Who would have thought that buying appreciating assets would prove to be a good strategy.
How do Chelsea do it?
- Thread starter Zen
- Start date
Kevin de Bruyne.
Paying £50 million without an opening or lower bid for David fecking Luiz. Terrible defender, not even a £20 million player.
They've found the perfect way of counteracting FFP.
They buy young, talented players with resale value - even if they don't need them, or have no plans for them in their current squad.
The player will then undergo a series of loans, where eventually they'll become good enough for the first team (e.g. Courtois, Zouma), or impress enough to command a very decent fee.
The number they loan out is insane.
They buy young, talented players with resale value - even if they don't need them, or have no plans for them in their current squad.
The player will then undergo a series of loans, where eventually they'll become good enough for the first team (e.g. Courtois, Zouma), or impress enough to command a very decent fee.
The number they loan out is insane.
Chelsea buy good rejects, we buy shit rejects
How do Chelsea do it?
Basically they are the masters of selling. They sell their squad players when their stocks are the highest. We on the other hand wait till we're sure that the player has nothing to offer to us before putting our him on the market.
Basically they are the masters of selling. They sell their squad players when their stocks are the highest. We on the other hand wait till we're sure that the player has nothing to offer to us before putting our him on the market.
Something tells me the down payment for Hazard is bundled into the Luiz fee. Not even PSG are that stupid to pay £50M just for Luiz....that is a Carroll-esque sum of money.
Hazard is about 10 years away from going back to the French league.
Marina Granovskaia, simple.
17 on loan currently I think. They've effectively turned their scouting network into a money making operation. Surprised we haven't done this at all but I guess that speaks to Woodward's lack of experience in the football world and why we've chosen to go the route of mass commercial sponsorship to boost revenues.
If you think 17 is a lot, take a look at Parma...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma_F.C.#Out_on_loan
I think PSG have showed they can pull almost anyone, they just pay release clause money.
Are you United's accountant or something? You seem awfully concerned about us not making any profit from our transfers.
Ah yes, think I remember reading about that a few years ago. Surely most of them are partial/co-ownership situations?
I wonder why other smaller clubs don't follow that example.
Because Abramovich. With the exception of Luiz, I don't think many of the deals are that extraordinary, even if the number of deals is. They are merely cashing in on players surplus to requirements. A surplus largely built by a Russian float pre FFP.
Schurrle is probably break even after wages.
Schurrle is probably break even after wages.
Serie A is a completely different system. Because of the Co-Ownership model are going to have a lot more players on loan.
They've got 71 out on loan and about 60 partially owned.
The thing is we still utilise those player's and even when not at their best they have contributed to titles. Whilst Cuadrado for Salah & Schurrle sounds like a good deal; they have shrunken their already not very deep squad in terms of numbers. Whereas buying Cuadrado and keeping Schurrle would have given them a much stronger bench and who knows; may have contributed a vital goal or two which could be the difference.
It's smart from a financial sense; but from a purely Football sense keeping Schurrle and maybe losing £5-10m on his value would have been preferable.
I think they were lucky with Luiz and we were desperate for Mata. Apart from that, they haven't done as well over the years as people perceive. Shevchenko, Torres and countless other flops who they had to sell at a loss.
I suspect most of their figures are fabricated. Their owner isn't exactly known for ethical business practices.
They're running out of stars to sell though, not many players on the fringes of the first team are worth much now.
Ok...but what was 'shady' about it rather than just a crap deal by PSG? (I wasn't very up to date with transfers last summer)
They buy young hot prospects in and around europe and once they have reached a certain age if their not quite good enough, they can still sell them for very good returns.
We, on the other hand, usually buy young english talent, powell zaha recent examples. When they turn out to not be very good we have a limited market to sell them to, europe arent interested in them for example - so its lower prem teams who don't have £20-25 mill to spend perhaps.
We also hold on to them for too long, the likes of anderson and nani could have gone 2-3 seasons after we bought them for at least the money we paid id have thought, while their reptuations were still quite high?
Chelsea rejects also are still good players, Fabio for us had so many failed loan attempts that he became worthless almost where as if we had sold him straight away instead of loaning him out a few times we maybe could have got £10mill plus?? Given his twin brothers succesful career etc
We, on the other hand, usually buy young english talent, powell zaha recent examples. When they turn out to not be very good we have a limited market to sell them to, europe arent interested in them for example - so its lower prem teams who don't have £20-25 mill to spend perhaps.
We also hold on to them for too long, the likes of anderson and nani could have gone 2-3 seasons after we bought them for at least the money we paid id have thought, while their reptuations were still quite high?
Chelsea rejects also are still good players, Fabio for us had so many failed loan attempts that he became worthless almost where as if we had sold him straight away instead of loaning him out a few times we maybe could have got £10mill plus?? Given his twin brothers succesful career etc
Says it all actually. But still it's not we are that good in the business. Remember Torres? Remember Mutu? Remember Veron? Remember Shevchenko? We'll never regain that money in the transfer market.
Got right in terms of picking a talented player, but got it wrong as far his ceiling. Even still they made 10 million quid.
United players are on high wages, and seeing as most of our players have been sold to mid-bottom table clubs, transfer fees are lower to compensate for the wages that the players were on so the buying club can afford.
Two words... Fernando Torres.
They are not exactly perfect are they? Sheva? They obviously can't afford to make mistakes of that magnitude anymore.
They are not exactly perfect are they? Sheva? They obviously can't afford to make mistakes of that magnitude anymore.
Who is the second best defender in the world?
Also, I can't see Cuadrado getting in Chelsea's team. Maybe as a good option, but he'll be gone the way of as Schurrle in 18 months' time.
He's saying whoever you rate as the second best defender in the world, they would not cost £50m.
Elaborate? Be interesting to hear it from the Chelsea side
Loyalty? Chelsea and Mourinho are a lot more cut-throat with their approach to their players. I'm not sure I'd want United to become a club like Chelsea and the turn around in players they have.
We've had a few profitable sales in the last couple of years but prior to that it was years of spunking money and getting nothing in terms of fees in.
That's all people on here care about though the here and the now. I'm sure you'd agree your transfer business while Mourinho has been back has been more or less a 100% success
I personally not a Luis or Salah fan but apart from them yeah, Fabregas, Matic & Costa have been superb.
I think De Bruyne was sold too quickly as well.
They're making a massive loss on Torres though.
Their business with Matic was hardly fantastic either. What was it, £20m + Matic for David Luiz? Then they end up spending around £20m buying Matic back.
Filipe Luís is fantastic. I think he was a stupid signing because of his age, he really had to settle in pretty quickly or it wasn't going to be good. I'd happily have Liverpool take him off you though, I reckon you'd be much better with Ivanović dropped/moved into the middle with Azpilicueta back on the right.
Good all around. He wasn't in their plans, wasn't playing much and usually loaned out, and like you said only had a year left.
how much did the get for Bertrand