Ben Chilwell to Chelsea

[Feed Me]

Kovacic – £40m (Unwanted by RM, little competition for him, average impact)
Jorginho – £50m (Did well to beat City to him, Sarri-factor helped, has not had desired impact for money)
Pulisic – £58m (Starting to look good, was sat on Dortmund bench, wasn’t a massive amount of competition for him)
Morata – £60m ()
Bakayoko – £36m ()
Drinkwater – £34m ()
Rudiger – £32m (He’s okay, a tad impetuous and rash though, and certainly doesn’t look a leader or organiser)
Zappacosta – £23m (Why?)
Emerson – £18m (Why?)
Giroud – £15m (Excellent player for this money)
Barkley – £15m (A good squad player for the money)
Batshuayi – £32m ()
Kante – £32m (Very good business)
Luiz – £32m (Hit and miss, but more hit)
Alonso – £20m (Good signing overall, needs replacing now though, only really suited to a 352)
Pedro – £24m (Fine)
Baba Rahman – £18m (Why?)

That to me is a pretty mixed bag overall. If you go back to Costa, Fabregas – great business as it won them the title.

I just don’t see where the genius is. They’ve bought a quality of player that has seen them go from consistent title winner to fourth.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I can’t be arsed to debate with people who are so brazenly selective with the facts they use to support their argument. At no stage whatsoever have I suggested Chelsea have failed to do good transfer business. I have simply consistently pointed out that for a club with a much vaunted approach to squad management, it’s funny how many dud transfers you have made in the past decade. There are countless examples, but if you wish to disregard them in favour of a one eyed view of the world then all power to you.

What? You're the one who was selective in the first place limiting it to our most expensive 5 purchases.

Kovacic – £40m (Unwanted by RM, little competition for him, average impact)
Jorginho – £50m (Did well to beat City to him, Sarri-factor helped, has not had desired impact for money)
Pulisic – £58m (Starting to look good, was sat on Dortmund bench, wasn’t a massive amount of competition for him)
Morata – £60m ()
Bakayoko – £36m ()
Drinkwater – £34m ()
Rudiger – £32m (He’s okay, a tad impetuous and rash though, and certainly doesn’t look a leader or organiser)
Zappacosta – £23m (Why?)
Emerson – £18m (Why?)
Giroud – £15m (Excellent player for this money)
Barkley – £15m (A good squad player for the money)
Batshuayi – £32m ()
Kante – £32m (Very good business)
Luiz – £32m (Hit and miss, but more hit)
Alonso – £20m (Good signing overall, needs replacing now though, only really suited to a 352)
Pedro – £24m (Fine)
Baba Rahman – £18m (Why?)

That to me is a pretty mixed bag overall. If you go back to Costa, Fabregas – great business as it won them the title.

I just don’t see where the genius is. They’ve bought a quality of player that has seen them go from consistent title winner to fourth.

I might disagree with some of your assessments slightly but I don't think anyone is trying to argue that Chelsea (or any team in the world) have an unblemished record when it comes to player acquisitions. What I'd argue is that what sets Chelsea apart is our ability to sell players effectively & ruthlessly, which goes some ways towards mitigating the impact of poor purchases.

Even from that list, we recouped what we paid for Morata, Bakayoko seems close to a deal with AC Milan, Batshuayi looks likely to go to Leeds or Atalanta, we're going to make a profit selling Emerson to Inter, we could sell Barkley for more than we paid, etc.

(Also just to address your questions re: Zappacosta & Emerson, we had zero depth at wingback and had missed out on our best targets in Sandro and Oxlaide-Chamberlain. Not trying to say these purchases were justifiable, but that was the rationale at the time. And Rahman was the best young LB in the Bundesliga when we acquired him; he's been totally derailed by knee injuries. That purchase made sense but has been cursed.)

 

[Feed Me]

What? You're the one who was selective in the first place limiting it to our most expensive 5 purchases.



I might disagree with some of your assessments slightly but I don't think anyone is trying to argue that Chelsea (or any team in the world) have an unblemished record when it comes to player acquisitions. What I'd argue is that what sets Chelsea apart is our ability to sell players effectively & ruthlessly, which goes some ways towards mitigating the impact of poor purchases.

Even from that list, we recouped what we paid for Morata, Bakayoko seems close to a deal with AC Milan, Batshuayi looks likely to go to Leeds or Atalanta, we're going to make a profit selling Emerson to Inter, we could sell Barkley for more than we paid, etc.

(Also just to address your questions re: Zappacosta & Emerson, we had zero depth at wingback and had missed out on our best targets in Sandro and Oxlaide-Chamberlain. Not trying to say these purchases were justifiable, but that was the rationale at the time. And Rahman was the best young LB in the Bundesliga when we acquired him; he's been totally derailed by knee injuries. That purchase made sense but has been cursed.)

You do sell well, but my original point in all of this was that United have done some similarly good business of their own in that regard in the past few years. (It was a comment to a United fan taking a dump on us without looking at the facts.)

We got £66m for Lukaku, I believe we broke even on Blind after a decent spell here, got £7m for Sam Johnston and £7m for Januzaj (showing we can turn youth team products into bottom line impact even if they don’t make the first team), sold a busted flush in Schneiderlin for £21m, £5m for Paddy McNair, £57m for Di Maria who just didn’t work out as we know.

Now I am by no means saying United are great in the market (and we have had to get rid of some big names on small transfer fees (linked to their massive wages) but it’s funny how the successful transactions are completely disregarded in favour of a narrative.

I feel as though I end up coming across as totally negative about Chelsea when all I am seeking to do is bring a bit more balance to the conversation.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

You do sell well, but my original point in all of this was that United have done some similarly good business of their own in that regard in the past few years. (It was a comment to a United fan taking a dump on us without looking at the facts.)

We got £66m for Lukaku, I believe we broke even on Blind after a decent spell here, got £7m for Sam Johnston and £7m for Januzaj (showing we can turn youth team products into bottom line impact even if they don’t make the first team), sold a busted flush in Schneiderlin for £21m, £5m for Paddy McNair, £57m for Di Maria who just didn’t work out as we know.

Now I am by no means saying United are great in the market (and we have had to get rid of some big names on small transfer fees (linked to their massive wages) but it’s funny how the successful transactions are completely disregarded in favour of a narrative.

I feel as though I end up coming across as totally negative about Chelsea when all I am seeking to do is bring a bit more balance to the conversation.

Ah ok, my apologies if I came across as needlessly hostile in interjecting myself into the conversation! Certainly not my intent.

I do think United have been better at selling recently but I also think there is still more of a reluctance on your part to sell players who plainly aren't good enough, as evidenced by some of the contract extensions you've been signing players to (e.g. Jones, Young, & Mata).

I certainly wouldn't argue that Chelsea are infallible but I do think there is inherent value in getting deals done quickly & efficiently, both when it comes to buying and selling players. I'd say that that's where we are generally ahead of the curve.

 

[Cassidy]

Ah ok, my apologies if I came across as needlessly hostile in interjecting myself into the conversation! Certainly not my intent.

I do think United have been better at selling recently but I also think there is still more of a reluctance on your part to sell players who plainly aren't good enough, as evidenced by some of the contract extensions you've been signing players to (e.g. Jones, Young, & Mata).

I certainly wouldn't argue that Chelsea are infallible but I do think there is inherent value in getting deals done quickly & efficiently, both when it comes to buying and selling players. I'd say that that's where we are generally ahead of the curve.

Pretty much most peoples point/view on it

 

[Feed Me]

Ah ok, my apologies if I came across as needlessly hostile in interjecting myself into the conversation! Certainly not my intent.

I do think United have been better at selling recently but I also think there is still more of a reluctance on your part to sell players who plainly aren't good enough, as evidenced by some of the contract extensions you've been signing players to (e.g. Jones, Young, & Mata).

I certainly wouldn't argue that Chelsea are infallible but I do think there is inherent value in getting deals done quickly & efficiently, both when it comes to buying and selling players. I'd say that that's where we are generally ahead of the curve.

No need to apologise whatsoever, it’s a forum so no problem with cutting across and joining the debate – I do that often enough!

I think the extensions for players like Jones, Young and Mata have potentially been strategic in intent, not so much to protect resale value but to keep experienced (albeit well past it) players as back up. That basically sums up the way our club has been run for too long – we have owners overseeing decay and keeping players like the ones you’ve mentioned points towards a complete lack of ambition in my eyes.

The eye watering wages we pay for also rans doesn’t help either, although I think we are now going in the right direction in that respect.

 

[Feed Me]

Pretty much most peoples point/view on it

Re Pedro, I assume United had a ceiling and didn’t want to go any higher. I think that’s a reasonable enough call for someone who has been pretty average and probably stood out more than was deserved thanks to being a squad player in a sensational team.

Morata – we could say virtually the same for Lukaku, with the added advantage that Lukaku was at least passable when he played for us.

Torres – you’ll have to explain that to me. Unless you’re being amortisation into the equation, in which case I can do likewise with a bunch of United players.

One of my best mates is a Chelsea ST holder and doesn’t perceive Kovacic as well as you do, but each to their own.

Bakayoko, as I said before, you have to judge the performance of the player when judging effectivess of transfer operations. It’s all well and good saying they broke even on him, but they weren’t paying him with magic beans.

 

[pratyush_utd]

He is better than what Chelsea have. They have literally plugged almost every hole in their squad in one transfer window.

 

[Cassidy]

Re Pedro, I assume United had a ceiling and didn’t want to go any higher. I think that’s a reasonable enough call for someone who has been pretty average and probably stood out more than was deserved thanks to being a squad player in a sensational team.

Morata – we could say virtually the same for Lukaku, with the added advantage that Lukaku was at least passable when he played for us.

Torres – you’ll have to explain that to me. Unless you’re being amortisation into the equation, in which case I can do likewise with a bunch of United players.

One of my best mates is a Chelsea ST holder and doesn’t perceive Kovacic as well as you do, but each to their own.

Bakayoko, as I said before, you have to judge the performance of the player when judging effectivess of transfer operations. It’s all well and good saying they broke even on him, but they weren’t paying him with magic beans.

I deleted the post was a mistake. No really trying to get into that debate again.

The main point was echoing what @TheMagicFoolBus said. Yes we may be improving on sales but Chelsea execution is still ahead of us.

 

[Feed Me]

I deleted the post was a mistake. No really trying to get into that debate again.

The main point was echoing what @TheMagicFoolBus said. Yes we may be improving on sales but Chelsea execution is still ahead of us.

I will happily agree with the premise that Chelsea are better than us when it’s all said and done. All I’ve said throughout is that there are many shades of grey between the often black and white narratives served up – ‘Omg, Chelsea are amazing at transfers and so ruthless’ and ‘Omg, United are so shit at transfers and always dither.’ Not laying that at your door btw, more a general point.

 

[Cassidy]

I will happily agree with the premise that Chelsea are better than us when it’s all said and done. All I’ve said throughout is that there are many shades of grey between the often black and white narratives served up – ‘Omg, Chelsea are amazing at transfers and so ruthless’ and ‘Omg, United are so shit at transfers and always dither.’ Not laying that at your door btw, more a general point.

Agree there those comments can be insufferable

 

[Feed Me]

He is better than what Chelsea have. They have literally plugged almost every hole in their squad in one transfer window.

They have done good business so far, but conceded nearly 60 league goals last season and have only added a reasonable left back. They still have a lot of work to do, but it’s looking decent for them, I agree.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

No need to apologise whatsoever, it’s a forum so no problem with cutting across and joining the debate – I do that often enough!

I think the extensions for players like Jones, Young and Mata have potentially been strategic in intent, not so much to protect resale value but to keep experienced (albeit well past it) players as back up. That basically sums up the way our club has been run for too long – we have owners overseeing decay and keeping players like the ones you’ve mentioned points towards a complete lack of ambition in my eyes.

The eye watering wages we pay for also rans doesn’t help either, although I think we are now going in the right direction in that respect.

I agree with your post - I understand the logic behind signing these sorts to extensions but I definitely agree that this points to a lack of forward-thinking. Why bother with Mata when you had Angel Gomes, who could play those minutes with little drop off and provide value in the future? Surely it'd have been better to sell him a couple years ago but I'd suspect you wouldn't disagree.

I will happily agree with the premise that Chelsea are better than us when it’s all said and done. All I’ve said throughout is that there are many shades of grey between the often black and white narratives served up – ‘Omg, Chelsea are amazing at transfers and so ruthless’ and ‘Omg, United are so shit at transfers and always dither.’ Not laying that at your door btw, more a general point.

On this we completely agree. It's definitely not black and white and suggesting otherwise is silly.

 

[SATA]

Sorry to chip in but surely Barkley costs more than 15M for Chelsea? Am I reading it right that he only went there for 15M

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Sorry to chip in but surely Barkley costs more than 15M for Chelsea? Am I reading it right that he only went there for 15M

He transferred with 6 months left on his contract in January 2018 whilst suffering from a long-term hamstring problem. 15M was, if anything, slightly excessive in that context.

 

[TheLord]

Sorry to chip in but surely Barkley costs more than 15M for Chelsea? Am I reading it right that he only went there for 15M

Yes, only £15m for a 24-year English player! (some injury issues)
These guys are good negotiators - buy cheap and sell expensive. Even when some transfers have been dreadful (like Kepa or Drinkwater), their net spending in the last 5/6 years relative to the total market-value of the current squad is probably the best in England, alongside Liverpool's.

 

[redshaw]

(It was a comment to a United fan taking a dump on us without looking at the facts.)

We got £57m for Di Maria

Now I am by no means saying United are great in the market (and we have had to get rid of some big names on small transfer fees (linked to their massive wages) but it’s funny how the successful transactions are completely disregarded in favour of a narrative.

Thought it was 44/45 million for Di Maria? We paid around 60m and got rinsed months later by PSG.

 

[Feed Me]

I agree with your post - I understand the logic behind signing these sorts to extensions but I definitely agree that this points to a lack of forward-thinking. Why bother with Mata when you had Angel Gomes, who could play those minutes with little drop off and provide value in the future? Surely it'd have been better to sell him a couple years ago but I'd suspect you wouldn't disagree.



On this we completely agree. It's definitely not black and white and suggesting otherwise is silly.

Honestly, I don’t know enough about Gomes to say whether he should have been given more of a chance. From what I read, he was maybe expecting more money than what would be suitable for someone of his level. Mata is well past it but came on against Europa opposition recently and changed the game for us. I guess the club looked at it and felt that Gomes was not capable of making that impact at this stage. Generally speaking, there aren’t many young players that United wanted to keep who have ended up being released and made us look like mugs. The likes of Pique wanted to go home, Rossi wanted more minutes and Pogba was agent driven.

 

[Feed Me]

Thought it was 44/45 million for Di Maria? We paid around 60m and got rinsed months later by PSG.

Perhaps I got those numbers wrong. I think maybe £57m (ish) was the purchase price and we sold at a £10m or so loss. Given that he was completely frozen out and didn’t want to be here, I always felt it was a good sale for all parties to cut our collective losses. Again, from an accounting perspective - looking at AdM’s ‘book value’, £45m sale having played a year of his contract was probably about right.

 

[::sonny::]

Great signing

 

[VorZakone]

He is better than what Chelsea have. They have literally plugged almost every hole in their squad in one transfer window.

GK and CB?

 

[arthurka]

Not when you consider we were sitting on ~190m from Morata / Hazard

This.. Fully understandable that you guys have money to spend for two windows.

 

[pratyush_utd]

GK and CB?

We keep hearing how manager need 2-3 transfer window to plug all the holes in the squad. Their GK is 70m disaster and they are also linked with CB. That will take one more window but the work they have done to recruit quality players in such a short time is commendable.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Honestly, I don’t know enough about Gomes to say whether he should have been given more of a chance. From what I read, he was maybe expecting more money than what would be suitable for someone of his level. Mata is well past it but came on against Europa opposition recently and changed the game for us. I guess the club looked at it and felt that Gomes was not capable of making that impact at this stage. Generally speaking, there aren’t many young players that United wanted to keep who have ended up being released and made us look like mugs. The likes of Pique wanted to go home, Rossi wanted more minutes and Pogba was agent driven.

Well, perhaps I'm a bit off base with the specifics, but I suppose my broader point is that signing these sorts of extensions instead of selling these players is inherently inefficient, especially when you have a quality youth setup to fill the gaps. Even if Gomes didn't prove to be United quality, giving him minutes to develop and showcase his worth is surely a better approach than paying Mata significantly more to be marginally better.

While I agree that there may not have been too many players released by United that would be first team worthy, there's still significant financial gain to be had potentially. This has been Chelsea's approach - players like Pasalic & Boga account for €30m of our transfer budget this summer because even if they aren't able to break into the first team, that doesn't make them inherently useless and they've carved out major roles at other clubs in part due to Chelsea's patience with their development.

 

[Feed Me]

Well, perhaps I'm a bit off base with the specifics, but I suppose my broader point is that signing these sorts of extensions instead of selling these players is inherently inefficient, especially when you have a quality youth setup to fill the gaps. Even if Gomes didn't prove to be United quality, giving him minutes to develop and showcase his worth is surely a better approach than paying Mata significantly more to be marginally better.

While I agree that there may not have been too many players released by United that would be first team worthy, there's still significant financial gain to be had potentially. This has been Chelsea's approach - players like Pasalic & Boga account for €30m of our transfer budget this summer because even if they aren't able to break into the first team, that doesn't make them inherently useless and they've carved out major roles at other clubs in part due to Chelsea's patience with their development.

Yeah, I think you make a fair point in your second paragraph and I would like United to be better when it comes to making money off young players who don’t quite make it. We have one or two examples in the last few years where we have made decent money from reserves, but not enough. In fairness, and I’m not saying this to be incendiary, but we do generally set up our youth system to create pathways for players to make the first team – Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay, Williams, Tuanzebe, etc. At the same time, we have always been known as a club that does its level best to help young players make a career elsewhere, which is why we maybe sometimes demand less in transfer fees and so forth. In comparison, I think the principal reason for your system is to act as a farm for generating revenue, so slightly different situations I think.

 

[arthurka]

50 million for Chilwell is crazy. Very average player. Loads of hype when it comes to Chelsea’s signings as they are guaranteed to give them instant success. I highly doubt that.

We paid 50m for AWB.. just saying

 

[Lemansky]

We paid 50m for AWB.. just saying

That was not the bargain of the century either although he has been solid. But what we paid for him surely was over the top as AWB has clear weaknesses (offensive). I did rate AWB a lot more playing for Palace tough.

 

[arthurka]

That was not the bargain of the century either although he has been solid. But what we paid for him surely was over the top as AWB has clear weaknesses (offensive). I did rate AWB a lot more playing for Palace tough.

Think this is the going rate for reliable English full backs. Solid business from Chelsea will be an upgrade to their defense.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Yeah, I think you make a fair point in your second paragraph and I would like United to be better when it comes to making money off young players who don’t quite make it. We have one or two examples in the last few years where we have made decent money from reserves, but not enough. In fairness, and I’m not saying this to be incendiary, but we do generally set up our youth system to create pathways for players to make the first team – Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay, Williams, Tuanzebe, etc. At the same time, we have always been known as a club that does its level best to help young players make a career elsewhere, which is why we maybe sometimes demand less in transfer fees and so forth. In comparison, I think the principal reason for your system is to act as a farm for generating revenue, so slightly different situations I think.

I don't think that's incendiary at all and I agree with what you've said. Definitely there are cultural issues at Chelsea that have prevented youth players from making significant impacts generally.

I'd hope that Chelsea are moving more in that direction - for me the ideal system is one where you can reserve the transfer budget to buy world class talent whilst simultaneously filling out the squad with players from the system. We clearly made major strides in that direction and even if we take opportunities to buy top talent that isn't necessarily a gaping need (e.g. Havertz) I don't think that is incompatible with this sort of efficient approach.

My take is that Chelsea have historically tended towards buying squad players inefficiently but have moved on from them relatively quickly (via loan if nothing else), whilst United have been better at bringing youth through but the squad players that are brought in are retained to an extent that isn't optimal. In both cases, there is definitely streamlining that could be done. That said, I think both teams are moving towards a more cohesive and efficient model so fingers crossed I suppose!

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

@FriendlyFox

If you are going to compare Maguire & Soyuncu, you might want to compare Maguire under Rodgers only. Soyuncu will look much worse under Puel. Soyuncu has higher potential however on current level Maguire is the better defender. And when Maguire was at Leicester under Rodgers, your defense was much better in term of overall goal conceded per game than with Soyuncu under Rodger.

Chilwell been so poor this season, been watching him playing so bad this season. Could Maguire’s leaving was the big factor of Chilwell dropping performance compared to his 18/19? He looked much more promising in 18/19.

 

[Snow]

He is better than what Chelsea have. They have literally plugged almost every hole in their squad in one transfer window.

It's still the same defense and keeper but with Chilwell added. They've fixed one hole (striker) and added depth to their already strongest positions. They still have Zappacosta, Moses, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, van Ginkel, Kenedy, Batshuayi and Giroud on their books. To me they look a bit like we did a year ago with many holes to be filled and unwanted players eating up a chunk of their wage budget.

 

[TheLord]

There are some floating rumours that this deal may be off because of the seriousness of Chilwell's heel injury, and that a formal medical examination is due soon.

I don't know if there's any truth in that, but it is worrying as Chelsea may buy a proper LB now!

 

[BlackShark_80]

There are some floating rumours that this deal may be off because of the seriousness of Chilwell's heel injury, and that a formal medical examination is due soon.

I don't know if there's any truth in that, but it is worrying as Chelsea may buy a proper LB now!

If i remember correctly their LB alternatives are Telles, Tagliafico, Reguilon, and maybe Gosens. All of them are cheaper than Chilwell, but i don't think they are very good defensively except Tagliafico.

 

[duffer]

It's still the same defense and keeper but with Chilwell added. They've fixed one hole (striker) and added depth to their already strongest positions. They still have Zappacosta, Moses, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, van Ginkel, Kenedy, Batshuayi and Giroud on their books. To me they look a bit like we did a year ago with many holes to be filled and unwanted players eating up a chunk of their wage budget.

Every one of the players you list will have their wages paid by someone else next season barring Giroud (who will be a useful squad member) and Drinkwater (who will have a %paid).

Us having a huge squad is not an accident or mistake, it's been club policy for years.

 

[Tony247]

Art of selling is to know when to sell, be it a car, stock or player. Chelsea has a good record of selling assets when they still have market value and not turned into deadwoods (liabilities). And in return they get to afford shiny new upcoming talent.

Good business if they buy Chilwell and sell Alonso.

 

[WeePat]

Art of selling is to know when to sell, be it a car, stock or player. Chelsea has a good record of selling assets when they still have market value and not turned into deadwoods (liabilities). And in return they get to afford shiny new upcoming talent.

Good business if they buy Chilwell and sell Alonso.

Alonso will likely stay as back up. Emerson is heavily rumoured to be moving to Inter for about £25m.

 

[Tony247]

Alonso will likely stay as back up. Emerson is heavily rumoured to be moving to Inter for about £25m.

Hmm. Good for you.

So, overall all positions filled (or being filled) except a goalkeeper?

 

[Scarecrow]

Hmm. Good for you.

So, overall all positions filled (or being filled) except a goalkeeper?

I think they're looking for a CB, as well. Probably Rice ends up there sooner or (if Silva signs) later.

 

[SirReginald]

Hmm. Good for you.

So, overall all positions filled (or being filled) except a goalkeeper?

There’s rumors that Lollichon and Cech have recommended Rennes GK and we have enquired and that we have enquired about the price. Probably dependent on whether Kepa goes (sale or loan).

If we do get Kai Chilwell and Havertz and leave it at that then I’ll give this window an 8. If we get a GK it’s a 10. Sure we might need a more long term CB but if Silva could stop us spending another 50mil this window then it’s great business, regardless of performance we do need leadership ship at the back.

 

[Tony247]

There’s rumors that Lollichon and Cech have recommended Rennes GK and we have enquired and that we have enquired about the price. Probably dependent on whether Kepa goes (sale or loan).

If we do get Kai Chilwell and Havertz and leave it at that then I’ll give this window an 8. If we get a GK it’s a 10. Sure we might need a more long term CB but if Silva could stop us spending another 50mil this window then it’s great business, regardless of performance we do need leadership ship at the back.

You guys are going for Romero it seems. That would be a very good stop gap cheap option. I like Romero and it would be pain to see him go (i would rather prefer romero and henderson fighting it out). But all the best to him and chelsea if that works out for both the parties.