Nathan

[the wes 7,212]

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2016/06/vitesse-loan-for-nathan.html

Nathan is staying with vitesse for another season 

[Special Juan 27,425]

Not hanging about loaning out lads again I see, just incomings we are waiting on!!!!

[Unionjack 7,531]

Chelsea loanee Nathan scores a brace for Vitesse on the opening day (Videos)

http://www.101greatgoals.com/101ggvideos/chelsea-loanee-nathan-scores-brace-vitesse-opening-day-videos/

[Special Juan 27,425]

Another waste of wood we are carrying. 

[Beepu 1,714]

1 hour ago, Special Juan said:

Another waste of wood we are carrying. 

Chelsea buy young players in abundance, loan them out in the hope of 1 or 2 out of 30 can end up like Courtois. The majority of them will be sold for profit (small or big doesn't matter) while a number will be lost investments (sold at a loss or free transfer)

It's the model plan that the club is using. It'a a low risk plan. I suggest you start accepting this 'side business' of the club because it's not going to change anytime soon and it would save you a lot of worry from the waste of wood.

[Unionjack 7,531]

Chelsea deal to be confirmed tomorrow, player should be presented by club on Wednesday

Portuguese side Belenenses are close on signing the Chelsea forward Nathan on a loan deal, according to reports from the Portuguese press this Tuesday afternoon.

http://sportwitness.co.uk/chelsea-deal-confirmed-tomorrow-player-presented-club-wednesday/

[OneMoSalah 8,777]

No disrespect to him but he is not ever going to progress here why not just sell him and put in a buy back? Regardless of if its a business decision to continuously loan him out or not still stupid to keep someone on the books who probably has a 9/10 chance of not making it. 

[King11Didier 916]

24 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

No disrespect to him but he is not ever going to progress here why not just sell him and put in a buy back? Regardless of if its a business decision to continuously loan him out or not still stupid to keep someone on the books who probably has a 9/10 chance of not making it. 

Chelsea have bunch of this type of players. Maybe they are not sold because they have high wages and some small clubs where these players actually belongs to, can't pay them enough. I'm pretty sure with this type of loan, Chelsea pays him some percentage of his actual wages.

[LAM09 6,744]

Chelsea have bunch of this type of players. Maybe they are not sold because they have high wages and some small clubs where these players actually belongs to, can't pay them enough. I'm pretty sure with this type of loan, Chelsea pays him some percentage of his actual wages.

I'd presume 80/90% considering the clubs he's played for and the fact no one wants to take a punt.

 

He played 1 game during his spell in France & people wonder what's wrong with our loan policy.

 

[NikkiCFC 7,950]

Nathan to extend Chelsea contract, return to Atlético Mineiro on loan — report

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2020/1/15/21067044/nathan-to-extend-chelsea-contract-return-to-atletico-mineiro-on-loan-report

Ridiculous! 

[Vesper 28,801]

1 hour ago, NikkiCFC said:

Nathan to extend Chelsea contract, return to Atlético Mineiro on loan — report

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2020/1/15/21067044/nathan-to-extend-chelsea-contract-return-to-atletico-mineiro-on-loan-report

Ridiculous! 

What the fuck!!!!

Those new loan rules cannot come quick enough.

I am sure a Moses renewal soon comes. Van Ginkel. Kenedy. Musonda. Miazga. Blackman. Baba! Hell, renew DRINKWATER!

So disgusted.

[1905didierblue 748]

11 hours ago, NikkiCFC said:

Nathan to extend Chelsea contract, return to Atlético Mineiro on loan — report

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2020/1/15/21067044/nathan-to-extend-chelsea-contract-return-to-atletico-mineiro-on-loan-report

Ridiculous! 

Why is it ridiculous? Care to explain?

His contract was up in 6 months, we would have got nothing for him. In this way he is barely on our books (bought back in 2014 for a meagre 4mil, so his amortized value would be in thousands literally) and i am sure mineiro would be paying his wages. So where is the loss exactly? In this way if we sell him next year, his profit will be recorded on our 20/21 financial books when we would actually be needing the money to buy players, rather than the 19/20 books where we already have the hazard and the rest sales as well as we dont look to be buying anyone. So I think this is good business by the board. 

Obviously the doom and gloom merchants and the "we know better than the board" brigade would have you believe otherwise, but believe me, this is a decent thing that the board has done.

[NikkiCFC 7,950]

12 minutes ago, 1905didierblue said:

Why is it ridiculous? Care to explain?

His contract was up in 6 months, we would have got nothing for him. In this way he is barely on our books (bought back in 2014 for a meagre 4mil, so his amortized value would be in thousands literally) and i am sure mineiro would be paying his wages. So where is the loss exactly? In this way if we sell him next year, his profit will be recorded on our 20/21 financial books when we would actually be needing the money to buy players, rather than the 19/20 books where we already have the hazard and the rest sales as well as we dont look to be buying anyone. So I think this is good business by the board. 

Obviously the doom and gloom merchants and the "we know better than the board" brigade would have you believe otherwise, but believe me, this is a decent thing that the board has done.

It's ridiculous that he's still in our books. 

What profit? He's worth 1m maybe 2m max. What you said makes sense to do with someone like Kenedy who is worth probably around 10m but not with this guy. And new rules regarding loan players are coming. 

[1905didierblue 748]

4 hours ago, NikkiCFC said:

It's ridiculous that he's still in our books. 

What profit? He's worth 1m maybe 2m max. What you said makes sense to do with someone like Kenedy who is worth probably around 10m but not with this guy. And new rules regarding loan players are coming. 

As much as we would like to pretend that it's not, I am sure even 1m/2m is a lot of money, even for a mega football club like Chelsea. 

Yes, Kennedy also lies in the same bucket, but there is also the problem of the player accepting the contract. Kenedy might be asking for wages which the club think might make any transfer of his unachievable. I am not saying I know it all, but I also find it difficult and ridiculous to believe that the board of one of the biggest clubs in the world is getting everything wrong (according to some fans on here), where as the truth is that within a span of 5 years, we have become a club which used to be working on whatever change and scrap we could get from RoMan's pockets to one which is self sufficient now (a profit of 5m over the course of last 5 seasons) compared to a loss of around 100+ mil in 5 years before that period.

So don't believe the rants of one particular poster on here who is continuously ridiculing the board. They are doimg a decent job. 

As for the new loan rule. It's now official as of yet, is it? Even if it was, Nathan's loan is a 6 month loan, which makes his transfer in the summer quite viable.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

1 hour ago, 1905didierblue said:

Yes, Kennedy also lies in the same bucket,

[manpe 10,861]

21 hours ago, Vesper said:

What the fuck!!!!

Those new loan rules cannot come quick enough.

I am sure a Moses renewal soon comes. Van Ginkel. Kenedy. Musonda. Miazga. Blackman. Baba! Hell, renew DRINKWATER!

So disgusted.

I'm sure if you asked the board for reasons behind this decision, they could probably rationally explain it. I suspect many deadwoods are still on our books because nobody has wanted to buy them or been able to match the club's demands to financially justify those sales. At least this way we get income from loan fees while somebody else pays the wages.

[Vesper 28,801]

2 hours ago, manpe said:

I'm sure if you asked the board for reasons behind this decision, they could probably rationally explain it. I suspect many deadwoods are still on our books because nobody has wanted to buy them or been able to match the club's demands to financially justify those sales. At least this way we get income from loan fees while somebody else pays the wages.

Point is, those new loan rules are coming, and we will get stuck with too many at once to dump. Also, the loan fees do not make up for a walk on a free if we keep refusing to sell players just because a club is off bit from our asking price. If Willian, Kenedy, Donkeywater, etc etc etc end up walking on frees, the culmulatives fiscal damage will be immense, regardless of what divvy board fanboys bleat and wail (not talking about you at all there).

[1905didierblue 748]

"drinkwater" (last time I checked that was his name) was bought for 40m in 2017.

Which means at the start of this summer, 24mil of his fee was still left to on our books.

If we kept him, we got a loss of 8mil of his value (considering we did not pay his wages). If we sold him for even 15m we Got a loss of 24-15 = 9mil on our books and that is considering literally anyone would have even paid 15m for him.

And that's the difference between people on the board who actually know what they are doing and then on the other end of the spectrum are idiots and assholes trying to prove to the world that they actually know everything about something that they clearly have 0 idea about. 

There is a reason these "fans" are sitting behind a screen trying to earn brownie points out of fellow "fan" while there are those doing the real thing and making the club self sustainable in a very very short period of time. 

I for one know who I will put my trust in, and it won't be the idiots for sure.