The problem with this strategy is you depend on whatever buying/hiring market
Last edited:
Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
The problem with this strategy is you depend on whatever buying/hiring market
I mean you described who he was 2-3 years ago. I don’t think he’s still that player, and obviously the injuries and athleticism concerns are there too.
Yeah fair enough - though honestly I think his decline has been a bit overstated since he's both been trying to come back from injury whilst adapting to the demands of different managers.
I still think he could be a more than decent option for anyone who wants an attacking left back who can both hug the touchline and underlap effectively.
For the record I was also answering the poster who asked why we wouldn’t look at him for depth. Just not really a good fit in how we *try* to play and what we need.
Yeah mate makes sense - apologies if I butted in out of turn! I do still sort of think he might be a reasonable fit for you in the event you want someone to split minutes with Shaw to allow both to provide regular attacking thrust from LB in a vacuum (though of course not something worth considering for any fee that would even approach being substantial).
Oh no worries all good
Yeah would really depend on how cheap Chelsea (and himself) are willing to be. Seems pretty clear under our new structure that we aren't jumping through hoops to sign anyone on the wrong side of the age-wage profile.
The other problem is that players are taking on a lot of risk. If you run down your contract and pick up a bad injury then you’re effectively unemployed.
Being “sold” can provide the certainty of a long term contract and the security it brings to the player and his family.
More like the owners are playing like an NFL team thinking they cant be relegated. Only guaranteed money every season.
These guys make the Glazers look like business geniuses.
The issue is though, as United have found, throwing big money at players is absolutely no guarantee of success. The likelihood is that rather than end-up with a squad of very valuable assets, Chelsea will end-up with a squad of players who never play and can't be shifted.
Oh of course, no guarantees whatsoever. But the idea is that because the players will be on relatively low wages that wouldn't break the bank for other smaller clubs, they'll still be significantly easier to shift.
They only develop if they get playing time. But of a flaw in the system
They'll get playing time. Not at a Chelsea but on loan somewhere.
Yes - hence the "magically develop" bit; presumably on loan somewhere.
But this is also where the gamble that transfer fees will continue to rise comes into play - even if these players are sold at a discount relative to the rest of the market, that may still be a higher value than what Chelsea paid for them initially.
So… they have 20 players that aren’t part of the managers plans and aren’t training with him.
How on earth do they expect to get any fees for those players? It feels like they’re relying on the goodwill of other clubs to come and offer real money for players they don’t want. It’s mental.
How on earth do they expect to get any fees for those players? It feels like they’re relying on the goodwill of other clubs to come and offer real money for players they don’t want. It’s mental.
I guess they loan them out and use that as a shop window? They never seem to struggle when selling, although this volume brought in and flipped so quickly might make it harder (hopefully!).
They’ll end up footing the bill for most of those players wages though. Everyone knows the club will be desperate. I just can’t see clubs rushing in for their unwanted players, offering to solve their problem. Really weird way to run a club.
I put this in the Chelsea thread, but belongs here too. Orny explaining Chelsea transfers.
so Omorodion moves to Porto for only €15m ... only two weeks after Chelsea were ready to spend £35m on him, only for the move to fall through last minute (and them to magically be interested in Joao Felix again). Doesn't seem fishy at all.
Didn’t they just get £45m for one of those players? I do find it bizarre, though.
I don’t think “look at Palmer” is a great example of what they are doing. Most players need time and a stable environment. All they are providing is constant instability.
I fancied this being a great season for Madueke, he was growing and looking better and better at the end of last season. Bought Neto. Only a select few will thrive under that pressure.
It would be a terrible project for a top club as it was, but the fact they have spent over a billion to have the squad they have is ludicrous. A load of average CBs, no quality strikers, erratic and fragile wide players.
This team will not conquer the world in 5 years. I feel pretty confident about that.
They might be underestimating the odds of a player's price being near zero.
Real Madrid bought Reinier Jesus for 30m the year after buying Vinicius Jr. and Rodrygo, he is worth nothing. They also bought Luka Jovic for 60m and let him go on a free 3 years later.
I don’t understand how Chelsea fans are taking this. Felix on a seven year deal is ridiculous. At some point the fans have to speak up and let Bohely know what they think.
How does it sound fishy? What are you suggesting?
I found the discrepancy between a €15m deal to Porto and a proposed €40m deal to Chelsea quite astonishing, high sell-on clause or not. But Romano later clarified that Porto only bought 50% of Omorodion, with Atletico retaining the other 50%.
So basically, my bad, nothing to see here. Just confused by Romano's initial reporting, which didn't tell the whole story.
They discovered an ankle injury during his medical and contrary to initial claims it now seems Chelsea pulled out of the deal.
Clubs run a mile when news of a failed medical get out others will just drive the cost down
Yep don't have any insight into their valuation model but of course that's a risk - if they aren't factoring that in then that's extremely stupid. Honestly it might be possible that that's an oversight because in baseball getting even average production is inherently valuable - baseball teams play 162 games each every regular season even before the playoffs, so there is disproportionate value in being available for all those games.
Reportedly interested in Toney... and Osimhen. And Sancho (insofar they could offload Sterling).
Signings, so much signings. You'll get tired of signing. You'll say "sir it's too much, we can't keep signing !"
Signings, so much signings. You'll get tired of signing. You'll say "sir it's too much, we can't keep signing !"
Whenever I see an article on Boehly now, the Only Fools and Horses tune immediately starts playing in my head.
Disasi in me pocket
Who the feck is Kellyman?
Cause I'll sign the young ones and I don't questions, 8 years 200 grand
Cause how we sign em is a mystery
Finished 6th last season, still complied with FFP
But here's the one that's driving me berserk
Why do none of our signings work?
Excellent
Well, many of those players being listed by sites erroneously are academy players that will end up at places the level they’ve didn’t their first loans at; like Hull City.
They were counting players like Harvey Vale, Leo Castledine, Bashir Humphreys, Alex Matos.(many of whom we are fine with keeping in the U21’s a while longer).
Then they were counting players like Kepa and Lukaku from pre Clearlake who haven’t been around the team in forever and already have places they are headed.
Even Datro Fofana and Deivid Washington could stick with the U21’s for 6 months to develop more if we don’t find the right spot for them. Although both have multiple suitors on the table, so that would be surprising.
Of the “massive” 20+ player surplus, it’s Really only Chalobah, Chilwell, Sterling, and Broja that need to be moved on. Thats 4 players. And not for PSR purposes, but for general squad health. Not as fantastic a headline for rags like the Sun, but reality.
A lot of people, like me, would also like to see Mudryk on a loan to see if he can get his confidence in order.
I think the bigger problem is mentioning baseball tbh.
Well yes that's sort of my point - if they're using learnings from baseball that's obviously a huge problem. Probably the two major sports that are the least alike.
I love this guy.
Am I right in believing that Chelsea will be covering sanchos wages, and the majority of sterlings too?
Outstanding work on deadline day by the blues if correct.
Outstanding work on deadline day by the blues if correct.
I've read that Sterling has taken a cut and Arsenal are going halfsies.
The title is right. He is going to ruin us.
Have you got anything to back that?
I haven't seen much mentioned on the wages from anyone that isn't a random Twitter account.
The only 2 names I recognise personally are Miguel Delaney who said Arsenal are paying less than 50% and Mike Keegan who said you're covering Sancho's wages.
So you're paying half of sterlings wages and Sanchos? How do you feel about that?
Cheers btw.