How do Chelsea do it?

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
15,487
Make epic profits on players they don't want that is?

Another £5m profit on Schurrle on top of the insane profit they made on Mata(£13m?), Lukaku(£15m?) and well, Luiz(Whatever?m). Other than Mata, none of these really proved to be worth the profit either, and other than Lukaku, none were based on potential.

The mind boggles. Chelsea just drive me bonkers.
 
Teams pay them in instalments over 50 years.
 
They sell a lot of players who would be vital for other teams seeing as they tend to buy players they certainly never need, they did sell Sturridge for a mere £12 million though(sounds like a United move)
 
Luiz fee is still the most outrageous thing to happen in football, shady as feck.
 
I think Schurrle is still very highly thought of in Germany, plays for the national team etc. Lukaku was 18 when they signed him, 18m was a fair price. He then proved at WBA and Everton that he could bang them in at Premier League level. 27m did seem excessive though.

And the Luiz deal i think we all know there was something else going on there.
 
The only mindboggling deal was the Luiz one, for me. Schurrle is still a very good player, a World champion and obviously highly rated in Germany because of that.

Lukaku had good seasons on loan at WBA and then at Everton, so his fee was justified when you consider his age as well.

On the other hand they signed Mohamed Salah for £11 million and now they're sending him on a free loan to Fiorentina for 18 months. Not exactly the best deal ever.
 
dxadel said:
They sell a lot of players who would be vital for other teams seeing as they tend to buy players they certainly never need, they did sell Sturridge for a mere £12 million though(sounds like a United move)
Click to expand...
Sturridge wasn't really any good there. He only impressed on loans.
 
Trizy said:
Luiz fee is still the most outrageous thing to happen in football, shady as feck.
Click to expand...
He is somehow rated across Europe and PSG wanted to pair him with his mate Thiago Silva.
 
Zen said:
Make epic profits on players they don't want that is?

Another £5m profit on Schurrle on top of the insane profit they made on Mata(£13m?), Lukaku(£15m?) and well, Luiz(Whatever?m). Other than Mata, none of these really proved to be worth the profit either, and other than Lukaku, none were based on potential.

The mind boggles. Chelsea just drive me bonkers.
Click to expand...

What? :eek:

They sold Sturridge for like £11million haha, they are not perfect.
 
Schurrle - German, World Cup winner and a very solid player which will fit Wolfsburg like a glove. I think he and De Bruyne will form a very efficient partnership in their link up play.
Lukaku - Two very solid loans in the PL, he was the striker we were crying out for, he's young and has bags of potential.
Mata - United needed something and for a player who had been one of Chelseas best players in the previous two seasons he was always going to go for a big fee.
Luiz - Brazil partnership with Silva and a player which the footballing world idolises despite pundits and fans believing he's turd.
 
De Bruyne is another. ugh.

How couldn't Utd do this with big Wilf? or Bebe? or fecking anyone? Certainly take similar big hit failures, although maybe NOT as bad as Torres/Shevvers
 
SilentWitness said:
Schurrle - German, World Cup winner and a very solid player which will fit Wolfsburg like a glove. I think he and De Bruyne will form a very efficient partnership in their link up play.
Lukaku - Two very solid loans in the PL, he was the striker we were crying out for, he's young and has bags of potential.
Mata - United needed something and for a player who had been one of Chelseas best players in the previous two seasons he was always going to go for a big fee.
Luiz - Brazil partnership with Silva and a player which the footballing world idolises despite pundits and fans believing he's turd.
Click to expand...

All barely wanted by Chelsea is the key in my query. No other teams gets this with selling, especially when they have tons of money and want them off the books to stay within FFP.
 
Why do we care so much about getting big fees for players. It is not like we need it for FFP or anything.
 
Zen said:
Make epic profits on players they don't want that is?

Another £5m profit on Schurrle on top of the insane profit they made on Mata(£13m?), Lukaku(£15m?) and well, Luiz(Whatever?m). Other than Mata, none of these really proved to be worth the profit either, and other than Lukaku, none were based on potential.

The mind boggles. Chelsea just drive me bonkers.
Click to expand...
They also make some gambles which don't work out, or have spent a significant amount on players with no return. As an example, Fabregas is a brilliant player, but he is unlikely to have any sell on value that will generate a profit, unless other clubs are stupid. Same goes for Matic, who they didn't do particularly well with in financial terms. Maybe even Costa.

On the other hand then they have potential like Hazard, who if sold in next 3-4 years will come at one hell of a profit.

Can't see the likes of Mikel, Ivanovic, Luis, Ramieres, Oscar making any profit on sales.
 
Zen said:
De Bruyne is another. ugh.

How couldn't Utd do this with big Wilf? or Bebe? or fecking anyone? Certainly take similar big hit failures, although maybe NOT as bad as Torres/Shevvers
Click to expand...

I think especially with fringe players, you see the likes of Chelsea and Madrid being able to command good fees because a lot of the time the players reputation doesn't suffer all that much. It's the club that doesn't play them, not the player showing poor form.

Their stock never actually falls, and other clubs believe they can benefit.
 
Sarni said:
Sturridge wasn't really any good there. He only impressed on loans.
Click to expand...

He scored 13 goals in 63 appearances, plus 8 in 12 for bolton
Schurrle scored 11 goals in 44 appearances

Sturridge was sold for £12 million, Schurrle is about to be sold for £23 million
 
Sarni said:
Sturridge wasn't really any good there. He only impressed on loans.
Click to expand...
He was decent. Was always played out of position on the wing. Having AVB as our manager didn't help either.
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
What? :eek:

They sold Sturridge for like £11million haha, they are not perfect.
Click to expand...

Sturridge value for his time at Chelsea was about right.....he's worked hard with Liverpool to be fair.

dxadel said:
He scored 13 goals in 63 appearances, plus 8 in 12 for bolton
Schurrle scored 11 goals in 44 appearances

Sturridge was sold for £12 million, Schurrle is about to be sold for £32 million
Click to expand...

£23m* for Schurrle
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
What? :eek:

They sold Sturridge for like £11million haha, they are not perfect.
Click to expand...

£11 million was about right for Sturridge at the time to be fair, always had the potential but like Welbeck was played as a wide forward to accommodate other players. His record since joining Liverpool has been very good of course but before that it wasn't anything special.
 
Keeps It tidy said:
Why do we care so much about getting big fees for players. It is not like we need it for FFP or anything.
Click to expand...

No, but it would give people the perception that Chelsea are doing excellent 2-way business, which they are.

Either Mourinho is a master of his own in football economics/finances or Chelsea do have someone in the shadows being that kind of master.
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
What? :eek:

They sold Sturridge for like £11million haha, they are not perfect.
Click to expand...

Erm he was back to back player of the year at Chelsea.....before the Jose stuff. He was probably a £40m player, but still shouldn't of been sold for that much once Jose made it clear he didn't want him.

Whoever brought up Fabregas too, they got him cheap. Chelsea have been superb in the market for the most part post-Torres. Can't question that really, however insane alot of it is. If someone offers it, you take it.
 
Well, maybe they get good money for their squad players because they are young and not shit...?
 
Unlike us Chelsea don't pay stupid wages, which is why they can get a reasonable fee back for them when their off loaded. Lower wages also help the buying team in negotiating a deal for the player. This is where we have gone wrong over the years and why its so difficult for us to off load players we don't need. The wages we pay are way over the odds that they should be paid, they likes off Young, Fellaini, Shaw to name a few are stealing a living here that they would never get at any other club.
 
If a player they buy doesn't make much of an impact after 1-2 seasons they'll sell them as quickly as possible instead of letting them rot in the squad and thus lower their value.

They also benefit from loan deals. Buy a promising kid for cheap(ish), loan him to someone who needs him, said player ends up becoming very important resulting in Chelsea getting a lot of money for the player.

Henriquez is an example of a good loaned player for us, 15 goals in 18 for Zagreb so his value should have risen quite a bit if we ever decide to sell.
 
They have excellent scouting and they've been good at finding that right leagues/teams to loan their players.

They've been also quite good about not getting overly sentimental about their youth/players which has helped them (selling Lukaku) and hurt them (selling De Bruyne too early as he's worth at least double what Chelsea got)
 
Players they sign are often young and somewhat established. If we want to do the same, we should try buying relatively cheap and young players from Belgium or Germany. Those do exist, but we just tend to be the club who only goes after them when they're at AS Roma or something. We should look outside England for young players who are experienced for their age.
 
Welbeckham said:
Players they sign are often young and somewhat established. If we want to do the same, we should try buying relatively cheap and young players from Belgium or Germany. Those do exist, but we just tend to be the club who only goes after them when they're at AS Roma or something. We should look outside England for young players who are experienced for their age.
Click to expand...

We do, we're just not that good at it. For every Hernandez, there's a Bebe. For every Rafael there's an Obertan. Of course it could be argued that this somewhat less than successful approach means we should cast the net nearer to home, but when the best examples of English talent we've picked up recently are probably Jones and Smalling for a combined 26m, and on the same day we've taken a hit on Zaha then it's hard not to agree with your point.

But i guess it also goes back to the whole conversation about tradition, and how Manchester United is always interested in young English talent, Nick Powell, Luke Shaw etc. I doubt the whole Pogba thing paints us in a very good light either.
 
Oh, here in Germany Schürrle's transfer sum is heavily discussed - he is not rated top category here. But Wolfsburg wanted him and like this had to pay what Chelsea wanted.
 
dhm91 said:
What's this about?
Click to expand...

Possibly David Luiz....not the greatest defender.....being sold for £50m, a sum they could of bought the second best defender(of anyones opinion, but no ones is Luiz) in the world for.
 
Zen said:
De Bruyne is another. ugh.

How couldn't Utd do this with big Wilf? or Bebe? or fecking anyone? Certainly take similar big hit failures, although maybe NOT as bad as Torres/Shevvers
Click to expand...
Are you using De Bruyne as an example of a transfer Chelsea got right?
 
United sell players when they are past it or it has become abundantly clear they are deadwood and can't make a contribution. Chelsea sell players when their stock is still high, but the manager has decided they aren't quite good enough.

Picture us trying to sell Hernandez 3 years ago - we'd probably have gotten £25m, likewise Nani 4 years ago, Berbatov a few years ago etc.

It's especially pertinent now that Chelsea can't spend big due to FFP. They can't really afford to let Schurrle's stock drop to £10m, even though he is still a great option to have.

United (historically) would have kept him until we were 100% sure he didn't have a contribution to make.
 
Blackwidow said:
Oh, here in Germany Schürrle's transfer sum is heavily discussed - he is not rated top category here. But Wolfsburg wanted him and like this had to pay what Chelsea wanted.
Click to expand...

He's not rated as top quality anywhere but London. Funny how overrated his World Cup performances have been. He was a good sub but nothing more.
 
finneh said:
United sell players when they are past it or it has become abundantly clear they are deadwood and can't make a contribution. Chelsea sell players when their stock is still high, but the manager has decided they aren't quite good enough.

Picture us trying to sell Hernandez 3 years ago - we'd probably have gotten £25m, likewise Nani 4 years ago, Berbatov a few years ago etc.

It's especially pertinent now that Chelsea can't spend big due to FFP. They can't really afford to let Schurrle's stock drop to £10m, even though he is still a great option to have.

United (historically) would have kept him until we were 100% sure he didn't have a contribution to make.
Click to expand...

Hernandez was wanted 3 years ago, Nani was wanted 4 years ago....Berbatov would never have gone for more than £15m. But yes, the first two should of been sold at peak value, even if that has nothing to do with how Chelsea get their prices. Hernandez/Nani just clearly overachieved, and people knew it then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.