southampton. Didn't MU just renew Evra contract for one more year? why they're after Shaw for?

[Pizy 17,860]

If we're not going to buy him, I hope he stay at Southampton. Didn't MU just renew Evra contract for one more year? why they're after Shaw for?

Because Evra is shit and old? Shaw will get the bulk of the games with Evra as cover and his mentor for a season to help him settle.

Basically how it should be here with Ash and Shaw.

[remains of the day 564]

But is it 'potential'? Potential is when you should you're talent in a few games here and there, sporadically making appearances here and there. Shaw has been consistent in the Premier League for the last 2 years, he's handled his own against the giants in Man City, United, Liverpool and us.. He's been one of Southampton's most consistent players and if he's keeping Cole out of the England squad then he's clearly doing something well. I don't think they're paying for potential, because Shaw can easily walk into the Chelsea team and be reliable enough to play 38 games in his first season in the league.

For the reported fee, what you're mostly paying for IS his potential though.... in the sense that his abilities, right now, doesn't merit anything close to that amount. For the past two seasons, I've been hoping that we'd bring in shaw. I like the composure to his game, and I like that there's a maturity to him. That he's an established left back in the premier league at 18/19 is extremely impressive, although it's not so surprising as So'ton's academy places a big emphasis on nurturing players' emotional intelligence. But I think people are so intent on this transfer, that they're now over glorifying the player to rationalize his fee. He's a solid, and consistent left back at a very young age but I doubt that his contributions on our left flank would be such that it puts us that much closer to the club's objectives.

I also don't think it's just a simple case of Shaw for 30M > Luis for 18/20M. As a fan I agree with that, but if I were on the Chelsea board my priority probably wouldn't be to bring in a left back who can give us 15 years. My aim would be to bring in a left back who can provide a platform for Hazard to actualize his potential, for a cost that the club can swallow. I'm hesitant about paying 20M for a 28 yr old, but I can understand the reasoning behind the decision. Luis is a lot more explosive, and dynamic than Shaw. He'll be better at creating space for Hazard and distracting defenders, while also being able to do an excellent job defensively. I'm trying to think of examples of similar deals but the only one that comes to mind is City paying 30M for Fernandinho who was 28 at the time. Many thought they'd be better served investing that money on a younger player who could give them more years, but Fernandinho has been able to bring out the best out of Toure (attacking wise) and went on to be an instrumental player for them.

I'm not against signing Shaw, all I'm saying is that if the club decides to pass up on him and go with Luis, then to me it wouldn't be a misguided decision. It would be nice to bring in a young, English talent who's also a Chelsea fan, but essentially what we need in that position is a player who can provide good support for Hazard and provide him with a platform to excel, without putting a financial strain on the club.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

but if I were on the Chelsea board my priority probably wouldn't be to bring in a left back who can give us 15 years.

Really? That's a strange rationale to be honest. You should be looking for longevity with any signing you make, because it means you're not having to fork out £15-20m every 3 years on the same position. The same way we've been blessed to have a consistent Cole since 2007 we haven't had to search for another left-back in that whole time, unless it's for a back-up.

I think it is misguided.. Luis will cost £10m less but he's going to be 29 by the time he plays for us. Cole's 33, it would've made more sense then to keep Ashley for another season and then see how Shaw's gone along rather than pay £20m on a player you're getting 3-4 years from.

I disagree about your analysis on Hazard & Shaw too. If anything Shaw will be as good as taking defenders away, that what's good about him.. He knows exactly when to make a run forward and those runs are very Ashley Cole-esq before he started becoming more defensive minded. Shaw's got the intelligence as well to get back at the right time and he's got good pace to do it. He and Hazard can compliment each other very well and it'll be better in the long term if they get a relationship that will last for longer than 3-4 years. I accept your Fernandinho example, but it's still very short term thinking.. Which is the opposite of what the club should be doing.

[dee25 1,044]

Really? That's a strange rationale to be honest. You should be looking for longevity with any signing you make, because it means you're not having to fork out £15-20m every 3 years on the same position. The same way we've been blessed to have a consistent Cole since 2007 we haven't had to search for another left-back in that whole time, unless it's for a back-up.

But how do you know that though?

I mean, the club could very well sign Luis for £20m and in another three years land a young left back for £6m. The total fee would still be cheaper than the fee paid for Shaw.

I'm not sure where I stand on the luis signing, I was initially against it but it just seems to me that basing the decision to spend £30m on an 18 yr old fullback, in the hopes that he could follow Ashley Cole's trajectory and become the best left back in the country isn't exactly the sound business judgement that you're making it out to be.

I agree that we need to target signings that will bring us longevity, but we also need to be strategic. Looking at the wages and fees being reported for Luke Shaw - seems to me that we would be putting all our eggs in one basket.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

But how do you know that though?

I mean, the club could very well sign Luis for £20m and in another three years land a young left back for £6m. The total fee would still be cheaper than the fee paid for Shaw.

I'm not sure where I stand on the luis signing, I was initially against it but It just seems to me that basing the decision to spend £30m on an 18 yr old fullback, in the hopes that he could follow Ashley Cole's trajectory and become the best left back in the country isn't exactly the sound business judgement that you're making it out to be.

I agree that we need to target signings that will bring us longevity, but we also need to be strategic. Looking at the wages and fees being reported for Luke Shaw - seems to me that we would be putting all our eggs in one basket.

Agreed it's a risk, but looking at the way Shaw's progressed over the last 2 years in the Premier League I can understand why Southampton have put this valuation on him. They've seen guys like Oxlade, Bale, Walcott etc go for peanuts and they've gone onto to be stars so they're trying to reap rewards from their academy products.

We would be putting our eggs into one basket, yes, but that being said it's less of a risk when it comes to a full-back. The only thing that's going to hamper Shaw's progression right now is a serious injury and that's beyond anyone's control. He's not in a position that requires confidence to always be up there, like a striker or attacking midfield player. He'll have support in defense from Terry & Cahill and whoever sits deep alongside Matic. He'll also have help from Hazard on the wing or, if Mourinho chooses to, Willian.

To spend £20m on a player you're getting 3 seasons max out of is more of a sin then £30m on someone who could give you 15. Like I said before, sometimes you have to take age out the equation and judge a player on the merits they present. Shaw has been one of the most consistent LBs in the league, he was definitely up there with Azpili and Baines last season too and that alone.. In this league, is a big statement for anyone to make.

United took Rooney on for £30m at the age of 18 and they haven't looked back because they gambled and it paid off. We're willing to gamble such sums on players in the n10, striker etc.. Why not a full-back then?

[Gilvorak 3,734]

Signing Shaw would be a similar to the significant investment Real Madrid made for Sergio Ramos (€27m) 9 years ago while he was still a teenager. Overpriced at the time but Ramos went on to become one of the best in his position (originally a fullback like Shaw), is vice-captain and scored the crucial goal to eventually led to La Decima.

There are simply certain players you just have to make an exception for and when Utd are also in contention for said player it's an additional incentive. I don't really invest my time in transfer rumours but I'll be annoyed if we don't sign Shaw and let him go to Man U.

As long as we can afford Costa then I see no problem with this transfer at all. Even if we have to sell squad players to make ends meet, DO IT. We have the best academy in the country, it's time to start grooming our own players.

[dee25 1,044]

United took Rooney on for £30m at the age of 18 and they haven't looked back because they gambled and it paid off. We're willing to gamble such sums on players in the n10, striker etc.. Why not a full-back then?

Because a fullback isn't going to single handedly win you games. Full backs are not match winners. To drop that kind of money on a defender, you have to have complete faith in his potential. Clearly you do, as you seem to be absolutely sure that he'll live up to the billing, but I think you have to realize that Mourinho and the board might have their reservations on whether he could follow in Ashley Cole's footsteps.

Is it a sin to go with a short term signing for 10m less? Well you can only make a conclusion like that in hindsight. Luke Shaw can sign for Utd, and after a season or two begin to fade while Filipe Luis might come here, and form a deadly partnership with Hazard on our left hand side. Would you still be calling it sin?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Because a fullback isn't going to single handedly win you games. Full backs are not match winners. To drop that kind of money on a defender, you have to have complete faith in his potential. Clearly you do, as you seem to be absolutely sure that he'll live up to the billing, but I think you have to realize that Mourinho and the board might have their reservations on whether he could follow in Ashley Cole's footsteps.

Is it a sin to go with a short term signing for 10m less? Well you can only make a conclusion like that in hindsight. Luke Shaw can sign for Utd, and after a season or two begin to fade while Filipe Luis might come here, and form a deadly partnership with Hazard on our left hand side. Would you still be calling it sin?

I do, because he's shown that he is living up to the billing. To do it in one season, as many do, is one thing.. To then continue that consistency into a second season is something special. Southampton were successful because Rodriguez was scoring goals, Lallana was making a difference in winning midfield battles but who were most people talking about? Luke Shaw. Without his contributions, along with Lovren in defense Southampton would not have been as successful. A full-back won't single handedly win you a game, I agree, but he is going to make sure the guy who does is going to get a hell of a lot of support from him. I.e. him supporting Hazard on the left-wing.

Of course it wouldn't be a sin should that happen, and you're right it is a matter of hindsight. But, to me anyway, it seems more logical to go for the the option who's more likely to give you longevity than the one who'll give you all of 3-4 seasons.

If there's anything we've learnt from Luiz, Thiago Silva, Marquinhos etc, it's that the game is full of appreciation for attacking defenders and their prices are continuing to increase ever season. As said earlier, Ramos went to Real for €27m, Dani Alvez went for £23million + £7million add-ons. Shaw is simply unlucky Southampton weren't in Europe to showcase his already established talent.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Signing Shaw would be a similar to the significant investment Real Madrid made for Sergio Ramos (€27m) 9 years ago while he was still a teenager. Overpriced at the time but Ramos went on to become one of the best in his position (originally a fullback like Shaw), is vice-captain and scored the crucial goal to eventually led to La Decima.

There are simply certain players you just have to make an exception for and when Utd are also in contention for said player it's an additional incentive. I don't really invest my time in transfer rumours but I'll be annoyed if we don't sign Shaw and let him go to Man U.

As long as we can afford Costa then I see no problem with this transfer at all. Even if we have to sell squad players to make ends meet, DO IT.

A good argument for signing Shaw, but then you say....

We have the best academy in the country, it's time to start grooming our own players.

Isn't that the argument against signing Shaw for £30 million?

[didierforever 7,349]

if we are actually signing filipe luis for 20mil, then i would rather that we go for shaw. higher ceiling, longer duration, definitely would be more worth the money and most importantly HG.

[iseah100 5,612]

Are people seriously okay with paying as much for Shaw as we did for Hazard? I get he's HG, young, and a Chelsea fan. But that's a steep price. Plus i don't think he'd have an Azpi type wage. It'd be a good investment if it was cheaper. At that price, it becomes very risky.

[Blue Armour 4,165]

Well if we do lose out on him now..hopefully we can do an "Ashley Cole" and get him when he's older and in his prime.