Chelsea Transfers

[Blues Forever 1,232]

21 minutes ago, Jas said:

Is it just me or do some people's dislike of Rice here seems to be more about his nationality rather than his actual ability etc?

Call me paranoid but I refuse to believe stories that say Tuchel wants Player A, B, C until we know for sure he's staying, *ahem* regardless of what happens in these last two games.

The dislike is more about the price tag, £90m is insane money for a DM and not even a world class.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Blues Forever

[Jase 43,479]

26 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

The dislike is more about the price tag, £90m is insane money for a DM and not even a world class.

Let's not try to cover it up here. You have people calling Rice a clown, overrated, overpriced or whatever else. No one seems to be talking about his actual ability. And if we can use Abraham to lower the fee to about 40-50 million, then not sure why are we complaining. Someone like Tchouameni - who has supposedly been compared to Bakayoko! - may be cheaper but he's still untested in this league and no guarantee he'll be a success. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

11 minutes ago, Jas said:

Let's not try to cover it up here. You have people calling Rice a clown, overrated, overpriced or whatever else. No one seems to be talking about his actual ability. And if we can use Abraham to lower the fee to about 40-50 million, then not sure why are we complaining. Someone like Tchouameni - who has supposedly been compared to Bakayoko! - may be cheaper but he's still untested in this league and no guarantee he'll be a success. 

This also applied to Rice, being a PL proven doesn't guarantee him success at Chelsea.  Even using Abraham + £40m - £50m is still too much for someone who isn't a world class in his position, just not smart way to spend money in this current Covid.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Blues Forever

[Jype 6,398]

I already rated Declan Rice highly last summer and this season he's been even better by a big margin. If a transfer is doable with Tammy + money I'd say go for it. Great player and destined to be a great team leader, which is always a nice bonus and a really underrated quality when comparing different transfer targets. 

To some of the people 'hating' on Rice and crying for a non-British alternative at a cheaper price, didn't you already get burnt with the fraud that turned out to be Sergio Reguilon, the 'best left-back in La Liga'? After watching both of them in the PL this season how many Chelsea fans would trade Chilwell for him now? Chilwell might not be the perfect player himself either but Reguilon has been a joke.

Sure for the midfield position there could be a quality alternative out there with good enough scouting but the best ones still cost a lot of money. Obviously talk of £90M or something like that for Rice is beyond ridiculous but I'd be really surprised if the actual transfer value was anything above £65-70M and if West Ham were to take Tammy in exchange that already covers half and would solve two issues at once because in this covid market there might not be many takers for Tammy at a fair enough value. 

[Jase 43,479]

35 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

This also applied to Rice, being a PL proven doesn't guarantee him success at Chelsea.  Even using Abraham + £40m - £50m is still too much for someone who isn't a world class in his position, just not smart way to spend money in this current Covid.

No one is saying Rice being PL proven will guarantee him to be a success but compare him with someone who is still untested in this league, there's more chance of Rice being a success. Neither pro or anti Tchouameni/Rice here but if spending extra 10-20 million guarantee us more of a sure thing, I'd rather choose the more expensive option. 

COVID-19 pandemic or not, what's 40-50 million these days? It's like the old big 30 million transfers before the market became as wild as it is today. If/when we sell the deadwoods, the money coming in can easily cover the 40-50 million or at least part of it. 

It's also funny you mentioned about spending smartly when last summer, we spent over 200 million on new players, including 70 million+ on Havertz, who has the potential but isn't world class right now and this summer, we're talking about potentially spending over 100 million on a new striker. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

1 minute ago, Jas said:

No one is saying Rice being PL proven will guarantee him to be a success but compare him with someone who is still untested in this league, there's more chance of Rice being a success. Neither pro or anti Tchouameni/Rice here but if spending extra 10-20 million guarantee us more of a sure thing, I'd rather choose the more expensive option. 

COVID-19 pandemic or not, what's 40-50 million these days? It's like the old big 30 million transfers before the market became as wild as it is today. If/when we sell the deadwoods, the money coming in can easily cover the 40-50 million or at least part of it. 

It's also funny you mentioned about spending smartly when last summer, we spent over 200 million on new players, including 70 million+ on Havertz, who has the potential but isn't world class right now and this summer, we're talking about potentially spending over 100 million on a new striker. 

Paying big money for an attacker are more justified than for a DM. I won't have any problem if we spend over £100m for a world class player and for a position we need the most. Rice as good as he is not worth to spend £90m, the likes of Tchouameni or Kamara are far more reasonable given they are far cheaper and it's not like the gap between them and Rice are big. 

[Alabama 1,992]

6 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

Paying big money for an attacker are more justified than for a DM. I won't have any problem if we spend over £100m for a world class player and for a position we need the most. Rice as good as he is not worth to spend £90m, the likes of Tchouameni or Kamara are far more reasonable given they are far cheaper and it's not like the gap between them and Rice are big. 

Though they aint PL proven but to me they have gotten far superior qualities than Rice...

[Blues Forever 1,232]

3 minutes ago, Alabama said:

Though they aint PL proven but to me they have gotten far superior qualities than Rice...

Rice only advantage over Kamara and Tchouameni are being PL proven and has leadership, that it. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Blues Forever

[Pizy 18,953]

Declan Rice will be one of those players we will really regret seeing at one of our rivals if he goes there instead of us. Think he’s going to be a top, top player in a big team for many years.

The problem for us is that we need a striker that will likely consume the majority of our summer budget and Rice will probably cost like £85m. And that kind of money is impossible to justify when you can sign a DM from France or somewhere else for half that or less.

[Vegetable 830]

6 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

Rice only advantage over Kamara and Tchouameni are being PL proven and has leadership, that it. 

Well, I guess that in certain circumstances eg. Tomori, Christensen and Tammy leaving and new high-profile incomings, his homegrown status may be a huge advantage

[Blues Forever 1,232]

Just now, Vegetable said:

Well, I guess that in certain circumstances eg. Tomori, Christensen and Tammy leaving and new high-profile incomings, his homegrown status may be a huge advantage

Christensen?? He most likely stay.

[Vesper 30,226]

9 hours ago, R2D2 said:

Linked with this clown again, praying it's bollocks, this guy is the Lukaku of midfielders overrated beyond belief, hope United waste the money on him.

Rather take the risk with Tchouameni than this overrated and overpriced British player.

Rice is the real deal, you are way off with the slating of him to the extreme level you are taking it to

that said, he would be overpriced

99% of English players are

[Vesper 30,226]

Making the Champions League is vital – missing it could leave ‘£75m hole’ in Chelsea’s budget

https://theathletic.com/2601253/2021/05/21/missing-champions-league-could-leave-75m-hole-in-chelseas-budget/

After acknowledging Leicester City manager Brendan Rodgers at the final whistle on Tuesday, Chelsea head coach Thomas Tuchel turned back towards Stamford Bridge’s home dugout, let out a roar of satisfaction and embraced his backroom team. Three days after suffering Wembley heartache, his players had delivered the response he wanted, winning the first of what he had described as three “finals” left to navigate this season.

Some might consider it a stretch to describe the decisive stretch of the Premier League’s top-four race in such terms, particularly so soon after losing an actual final with a tangible trophy on offer, but in this of all seasons, Champions League qualification has implications beyond simply participating or missing out on Europe’s elite club competition next year.

At the end of a campaign played almost entirely behind closed doors, the revenue from simply making it into the group stage will act as a financial separator from the clubs left on the outside looking in.

The shutdown and subsequent bubble play forced by COVID-19 has hurt the finances of football clubs everywhere. In their most recently published accounts covering the 2019-20 season, Chelsea revealed their match-day revenue had decreased by £12 million, an 18 per cent drop from 2018-19. Those numbers will look much worse this season for Chelsea and everyone else, but some clubs will feel the pinch much more than others.

For the Premier League’s traditional elite, burnished by larger shares of domestic and international TV deals and lucrative commercial partnerships, match-day income long ago became the third-most important source of revenue.

“It’s marginal income,” Dr Rob Wilson, football finance expert at Sheffield Hallam University, tells The Athletic. “The running costs of the club will be budgeted against the broadcast rights deals and the commercial endorsements. Match-day revenue is a ‘nice to have’ rather than a ‘need to have’.”

But in a world where no one is filling their stadium, the financial gravy train of the Champions League presents even more of a financial boost for those who manage to board it.

“A club like Chelsea would have budgeted for playing in European competition,” Wilson adds. “They wouldn’t necessarily have budgeted for a COVID year, however, and while match-day revenue is marginal on a season-by-season basis, if Chelsea were to miss out on the Champions League in addition to the revenue they’ve lost due to COVID, that could be a £75 million hole in their budget and it becomes much more difficult to plug.”

Not even winning the Europa League, as Chelsea managed to do twice in the 2010s and what Manchester United could do this year, is sufficient to plug the gap. Victory over Arsenal in Baku in 2018-19 netted the club a total of £41 million — a figure determined by their participation fee, prize money, UEFA coefficient and TV pool. In contrast, last season’s exit in the Champions League round of 16 at the hands of Bayern Munich brought in an estimated £72 million, according to respected financial blogger Swiss Ramble.

“Winning the Champions League is worth twice what it’s worth to win the Europa League,” Wilson explains. “Winning the Europa League is equivalent financially to getting out of the Champions League group stage — it’s about £50 million for winning the Europa League and £100 million for winning the Champions League. That makes a top-four place very important and lucrative.”

In purely financial terms, it’s easy to understand why Chelsea moved quickly to sack club legend Frank Lampard in January when they lost faith in his ability to deliver a Premier League top-four finish.

“Do we want to play Champions League next season? Yes, this was the target when I stepped into this club,” Tuchel said before Tuesday’s win over Leicester. “I want to be very clear — the task was ‘let’s try everything to be in the top four’. The task was not ‘let’s try everything to win the FA Cup’ because the FA Cup, as big as it is, does not bring you to Champions League football next season. It’s top four that brings us that.”

Tuchel has vindicated that decision by leading Chelsea back to the brink of their most pressing objective. Liverpool’s win over Burnley means the top-four race will be settled on the Premier League’s final day but matching Leicester’s result against Tottenham will be enough for Chelsea, who are away at Aston Villa. Even if disaster strikes and they fail to finish third or fourth, the Champions League final itself offers a route into next year’s competition, though no one at Cobham wants it to come down to that.

Maintaining their Champions League status would make it easier for Chelsea to build upon last summer’s spectacular £220 million recruitment drive — an outlay that will feature heavily in the club’s next set of accounts, both in terms of the amortised cost of those new arrivals and their impact on a wage bill that, at £283 million, stood at 70 per cent of the club’s turnover in 2019-20.

“The interesting thing is that given how heavily Chelsea invested last summer, what’s the next phase of that?” Wilson asks. “They’ve got a new coach they want to support in the market, and I definitely think the market as a whole will be suppressed, but we’ll still see some substantial deals get through.”

Chelsea’s priorities are a new striker and centre-back, and their serious interest in Borussia Dortmund sensation Erling Haaland was reported by The Athletic in January. A deal of that size is likely to be a rarity in a summer transfer market still reeling from the effects of the pandemic but the security of Champions League participation next season is only likely to make Roman Abramovich more comfortable with the notion of spending aggressively once again.

Marina Granovskaia’s biggest challenge is likely to be outgoings. Chelsea’s accounts in 2019-20 were tipped from a £102 million loss before tax to a £36 million profit thanks to an eye-watering £143 million profit on player sales. This figure was achieved largely thanks to the big-money sales of Eden Hazard to Real Madrid and Alvaro Morata to Atletico Madrid and, according to Swiss Ramble, is the highest ever reported in the Premier League.

Profit from player sales has been a key part of Chelsea’s business model in recent years. According to Swiss Ramble, they have banked nearly £500 million in this area alone in the last six years, averaging a yearly profit on player sales of £77 million. This will be much harder to achieve in the summer ahead, with many high-profile clubs outside the Premier League compelled to focus on replenishing their own accounts through player sales rather than significant purchases.

“It will be an interesting summer because we know a number of the European clubs were struggling,” Wilson says. “That was a key driver of the European Super League proposition, so you can imagine it will be another buyers’ market and if English clubs are trading with European teams, the fees could be lower so those clubs can get those players off their books quite quickly. It also means it’ll be more difficult to sell and get good value.”

AC Milan have already signalled their intention to activate the option to make Fikayo Tomori’s loan move permanent, which would bring in £25 million plus another £5 million in add-ons. Other academy graduates such as Tammy Abraham, Conor Gallagher and Marc Guehi would also command interest if made available to buy, but the list of Chelsea’s saleable assets in the current financial climate is outweighed by the list of loanees still under contract who are much less likely to attract significant bids. Michy Batshuayi, Danny Drinkwater and Tiemoue Bakayoko all fit into that bracket.

Trimming the bloated fringes of Tuchel’s squad and Chelsea’s loan army will not be easy, but Granovskaia can approach the weeks and months ahead from a position of far greater strength if continued Champions League participation is secure. It should help the club widen the gap on the pitch to struggling London rivals Tottenham and Arsenal, as well as provide a strong foundation to compete with Manchester City, United and Liverpool next season.

Tuchel’s emphasis on the Premier League top-four race wasn’t wrong. It might not spark the wild celebrations that greet a major trophy victory but winning it is no less vital.

[Jase 43,479]

5 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

Paying big money for an attacker are more justified than for a DM. 

Says who exactly? Why does position even matter? Would you have complained had we spent £75 million on Van Dijk - not a defensive midfielder but a defensive player nonetheless - a few years ago?

5 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

I won't have any problem if we spend over £100m for a world class player and for a position we need the most. Rice as good as he is not worth to spend £90m, the likes of Tchouameni or Kamara are far more reasonable given they are far cheaper and it's not like the gap between them and Rice are big. 

I'd argue that we desperately also need a new defensive midfielder considering (a) Kante isn't getting any younger and is picking up injuries here and there and (b) no one else in the midfield area has any defensive bones in them. It says a lot that most of us, if not everyone, feels panicky whenever Kante isn't playing.

I agree that spending 80-90 million, flat out cash, for Rice is OTT but if we can throw Abraham in and lower the fee to about 40-50 million, then I don't see what's bad about the deal at all. We instantly get a known/proven player in the league and let go an unwanted player without having to scramble around looking for takers elsewhere. 

5 hours ago, Pizy said:

The problem for us is that we need a striker that will likely consume the majority of our summer budget and Rice will probably cost like £85m. And that kind of money is impossible to justify when you can sign a DM from France or somewhere else for half that or less.

That is why there are talks of throwing Abraham into the mix to lower the fee...

[Pizy 18,953]

30 minutes ago, Jas said:

Says who exactly? Why does position even matter? Would you have complained had we spent £75 million on Van Dijk - not a defensive midfielder but a defensive player nonetheless - a few years ago?

I'd argue that we desperately also need a new defensive midfielder considering (a) Kante isn't getting any younger and is picking up injuries here and there and (b) no one else in the midfield area has any defensive bones in them. It says a lot that most of us, if not everyone, feels panicky whenever Kante isn't playing.

I agree that spending 80-90 million, flat out cash, for Rice is OTT but if we can throw Abraham in and lower the fee to about 40-50 million, then I don't see what's bad about the deal at all. We instantly get a known/proven player in the league and let go an unwanted player without having to scramble around looking for takers elsewhere. 

That is why there are talks of throwing Abraham into the mix to lower the fee...

True. And Tammy would suit West Ham extremely well. They can stop running Antonio into the ground up top.

But United will almost certainly try to use Lingard as a makeweight for Rice as well and he’s already a fan favorite.

[Vesper 30,226]

DMF's I rate

Eduardo Camavinga  (Hybrid CMF)
Declan Rice (Hybrid CB)
Jude Bellingham  (Hybrid CMF)
Boubacar Kamara  (Hybrid CB)
Bruno Guimarães (Hybrid CMF)
Aurélien Tchouaméni (Hybrid CMF)
Ryan Gravenberch (Hybrid CMF)
Ismaël Bennacer (Hybrid CMF)
Weston McKennie  (Hybrid CMF)
Boubakary Soumaré  (Hybrid CMF)
Manuel Locatelli (Hybrid CMF)     
Kalvin Phillips  (Hybrid CMF) 
Fausto Vera    (Atlética Argentinos Juniors) (Hybrid CMF)

[Blues Forever 1,232]

Just now, Jas said:

Says who exactly? Why does position even matter? Would you have complained had we spent £75 million on Van Dijk - not a defensive midfielder but a defensive player nonetheless - a few years ago?

I'd argue that we desperately also need a new defensive midfielder considering (a) Kante isn't getting any younger and is picking up injuries here and there and (b) no one else in the midfield area has any defensive bones in them. It says a lot that most of us, if not everyone, feels panicky whenever Kante isn't playing.

I agree that spending 80-90 million, flat out cash, for Rice is OTT but if we can throw Abraham in and lower the fee to about 40-50 million, then I don't see what's bad about the deal at all. We instantly get a known/proven player in the league and let go an unwanted player without having to scramble around looking for takers elsewhere. 

That is why there are talks of throwing Abraham into the mix to lower the fee...

Except it does matter? an attacker be it Striker, Winger, and Attacking Midfielder always been more valuable than any other position in the history of football. They scores goals and likely could impact the matches result than a DM. The history also proved this, if you look the top 10 most expensive signings are mostly dominated by an attacker. That how most of the clubs valued them. Now if someone likes Haaland, Lukaku, and Sancho are available for €100m - €150m, do you really think we would blew €90m for a DM who isn't even world class? The answer is likely no chance. 

At that time paying £75m for Van Dijk was insane as he wasn't world class at Southampton, no one could predict he would became a world class later at Liverpool. I also still remember the negative reactions of our fans when Napoli demanded £60m for Koulibaly, who was already world class back then.

As for using Abraham + £40m - £50m is still too much and there also no guarantee West Ham would accept that deal.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Blues Forever

[Jase 43,479]

6 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

Except it does matter? an attacker be it Striker, Winger, and Attacking Midfielder always been more valuable than any other position in the history of football. They scores goals and likely could impact the matches result than a DM. The history also proved this, if you look the top 10 most expensive signings are mostly dominated by an attacker. That how most of the clubs valued them. Now if someone likes Haaland, Lukaku, and Sancho are available for €100m - €150m, do you really think we would blew €90m for a DM who isn't even world class? The answer is likely no chance. 

Attackers win games but defenders win leagues. Attackers are important but we should also know better than most that having a strong defenders can be extremely valuable to the team. So much of our success over the last 15 years or so have been underpinned by a strong defence.

6 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

At that time paying £75m for Van Dijk was insane as he wasn't world class at Southampton, no one could predict he would became a world class later at Liverpool.

If the homework has been done properly and you believe the player will come good, then you pay big money for that player. The best players or potential to be among the best players will always cost a lot. Is that not what everyone said when we bought Havertz last summer for £70 million+ despite not being a finished article yet? City bought Ruben Dias for only a few million cheaper than Van Dijk - around £68 million or so - and he has become one of the best defenders in the league and has just won the FWA Player of the Year last week. He's also the first defender to win that award in more than 30 years.

7 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

As for using Abraham + £40m - £50m is still too much

Why do people always talk as if they are the ones who have to spend the money and not the club?

7 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

there also no guarantee West Ham would accept that deal.

Whether West Ham will accept the deal or not is not the point. The point is, if we can use Abraham to lower the fee for a deal, then we should explore at the possibility of doing it. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

35 minutes ago, Jas said:

Attackers win games but defenders win leagues. Attackers are important but we should also know better than most that having a strong defenders can be extremely valuable to the team. So much of our success over the last 15 years or so have been underpinned by a strong defence.

If the homework has been done properly and you believe the player will come good, then you pay big money for that player. The best players or potential to be among the best players will always cost a lot. Is that not what everyone said when we bought Havertz last summer for £70 million+ despite not being a finished article yet? City bought Ruben Dias for only a few million cheaper than Van Dijk - around £68 million or so - and he has become one of the best defenders in the league and has just won the FWA Player of the Year last week. He's also the first defender to win that award in more than 30 years.

Why do people always talk as if they are the ones who have to spend the money and not the club?

Whether West Ham will accept the deal or not is not the point. The point is, if we can use Abraham to lower the fee for a deal, then we should explore at the possibility of doing it. 

The major concern is because it could affect the signings of other positions?. It's not like we have an unlimited budget and now with this current Covid, our transfer budget could be smaller than last summer. The new striker like Lukaku at minimum would cost €100m, and we still need other positions like Backup LB, CB, and DM for example.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Blues Forever

[MoroccanBlue 5,385]

Getting both Rice and Tchouaméni sounding pretty good about now. 

Keep Kovacic and Kante. Bin Jorginho and loan Gilmour.