Donkai Havertz | Arsenal Watch

Kentonio said:
This is where you lose credibility. Liverpool a standby team of tier one? That’s complete shite. They hadn’t won their own league in 30 years but apparently they're standby for tier one because they had a good run in the 70s/80’s? It’s nonsense. Any players who personally remember any period of Liverpool dominance are likely already retired or close to.
Click to expand...
There are more things to consider: Liverpool really dominated the 80s, somehow still were great in the CL in the 00s and also recently played dominant football again. Their lack of national success from the 90s up until last year is cerrtainly something to consider, but this club has a myth around it (just like Real, Bayern, Barca, United) and that certainly plays a part in the equation.

That's why I said they're a standby-team of the top tier and need a few more years of real dominance, until I'd personally consider them a "regular elite club" again.

Chelsea just doesn't have any kind of myth around it, whether its fans like it or not, and their only period of real success so far also only lasted from 2004/05 - 2014/15 (with only a one league title before and one after).
 
GameOn said:
There are more things to consider: Liverpool really dominated the 80s, somehow still were great in the CL in the 00s and also recently played dominant football again. Their lack of national success from the 90s up until last year is cerrtainly something to consider, but this club has a myth around it (just like Real, Bayern, Barca, United) and that certainly plays a part in the equation.

That's why I said they're a standby-team of the top tier and need a few more years of real dominance, until I'd personally consider them a "regular elite club" again.

Chelsea just doesn't have any kind of myth around it, whether its fans like it or not, and their only period of real success so far also only lasted from 2004/05 - 2014/15 (with only a one league title before and one after).
Click to expand...

All this is is your personal perceptions, and not to be rude but in the wider sense they’re kind of worthless. I can say this without being a cnut because strange as it may seem I thought the same as you for a long time.

I grew up watching my beloved blues get relegated, be in countless relegation battles, not win anything for years and generally be the Southampton or the like of today (ironically Southampton were a shitload better than us back then too in the Le Tissier years).

So even after we won a ton of stuff I never really thought of us as a top tier club. It’s hard to when for half your life such an idea was totally laughable. But then I started seeing more and more young players talking about how they grew up watch Chelsea in the CL and dreamed about playing for us. And for a while I still though ‘yeah, yeah, ok then..’ but it happened so often that I ran the numbers and yes when these guys were kids Chelsea were indeed one of the most dominant clubs in the world. From 2003-2013 Chelsea’s CL finishes were (SF, SF, R16, SF, RU, SF, R16, QF, Winners, GS, SF). That’s 5 Semi finals and two finals in just 11 years, and a period where we certainly should have won at least 2-3 CLs if not more.

So I realized that this whole ‘top tier’ thing is very much age based, and comes down to who was playing at the top level during your formative football years. If you’re in your late teens/ early twenties then yes Chelsea are a massive club. If you’re younger than that you might not think so. If you’re older than that you might not think so either.
 
GameOn said:
There are more things to consider: Liverpool really dominated the 80s, somehow still were great in the CL in the 00s and also recently played dominant football again. Their lack of national success from the 90s up until last year is cerrtainly something to consider, but this club has a myth around it (just like Real, Bayern, Barca, United) and that certainly plays a part in the equation.

That's why I said they're a standby-team of the top tier and need a few more years of real dominance, until I'd personally consider them a "regular elite club" again.

Chelsea just doesn't have any kind of myth around it, whether its fans like it or not, and their only period of real success so far also only lasted from 2004/05 - 2014/15 (with only a one league title before and one after).
Click to expand...

The whole point you're missing is that while you're not necessarily wrong, you're overestimating the extent to which players today care about this stuff.

Also, for the current generation of top youngsters, Chelsea's most dominant period coincides with their formative years from a football perspective. This matters far more than who won what in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
 
Kentonio said:
All this is is your personal perceptions, and not to be rude but in the wider sense they’re kind of worthless. I can say this without being a cnut because strange as it may seem I thought the same as you for a long time.

I grew up watching my beloved blues get relegated, be in countless relegation battles, not win anything for years and generally be the Southampton or the like of today (ironically Southampton were a shitload better than us back then too in the Le Tissier years).

So even after we won a ton of stuff I never really thought of us as a top tier club. It’s hard to when for half your life such an idea was totally laughable. But then I started seeing more and more young players talking about how they grew up watch Chelsea in the CL and dreamed about playing for us. And for a while I still though ‘yeah, yeah, ok then..’ but it happened so often that I ran the numbers and yes when these guys were kids Chelsea were indeed one of the most dominant clubs in the world. From 2003-2013 Chelsea’s CL finishes were (SF, SF, R16, SF, RU, SF, R16, QF, Winners, GS, SF). That’s 5 Semi finals and two finals in just 11 years, and a period where we certainly should have won at least 2-3 CLs if not more.

So I realized that this whole ‘top tier’ thing is very much age based, and comes down to who was playing at the top level during your formative football years. If you’re in your late teens/ early twenties then yes Chelsea are a massive club. If you’re younger than that you might not think so. If you’re older than that you might not think so either.
Click to expand...
TheMagicFoolBus said:
The whole point you're missing is that while you're not necessarily wrong, you're overestimating the extent to which players today care about this stuff.

Also, for the current generation of top youngsters, Chelsea's most dominant period coincides with their formative years from a football perspective. This matters far more than who won what in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Click to expand...
I think we're missing each others points.

If it came across as if I was just trying to trash Chelsea, that's not the case.

They certainly have a good team and had great success from 2004/05 to 2014/15. From 2004-2009 they arguably had one of the three best teams in the world.

It's also not like most players care about reputation first and foremost (more about money), but two things are clear imho:

1) Most of the top players of the world want to play for Real and to a lesser extent Barca one day. The best German players nearly all want to play for Bayern one day. If you ask about their dream clubs (leaving money etc. aside), hardly any young player will say "Of course it's Chelsea". Again, that's not a knock on Chelsea, just the reality.

2) Chelsea doesn't have the myth that surrounds clubs like Real/Bayern/Barca/United/Liverpool. That might not matter that much, when it comes to signing young players, but it certainly does when it comes to the perception and status of the club in they eyes of most football fans, when they grow up.

Of course Chelsea has time to grow into one of the real "elite clubs" with a great legacy etc., right now they just aren't there. Just like PSG or City aren't there either (Chelsea is a bit further along though).
 
GameOn said:
Bayern's first league title came in 1932. They already were a top team back then. Quickly afterwards WWII happened and German football was basically dead after the war. The allied forces disbanded all clubs and Bayern had to be founded once again. It took a while to get everything back on track (Bundesliga started in 1963), but Bayern soon became a dominating force once again, winning their next league title in 1969 and never looking back ever since.

As for the elite club status: I've perfectly outlined in a second post, why Chelsea just isn't in the category of Real/Bayern/Barca. Not even, if we only look at recent success.
In their case we also can't take a great history into account. They're a good club atm, that's about it though.


Imho United and Liverpool are something like the "stand-by teams" of tier one (Real/Bayern/Barca/United*/Liverpool*).

Those two have a great history, but United just didn't have as much success in Europe as the top 3 and Liverpool just really didn't have much success nationally these past 30 years.
Based on their legendary history and achievements in the league (United) and CL (Liverpool) I can't really exclude them from tier one though.

A few more dominant United and Liverpool seasons and I'll surely talk about them as "regular tier one members" again.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say ooh great and mighty proclaimer of tiers!
 
GameOn said:
2) Chelsea doesn't have the myth that surrounds clubs like Real/Bayern/Barca/United/Liverpool. That might not matter that much, when it comes to signing young players, but it certainly does when it comes to the perception and status of the club in they eyes of most football fans, when they grow up.
Click to expand...

5 years ago, Liverpool wouldn't have been in that enumeration. 10 years ago, AC Mailand would've been but Bayern wouldn't. The perception of clubs changes very quickly. Even United's, despite being among the top three for a decade at least, took a hard hit. I think in a foreign forum, they wouldn't necessarily be in that list. I'm 30 years old and Chelsea has been a top club for the majority of my life. I don't think there's much between the names you mentioned and Chelsea for what it's worth. Yes, fewer children will probably dream about playing for Chelsea than for Real/Barca but in terms of idolization and "big club flair", those two are in a league of their own. I wouldn't say in Germany more children are dreaming about playing for United than Chelsea at this point anymore.
 
GameOn said:
I think we're missing each others points.

If it came across as if I was just trying to trash Chelsea, that's not the case.

They certainly have a good team and had great success from 2004/05 to 2014/15. From 2004-2009 they arguably had one of the three best teams in the world.

It's also not like most players care about reputation first and foremost (more about money), but two things are clear imho:

1) Most of the top players of the world want to play for Real and to a lesser extent Barca one day. The best German players nearly all want to play for Bayern one day. If you ask about their dream clubs (leaving money etc. aside), hardly any young player will say "Of course it's Chelsea". Again, that's not a knock on Chelsea, just the reality.

2) Chelsea doesn't have the myth that surrounds clubs like Real/Bayern/Barca/United/Liverpool. That might not matter that much, when it comes to signing young players, but it certainly does when it comes to the perception and status of the club in they eyes of most football fans, when they grow up.

Of course Chelsea has time to grow into one of the real "elite clubs" with a great legacy etc., right now they just aren't there. Just like PSG or City aren't there either (Chelsea is a bit further along though).
Click to expand...

Who cares about how the club is perceived among the football fandom at large?

You're also missing out on the fact that in the age of social media and of individual branding, players are more likely to gravitate towards a club if one of their idols played there for an extended period and if there are opportunities to drive their own personal brands. Any mythos around decades-old achievements isn't even a factor in the calculus. The careers of Lampard, Drogba, & Terry are all better recruitment tools for today's players than all the trophies won by Liverpool in the 70s combined.

Also, if historical clout was such an important factor, why isn't everyone beating down the door to join AC Milan? They're a bigger club than Bayern historically.
 
As a young football fan, I never thought much of Bayern Munich until the early 2010’s. Even then they were just the German team who failed twice to win the CL and my only interest in them was because of Robben. Could say the same for Barcelona before Rajkaard and Ronaldinho. Only clubs I considered big then was AC Milan(funny how that's turned out now), Real Madrid and Manchester United.
If someone asks me who is the greatest football player ever my instant answer is Ronaldinho. I absolutely have no desire to gather vintage youtube-esc vids of Pele and Maradonna to see their best bits and join a bandwagon. I choose the player I watched play. I apply the same to football clubs. I don't care who won what in an era where offside didn't exist and leagues were played with just 10 teams kicking themselves hard on muddy pitches. I leave that to my Grandaddy.

If a football team fails to do anything significant for a long spell of time you loose relevance regardless of what you did 30yrs prior. Only historians will remember you , not football players looking to win medals and make some money whiles at it. That's why Real Madrid will spend hundreds of millions to gather ‘galacticos’ to keep the relevance going.
You'd be high pressed to find any top player right now dreaming of playing for AC Milan, historically the second greatest team in the world.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Also, if historical clout was such an important factor, why isn't everyone beating down the door to join AC Milan? They're a bigger club than Bayern historically.
Click to expand...
Historically those two clubs are about even. Milan has one more CL title, but Bayern have been way more dominant in their league and domestic cup.

Problem is that imho Milan has taken a massive hit with their involvement in the betting scandal back in 2005 (where they somehow bribed everyone to stay in the Serie A and then ironically won the CL the next year).

That's just a huge stain on the legacy of any big club.

Couple that with them turning completely irrelevant (not even reaching the CL anymore) this past decade and really nobody talks about you anymore.
 
This fantasy old club prestige is so out of touch.
Haaland names feckin michu as one of his favourite players ffs.
The truth is most young players have grown up seeing chelsea win trophies players like drogba jt cech lamps etc
Havertz even said his favourite thing about lampard the player was that he scores goals just like him.
 
GameOn said:
Historically those two clubs are about even. Milan has one more CL title, but Bayern have been way more dominant in their league and domestic cup.

Problem is that imho Milan has taken a massive hit with their involvement in the betting scandal back in 2005 (where they somehow bribed everyone to stay in the Serie A and then ironically won the CL the next year).

That's just a huge stain on the legacy of any big club.

Couple that with them turning completely irrelevant (not even reaching the CL anymore) this past decade and really nobody talks about you anymore.
Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly the point. Historically AC Milan were bigger, and now they've fallen off a cliff. Because history is of very limited importance to modern players.
 
According to a German report, Havertz "renounced" part of his salary in order to make the deal happen. Apparently, in his Leverkusen contract there was a clause that saved him 10% of the signing fee when he moves. So he'd get 10% of the initial fee, then 10% of the add ons etc. However, he seems to have renounced on part of his share of the initial fee since Leverkusen and Chelsea struggled to reach an agreement there and instead accepted a higher share of the add ons as compensation. So he's not really renouncing money, he's rather accepting a higher risk to get his share of the add ons but still, he seems to be really committed. The same report also mentioned that Havertz is really impressed by Lampard and his vision for Chelsea.
 
Suggestion from Matt Law (top journalist who covers Chelsea) that Ziyech may not start against Brighton due to his knock and that Havertz may start on the right until he's fit.

So we'll likely see Kai and Mount together this weekend.
 
Zehner said:
According to a German report, Havertz "renounced" part of his salary in order to make the deal happen. Apparently, in his Leverkusen contract there was a clause that saved him 10% of the signing fee when he moves. So he'd get 10% of the initial fee, then 10% of the add ons etc. However, he seems to have renounced on part of his share of the initial fee since Leverkusen and Chelsea struggled to reach an agreement there and instead accepted a higher share of the add ons as compensation. So he's not really renouncing money, he's rather accepting a higher risk to get his share of the add ons but still, he seems to be really committed. The same report also mentioned that Havertz is really impressed by Lampard and his vision for Chelsea.
Click to expand...
So Chelsea didn't abduct him in his sleep after all?
 
Mount's Goatieson said:
So Chelsea didn't abduct him in his sleep after all?
Click to expand...

If it was my club he's joining, I'd definitely find it noteworthy that he's so committed he accepts those conditions in order to not risk the move. Not sure what your problem is.
 
Zehner said:
According to a German report, Havertz "renounced" part of his salary in order to make the deal happen. Apparently, in his Leverkusen contract there was a clause that saved him 10% of the signing fee when he moves. So he'd get 10% of the initial fee, then 10% of the add ons etc. However, he seems to have renounced on part of his share of the initial fee since Leverkusen and Chelsea struggled to reach an agreement there and instead accepted a higher share of the add ons as compensation. So he's not really renouncing money, he's rather accepting a higher risk to get his share of the add ons but still, he seems to be really committed. The same report also mentioned that Havertz is really impressed by Lampard and his vision for Chelsea.
Click to expand...
Very interesting thing said about Lampard and his visions. Werner and ziyech too said the same about him and some reports told Werner rejected late approach from Pep.

All indicates Lampard has that pulling power among younger players it seems. Very nice information. Thanks to you for sharing it.
 
Zehner said:
If it was my club he's joining, I'd definitely find it noteworthy that he's so committed he accepts those conditions in order to not risk the move. Not sure what your problem is.
Click to expand...
Chelsea fans have become unsufferable and touchy on here, especially the new ones. Don't mind them, duffer is the only normal one.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Chelsea fans have become unsufferable and touchy on here, especially the new ones. Don't mind them, duffer is the only normal one.
Click to expand...

We aren't thaaat bad.

You're just as touchy.

football forum - its normal.

unsufferable haha
 
Zehner said:
According to a German report, Havertz "renounced" part of his salary in order to make the deal happen. Apparently, in his Leverkusen contract there was a clause that saved him 10% of the signing fee when he moves. So he'd get 10% of the initial fee, then 10% of the add ons etc. However, he seems to have renounced on part of his share of the initial fee since Leverkusen and Chelsea struggled to reach an agreement there and instead accepted a higher share of the add ons as compensation. So he's not really renouncing money, he's rather accepting a higher risk to get his share of the add ons but still, he seems to be really committed. The same report also mentioned that Havertz is really impressed by Lampard and his vision for Chelsea.
Click to expand...

He's essentially betting on himself. I like the confidence he has in himself, and I really like that he appears to really, really want to be at Chelsea.
 
WeePat said:
He's essentially betting on himself. I like the confidence he has in himself, and I really like that he appears to really, really want to be at Chelsea.
Click to expand...

I thought the add ons were not based on performance but rather almost guaranteed. Not really betting on himself but rather just delaying his payments.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
I thought the add ons were not based on performance but rather almost guaranteed. Not really betting on himself but rather just delaying his payments.
Click to expand...

Yeah fair enough, you're probably right.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Chelsea fans have become unsufferable and touchy on here, especially the new ones. Don't mind them, duffer is the only normal one.
Click to expand...
I think most Chelsea fans here are actually fine.

Biased - like any fanbase on earth - but not really annoying or completely unreasonable.

It's much worse on Twitter though. Recently there seem to be a ton of new Chelsea "supporters", coming out of nowhere, that randomly try to provoke under posts from other clubs (completely unrelated to Chelsea). I haven't seen any other "fanbase" do this to this extent.
 
GameOn said:
I think most Chelsea fans here are actually fine.

Biased - like any fanbase on earth - but not really annoying or completely unreasonable.

It's much worse on Twitter though. Recently there seem to be a ton of new Chelsea "supporters", coming out of nowhere, that randomly try to provoke under posts from other clubs (completely unrelated to Chelsea). I haven't seen any other "fanbase" do this to this extent.
Click to expand...
Twitters just a cespool of utter morons.
 
Zehner said:
If it was my club he's joining, I'd definitely find it noteworthy that he's so committed he accepts those conditions in order to not risk the move. Not sure what your problem is.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a dig at you or your post mate. Sorry if you misunderstood.
Just a few pages back some obviously hurting Bayern Munich fans were making it look like Havertz had to settle for Chelsea, like we bound him in chains and dragged him to London to sign for us.
Was just a tongue in cheek comment on their absurd excuses and entitlement.
 
Surely if he was any good, he would have signed for Bayern? Like any half-decent German international?
 
Nani Nana said:
Surely if he was any good, he would have signed for Bayern? Like any half-decent German international?
Click to expand...
Havertz is a very promising talent, no doubt about that. Bayern officials and fans acknowledge this, too.

A move to Bayern right now just wouldn't have made any sense. Flick and Rummenigge have said this all along.

He would've sat on the bench behind Müller, since the latter plays at his position and is basically irreplacable.

No club pays 100 million for a player, that would probably only play in a rotational role at best.
 
GameOn said:
Havertz is a very promising talent, no doubt about that. Bayern officials and fans acknowledge this, too.

A move to Bayern right now just wouldn't have made any sense. Flick and Rummenigge have said this all along.

He would've sat on the bench behind Müller, since the latter plays at his position and is basically irreplacable.

No club pays 100 million for a player, that would probably only play in a rotational role at best.
Click to expand...

Müller is on the wrong side of 30 though. Guess they favoured Sané.
 
Nani Nana said:
Müller is on the wrong side of 30 though. Guess they favoured Sané.
Click to expand...
Müller is 30 years old and his playing style doesn't really rely on insane pace.
He'll probably be able to play at his top level for at least another 3-5 years.
On top of that he's the central person of Bayern's pressing. He's the vocal leader that gives the orders on the pitch.
 
Mount's Goatieson said:
It wasn't a dig at you or your post mate. Sorry if you misunderstood.
Just a few pages back some obviously hurting Bayern Munich fans were making it look like Havertz had to settle for Chelsea, like we bound him in chains and dragged him to London to sign for us.
Was just a tongue in cheek comment on their absurd excuses and entitlement.
Click to expand...

It's all right. Can't be mad at someone trying to wind up Bayern fans ;)
 
GameOn said:
Havertz is a very promising talent, no doubt about that. Bayern officials and fans acknowledge this, too.

A move to Bayern right now just wouldn't have made any sense. Flick and Rummenigge have said this all along.

He would've sat on the bench behind Müller, since the latter plays at his position and is basically irreplacable.

No club pays 100 million for a player, that would probably only play in a rotational role at best.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think this gets overrated. It's the typical narrative when Bayern don't get a player they'd have liked in their shirt. Obviously they had more urgent areas but Havertz is probably the most promising German youngster and Bayern sure as hell would've signed him if thy had the option. It's by no means a given that Müller would bench Havertz. He had a great season, no doubt, but Havertz is already a very, very good player, too, and he has abilities Müller never possessed. His game reading ability, off the ball movement and timing is already excellent but he provides superior technique, finishing and passing. Him in a well drilled team like Bayern is actually a frightening thought.

Anyways, Müller isn't an easy character and he always causes trouble when he's not in the starting line up for a sustained period of time.
 
GameOn said:
There are more things to consider: Liverpool really dominated the 80s, somehow still were great in the CL in the 00s and also recently played dominant football again. Their lack of national success from the 90s up until last year is cerrtainly something to consider, but this club has a myth around it (just like Real, Bayern, Barca, United) and that certainly plays a part in the equation.

That's why I said they're a standby-team of the top tier and need a few more years of real dominance, until I'd personally consider them a "regular elite club" again.

Chelsea just doesn't have any kind of myth around it, whether its fans like it or not, and their only period of real success so far also only lasted from 2004/05 - 2014/15 (with only a one league title before and one after).
Click to expand...

Honestly what is it with Dipper's and using words like: myth/mythical, magical, enchanting, cauldron, destiny etc. Honestly, when I read an article on you lot or read posts by 90%+ of your fanbase it is as if a second rate Disney screenwriter has possessed you or something.
 
Dave Smith said:
Honestly what is it with Dipper's and using words like: myth/mythical, magical, enchanting, cauldron, destiny etc. Honestly, when I read an article on you lot or read posts by 90%+ of your fanbase it is as if a second rate Disney screenwriter has possessed you or something.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they don't refer to their stadium as a "theatre of dreams" with a straight face so there's plenty of soppy, pretentious bollocks all over the place!
 
With the whole debate about the fee, I found this interesting.

Guardian on 31st August:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...72m-fee-for-kai-havertz-with-bayer-leverkusen

Guardian on 4th September:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-completes-move-chelsea-from-bayer-leverkusen

When they first announced the deal on 31st August they said it was an initial 80 ME (72 MP) followed by 20 ME add-ons, basically what the story had widely been for a while regarding the fee. Then a few days later when officially announcing it they changed it to say maximum 72 MP, which was the initial fee 4 days ago. Don't think the fee would change that drastically in 4 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.