Chelsea Transfers

[YorkshireBlue 2,941]

Just now, Thor said:

We about to hijack this Cala deal. 

I doubt it, is that from a source or just hoping 🤣

[Vesper 27,773]

10 hours ago, TheHulk said:

Clownlake parody project

[Thor 2,254]

Just now, YorkshireBlue said:

I doubt it, is that from a source or just hoping 🤣

Hope. 

Im also bored of reading the Clearlake slander on here. 
 

They started out rough with the Dodgers as well and have been the most consistently great team in the league 10 years straight. 
 

Majority in here have tiny bollocks and can’t deal with a bit of adversity. 

[YorkshireBlue 2,941]

11 minutes ago, Thor said:

Hope. 

Im also bored of reading the Clearlake slander on here. 
 

They started out rough with the Dodgers as well and have been the most consistently great team in the league 10 years straight. 
 

Majority in here have tiny bollocks and can’t deal with a bit of adversity. 

Completely agree, the clownlake reference is getting old, change was always going to happen, and regardless if people think it's for the best or not these are the owners and they want to go in a different direction to Roman,  unfortunately if you don't like it, it's tuff tits, it's happening and another 8 more years of it to come, what I also think is hilarious is this obsession with signing world class players at there peak..... 4 transfer windows in? And still not understanding the concept 🤣🤣 and the part that no one is seeing that other clubs are actually starting to follow suit is another thing that blows my mind. You used to read on here why didn't we buy these players before they cost 100m, now we are trying to do that, it's why ain't we spending X amount and offering him y amount of wages.

Edited Wednesday at 22:54 by YorkshireBlue

[Vesper 27,773]

5 hours ago, robsblubot said:

Never heard of him. 😅

Fluminense above is the "geriatric" team of the Brazilian league; Marcelo former Real Madrid, now carrying a fat belly, is the left-back. Fluminense is dead last in the standings for that reason.

the post (he was the 2nd highest valued LWer on it):

 

• 
   

Best teen Brasilian players  still available

In order of valuation

RW Estevão Willian    Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras (16yo)
CF Matheus Nascimento    Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas   
AMF Matheus França    CR Flamengo   
CB Robert Renan    Zenit St. Petersburg    
AMF Luis Guilherme    Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras     
LW   Pedro    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista    
CB  Lucas Beraldo    São Paulo Futebol Clube   
RW Sávio    Girona FC  (on loan from Troyes) 
CF Deivid Washington      Santos FC   
DMF Alexsander    Fluminense Football Club
RW Biro    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista  
CMF Marlon Gomes   Clube de Regatas Vasco da Gama 
RB Vinícius Tobias    Real Madrid Castilla (on loan from Shakhtar Donetsk)   
CMF Victor Hugo    CR Flamengo  
CMF Rodriguinho    São Paulo Futebol Clube    
RB Wesley      CR Flamengo     
CF Giovane    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista      
LW Wesley      Sport Club Corinthians Paulista U20    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
RW Rayan Vitor    Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama U20      
DMF Gabriel Moscardo    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista      
GK Mycael    Club Athletico Paranaense      
LB Thauan Lara    Sport Club Internacional         
LW Erick Marcus    Clube de Regatas Vasco da Gama     
LW Caio    São Paulo FC U20
RW Adyson    América Futebol Clube (MG) 
CB Jean Pedroso    Coritiba Foot Ball Club  
CF Kauã Elias    Fluminense Football Club U20  

CMF Bernardo Valim       Botafogo Rio de Janeiro U20

Edited Wednesday at 22:54 by Vesper

[Vesper 27,773]

25 minutes ago, Superblue said:

Bulka, Maatsen, Colwill, James, Chalobah, Gallagher, Solanke, Broja, Olise, Christensen, Loftus-Cheek, Hudson-Odoi. The list goes on. As @OhForAGreavsie has mentioned, you can question each on an individual basis as to what level they are exactly, but every one of these have had a significant period of their youth career at Cobham and have developed into international players/playing at the top level, and many of these are in a similar age bracket.

The geographic restrictions argument is even more impressive when you consider London is almost certainly the most competitive area to recruit from in Europe considering the number of clubs in such a small area.

We may not see immediately just how big an influence Jim Fraser and Neil Bath have been, in a similar way to we didn't immediately see the fruits of their work in Roman's early years. But an academy structure is years in the making and if we don't adequately replace them, it will be catastrophic considering what has been inherited by the ownership.

great post

[ZAPHOD2319 4,136]

47 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Another proven and fully working part of the club that is going to be ripped apart by these fucking morons.

Amicable or not, I believe that Bath & Fraser leaving will definitely be partly due to the likes of academy players being auctioned off/sold on for pure profit as a loop hole to do with PSR & FFP. 

Imagine building an academy capable of producing players that you know will be sold on to produce huge profits and continually be overlooked to sign young foreign players… probably who the club think they can gain more money from by marketing.

 

What is coming out now, it makes sense. These guys could have got on board with aligning to the first team.

 

[Superblue 6,353]

17 minutes ago, Thor said:

Hope. 

Im also bored of reading the Clearlake slander on here. 
 

They started out rough with the Dodgers as well and have been the most consistently great team in the league 10 years straight. 
 

Majority in here have tiny bollocks and can’t deal with a bit of adversity. 

The biggest problem I have with the Dodgers argument is Boehly is a minority shareholder in them so just how much influence does he truly have on this success?

He's also, if reports are to be assumed true, stepped back from Chelsea and Clearlake are the ones ultimately making decisions with their majority shareholding.

I've got no issues with them wanting to put their stamp on the club. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the policies and plans they've adopted around the first team, I understand the idea behind it, and a drastic turnaround was needed in order to adopt a wage bracket/ceiling to make the club a more sustainable venture longer term compared to what it was under Roman.

But with the academy, they were effectively gift wrapped one of the best set ups in Europe for the last decade. From the outside looking in, it feels this has been taken for granted.

[robsblubot 3,349]

21 minutes ago, Vesper said:

the post (he was the 2nd highest valued LWer on it):

 

• 
   

Best teen Brasilian players  still available

In order of valuation

RW Estevão Willian    Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras (16yo)
CF Matheus Nascimento    Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas   
AMF Matheus França    CR Flamengo   
CB Robert Renan    Zenit St. Petersburg    
AMF Luis Guilherme    Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras     
LW   Pedro    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista    
CB  Lucas Beraldo    São Paulo Futebol Clube   
RW Sávio    Girona FC  (on loan from Troyes) 
CF Deivid Washington      Santos FC   
DMF Alexsander    Fluminense Football Club
RW Biro    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista  
CMF Marlon Gomes   Clube de Regatas Vasco da Gama 
RB Vinícius Tobias    Real Madrid Castilla (on loan from Shakhtar Donetsk)   
CMF Victor Hugo    CR Flamengo  
CMF Rodriguinho    São Paulo Futebol Clube    
RB Wesley      CR Flamengo     
CF Giovane    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista      
LW Wesley      Sport Club Corinthians Paulista U20    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
RW Rayan Vitor    Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama U20      
DMF Gabriel Moscardo    Sport Club Corinthians Paulista      
GK Mycael    Club Athletico Paranaense      
LB Thauan Lara    Sport Club Internacional         
LW Erick Marcus    Clube de Regatas Vasco da Gama     
LW Caio    São Paulo FC U20
RW Adyson    América Futebol Clube (MG) 
CB Jean Pedroso    Coritiba Foot Ball Club  
CF Kauã Elias    Fluminense Football Club U20  

CMF Bernardo Valim       Botafogo Rio de Janeiro U20

Fair enough that you had him in a list, but did you *know* about him? Have you watched him play? know his characteristics? Is he a big fish in a very small pond considering Corinthians level of play today or he's really the big deal?

Like I've mentioned before, I skim thru these list to see if I spot someone I know, but it's not something I like doing: research potential players we could potentially sign. 

[Pizy 18,023]

I think the Clearlake slander should wait until the window closes personally. If we enter the season without the last 2-3 pieces we need and still have dogshit wage wasters like Lukaku, Kepa etc on our books then by all means slander away.

For me they’ve been a mixed bag. I’m in wait and see mode with our new ownership and don’t think they’ve been the unmitigated disaster so many of our supporters cry about. 

They’ve had some REALLY bad mistakes but also signed us a bunch of really good players who I think will be fantastic in the long run.

[Vytis33 1,076]

 

[ZAPHOD2319 4,136]

2 hours ago, Superblue said:

The biggest problem I have with the Dodgers argument is Boehly is a minority shareholder in them so just how much influence does he truly have on this success?

He's also, if reports are to be assumed true, stepped back from Chelsea and Clearlake are the ones ultimately making decisions with their majority shareholding.

I've got no issues with them wanting to put their stamp on the club. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the policies and plans they've adopted around the first team, I understand the idea behind it, and a drastic turnaround was needed in order to adopt a wage bracket/ceiling to make the club a more sustainable venture longer term compared to what it was under Roman.

But with the academy, they were effectively gift wrapped one of the best set ups in Europe for the last decade. From the outside looking in, it feels this has been taken for granted.

The Dodgers comparison comes up because Mark Walter is the majority owner of the Dodgers and Boehly is his day to day guy at Chelsea. Eghbali and Clearlake own 61% of the BlueCo shares. From the beginning of the partnership it was decided that Mark Walter and Boehly would set the club in motion for the first five years and then it would shift to Clearlake. Boehly came in and just blew through money with little to show may have changed the plan. They are still following the model that Guggenheim Sports and Mark Walter did at the Dodgers. It seems like the only one that got off script was Boehly and his massive purchases.

From their partnership plan in buying Chelsea 

——————

The group has an agreement to rotate management every five years, so Boehly may not remain the club's main administrator after the 2026/27 season.

————-

[Blue Armour 4,194]

3 hours ago, Thor said:

Hope. 

Im also bored of reading the Clearlake slander on here. 
 

They started out rough with the Dodgers as well and have been the most consistently great team in the league 10 years straight. 
 

Majority in here have tiny bollocks and can’t deal with a bit of adversity. 

Or,.....we could have a balanced view and call them out on shit that could have been avoided, and give them credit when it's due?

[Vesper 27,773]

3 hours ago, robsblubot said:

Fair enough that you had him in a list, but did you *know* about him? Have you watched him play? know his characteristics? Is he a big fish in a very small pond considering Corinthians level of play today or he's really the big deal?

Like I've mentioned before, I skim thru these list to see if I spot someone I know, but it's not something I like doing: research potential players we could potentially sign. 

Never did that deep of a dive into him, as opposed to others on the list.

I was more focused (remember that is almsot a year ago) on Estêvão Willian, etc.

[Vesper 27,773]

West Ham’s €30million transfer bid rejected for Nice defender Jean-Clair Todibo

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5613903/2024/07/03/jean-clair-todibo-west-ham-transfer/

West Ham United have seen a €30million (£25.4m, $32.3m) bid for Nice defender Jean-Clair Todibo rejected.

The 24-year-old has emerged as a prime transfer target for West Ham this summer and their opening bid for the central defender was rejected earlier this week.

There is still belief that a deal can be concluded for the Frenchman, with Nice open to cashing-in on him in this summer window.

Manchester United had evaluated a deal for Todibo this summer but such a move was ruled out in light of UEFA guidance on multi-club ownership issued last month which warned clubs subject to multi-club ownership tests against such deals.

Ligue 1 club Nice are owned by Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s company INEOS, while they and United are currently waiting on a decision over whether they can both play in next season’s Europa League.

Ratcliffe did not name the player, but confirmed that United cannot currently buy directly from Nice due to the ownership situation.

Todibo initially joined Nice on a loan deal from Barcelona in January 2021 before making the move permanent that summer. He has played 119 matches for the French club, scoring one goal.

West Ham have already completed deals to sign Brazilian teenage winger Luis Guilherme from Palmeiras and goalkeeper Wes Foderingham, a free agent, this summer.

West Ham undergoing defensive overhaul

Analysis from The Athletic’s West Ham correspondent Roshane Thomas

West Ham are in the market for a centre-back with captain Kurt Zouma and Nayef Aguerd set for uncertain futures. Aguerd has attracted interest from former club Rennes and West Ham are open to offers for Zouma.

Following Angelo Ogbonna’s release in June, Zouma, Aguerd and Konstantinos Mavropanos are the only recognised options in central defence.

West Ham had a £25million offer for Max Kilman rejected by Wolverhampton Wanderers. Kilman is West Ham’s first choice, but Wolves value the defender at £45m. Kilman previously worked under head coach Julen Lopetegui at Wolves.

[Vesper 27,773]

How PSR deadline impacted transfers: £323m of sales, questions marks and young players on the move

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5611939/2024/07/03/psr-transfer-Chelsea-aston-villa-newcastle/

June used to be known as domestic football’s dormant month. The shutters went down, staff summered and meaningful business all but ground to a halt.

There was always scope for the odd super deal to be signed off — like Jude Bellingham’s move to Real Madrid or Erling Haaland joining Manchester City — but June was the organic divide between one season and another. Rest up and return in July to do it all over again.

In the last two years, though, June has felt that little bit different in the Premier League.

Relative serenity has given way to frantic dealings, all in the name of compliance with profitability and sustainability rules (PSR). This year felt even more frantic than last June. Not everyone is dragged in, but plenty of clubs had little choice but to sell players ahead of June 30 if they were to avoid the threat of a points deduction in 2024-25.

The final 10 days of June saw six Premier League clubs — Chelsea, Newcastle United, Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest, Everton and Leicester City — strike agreements to raise a reported £323million ($410m) through the sale of 15 players.

This was a significant leap from the year prior, when £198million was raised through sales. And the sense of PSR hitting hard only grows when you look at the figure from 2022, when just £75m was raised through sales.

Some of those last-ditch deals were not formally signed off until the opening days of July — and some are still to go through — but still served the same purpose. Accounting practices will allow for legally agreed transfers to be booked in the financial year that closed on Sunday, redressing losses and, most importantly, helping clear any PSR shortfalls.

Forest, for example, saw Orel Mangala’s sale confirmed on Tuesday evening, while they will expect to get where they want to be once the proposed sale of Moussa Niakhate to Lyon is also complete.

European football’s close season is not accustomed to weeks as chaotic as the one that has led us into a new financial year. The money raised by clubs was the equivalent of almost 15 per cent of all outgoing transfers in the Premier League last summer and, most strikingly, often involved mutually beneficial business. Nine transfers involved one financially challenged club buying from another.

People at other Premier League clubs, who asked to be kept anonymous to protect relationships, questioned the values of the deals on more than one occasion.

The quasi-transfer deadline of June 30 was around last season, as Chelsea’s glut of sales to recoup £141million underlined. The number of clubs seeking remedial work this summer heightened its intensity.

Newcastle United, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa all accepted they had to sell at least one asset if they were to be PSR compliant, while the business done by Chelsea, Everton and Leicester suggested they also had accounting concerns.

Players were bought in the process, but it was the selling that mattered. Especially if those were academy graduates or inexpensively recruited youngsters. That was where the “pure” profit could be found.

Newcastle United could likely record £60million of profit in selling Elliot Anderson to Nottingham Forest and Yankuba Minteh to Brighton & Hove Albion, while Chelsea’s sale of Lewis Hall (Newcastle), Omari Hutchinson (Ipswich Town) and Ian Maatsen (Aston Villa) will see in the region of £80million added to their profit column. Aston Villa were another to benefit, selling Douglas Luiz to Juventus for £42million and Omari Kellyman to Chelsea for £19million.

Everton did enough business of their own when shifting Lewis Dobbin (Aston Villa) and Ben Godfrey (Atalanta), while Leicester were convinced to take the £30million needed (from Chelsea) to part with their influential midfielder Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall just two months after winning the Championship title.

Forest are yet to formally confirm their necessary business. But the transfer of Niakhate, on top of Newcastle-bound goalkeeper Odysseas Vlachodimos and Mangala, who has now joined Lyon, should spare them a second successive PSR charge coming next season.

There has been a heavy air of desperation this last week that did not use to exist in the carefree weeks of summer. Barely a sale was done in June 2021 and in 2022 it was only moderately busier. There was Richarlison’s move to Tottenham Hotspur for £60million, announced on July 1, that gave a window into Everton’s looming problems. The only other clubs to sell so early in that summer were Liverpool (Sadio Mane to Al Nassr and Takumi Minamino to Monaco) and Manchester City (Gavin Bazunu, Southampton). Neither were then preoccupied with PSR problems, even if City have since been given 115 things to think about.

Last summer saw the pattern begin. Although Wolverhampton Wanderers operate to a financial deadline of May 31, thus making June 30 an arbitrary date, they sold off Ruben Neves while the Saudi Pro League money was on the table. Leicester’s perilous position after relegation was eased by the £40million sale of James Maddison.

And then there was the June business done by Chelsea last summer. Kai Havertz (Arsenal; £65million), Mateo Kovacic (Manchester City; £25million), Ruben Loftus-Cheek (AC Milan; £15million) Edouard Mendy (Al Ahli; £16million) and Kalidou Koulibaly (Al Hilal; £20million) were all moved on in time for their sales to be included in the 2022-23 accounts. Unlike Everton and Nottingham Forest, they were not found to be in breach despite lavish spending.

Chelsea repeated the trick this June but others were forced to focus sharply on the new and artificial deadline. Newcastle’s weekend, in particular, was a manic microcosm of the fight for PSR compliance.

That story is best told in detail, but the fact there was consideration given to selling Anthony Gordon and Alexander Isak, their two attacking favourites, illustrated the desperation of their plight. In the end, it was a 21-year-old local boy (Anderson) and a 19-year-old never to have featured for the first team (Minteh) that solved Newcastle’s problems in timely sales totalling £65million.

The profile of the players sold across the Premier League captured the need for a quick accounting fix. There is nothing to be gained from off-loading players bought for big sums, given the ongoing amortisation of those costs. Instead, the instant hit comes from selling the rookies.

Of the 16 players sold (or in the process of being sold) by Premier League clubs since the transfer window opened last month (including Taylor Harwood-Bellis’ move between Manchester City and Southampton), 10 were aged 22 or under. The average age of all sold has so far been 21.5.

It is this new artificial deadline and all that comes with it — the convenient trades, the sacrificial lambs and the pressurised players — that leave plenty feeling uncomfortable.

The clubs involved will insist they have been creative in attempts to level out a playing field skewed towards those able to spend more, and that accounting constraints will always lead towards loopholes being spotted.

Rivals, though, have misgivings about how the last month has unfolded. A “number of clubs” requested clarification of the transfer rules, The Athletic has been told by people with knowledge of the situation, who have been kept anonymous to protect relationships. The Premier League then wrote to all 20 clubs in a circular.

A reminder was given that the Premier League are entitled to investigate any deals it believes are not conducted at “arm’s length” and holds the power to request any information over how a fee was negotiated and determined. The Premier League, in theory, have the power to return a transfer fee to the buying club if it has been deemed to be artificially inflated.

Every transfer of the last week will be subjected to the standard assessments of fair market value but the subjectivity of a player’s valuation, ultimately shaped by potential, makes it a difficult area to challenge clubs. The cynicism of others will not be enough to reverse deals.

Changes are coming to the Premier League’s financial rules but, so long as annual accounts form part of the assessment, these late deals pushed through before June 30 may well be here to stay.

[Strike 7,091]

5 hours ago, Superblue said:

Bulka, Maatsen, Colwill, James, Chalobah, Gallagher, Solanke, Broja, Olise, Christensen, Loftus-Cheek, Hudson-Odoi. The list goes on. As @OhForAGreavsie has mentioned, you can question each on an individual basis as to what level they are exactly, but every one of these have had a significant period of their youth career at Cobham and have developed into international players/playing at the top level, and many of these are in a similar age bracket.

The geographic restrictions argument is even more impressive when you consider London is almost certainly the most competitive area to recruit from in Europe considering the number of clubs in such a small area.

We may not see immediately just how big an influence Jim Fraser and Neil Bath have been, in a similar way to we didn't immediately see the fruits of their work in Roman's early years. But an academy structure is years in the making and if we don't adequately replace them, it will be catastrophic considering what has been inherited by the ownership.

I agree. Hell of a risk letting Neil Bath/ Fraser walk. We will lose a lot of the knowledge of the young players coming through around London. 

I'm reading Joe Shields and Sam Jewell are taking their roles. The new U21 coach is from Portugal, brought in to play possession tactics. 

[YorkshireBlue 2,941]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

I agree. Hell of a risk letting Neil Bath/ Fraser walk. We will lose a lot of the knowledge of the young players coming through around London. 

I'm reading Joe Shields and Sam Jewell are taking their roles. The new U21 coach is from Portugal, brought in to play possession tactics. 

Hell of a risk to let them go, but ultimately if it's there decision then we aren't letting them go, they are going for there own reasons.