Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

1905 said:
£65m for Havertz is absolutely outrageous :lol:

Genuinely thought we’d we stuck with him then he’d leave for like £20m next season.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand why people are amazed at the fee. He’s a 24 year old key German international that led his club in almost all attacking metrics last year, is always fit, can play anywhere across five positions and is being sold at a huge loss.

He’s twice the talent that Antony is. You’re selling him for less than what you paid for Mudryk and he looks more out of place.

Havertz is a top level talent and is easily worth what Arsenal are paying. I think he’ll be a bargain. If he fails, they’ll sell him for a smaller loss than Chelsea have experienced.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I don’t understand why people are amazed at the fee. He’s a 24 year old key German international that led his club in almost all attacking metrics last year, is always fit, can play anywhere across five positions and is being sold at a huge loss.

He’s twice the talent that Antony is. You’re selling him for less than what you paid for Mudryk and he looks more out of place.

Havertz is a top level talent and is easily worth what Arsenal are paying. I think he’ll be a bargain. If he fails, they’ll sell him for a smaller loss than Chelsea have experienced.
Click to expand...

Hrm? We bought him for €80m - and in September 2020 this was apparently about £71m. Selling him for £65m after he more than made up that difference by winning us the CL hardly qualifies as a "huge loss".

I obviously don't disagree with the rest of your post - I think Havertz more than any other player we have has suffered from being too versatile and therefore has been used suboptimally at the cost of his own performances. Think that in a settled side he's easily worth what Arsenal are paying.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Hrm? We bought him for €80m - and in September 2020 this was apparently about £71m. Selling him for £65m after he more than made up that difference by winning us the CL hardly qualifies as a "huge loss".

I obviously don't disagree with the rest of your post - I think Havertz more than any other player we have has suffered from being too versatile and therefore has been used suboptimally at the cost of his own performances. Think that in a settled side he's easily worth what Arsenal are paying.
Click to expand...

I think Ornstein confirmed we paid €90M in the end with the appearances and the CL win clauses met.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I don’t understand why people are amazed at the fee. He’s a 24 year old key German international that led his club in almost all attacking metrics last year, is always fit, can play anywhere across five positions and is being sold at a huge loss.

He’s twice the talent that Antony is. You’re selling him for less than what you paid for Mudryk and he looks more out of place.

Havertz is a top level talent and is easily worth what Arsenal are paying. I think he’ll be a bargain. If he fails, they’ll sell him for a smaller loss than Chelsea have experienced.
Click to expand...

If the £65m fee is to be believed I don't think a £7m~ loss is that big to be too upset about, especially for a player who hasn't performed consistently for 3 years in row. Leading the clubs statistics doesn't really mean much when everyone was rubbish, the eye test also tells a different story to the stats that have been floating about.

I don't think its all doom and gloom though, I posted in the Havertz thread on how I think he could do well for Arsenal. You may or may not agree.


1905 said:
I don’t particularly rate Havertz as a footballer but I think to get the best out of him he needs to 1. Play in a complete/free flowing team in an attacking sense and 2. Play in a team that creates a lot of chances. The two intertwine and Arsenal going off last season do both. He’s most similar to Dele Alli in a sense that his movement and ghosting in goal scoring positions is very good, and playing off a striker is where he’d be most effective.

The problem with these type of players is they’re often not involved in the match unless they are scoring. So if Arsenal’s level as a team drops, so will Havertz’s.
Click to expand...
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I don’t understand why people are amazed at the fee. He’s a 24 year old key German international that led his club in almost all attacking metrics last year, is always fit, can play anywhere across five positions and is being sold at a huge loss.

He’s twice the talent that Antony is. You’re selling him for less than what you paid for Mudryk and he looks more out of place.

Havertz is a top level talent and is easily worth what Arsenal are paying. I think he’ll be a bargain. If he fails, they’ll sell him for a smaller loss than Chelsea have experienced.
Click to expand...

I think this a bit OTT, but Havertz seemed to be a go to player last season for them, and Arsenal have pulled this trick with before with Odegaard, Jesus, and Zinchenko, so I'm expecting him to be pretty good next season.
 
WeePat said:
I think Ornstein confirmed we paid €90M in the end with the appearances and the CL win clauses met.
Click to expand...

Now that you say that I do remember when we signed him there were conflicting reports in England vs Germany about the deal involving clauses. All English media said there was none, £72m flat fee. German media said there were clauses.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Hrm? We bought him for €80m - and in September 2020 this was apparently about £71m. Selling him for £65m after he more than made up that difference by winning us the CL hardly qualifies as a "huge loss".

I obviously don't disagree with the rest of your post - I think Havertz more than any other player we have has suffered from being too versatile and therefore has been used suboptimally at the cost of his own performances. Think that in a settled side he's easily worth what Arsenal are paying.
Click to expand...

Your club is wildly wealthy. Getting into the balance sheet or P&L to justify sales is silly and makes both of us dumber. He was signed for a fee that could rise to €100m I think. His goal cost the club more than the difference in Winners/Runners Up prize money. It was an ‘everyone wins’ add on. One that I wish United were dishing out. He’s being sold for around a €20-25m loss.

I think he’s exceptional and had Boely not been dumb as a rock upon takeover, Pochettino would have been able to keep him and made him even better.

As a United fan, I hated losing Stam, Ronaldo, Pique, Heinze. Probably more that I’m forgetting.

The modern fan is always desperate to repackage stuff into binary spaces. I truly think Arsenal have signed a top player, made your squad weaker, and also accept the fact that it’s a good deal for all parties.

My only problem is the idea he’s not worth £60m+. He really is.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I think this a bit OTT, but Havertz seemed to be a go to player last season for them, and Arsenal have pulled this trick with before with Odegaard, Jesus, and Zinchenko, so I'm expecting him to be pretty good next season.
Click to expand...

He was also completely misused - all season he played as a 9, except for his best performances (e.g. vs. Dortmund) where he was again used as a second striker. If Arsenal are setting up such that someone else is providing verticality in the attack, I have zero doubt Havertz will be excellent.

UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Your club is wildly wealthy. Getting into the balance sheet or P&L to justify sales is silly and makes both of us dumber. He was signed for a fee that could rise to €100m I think. His goal cost the club more than the difference in Winners/Runners Up prize money. It was an ‘everyone wins’ add on. One that I wish United were dishing out. He’s being sold for around a €20-25m loss.

I think he’s exceptional and had Boely not been dumb as a rock upon takeover, Pochettino would have been able to keep him and made him even better.

As a United fan, I hated losing Stam, Ronaldo, Pique, Heinze. Probably more that I’m forgetting.

The modern fan is always desperate to repackage stuff into binary spaces. I truly think Arsenal have signed a top player, made your squad weaker, and also accept the fact that it’s a good deal for all parties.

My only problem is the idea he’s not worth £60m+. He really is.
Click to expand...

As @WeePat pointed out, it was €90m. We're selling him for ~€75.6m. I just don't see how that qualifies as a "huge loss" when the fee received from a bookmaking perspective more than pays off the remaining amortisation balance of his deal.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
My only problem is the idea he’s not worth £60m+. He really is.
Click to expand...
I think it's a combination of his contract running down, Chelsea apparent need to sell and the fact that he's been crap for a couple of years (you can say "led the teams attacking metrics" but if you look at his output, he's simply been the least shite but still shite).

There's a very good player in the right team but he's had many chances under many managers at Chelsea and he has never really looked like a consistently top player.
 
duffer said:
I think it's a combination of his contract running down, Chelsea apparent need to sell and the fact that he's been crap for a couple of years (you can say "led the teams attacking metrics" but if you look at his output, he's simply been the least shite but still shite).

There's a very good player in the right team but he's had many chances under many managers at Chelsea and he has never really looked like a consistently top player.
Click to expand...

He’s a bargain at £60m for Arsenal and a decent sale for Chelsea at £60m.

Thats probably the best distillation of my point.
 
Chelsea Football Group...CFG London.

He should figure it out like John Henry did for Liverpool, but it took a little bit. For all the money they have (Chelsea), it'll be interesting to see how they comply with any FFP rules and deal without Europe. They should be healthy and improve to a consistent level under Poch without Europe. But they still have to move on lots of players and need goal scorers.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I just don't see how that qualifies as a "huge loss" when the fee received from a bookmaking perspective more than pays off the remaining amortisation balance of his deal.
Click to expand...

Nothing against you. You’re a cogent and intelligent poster.

But this kind of sentence should get someone a week long ban.

The trend for fans to look at a sport through the lens of an accountant isn’t big or clever. It’s another Capitalistic death of the game we all love. (And yes I’ve probably done it too)

You’re selling your best performing attacking player for a €15m loss to a rival that finished above you last year. That’s always a bad transfer.

I’m only half serious about a ban hammer. I do really wish we could talk about reality and not financial treatments though.
 
Orc said:
Still have James and Chilly so that’s two elite fullbacks when fit. Have good depth at both fullback spots.

Still have several young CB’s who are quality like Fofana, Badiashile, and the now returning Colwill.

Have Enzo Fernandes who is top class.

Have a set of attacking mids that I think Poch will do wonders for including one of the most exciting players in Europe now in Nkunku.

We sign a couple of midfielders and a striker and we’ll be in the mix for top 4, 100%. It’s absolute fantasy that Chelsea will be in the mud for years. Being focused on only the PL for much of the season and having more time on the training pitch than any other big club should do us a lot of good.
Click to expand...

Chilwell is not an elite fullback
 
jakko said:
You can tell you dont watch Havertz much.
Click to expand...

Well, other that seeing him somewhat frequently in Germany via my Leverkusen supporting brother in law, and my best mate snagging me corporate tickets at the Bridge every 3-4 weeks… yeah. Barely watch him ever.

You weren’t to know, but I’ve seen him live more than I have any current United player. I think he’s a top player. It’s ok if you don’t.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Nothing against you. You’re a cogent and intelligent poster.

But this kind of sentence should get someone a week long ban.

The trend for fans to look at a sport through the lens of an accountant isn’t big or clever. It’s another Capitalistic death of the game we all love. (And yes I’ve probably done it too)

You’re selling your best performing attacking player for a €15m loss to a rival that finished above you last year. That’s always a bad transfer.

I’m only half serious about a ban hammer. I do really wish we could talk about reality and not financial treatments though.
Click to expand...

Haha no worries mate - I appreciate what you're saying. Always enjoy your posts as well!

I just don't think it qualifies as a "huge loss" financially - that's all. It's definitely a loss, but I just disagree with your opinion about the magnitude.

Happy to discuss it from a broader perspective as well - and there I am not sure it's such a huge loss sporting-wise. Given that for who the hell knows what reason we seem reluctant to actually play Havertz in his favoured position (where all things considered he's been pretty good), I don't know the extent to which he'd get a fair shake. I think Nkunku is a slightly better fit for a Poch system in that 10 / SS role in a 4-2-3-1 given how much more direct he is vertically - so in that broader context, getting a more-than respectable fee for a player who looks unsettled and potentially surplus to requirements makes sense.

It obviously stings a bit to lose him to a direct rival and I don't think I'll ever shake the sinking feeling that we could and should have gotten far more out of him, but on the scale of disastrous sales from Morata for €54m to KdB for €18m I think he's a lot closer to the former than the latter - at least at the moment and especially considering the extent to which a sale is viable more broadly (e.g. KdB had 3.5 years left on his deal and was only sold because Mourinho was a stubborn dipshit).
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
It obviously stings a bit to lose him to a direct rival and I don't think I'll ever shake the sinking feeling that we could and should have gotten far more out of him, but on the scale of disastrous sales from Morata for €54m to KdB for €18m I think he's a lot closer to the former than the latter - at least at the moment and especially considering the extent to which a sale is viable more broadly (e.g. KdB had 3.5 years left on his deal and was only sold because Mourinho was a stubborn dipshit).
Click to expand...

I think the Morata/KdB thing is what I’m getting at. Both those sales were good business for Chelsea.

When United lost Stam, Ronaldo, Beckham for decent fees, most United fans wished that they had stayed, but supported them to an extent going forward.

Many Chelsea fans are trying to suggest that the club is mugging off Arsenal. It’s not. It’s necessary business and as much as Arsenal can celebrate signing a great player, I wish Chelsea fans could appreciate what a player he is, rue the loss, but keep things in its right space. He’s a loss. He didn’t want to leave. He won you a CL and this need to denigrate him and suggest Arsenal have been mugged off is so weird.

Arsenal taking Havertz and City taking Kovacic is a condemnation of Boleys inexperience. You’ve made two rivals better. The £90m won’t go into the team. It’s balancing the books. Kante and Koulibali et Al… good business. But it’s all being treated as a win for some reason.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I think the Morata/KdB thing is what I’m getting at. Both those sales were good business for Chelsea.

When United lost Stam, Ronaldo, Beckham for decent fees, most United fans wished that they had stayed, but supported them to an extent going forward.

Many Chelsea fans are trying to suggest that the club is mugging off Arsenal. It’s not. It’s necessary business and as much as Arsenal can celebrate signing a great player, I wish Chelsea fans could appreciate what a player he is, rue the loss, but keep things in its right space. He’s a loss. He didn’t want to leave. He won you a CL and this need to denigrate him and suggest Arsenal have been mugged off is so weird.

Arsenal taking Havertz and City taking Kovacic is a condemnation of Boleys inexperience. You’ve made two rivals better. The £90m won’t go into the team. It’s balancing the books. Kante and Koulibali et Al… good business. But it’s all being treated as a win for some reason.
Click to expand...

Oh I strongly disagree about the KdB sale. I feel very strongly that that was the single most disastrous transfer decision any team has made in the last 20 years - and the worst part is that there was no reason to do it whatsoever, so at the time it was excruciatingly stupid. Mourinho decided he wanted to sell KdB after he watched one half of an FA Cup game - KdB still had 3.5 years left on his deal, he was coming off a season where he was genuinely excellent for Bremen in the Bundesliga, and honestly it was a below-market price all things considered.

That said, I agree with you about the general sentiment regarding the Havertz move - but at the same time, credible reports have said that Havertz is refusing to even consider an extension, which more or less makes a sale a necessity. I'd agree as well that it's ludicrous to say we're "mugging off" Arsenal, as I think there's every chance we'll end up looking like the actual idiots having had such a quality player for years yet not figuring out how to use him (despite numerous examples of him being quite good when used properly) - if the Arsenal reporters are correct and he's going to be used in Xhaka's role from last year, that is a fecking enormous upgrade for Arsenal.

I would though draw a distinction between this deal and the Kovacic one - honestly I'm not sure how willing I'd be to sign Kovacic to an extension at this point given his injury history, age, and his limitations. I also think Kovacic makes more sense as the finishing touch on a top team as opposed to a building block for a team trying to be developed - and that more than anything is why I'm unhappy to lose Havertz. Maybe it's me being irrational but I still think there is a top player there - so in that we agree and you won't see me celebrating his departure.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I think the Morata/KdB thing is what I’m getting at. Both those sales were good business for Chelsea.

Many Chelsea fans are trying to suggest that the club is mugging off Arsenal. It’s not. It’s necessary business and as much as Arsenal can celebrate signing a great player, I wish Chelsea fans could appreciate what a player he is, rue the loss, but keep things in its right space. He’s a loss. He didn’t want to leave. He won you a CL and this need to denigrate him and suggest Arsenal have been mugged off is so weird.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, we all have eyes and different opinions. There is no crusade against Havertz or a desperation to want one over Arsenal. We are just reacting to how we've perceived his time with the club, and obviously we all have seen it differently. I am genuinely concerned about Mount going to United, I've said it multiple times. He has shown here that he has the potential to be a great player (whilst I think Havertz hasn't shown that other than one off moments per season). It isn't some fake way of coping, just people rate players differently.

On the Kdb sale. I watched him a bit on streams for Werder Bremen when he was on loan. It was really really obvious that he was already very good, and polished for a young player. What Mourinho did was unforgiveable, but I can't blame him for Salah as he was at a different point in his development and needed gametime to evolve. With Kdb, it was obvious.


Ed. Nevermind I see what you're doing.
 
Last edited:
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I would though draw a distinction between this deal and the Kovacic one - honestly I'm not sure how willing I'd be to sign Kovacic to an extension at this point given his injury history, age, and his limitations. I also think Kovacic makes more sense as the finishing touch on a top team as opposed to a building block for a team trying to be developed - and that more than anything is why I'm unhappy to lose Havertz. Maybe it's me being irrational but I still think there is a top player there - so in that we agree and you won't see me celebrating his departure.
Click to expand...

I think that’s the problem right. City are solved. They need Kovacic for 30 games a season. If he only plays or is available for that many for your lot, he needs to go. They can afford to have a top drawer brittle midfielder as cover. You need to balance the books and have robust and lockable players for Poch’a first year.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I think that’s the problem right. City are solved. They need Kovacic for 30 games a season. If he only plays or is available for that many for your lot, he needs to go. They can afford to have a top drawer brittle midfielder as cover. You need to balance the books and have robust and lockable players for Poch’a first year.
Click to expand...

Yep - and what's immensely frustrating is that Chelsea could have been sorted and in a similar position had we not continually bungled the transfer market for the last decade at the cost of our academy.
 
horsechoker said:
Chelsea should be eliminated from football
Click to expand...

Meh, these people are being unrealistic thinking the Saudi deals are helping Chelsea with FFP. Arsenal and Man United are helping Chelsea with FFP. £32m FFP profit for Havertz and £55-60M FFP profit for Mount.

More Chelsea news for oppo to get worked up about. Multi club deals lining up before the ink dries for the purchase of Strasbourg.

 


Proper legend. Maybe a year too late in leaving as he showed signs of slowing down. Think he'll do a job in Italy still though.
 
One of the very best signings we’ve ever made. Signed for just £7m and went on to become a club legend.

As a player he has sadly declined dramatically but his leadership and class will be missed. One of the best 1v1 defenders I’ve ever seen in a his prime.
 
cyberman said:
Odd last line there. Why would there be?
Click to expand...

Only thing I can think of is both respecting eachother enough that Chelsea won't haggle for a transfer fee and will let him go freely?
 
They keep spending, spending, selling, and now back to spending again with Jackson and their team still doesn’t look any better. In fact, if they lose Mount and Kovacic, it’s worse.

You get the impression there is a lot of spinningof the tires at Chelsea. Spending for spendings sake.

It’s like me on FPL, at the transfers, taking hits every week, when in reality I would have gotten more points just not changing my team at all.
 
They are hoovering up as many 19-22 year old talents as they can and probably slashing their payroll costs in the process.

If they can get them to gel, they will have a team for a decade.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Many Chelsea fans are trying to suggest that the club is mugging off Arsenal. It’s not. It’s necessary business and as much as Arsenal can celebrate signing a great player, I wish Chelsea fans could appreciate what a player he is, rue the loss, but keep things in its right space. He’s a loss. He didn’t want to leave. He won you a CL and this need to denigrate him and suggest Arsenal have been mugged off is so weird.
Click to expand...

That would be because many Chelsea fans have watched him consistently for 3 years, showing himself to be nothing other than incredibly underwhelming. He works fairly hard, produces an occasionally great great flick or touch, and is always fit and available. And that's not to say I haven't appreciated his contributions, but no one should be paying anywhere near 65m for such a player. Kante, Kovacic, Rudiger, Silva won us a CL - he scored a goal in the final...
 
Maluco said:
They keep spending, spending, selling, and now back to spending again with Jackson and their team still doesn’t look any better. In fact, if they lose Mount and Kovacic, it’s worse.

You get the impression there is a lot of spinningof the tires at Chelsea. Spending for spendings sake.

It’s like me on FPL, at the transfers, taking hits every week, when in reality I would have gotten more points just not changing my team at all.
Click to expand...
Extremely silly to judge our team before we’ve even bought a single player to replace all these outgoings, no? If we replace Mount with Nkunku, Koulibaly with Colwill, and an aging, always injured Kante with Caicedo I’d say those are 3 massive upgrades. And literally any natural striker is an upgrade on Havertz who wasn’t a #9.
 
DJBillRemfry said:
They are hoovering up as many 19-22 year old talents as they can and probably slashing their payroll costs in the process.

If they can get them to gel, they will have a team for a decade.
Click to expand...

Sure. It just doesn't make sense to pay Kante, Kovacic et al a ton when they're either injured 60% of the time or not producing. You would much rather pay a talent, with a big upside, half those wages. Similarly, to pay Mount top wages when he wouldn't or shouldn't be starting ahead of Nkunku, Sterling, Madueke, Enzo would be idiotic. But there needs to be a balance to properly challenge City. I'm sure an experienced striker and an experienced AM/winger will be on the list.
 
Maluco said:
They keep spending, spending, selling, and now back to spending again with Jackson and their team still doesn’t look any better. In fact, if they lose Mount and Kovacic, it’s worse.

You get the impression there is a lot of spinningof the tires at Chelsea. Spending for spendings sake.

It’s like me on FPL, at the transfers, taking hits every week, when in reality I would have gotten more points just not changing my team at all.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand your gripe here. We’re selling and spending. Isn’t that the whole point of the transfer window? There’s like 8 players on the verge of leaving, which everyone said was the priority. We’ve so far only announced 1 player, which was a deal done in advance last year.

I get the feeling this is just criticism for the sake criticism. We’re spending £30m on a young forward, that is literally it so far and you’re here saying ‘oh here they go again spending spending’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.