Callum Hudson-Odoi

[Unionjack 7,531]

5 minutes ago, MUTU said:

I don't mean to intrude, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have a full-time job

Only in a very grey sense and am ummm self employed lol

Whereas I get your point we are talking of people earning £millions and companys that could also lose £millions.

I also suppose it depends on which club is getting shafted too.  Your club is well known for doing anything and everything they can do get players.

I do wish we would take more of that stance. Go into a player like we were Billy Big Bollox! A big pocket full of cash determined to get who we wanted and fuck everyone else. But sadly we don't.

[MUTU 37]

13 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Only in a very grey sense and am ummm self employed lol

Whereas I get your point we are talking of people earning £millions and companys that could also lose £millions.

I also suppose it depends on which club is getting shafted too.  Your club is well known for doing anything and everything they can do get players.

I do wish we would take more of that stance. Go into a player like we were Billy Big Bollox! A big pocket full of cash determined to get who we wanted and fuck everyone else. But sadly we don't.

You don't? Dude, I know this is a Chelsea forum and it's not my place to do this but seriously this is too much... Chelsea have at least TRIPLE Bayern's amount of professional players on contract, whether playing or out on contract. We super rarely buy players just to loan them out. Gnabry was a big exception. You have 37 players out on loan. We have 1, who's a youth product anyway. You're making it sound like we're able to get players while you aren't.

[El P. 1,354]

1 minute ago, MUTU said:

You don't? Dude, I know this is a Chelsea forum and it's not my place to do this but seriously this is too much... Chelsea have at least TRIPLE Bayern's amount of professional players on contract, whether playing or out on contract. We super rarely buy players just to loan them out. Gnabry was a big exception. You have 37 players out on loan. You're making it sound like we're able to get players while you aren't.

Grass is always greener on the other side?

[MUTU 37]

1 minute ago, El P. said:

Grass is always greener on the other side?

There's more than just a case for that

[El P. 1,354]

9 minutes ago, MUTU said:

There's more than just a case for that

Ok... while we may have more money to spend, Bayern is more attractive club these days. We are not in UCL that often, and even when we play in UCL we are not good.

Also, some players like more to play in easier league, not to play 2 cups, having winter break, not being often kicked on the cold rainy night in Stoke, having more energy to win UCL, having winning league guaranteed...

[MUTU 37]

3 minutes ago, El P. said:

Ok... while we may have more money to spend, Bayern is more attractive club these days. We are not in UCL that often, and even when we play in UCL we are not good.

Also, some players like more to play in easier league, not to play 2 cups, having winter break, not being often kicked on the cold rainy night in Stoke, having more energy to win UCL, having winning league guaranteed...

Out of curiousity, if you think the Bundesliga is easier, doesn't have Stoke, and allows you more energy and breaks, what reasons would you give for Bundesliga clubs consistently having more injuries than Premier League clubs? This is a fact not an opinion.

I understand that you play more matches, but you get around that by having a larger squad. For the first half of the season, we had 19 outfield players. Now we have 20 since we've added 18yo Davies. You have 24 outfield players, so you can afford much more rotation.

I also understand you don't have a winter break, but that only results with us having a more congested rest of the season. You mentioned more energy to win the UCL... but hear me out. When the referee whistles full time in Liverpool's last match before playing the 1st leg against Bayern, Bayern would still need to play TWO matches.

[Unionjack 7,531]

28 minutes ago, MUTU said:

You don't? Dude, I know this is a Chelsea forum and it's not my place to do this but seriously this is too much... Chelsea have at least TRIPLE Bayern's amount of professional players on contract, whether playing or out on contract. We super rarely buy players just to loan them out. Gnabry was a big exception. You have 37 players out on loan. We have 1, who's a youth product anyway. You're making it sound like we're able to get players while you aren't.

No mate we don't go in big any more. The club has a 1 out 1 in policy and always like to get one out before buying in. Tho we do try to get one lined up before they go. Where most clubs would do it the other way round and bring in a new player then sell the old.

We have been trying hard to abide by the FFP guidelines and gone are the days where we would buy volumes of players and thrown our money around..

And generally speaking we can buy players that really haven't been of any use to us.Which is nobodys fault but our lovely board of Directors. Tho it is promising that we have paid up for a couple of players just lately which has surprised me. Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Superblue 6,370]

27 minutes ago, MUTU said:

Out of curiousity, if you think the Bundesliga is easier, doesn't have Stoke, and allows you more energy and breaks, what reasons would you give for Bundesliga clubs consistently having more injuries than Premier League clubs? This is a fact not an opinion.

I understand that you play more matches, but you get around that by having a larger squad. For the first half of the season, we had 19 outfield players. Now we have 20 since we've added 18yo Davies. You have 24 outfield players, so you can afford much more rotation.

I also understand you don't have a winter break, but that only results with us having a more congested rest of the season. You mentioned more energy to win the UCL... but hear me out. When the referee whistles full time in Liverpool's last match before playing the 1st leg against Bayern, Bayern would still need to play TWO matches.

The problem in England now is there are six 'big' teams now challenging for the Champions League spots. That's 10 games a season, over a quarter of the league season spent playing against direct rivals for the league; games that could have huge ramifications on league standings at the seasons end.

To make matters even worse for Chelsea, based in London we have numerous London derbies which may not seem quite as significant to us, but are huge games for the opposition. So over half our season is made up of matches against title rivals and derbies. The relentless pressure just to get in the top 4 makes it incredibly difficult to rest players even against the lesser sides who all spend pretty big sums of money themselves - Fulham are in the relegation zone and spent the best part of £100m in the summer.

I'm not going to argue over whether the Premier League is a more technical league, etc but I don't see another top league in the world played at the intensity and frenetic pace that a lot of games in England are played like.

[Vesper 28,813]

59 minutes ago, MUTU said:

You don't? Dude, I know this is a Chelsea forum and it's not my place to do this but seriously this is too much... Chelsea have at least TRIPLE Bayern's amount of professional players on contract, whether playing or out on contract. We super rarely buy players just to loan them out. Gnabry was a big exception. You have 37 players out on loan. We have 1, who's a youth product anyway. You're making it sound like we're able to get players while you aren't.

Other than the first 2 years (2003-2005) Roman has NOT been a big net spender.

This is one of the biggest myths in football.

Here is our net transfer fee spending under Roman

Transfer fee spending under Abramovich (net)

2003-04: £151.4m
2004-05: £146.8m

NO MORE BIG NET SPENDING AFTER THIS 2004-5 SEASON

2005-06: £51.7m
2006-07: £32.2m
2007-08: £13.8m

2008-09: £12.7m PROFIT
2009-10: £23.6m
2010-11: £94.5m

here is the last 8 years

2011-12: £57.7m
2012-13: £75.8m

2013-14  £47.6m

2014-15  £6.4m PROFIT

2015-16  £2.7m

2016-17  £21.9m

2017-18 £54.1m

2018-19 £75.1m (Summer only and we have a simply massive amount of players to sell, we turned down £620m in total hard offers in the summer of 2018 alone, not even counting Kante) 

total

£328.5 for the last 8 years (365.8m euros)

that's almost a BILLION LESS than the article https://www.talkchelsea.net/news/chelseas-spending-since-2010-has-been-revealed-and-its-ridiculous/ 

states, the article is tosh clickbait

£41.1m per year net spend on average the last 8 years

total £829.8m over the 16 year time frame that Abramovich has owned us 

works out to around £51.9m NET per year

36% of ALL money net spent was in the first 2 years

take away those first  2 years

the average net transfer fee spend over the last 14 seasons (per year) is only £37.8m 

[MUTU 37]

8 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

No mate we don't go in big any more. The club has a 1 out 1 in policy and always like to get one out before buying in. Tho we do try to get one lined up before they go. Where most clubs would do it the other way round and bring in a new player then sell the old.

We have been trying hard to abide by the FFP guidelines and gone are the days where we would buy volumes of players and thrown our money around..

And generally speaking we can buy players that really haven't been of any use to us.Which is nobodys fault but our lovely board of Directors. Tho it is promising that we have paid up for a couple of players just lately which has surprised me. Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Mate, you're underestimating the charm of the Premier League and the spending power of Chelsea. If Bayern and Chelsea ever got into a bidding war over a player, I'd give up before it's even concluded. If you remember, you took Ballack from us for free simply because you afforded to pay him a salary higher than the one we could afford. Of course, times have changed a lot since then, but may I point out that our record purchase is £37.35m while you've signed 6 players of a higher value than that: Shevchenko, Jorginho, Torres, Pulisic, Morata and Kepa. The latter's cost you almost double our record transfer. Really, there are few clubs who've afforded £72m transfers, and Chelsea are one of them. No need to feel like you don't go big anymore.

[MUTU 37]

4 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The problem in England now is there are six 'big' teams now challenging for the Champions League spots. That's 10 games a season, over a quarter of the league season spent playing against direct rivals for the league; games that could have huge ramifications on league standings at the seasons end.

To make matters even worse for Chelsea, based in London we have numerous London derbies which may not seem quite as significant to us, but are huge games for the opposition. So over half our season is made up of matches against title rivals and derbies. The relentless pressure just to get in the top 4 makes it incredibly difficult to rest players even against the lesser sides who all spend pretty big sums of money themselves - Fulham are in the relegation zone and spent the best part of £100m in the summer.

I'm not going to argue over whether the Premier League is a more technical league, etc but I don't see another top league in the world played at the intensity and frenetic pace that a lot of games in England are played like.

But... wouldn't you agree that intensity and frenetic pace should result in more injuries?

If anything this goes against my question. How come the Bundesliga clubs consistently have more injuries than Premier League clubs?

[Vesper 28,813]

11 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The problem in England now is there are six 'big' teams now challenging for the Champions League spots. That's 10 games a season, over a quarter of the league season spent playing against direct rivals for the league; games that could have huge ramifications on league standings at the seasons end.

To make matters even worse for Chelsea, based in London we have numerous London derbies which may not seem quite as significant to us, but are huge games for the opposition. So over half our season is made up of matches against title rivals and derbies. The relentless pressure just to get in the top 4 makes it incredibly difficult to rest players even against the lesser sides who all spend pretty big sums of money themselves - Fulham are in the relegation zone and spent the best part of £100m in the summer.

I'm not going to argue over whether the Premier League is a more technical league, etc but I don't see another top league in the world played at the intensity and frenetic pace that a lot of games in England are played like.

Great post

[kc_blue 265]

Ahh, the days when we could take Ballack from you.  Much different then today though.  At that time you guys were kind of struggling and we were consistently first or second in our league and going far in the CL.  Now it's you that are consistently going far in the CL.  The wheel turned.  Hopefully we'll get back to the days of truly competing year on year for CL but keeping our best players is definitely going to be a part of it and CHO is looked at as the best chance an academy kid has had at making it.  

[Unionjack 7,531]

1 minute ago, MUTU said:

Mate, you're underestimating the charm of the Premier League and the spending power of Chelsea. If Bayern and Chelsea ever got into a bidding war over a player, I'd give up before it's even concluded. If you remember, you took Ballack from us for free simply because you afforded to pay him a salary higher than the one we could afford. Of course, times have changed a lot since then, but may I point out that our record purchase is £37.35m while you've signed 6 players of a higher value than that: Shevchenko, Jorginho, Torres, Pulisic, Morata and Kepa. The latter's cost you almost double our record transfer. Really, there are few clubs who've afforded £72m transfers, and Chelsea are one of them. No need to feel like you don't go big anymore.

But you forget we don't now or really ever have had the sort of magnetism that brings in players -0 TOP players. So we have HAD TO pay over the top for them.

You never hear of a big player coming out saying their dream has always been to play for Chelsea! So we do have to pay over the odds if we want to compete.

So you are saying you have offered us your record amount to sign a 18 year old unproven lad?

3 of those 6 you mentioned - again we paid well over the odds -  were basically kak and we sold losing £millions. Tho I'm pleased we did buy the other 3 as it is hinting we are moving in the right direction.

[MUTU 37]

6 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Other than the first 2 years (2003-2005) Roman has NOT been a big net spender.

This is one of the biggest myths in football.

Here is our net transfer fee spending under Roman

Transfer fee spending under Abramovich (net)

2003-04: £151.4m
2004-05: £146.8m

NO MORE BIG NET SPENDING AFTER THIS 2004-5 SEASON

2005-06: £51.7m
2006-07: £32.2m
2007-08: £13.8m

2008-09: £12.7m PROFIT
2009-10: £23.6m
2010-11: £94.5m

here is the last 8 years

2011-12: £57.7m
2012-13: £75.8m

2013-14  £47.6m

2014-15  £6.4m PROFIT

2015-16  £2.7m

2016-17  £21.9m

2017-18 £54.1m

2018-19 £75.1m (Summer only and we have a simply massive amount of players to sell, we turned down £620m in total hard offers in the summer of 2018 alone, not even counting Kante) 

total

£328.5 for the last 8 years (365.8m euros)

that's almost a BILLION LESS than the article https://www.talkchelsea.net/news/chelseas-spending-since-2010-has-been-revealed-and-its-ridiculous/ 

states, the article is tosh clickbait

£41.1m per year net spend on average the last 8 years

total £829.8m over the 16 year time frame that Abramovich has owned us 

works out to around £51.9m NET per year

36% of ALL money net spent was in the first 2 years

take away those first  2 years

the average net spend over last 14 seasons (per year) is £37.8m 

Where are you getting these figures from? I trust transfermarkt more than any other source. Here's what you're looking for: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

They claim that this season you spent £180.90m and received £48.24m (net loss of £132.66, much higher than the £75.1m you calculated... perhaps you forgot to include Pulisic?)

Then last season it was £234.54m spent, £180.54 received (net loss of £54m, almost identical to the £54m)

Anyway these figures are not a good way to calculate profits, because they do NOT include bonus add-ons in transfers (for example, had Chelsea accepted Bayern's latest bid for CHO, it'd show up as £15m even if it ultimately rises to £35m), sign-on fees and agent fees. Some players appear as free transfers, but there is nothing like a free transfer except for when you're 'selling'. For example, I read somewhere Bayern may have spent some €18m sign-on fee for Goretzka, but in the 'net spend' he'd show up as a free transfer, ironically.

[Special Juan 27,429]

Lets keep this to CHO please and not net spend and Budesliga v Premier League please.

[Superblue 6,370]

8 minutes ago, MUTU said:

But... wouldn't you agree that intensity and frenetic pace should result in more injuries?

If anything this goes against my question. How come the Bundesliga clubs consistently have more injuries than Premier League clubs?

Yeah you would but there could be so many different variables to injuries - coaching, training conditions (including recovery, etc), pitch quality, bad tackles. Chelsea have had seasons where we've had an excellent injury record and then seasons where we seem to be stretched to the brink without huge amounts changing.

I know that a lot of players in England will play with knocks and niggling injuries a lot of the time, so not sure if you're stats are based on long term injuries, or include short terms injuries (a player out for a week or two).

Not to mention how each individual player is. Lampard played a ridiculous amount of games every season and very rarely got injured. Robben struggled to play 5 games in a row for us and didn't like playing unless he felt fully fit.

 

[MUTU 37]

11 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

But you forget we don't now or really ever have had the sort of magnetism that brings in players -0 TOP players. So we have HAD TO pay over the top for them.

You never hear of a big player coming out saying their dream has always been to play for Chelsea! So we do have to pay over the odds if we want to compete.

So you are saying you have offered us your record amount to sign a 18 year old unproven lad?

3 of those 6 you mentioned - again we paid well over the odds -  were basically kak and we sold losing £millions. Tho I'm pleased we did buy the other 3 as it is hinting we are moving in the right direction.

We've offered close to our record amount (if you include the add-ons) to sign your 18 year old unproven lad, yes. At the same time, we're still unsure whether or not we want to exercise our buy clause of €42m (£37.93m) to make James Rodriguez's loan permanent. Imagine that, our board is valuing CHO higher than James Rodriguez at the moment. That's why earlier I said we should pull out. It may look like a low price for you because you want to keep him, but it's taking us to relative extremities when we might end up getting CHO instead of James. At this point in time, I'm not sure whether it's Chelsea's or Bayern's board who want him the most, because Bayern's next bid might be offering you James Rodriguez in exchange for Hudson-Odoi.