🇨🇮 Jeremie Boga

[killer1257 3,282]

He scored again

Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk

[NikkiCFC 8,325]

https://streamja.com/2dNz

 

[Yeboii 1,844]

Looks a player we really need. Especially if Pulisic is injury prone.

[Jase 43,479]

If we sign Sancho in the summer, I highly doubt we'll sign Boga. It's one or the other, not both, IMO. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

26 minutes ago, Jason said:

If we sign Sancho in the summer, I highly doubt we'll sign Boga. It's one or the other, not both, IMO. 

Why not? City have Sane, Silva, Mahez, and Sterling 

[killer1257 3,282]

Why not? City have Sane, Silva, Mahez, and Sterling 

just get rid of Willian. Boga Pulisic CHO and Sancho.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk

[Jase 43,479]

15 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Why not? City have Sane, Silva, Mahez, and Sterling 

Mahrez is content to sit on the bench. He's only playing a lot this season because of Sane's injury. Silva can also play centrally.

If we have Pulisic (21), Sancho (19), CHO (19) and Boga (23), how do you expect them to improve, build consistency/form, develop chemistry with the others if we are constantly having to rotate them? All of them are at the age where they need to play consistently to improve. If we sign Sancho, especially when it's gonna be over 100 million, we are likely to make him first choice. Boga is starting week in week out at Sassuolo, why would he come back if he's going to be switched in and out for the team? We may have better chances of winning things than Sassuolo but for players, playing time can be more important simply winning stuff. And I'm sure Pulisic and CHO would want to play every week as well. On paper, it sounds great to have all 4 of them but in reality, there's only gonna be so many times you can rotate them before somebody becomes unhappy and wants to leave. Liverpool are a good example of how a consistent team selection can breed consistency in playing well and winning games. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

Mahrez is content to sit on the bench. He's only playing a lot this season because of Sane's injury. Silva can also play centrally.

If we have Pulisic (21), Sancho (19), CHO (19) and Boga (23), how do you expect them to improve, build consistency/form, develop chemistry with the others if we are constantly having to rotate them? All of them are at the age where they need to play consistently to improve. If we sign Sancho, especially when it's gonna be over 100 million, we are likely to make him first choice. Boga is starting week in week out at Sassuolo, why would he come back if he's going to be switched in and out for the team? We may have better chances of winning things than Sassuolo but for players, playing time can be more important simply winning stuff. And I'm sure Pulisic and CHO would want to play every week as well. On paper, it sounds great to have all 4 of them but in reality, there's only gonna be so many times you can rotate them before somebody becomes unhappy and wants to leave. Liverpool are a good example of how a consistent team selection can breed consistency in playing well and winning games. 

Well that may all be true, bringing up Liverpool shouldn't be the basis of our reasoning given what we are witnessing is something freak like. They are one injury away in their attack from everything collapsing. They are enjoying a ride in confidence and this form of consistency isn't something we have seen in the league ever. This truly is a one and done for Liverpool given I don't think Barca will continue to come knocking to fund their upgrades. 

City for me will continue to set the standard in Modern Football, especially in the Premier League. They've won so much because of their depth. 

Pulisic is hardly reliable given he is injury prone with his continuous muscular injuries, but like Silva he can play centrally.

 

[Jase 43,479]

3 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Well that may all be true, bringing up Liverpool shouldn't be the basis of our reasoning given what we are witnessing is something freak like.

If bringing Liverpool up shouldn't be the basis of the reasoning, then neither is bringing Man City up because not everyone can fill up their squad like City do. And it's easier to keep everyone happy if you can win like every week. 

7 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

They are one injury away in their attack from everything collapsing. They are enjoying a ride in confidence and this form of consistency isn't something we have seen in the league ever. This truly is a one and done for Liverpool given I don't think Barca will continue to come knocking to fund their upgrades.

You're not wrong but they do also have decent backups to step in. They might not be at Salah's or Mane's level but still decent backup nonetheless, certainly better than us having Willian or Pedro for example. This truly is a one and done for Liverpool? Over these last 1.5 seasons, they have been super consistent in the league (only 1 loss in 63 games) and have reached a European final every season under Klopp (except 2016/17 when they weren't in Europe). They might not keep up this consistency next season but they're unlikely to just fall off a cliff when their squad are still at a good age.

I know Tomo mentioned before that Liverpool were able to spend big because they sold someone for big money but I'm sure they're more than capable of spending big once or twice on their own. You don't have a brand like Liverpool, be as successful as they have been in recent years without having spending power of their own without relying on player sales.

16 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

City for me will continue to set the standard in Modern Football, especially in the Premier League. They've won so much because of their depth. 

Yes, their depth has helped them this season, aye?

16 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Pulisic is hardly reliable given he is injury prone with his continuous muscular injuries, but like Silva he can play centrally.

I know Pulisic's injury record at Dortmund is not ideal reading (none of them were long term by the way) but players at Dortmund always get injured anyway and Pulisic wasn't the first to suffer a muscle injury in training this season under Lampard. Unless the same thing happens down the line, I'd not be concerned at all. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

If bringing Liverpool up shouldn't be the basis of the reasoning, then neither is bringing Man City up because not everyone can fill up their squad like City do. And it's easier to keep everyone happy if you can win like every week. 

You're not wrong but they do also have decent backups to step in. They might not be at Salah's or Mane's level but still decent backup nonetheless, certainly better than us having Willian or Pedro for example. This truly is a one and done for Liverpool? Over these last 1.5 seasons, they have been super consistent in the league (only 1 loss in 63 games) and have reached a European final every season under Klopp (except 2016/17 when they weren't in Europe). They might not keep up this consistency next season but they're unlikely to just fall off a cliff when their squad are still at a good age. 

If one of Firmino, Salah, or Mane gets a lengthy injury, that'st their season. They are fortunate to have gone this far and not have suffered any injury. Origi and Shaqiri have proved to be good options off the bench,but not starters.  They are enjoying an incredible run of consistency and my only point is that we are better off strengthening in depth vs relying on 3 attackers performing out of their skin in a way the Premier League has never seen before. 

16 minutes ago, Jason said:

I know Tomo mentioned before that Liverpool were able to spend big because they sold someone for big money but I'm sure they're more than capable of spending big once or twice on their own. You don't have a brand like Liverpool, be as successful as they have been in recent years without having spending power of their own without relying on player sales.

 

But this was the only year since Klopp has been at Liverpool where he managed to get his targets, which only means Barca funded their project. Liverpool then bought the most expensive GK and CB at the time, not to mention Fabinho.

Their front three will surely have no resale value given their age and contract, so there is really nothing pointing towards Liverpool indicating they will sustain this kind of spending to compete. 

20 minutes ago, Jason said:

Yes, their depth has helped them this season, aye?

I think losing Sane and Laporte for the majority of the season yet still making it to a cup final and are comfortably 2nd in the table shows how much strength in quality they have. 

26 minutes ago, Jason said:

I know Pulisic's injury record at Dortmund is not ideal reading (none of them were long term by the way) but players at Dortmund always get injured anyway and Pulisic wasn't the first to suffer a muscle injury in training this season under Lampard. Unless the same thing happens down the line, I'd not be concerned at all. 

His continuous injuries show his muscular imbalances. Be at Dortmund, with the National team, and now here. This is happening far too often for my liking to only rely on three wingers moving forward. 

[Jase 43,479]

1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

If one of Firmino, Salah, or Mane gets a lengthy injury, that'st their season. They are fortunate to have gone this far and not have suffered any injury. Origi and Shaqiri have proved to be good options off the bench,but not starters.  They are enjoying an incredible run of consistency and my only point is that we are better off strengthening in depth vs relying on 3 attackers performing out of their skin in a way the Premier League has never seen before. 

Strengthening depth is one thing but again, how are you gonna manage the game time if you have Pulisic, Sancho, Boga and CHO? You mentioned City earlier but one is content to be on the bench while another can play centrally. Pulisic can play centrally but he hasn't done that here but we have a lot of midfielders as things stand.

5 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

But this was the only year since Klopp has been at Liverpool where he managed to get his targets, which only means Barca funded their project. Liverpool then bought the most expensive GK and CB at the time, not to mention Fabinho.

Their front three will surely have no resale value given their age and contract, so there is really nothing pointing towards Liverpool indicating they will sustain this kind of spending to compete. 

Alisson, Van Dijk and Fabinho cost a lot more combined than what they got for Coutinho. And having looked at their transfer ins and outs, saying Barcelona funded their buys is a bit of a stretch.

In the 2017/18 season, they spent approximately £150 million on new players (e.g. Salah, Oxlade-Chamberlain in the summer and Van Dijk in January), with approximately £105 million covered by the Coutinho sale. But in 2018/19, they spent about £160 million on Alisson, Keita, Fabinho and Shaqiri and got only about £34 million from sales. So they basically spent like £310 million on new players with the Coutinho sale only covering 1/3 of that. 

23 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

I think losing Sane and Laporte for the majority of the season yet still making it to a cup final and are comfortably 2nd in the table shows how much strength in quality they have. 

Leicester are only 2 points behind City and sit comfortably in the Top 4 as well but they don't exactly have greatest strength in quality, do they? 

They may have made a cup final but look who they beat to get there - Preston North End, Southampton (when they were really bad), Oxford and Man United. Only United were the tough one, on paper at least, but we all know they are just bad. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

Strengthening depth is one thing but again, how are you gonna manage the game time if you have Pulisic, Sancho, Boga and CHO? You mentioned City earlier but one is content to be on the bench while another can play centrally. Pulisic can play centrally but he hasn't done that here but we have a lot of midfielders as things stand.

 

You keep saying Mahrez is contempt with the bench but is that true? I relatively see Pep utilise his wingers based on the opposition. Sure he's gotten more game time with Sane's injury, but even last season Mahrez made just as many appearances as he had with Leicester. Matter of fact all 4 of Sane, Sterling, Mahrez, and B.Silva had similar start and sub appearances for City last season. Now whether Lampard can effectively balance all his wingers similar to Pep is another argument. B.Silva didn't start playing centrally until Mahrez was purchased, so who knows what Lampard will do with Pulisic, especially given he looks best playing behind the striker.

My main concern with Pulisic is his injuries that look consistent for an individual with muscular imbalances. That is the risk of relying on him.

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

In the 2017/18 season, they spent approximately £150 million on new players (e.g. Salah, Oxlade-Chamberlain in the summer and Van Dijk in January), with approximately £105 million covered by the Coutinho sale. But in 2018/19, they spent about £160 million on Alisson, Keita, Fabinho and Shaqiri and got only about £34 million from sales. So they basically spent like £310 million on new players with the Coutinho sale only covering 1/3 of that. 

 So one player funding 1/3 of their sales, which conveniently had them buying the most expensive CB and GK at the time. I still stand by that there is no evidence suggesting Liverpool can compete financially in modern football without having a club spend over the odds on their players, which looks less likely given the lack of resale value their star players will have given they are all at their peak.

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

Leicester are only 2 points behind City and sit comfortably in the Top 4 as well but they don't exactly have greatest strength in quality, do they? 

They may have made a cup final but look who they beat to get there - Preston North End, Southampton (when they were really bad), Oxford and Man United. Only United were the tough one, on paper at least, but we all know they are just bad. 

Leicester are not in Europe, and we all know from experience how a club with just enough quality can perform on a consistent level in the league with no Europe to balance. I am willing to bet my house they drop out of top 4 next season if they are in Europe. 

 

[Jase 43,479]

19 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

You keep saying Mahrez is contempt with the bench but is that true? I relatively see Pep utilise his wingers based on the opposition. Sure he's gotten more game time with Sane's injury, but even last season Mahrez made just as many appearances as he had with Leicester. Matter of fact all 4 of Sane, Sterling, Mahrez, and B.Silva had similar start and sub appearances for City last season

All 4 had similar start and sub appearances?

MAHREZ
2,551 minutes
44 appearances
28 starts

SILVA
4,025 minutes
51 appearances
43 starts

SANE
2,694 minutes
47 appearances
30 starts

STERLING
4,097 minutes
51 appearances
45 starts

Mahrez had the least minutes, appearances and starts of the four players, with Sterling and Silva way ahead. Obviously Silva played in the middle too but only Sane's stats are comparable with Mahrez's.

24 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Now whether Lampard can effectively balance all his wingers similar to Pep is another argument.

That's kinda my point. I don't disagree with having depth at all but you gotta make sure the depth doesn't give you problems in terms of having to juggle game times, especially when all 4 are of similar age. Also, we have Mount who can play out wide if needed.

25 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

My main concern with Pulisic is his injuries that look consistent for an individual with muscular imbalances. That is the risk of relying on him.

But what if this doesn't out to be a long term issue? What if Lampard, the physios can work out a training regime for him to make sure this doesn't turn into a problem in the long run?

28 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

So one player funding 1/3 of their sales, which conveniently had them buying the most expensive CB and GK at the time. I still stand by that there is no evidence suggesting Liverpool can compete financially in modern football without having a club spend over the odds on their players, which looks less likely given the lack of resale value their star players will have given they are all at their peak.

The Coutinho sale covered only 1/3, which meant they splashed out more than £200 million on their own. How is that not being able to compete financially in modern football? Sure, they might not drop £100 million+ on a single player but that doesn't mean they won't spend £60-70 million on someone if they want to. They also get their share of big Premier League TV money, money from their Champions League runs and their owner is hardly poor either. If they continue to be successful in the next few years, they might even get new sponsors, new kit deals etc and get even more money!

[NikkiCFC 8,325]

2 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

If one of Firmino, Salah, or Mane gets a lengthy injury, that'st their season. They are fortunate to have gone this far and not have suffered any injury. 

You know they beat Barca 4:0 without Salah and Firmino?

 

59 minutes ago, Jason said:

All 4 had similar start and sub appearances?

MAHREZ
2,551 minutes
44 appearances
28 starts

SILVA
4,025 minutes
51 appearances
43 starts

SANE
2,694 minutes
47 appearances
30 starts

STERLING
4,097 minutes
51 appearances
45 starts

They all played a lot! I dont think Boga or CHO would be unhappy with 2500-2700 minutes in season. That is like 30 full games.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Also, we have Mount who can play out wide if needed.

Please not.

1 hour ago, Jason said:

How is that not being able to compete financially in modern football? Sure, they might not drop £100 million+ on a single player but that doesn't mean they won't spend £60-70 million on someone if they want to. They also get their share of big Premier League TV money, money from their Champions League runs and their owner is hardly poor either. If they continue to be successful in the next few years, they might even get new sponsors, new kit deals etc and get even more money!

Thay can but Liverpool have owners who are more focused on business part so they will never spend like City, Real or PSG.

[Jase 43,479]

Just now, NikkiCFC said:

They all played a lot! I dont think Boga or CHO would be unhappy with 2500-2700 minutes in season. That is like 30 full games.

The minutes do look a lot but I'm talking about the stop-start nature, the players would want to play week in week out.

I mentioned this earlier, why would Boga, for instance, want to come back here and not start consistently when he is the first choice at Sassuolo?

2 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

Thay can but Liverpool have owners who are more focused on business part so they will never spend like City, Real or PSG.

Oh, they won't spend as recklessly as those 3 sometimes can but that doesn't mean they won't spend if they have to. 

[NikkiCFC 8,325]

Why on Earth would Chelsea forgo the €10m buyback option on Jérémie Boga?

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2020/2/15/21138731/why-on-earth-would-chelsea-forgo-the-10m-buyback-option-on-jeremie-boga

WTF!? 

[OneMoSalah 8,886]

2 hours ago, NikkiCFC said:

Why on Earth would Chelsea forgo the €10m buyback option on Jérémie Boga?

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2020/2/15/21138731/why-on-earth-would-chelsea-forgo-the-10m-buyback-option-on-jeremie-boga

WTF!? 

While I dont quite think we should go for Boga, who I always feel has been slightly overrated from his time here as a youth player even to now with all the so called experts acting as if they watch Sassuolo every week and as if he is head and shoulders above a lot of guys in the same position (there are much better players) in Serie A and anything we currently have, it strikes me as a waste of time and just a huge over complication signing him to sell on again.

Firstly, moves can fall through for whatever reasons. Then ultimately your left with a player youve signed only as a money making scheme on the wage bill. If we want him to play, okay use the clause, that makes sense but if he wont play, just let Sassuolo sell him if he is going to be an asset to another club.

For the sake of a club of our size and financial stability trying to go through buy back loopholes to gain an addition 10m or 20m, it seems like overkill.

Even more so if he did come to be resold, the move ended up collapsing or not happening as this reported interest from Napoli is just bullshit like a lot of rumors then we probably add another player to the scrapheap of loan players with no immediate or long term future at the club.

Even then, the player might not want to come here, he might not want to be fucked about, coming here being resold etc. Or even if he was to play, as weve seen with Lukaku (who I know wasnt a buy back clause but similar case in my view) and might yet see with Nathan Ake, he might rather go somewhere else, having already been at Chelsea and didnt quite happen so theres that to consider too.

Think it would be hugely arrogant to just assume that he will be willing to return here at all, yet alone only to be sold on. I think the only real case of that I have seen is with Morata going from Madrid to Juventus to Madrid again because there was a lot of rumors they would sell him after resigning him? But even then he ended up being played at Real afterwards before moving here because he wasnt their first choice but at least he played and wasnt just a quick cash gain move (although they did make a profit when they sold him to us, like 25m at least excluding add ons but that was because their buyback clause was 30m euros). 

[NikkiCFC 8,325]

1 hour ago, OneMoSalah said:

While I dont quite think we should go for Boga, who I always feel has been slightly overrated from his time here as a youth player even to now with all the so called experts acting as if they watch Sassuolo every week and as if he is head and shoulders above a lot of guys in the same position (there are much better players) in Serie A and anything we currently have, it strikes me as a waste of time and just a huge over complication signing him to sell on again.

Firstly, moves can fall through for whatever reasons. Then ultimately your left with a player youve signed only as a money making scheme on the wage bill. If we want him to play, okay use the clause, that makes sense but if he wont play, just let Sassuolo sell him if he is going to be an asset to another club.

For the sake of a club of our size and financial stability trying to go through buy back loopholes to gain an addition 10m or 20m, it seems like overkill.

Even more so if he did come to be resold, the move ended up collapsing or not happening as this reported interest from Napoli is just bullshit like a lot of rumors then we probably add another player to the scrapheap of loan players with no immediate or long term future at the club.

Even then, the player might not want to come here, he might not want to be fucked about, coming here being resold etc. Or even if he was to play, as weve seen with Lukaku (who I know wasnt a buy back clause but similar case in my view) and might yet see with Nathan Ake, he might rather go somewhere else, having already been at Chelsea and didnt quite happen so theres that to consider too.

Think it would be hugely arrogant to just assume that he will be willing to return here at all, yet alone only to be sold on. I think the only real case of that I have seen is with Morata going from Madrid to Juventus to Madrid again because there was a lot of rumors they would sell him after resigning him? But even then he ended up being played at Real afterwards before moving here because he wasnt their first choice but at least he played and wasnt just a quick cash gain move (although they did make a profit when they sold him to us, like 25m at least excluding add ons but that was because their buyback clause was 30m euros). 

In Nba moves like this happen all the time. Clubs can send you wherever they want without asking you. We lost so much money on stupid transfers like Drinkwater, Bakayoko... Taking Boga back and selling him again for 30+ millions is smart business because we need that money. We are not charity organisation. We are losing this summer Willian, Pedro, Giroud, Kenedy for free and we can't afford to lose more money because of sympathy towards some Italian club or Boga. 

[Vesper 30,193]

2 hours ago, OneMoSalah said:

While I dont quite think we should go for Boga, who I always feel has been slightly overrated from his time here as a youth player even to now with all the so called experts acting as if they watch Sassuolo every week and as if he is head and shoulders above a lot of guys in the same position (there are much better players) in Serie A and anything we currently have, it strikes me as a waste of time and just a huge over complication signing him to sell on again.

Firstly, moves can fall through for whatever reasons. Then ultimately your left with a player youve signed only as a money making scheme on the wage bill. If we want him to play, okay use the clause, that makes sense but if he wont play, just let Sassuolo sell him if he is going to be an asset to another club.

For the sake of a club of our size and financial stability trying to go through buy back loopholes to gain an addition 10m or 20m, it seems like overkill.

Even more so if he did come to be resold, the move ended up collapsing or not happening as this reported interest from Napoli is just bullshit like a lot of rumors then we probably add another player to the scrapheap of loan players with no immediate or long term future at the club.

Even then, the player might not want to come here, he might not want to be fucked about, coming here being resold etc. Or even if he was to play, as weve seen with Lukaku (who I know wasnt a buy back clause but similar case in my view) and might yet see with Nathan Ake, he might rather go somewhere else, having already been at Chelsea and didnt quite happen so theres that to consider too.

Think it would be hugely arrogant to just assume that he will be willing to return here at all, yet alone only to be sold on. I think the only real case of that I have seen is with Morata going from Madrid to Juventus to Madrid again because there was a lot of rumors they would sell him after resigning him? But even then he ended up being played at Real afterwards before moving here because he wasnt their first choice but at least he played and wasnt just a quick cash gain move (although they did make a profit when they sold him to us, like 25m at least excluding add ons but that was because their buyback clause was 30m euros). 

this makes no sense or cents IMHO

I also think you are underrating Boga as a player

[Vesper 30,193]

Italian club meet with Chelsea in an attempt to remove €10m buy back clause for ace

https://www.caughtoffside.com/2020/02/15/italian-club-meet-with-chelsea-in-an-attempt-to-remove-e10m-buy-back-clause-for-ace/

It’s hard to see a situation where a club would just voluntarily agree to waive a buy back clause for an emerging talent, so this could represent a handy windfall for Chelsea.

Jeremie Boga has often looked dangerous on the ball and always came across as a good dribbler, but he’s started to add some end product and spectacular goals to his game at Sassuolo this season.

READ MORE: Video: Jeremie Boga scores exquisite chip against Juventus goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon

Naturally that means the bigger clubs may start to circle, so this could be the ideal chance for his team to cash in and make some money on him.

According to a report from Gianluca di Marzio, Chelsea do own a buy back option on their former player for €10m, so they would be in a position to trigger that and look to sell him on at a profit.

 

snip