Chelsea Transfers

[Reddish-Blue 2,666]

1 minute ago, Mhsc said:

That's the model my man. Buy for 20 sell for 20+ in 3 years, counts as profit in FFP, stick a sell on clause on as well and we take in another 5m in a few years. Not much more sophistication to our approach than that tbh.

If we didn't have loan limit rules I am pretty sure we would have a squad of 100 players.

I hope the Premier League step in and do something about this, stockpiling talent doesn't help. 

I get the approach, it's just weird to see so many players at the same time.   Miss the days of having a solid first team squad and then seeing those 2-3 youngsters from the academy get a few games in the cups (McEachran, Van Aanholt, Mancienne, Sam Hutchinson to name a few). 

[Mhsc 1,139]

6 minutes ago, Duppy Conqueror said:

1.3m a month in salary..transfer fee wasnt what the current owners paid.i think is better to take whatever we can get for him,at all costs he should leave. I concur tho,he is a disgrace.

Lukaku had to agree to a giant pay cut to get his loan deal last year and get the 37m release clause added to his contract. His wages were supposed to go all the way down to about £6m per year or about £120k pw. Still a rip off but I'm not really fussed about rushing to sell him tbh, there will always be demand for a cunt like Rom, as its so hard to find players for that position and he has that history scoring, there will always be someone who thinks about taking a punt at the kind of money we're asking for.

[Pizy 19,263]

The Kellyman deal from a pure monetary POV never made sense. Never mind whether he’s good or not. When you spend 5 or 10 million on some young talent it’s easy to turn around and flip an easy profit on them if they are merely okay on loan. But when we spend almost TWENTY million like we did on Kellyman he’s going to have to absolutely kill it out on loan for any other club to want to pay more than what we bought him for. 

He’ll have to perform like Gallagher did at Palace, Omari Hutchinson did last season, or Reece did when he was on loan. Basically the loaning club’s player of the season. Otherwise we’re taking a big loss on him.

It’s called buy low, sell high for a reason. You’re taking a huge risk by buying high like we did.

[Wise Old Man 38]

Kellyman isn’t a big talent. Just a waste of time and money 

[Mhsc 1,139]

11 minutes ago, Pizy said:

The Kellyman deal from a pure monetary POV never made sense. Never mind whether he’s good or not. When you spend 5 or 10 million on some young talent it’s easy to turn around and flip an easy profit on them if they are merely okay on loan. But when we spend almost TWENTY million like we did on Kellyman he’s going to have to absolutely kill it out on loan for any other club to want to pay more than what we bought him for. 

He’ll have to perform like Gallagher did at Palace, Omari Hutchinson did last season, or Reece did when he was on loan. Basically the loaning club’s player of the season. Otherwise we’re taking a big loss on him.

It’s called buy low, sell high for a reason. You’re taking a huge risk by buying high like we did.

I think they believe the model will work for a few reasons - very debatable how wise it is, of course, but it is hard to imagine how else we could spend large sums without falling foul of FFP, given how small our revenue is outside of player transactions.

1. Transfer fee inflation, with fees continuously inflating massively over time, just by existing he may be worth £20m+ in 3-5 years even if we have just repeatedly loaned him and he's not really kicked on much from his current level, but he's built up Championship+PL experience

2. FFP rules. If we sell him in 3 years, and the amortization window is 5 years, then the book value of him is just ~£8m. So, if we sell him for £8m+ we have generated profit in the books

3. If even one of them bangs, they either make it in the Chelsea first team, saving us a £60m+ purchase, possibly in 3-5 years time with inflation that might be a £70m+ purchase, OR if they bang but we don't need them because we already are stacked there, we sell them for huge profit, which if it takes us to a net neutral in terms of real cash spend would be a huge win in terms of how we stand in FFP (where we'd have huge 'profits' recorded)

4. We put sell on clauses in all contracts at 20%, and just by having a huge number of players come and go, we stand to get pleasant revenues every year just because they briefly played here

Edited August 10, 2024 by Mhsc

[Vegetable 830]

22 minutes ago, Mhsc said:

1. Transfer fee inflation, with fees continuously inflating massively over time, just by existing he may be worth £20m+ in 3-5 years even if we have just repeatedly loaned him and he's not really kicked on much from his current level, but he's built up Championship+PL experience

Whole operation seems to hang for its life on this assumption and with global economy being rather troubled lately this seems even riskier. The super high-ticket transfers seem to not happen that often as even the oil money slowed down, but prices may flatten a bit, eg. mediocre players not being much cheaper than good ones, so it may kinda play out in our favor, but again, 3-5 years is not that far horizon, FFP aside, with wages included I'm not sure there will be huge profits, given the losses we will have to chew up with current roster

Edited August 10, 2024 by Vegetable

[Pizy 19,263]

Matt Law’s hit pice about Chalobah and others being “banished and barred” from the first team is having just the effect I figured it would. Loads of prominent Chelsea content creators and other football journalists calling the club a “disgrace” and other things like this is something that no other club does.

[OneMoSalah 9,094]

4 hours ago, Pizy said:

These sensationalized reports about us “barring” or “banishing” players from the main group is so dumb. It’s like they’re desperate to create anger and unrest amongst the fanbase for clicks. 

Is it not pretty common for players who will be sold or loaned to be in a separate group? This happens at every club.

These reports make it sound like Chalobah is that loser trying to get into the nightclub and the bouncer out front pushed him away and prevented him from entering. In reality, the club probably just told him “we’re looking to get the best move for you so it would be best if you train over here.”

Not necessarily. Depends on the players attitude, circumstances etc. I understand Lukaku & Kepa 100%. Talk of Broja too perhaps banished and barred from first team facilities but falls into same category as Trevor for me, maybe a bit on the extreme side, particularly given we have 40 odd players, some who have never actually played for the club with access to these facilities and they all won’t be remaining either. 

Same sort of thing was also talked about with Conor when the team returned from the US tour. I get both clearly aren’t in the first teams plans but there is a way to do things. Which is probably more what is riling people up and rightfully so, no?

Does put the message across though yes but Trevor was already told to remain at Cobham already as he wouldn’t be going on the US tour because he had no future here. And they were desperately trying to convince him last summer to go to Forest IIRC, like Maatsen to Burnley & Gallagher to Everton when Dyce took over. So maybe thats more of the outrage? I could get that no? Just seems like double punishment when they already made the message clear a month ago, after the writing was perhaps on the wall a year ago.

I can see why people are onboard with that article. It is a matter of interpretation - and sometimes other clubs also take this approach but doesn’t mean it’s right and defos varies on a case by case basis. Very rarely do you see academy lads who have come through the ranks banished from first team facilities… at any club…. barring some severely extreme circumstances. That is the point.

Edited August 10, 2024 by OneMoSalah

[whats happening 1,662]

3 hours ago, Wise Old Man said:

Kellyman isn’t a big talent. Just a waste of time and money 

thanks for the info wise old man.

[Pizy 19,263]

The Osimhen stuff still hasn’t gone away. The English side of the reporting keeps insisting that we want him on loan and the Italian side keeps insisting that a loan is not possible.

I wonder if the club is hoping that Napoli blink first and agree to some sort of swap deal. It’s really risky because if Napoli get tired of waiting for us to lower Lukaku’s price and move on to another target it would REALLY screw us over. Because he seems like the kind of asshole who would be perfectly fine sitting out 6 months if he doesn’t get the move he wants and refusing to go anywhere else other than Napoli.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]

I am a fan of Pedro. If he plays 2/3 of our games, I will be happy.

 

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]

Emma gets Gold!!!

[Pizy 19,263]

City apparently tried for Pedro Neto at the last moment. I believe it, too. He’d have been a great signing for them just as he would be for any of the big clubs. They were gonna use that Alvarez money.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]

 

[OhForAGreavsie 6,125]

8 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

Is it possible that should read 'are making' instead of 'made'?

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]

3 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Is it possible that should read 'are making' instead of 'made'?

I think he signed contracts already. Fabrizio said he will be presented tomorrow against Inter.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]

 

[OneMoSalah 9,094]

Just now, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

Even if we only clear 6-7 we will have about 30 odd players still. Club clearly not learned from the Potter situation when we had 30 odd first team players. Ok some of these guys are u21s and dont need to be registered but it is still retarded as fuck. 

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]

7 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Even if we only clear 6-7 we will have about 30 odd players still. Club clearly not learned from the Potter situation when we had 30 odd first team players. Ok some of these guys are u21s and dont need to be registered but it is still retarded as fuck. 

If we use the Conference league for some of them, 30 could work. I think I read that Maresca wants to be at 28.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,942]