Chelsea Transfers

[ZAPHOD2319 3,896]

€80M buy back… ouch

 

[Strike 6,975]

Tammy, Batshuayi. Ugbo and Miazga are going but shows the depth of the dregs that there's still a half a dozen or so to go

Zappa, Drinkwater, Barkley, Sarr, Emerson,

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Stats 6,987]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12381101/Chelsea-transfer-news-tammy-abraham-and-michy-batshuayi-close-to-stamford-bridge-exits

Why does it say on the headline, that Chelsea 'need to sell'. It is good that we are balancing our spending with our outgoings, but it does surprise me that are net spend will not likely be high, considering that we won the UCL. Is the money there to spend or we just have a very good squad so they feel major money spending is not needed. Because I don't see how we need to sell, however City are spending god knows how much on Grealish and possibly Kane.

[DDA 9,570]

1 hour ago, Stats said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12381101/Chelsea-transfer-news-tammy-abraham-and-michy-batshuayi-close-to-stamford-bridge-exits

Why does it say on the headline, that Chelsea 'need to sell'. It is good that we are balancing our spending with our outgoings, but it does surprise me that are net spend will not likely be high, considering that we won the UCL. Is the money there to spend or we just have a very good squad so they feel major money spending is not needed. Because I don't see how we need to sell, however City are spending god knows how much on Grealish and possibly Kane.

If City buy Kane, I want to see how they get away with that one. I was listening to Simon Jordan talk on Man City and he was saying they 100% broke the rules but used certain avenues to get out of trouble and they were relieved of any punishment by Uefa but still have to wait to see what the FA do... something along those lines.. and if they go and spend 250m on 2 players... surely that will catapult them onto the main stage of breaking the rules again.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Jype 6,398]

11 hours ago, Clockwork said:

Raiola is not charging anything other agency aren’t. Pretty much there  is a 10% commission rate for them, you can bet Lukaku agent also bagged similar money. 
https://www.olbg.com/blogs/super-agents

10% commission on average, but for the most in-demand players it's definitely more. It's been reported pretty much as a fact that Mino is looking to bag €40M for Haaland's next move so whichever way you put it he gets a lot more than 10%. 

And for example Denzel Dumfries just moved from PSV to Inter Milan for a transfer fee of €12M and it's reported that Raiola got an €8M commission as well, making the total cost around €20M and Raiola getting 40% from that.

Sure there are a few other of these so-called 'super agents' who are just as much scumbags as Mino Raiola but that doesn't make Raiola any less rotten knowing there are a few other individuals who are just as bad as him, with Jorge Mendes being the main one. However, not even close to all top players are represented by these 'super agents' so in those cases the fees are probably more reasonable, and that's why the clubs prefer working with people other than the likes of Raiola if at all possible. 

The amount of work needed by the agent (paperworks, negotiation, contracts, travelling etc.) is pretty much a constant whether it's a €5M transfer or a €150M transfer so why should the agents get an uncapped fee for doing the same work just because they feel like demanding more money for their biggest cash cows? FIFA need to start regulating the agent business more, it's starting to get real shady. In the past when part-ownerships were still a thing the agents may have even had a stake in the players and they made their money from that, but now that the part-ownership system was abolished the agent fees have gotten out of hand. In a way it's still like the players are in part owned by the agent if they bag 40% (see Dumfries) of the total transaction cost and can dictate where the player moves by seeing who is willing to pay the ridiculously inflated agents fees.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Jype

[Jase 43,479]

4 hours ago, Stats said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12381101/Chelsea-transfer-news-tammy-abraham-and-michy-batshuayi-close-to-stamford-bridge-exits

Why does it say on the headline, that Chelsea 'need to sell'. It is good that we are balancing our spending with our outgoings, but it does surprise me that are net spend will not likely be high, considering that we won the UCL. Is the money there to spend or we just have a very good squad so they feel major money spending is not needed. Because I don't see how we need to sell, however City are spending god knows how much on Grealish and possibly Kane.

Am no financial expert but just because we got all that CL money from winning the competition, it doesn't mean we have all of that to spend on transfers. That money would have been used to cover for other expenses within the club as well as cover for whatever losses the club may have suffered from the pandemic. I don't think we're exactly operating the "we need to sell before buying policy" but our recent spending has been funded mostly by the sale of players.

[Clockwork 1,768]

1 hour ago, Jype said:

10% commission on average, but for the most in-demand players it's definitely more. It's been reported pretty much as a fact that Mino is looking to bag €40M for Haaland's next move so whichever way you put it he gets a lot more than 10%. 

And for example Denzel Dumfries just moved from PSV to Inter Milan for a transfer fee of €12M and it's reported that Raiola got an €8M commission as well, making the total cost around €20M and Raiola getting 40% from that.

Sure there are a few other of these so-called 'super agents' who are just as much scumbags as Mino Raiola but that doesn't make Raiola any less rotten knowing there are a few other individuals who are just as bad as him, with Jorge Mendes being the main one. However, not even close to all top players are represented by these 'super agents' so in those cases the fees are probably more reasonable, and that's why the clubs prefer working with people other than the likes of Raiola if at all possible. 

The amount of work needed by the agent (paperworks, negotiation, contracts, travelling etc.) is pretty much a constant whether it's a €5M transfer or a €150M transfer so why should the agents get an uncapped fee for doing the same work just because they feel like demanding more money for their biggest cash cows? FIFA need to start regulating the agent business more, it's starting to get real shady. In the past when part-ownerships were still a thing the agents may have even had a stake in the players and they made their money from that, but now that the part-ownership system was abolished the agent fees have gotten out of hand. In a way it's still like the players are in part owned by the agent if they bag 40% (see Dumfries) of the total transaction cost and can dictate where the player moves by seeing who is willing to pay the ridiculously inflated agents fees.

You are taking what some media report as fact, I do not accept such things without facts or substantial evidence. Raiola has become a target of the English media ever since angering their darling club Manchester United and SAF regarding Pogba. He is also more vocal. 
 

I have never claimed he is a good guy or anything, just claimed he has been overstated. The media loves a villain, and the audience do not care if it is accurate or not. Just like how much shit has been spouted about Roman or Chelsea, do you think non-Chelsea fan care if it is accurate or not? I try to avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias.

From everything I have read 10% ish is the high end of commission rate. For expensive transfer that is a lot, because 10% on 100m is a lot more than a 10% on 1m.

[Jype 6,398]

13 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

You are taking what some media report as fact, I do not accept such things without facts or substantial evidence. Raiola has become a target of the English media ever since angering their darling club Manchester United and SAF regarding Pogba. He is also more vocal. 
 

I have never claimed he is a good guy or anything, just claimed he has been overstated. The media loves a villain, and the audience do not care if it is accurate or not. Just like how much shit has been spouted about Roman or Chelsea, do you think non-Chelsea fan care if it is accurate or not? I try to avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias.

From everything I have read 10% ish is the high end of commission rate. For expensive transfer that is a lot, because 10% on 100m is a lot more than a 10% on 1m.

I mean, on average most people believe the media on transfer fees, player salaries etc. which are not disclosed either but have enough people close to the action to make the reports believable.

Also, some of the contracts have leaked over the last few years. For example, Mino Raiola's agent commission for Pogba to Utd was around €22M from Manchester United and €27M from Juve, for an overall agent commission of a whopping €49M. This was confirmed by the official documents that got leaked by Der Spiegel. If he got that much from one high profile deal, it's totally believable that he might get similar for Haaland deal and other big transfers as well.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[NikkiCFC 7,601]

We have zero players at Vitesse at the moment. Wtf is going on?? 

[ZAPHOD2319 3,896]

 

[ZAPHOD2319 3,896]

 

[Warning_Hazard 156]

 

Peps lost! 🤣

[Special Juan 27,104]

You won't hear anything against the super Pep, it will be all about how good Spurs were.

City were shite.

[NikkiCFC 7,601]

After not playing at all in pre season when rumours where loud Kounde now starting for Sevilla. 

[Marvin123 483]

Pretty sure chalobah has put the brakes on kounde transfer