Big Flop incoming.
Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch (Dog status: in him)
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
This is what is throwing me:
It gives the impression that the amount Chelsea are paying is less than his United wages, which is a pay cut. I just haven't worked out if United are paying the difference.
My bet....
Sterling does far more for Arsenal than Sancho does for Chelsea.
Sterling does far more for Arsenal than Sancho does for Chelsea.
I think he will love it at Mandem FC.
Our biggest priority was getting his superstar wages off the books. Dortmund were never in the picture because they cannot afford to pay that kind of wage.
Who's this young player he's referring to?
Possibly. I've seen some Utd fans in other spaces with a bit of pants-wetting over the possibility he could play well at Chelsea.
From my perspective, I don't really care what he does at Chelsea. The reason he's not at United is because of what he did and didn't do at the club, thats why he's no longer here. What he does in the future is irrelevant to that outcome.
If some other club makes it work as a reclamation project, good for them and him. It won't make me second guess this deal in the slightest.
Yes, correct. He may or may not end up being a decent player (I know what I'd be betting on). Either way, he's not a United player.
Same.
The only Chelsea forum I'm aware of is The Shed End and they're generally cautiously optimistic this might work out for. Somewhat doubtful of a significant impact, but cautiously optimistic.
And of course this take from a poster who goes by petre ispirescu:
If you go through the Sancho thread at RedCafe you will find it funny the way they act like United is going to instantly improve now that he is gone, even though Sancho has played like a total of 80 minutes in 4 matches for them for the past year
They signed him for 73M, sold him to us for 20-25M. Basically a 50M loss, but somehow a good deal for them haha.
And then they wonder how Chelsea is able to sign so many players and still cope with all the rules.
You will hardly ever find a club that is worse than United at selling their players for the slightest of profits.
If this violates any forum rules, mods please go ahead and delete this post.
For the most part the post is well taken, except for the insinuation that we will instantly improve because he is gone. We expect to improve because of the ins, but although getting rid of Sancho is a fantastic development for the club it won't be Sancho's absence that improves us. The players we've brought in need to improve the squad and I suspect even Chelsea fans would have to agree that bringing in De Ligt, Marzraoui and Ugarte in particular address weaknesses in the squad last year that opponents exploited again and again. But we shall see about that. Whatever the case may be, we are better off without Sancho; and if Chelsea are better off with Sancho, then it's a win-win.
And of course this take from a poster who goes by petre ispirescu:
If you go through the Sancho thread at RedCafe you will find it funny the way they act like United is going to instantly improve now that he is gone, even though Sancho has played like a total of 80 minutes in 4 matches for them for the past year
They signed him for 73M, sold him to us for 20-25M. Basically a 50M loss, but somehow a good deal for them haha.
And then they wonder how Chelsea is able to sign so many players and still cope with all the rules.
You will hardly ever find a club that is worse than United at selling their players for the slightest of profits.
If this violates any forum rules, mods please go ahead and delete this post.
For the most part the post is well taken, except for the insinuation that we will instantly improve because he is gone. We expect to improve because of the ins, but although getting rid of Sancho is a fantastic development for the club it won't be Sancho's absence that improves us. The players we've brought in need to improve the squad and I suspect even Chelsea fans would have to agree that bringing in De Ligt, Marzraoui and Ugarte in particular address weaknesses in the squad last year that opponents exploited again and again. But we shall see about that. Whatever the case may be, we are better off without Sancho; and if Chelsea are better off with Sancho, then it's a win-win.
I don’t think anyone in this forum has ever said we will improve once Sancho is gone. The whole issue with Sancho is one his wages, which we wanted gone and two his worth ethic, which is shit.
It’s not exactly a £50m loss either cause accounting doesn’t work that work. A player is an asset and amortization comes into play. It’s a far smaller loss given we have had him for 3 years already. And his wages coming off the books means we just gained over £40m from this one deal. Thats good news going forward.
So they can say what they want to make themselves feel better about the deal but it will go south for them as well. That’s just the way he is and his entourage will make sure he doesn’t succeed anywhere. You need good people around you advising you. He clearly doesn’t. No one around him to light a fire under his ass and make him work consistently.
Funny you say that, because he referred to himself as a young player in his Chelsea quotes:
I think in his head he's still that young kid still learning his trade and hasn't matured at all, which by the age of 24 he really should have!
That's hilarious. He's only 6 months younger than De ligt.
Yeah that’s a good point
The thing that genuinely baffles me from a Chelsea perspective is Sterling.
I'm not saying he's world class but who in their right minds doesn't think Sterling is a far better player than Sancho.
So you send him to Arsenal to help them then replace him with a worse player and lose out financially.
So maybe the argument is Sterling having a bad attitude. If that's the case it baffles me that Sancho is the player you sign?
Their new manager either loves Sancho or there is literally no logic.
I'm not saying he's world class but who in their right minds doesn't think Sterling is a far better player than Sancho.
So you send him to Arsenal to help them then replace him with a worse player and lose out financially.
So maybe the argument is Sterling having a bad attitude. If that's the case it baffles me that Sancho is the player you sign?
Their new manager either loves Sancho or there is literally no logic.
Chelsea hopes to force Sterling out (due to his high wages) to Saudi maybe.
That fails so they have to go with a loan that Sterling will accept. So basically only United or Arsenal will be interested.
Chelsea will hope Sterling does well enough to be able to sell him next summer
No way Mudryk is doing better than Sterling
Chelsea didn't pay us for the player he was for us - that player wouldn't be worth it even on a free transfer for 20k/week. United Sancho was a terrible footballer who looked lost under multiple managers in multiple systems, was always a few seconds behind the team, had no linkup with anyone, no end product, no desire to take on a man or work for the team or find a good pass, no pace, no dribbling, no crossing. But more pertinently, t's clear that he was the player most hated by the fans because he was extremely disrespectful to the club, his colleagues, his manager, and the fans with no sense of professionalism, humility or gratitude. He couldn't mentally handle the role and money expected of him and self destructed on and off the pitch, taking everyone down with him, all while in denial and pretending that it was everyone's fault but his. Don't think any of his United teammates (bar his buddy Rashford who is heading the same way) would be very pleased to work with him in the future. It's like having a thoroughly incompetent coworker who you know is getting twice your pay but does no work, bitches about the office and your boss, leaves you hanging in all your deadlines, takes most days off, and then trash talks the 'company environment' for not letting him realize his 'potential'.
No, Chelsea have clearly paid 20-25m gambling on the belief that he can still be a shadow of the player he used to be, one we ourselves thought was once worth 75m. Now they will most probably have a better version of him - at least initially when there a no expectations of him and he can do the underdog thing. Some goals and assists in the initial games, when he thinks he's inconspicuous, and is not expected to be the main man. When they're bringing him on sparingly, especially in big games. But if they expect him to start, they start thinking any decent performance in cameos shows the promise of more - he'll immediately crap the bed and self destruct again. He'll never come close to being that 75m player again - the mentality issues have visibly stunted his consistency and desire, he is now in capable of being any more than unpredictable sub who may put on a show. The mentality issues also let him be nonchalant about his visible regression in overall skills and fitness since the pre United days, there's a reason Dortmund themselves did not take him back for that money and lower wages after his loan. But more importantly, don't think he'll survive there once it becomes a matter of competing for a spot. He didn't have the mentality to compete against a toothless Antony, it's a matter of time before Chelsea find a longer term solution to start and want a more promising understudy/rotation option.
To truly become that 75m player, he needed to be with a brilliant motivator of a coach - someone who'll make him a project, develop a personal connection with him, and try to solve his mentality issues. United under SAF, or Liverpool under Klopp, perhaps. And he needed to do that two years ago, it feels like the issues are too deep and unsolvable now. And definitely not by someone as uncharismatic as Ten Hag, or throughly transactional and curt as Maresca seems to be.
Either way, it's a cheap punt for someone like Chelsea. And thankfully no longer our problem. Glad we don't have an elephant in our dressing room anymore - no matter what he will be later, he was never making it here anymore after all that baggage. Works out well for all parties.
No, Chelsea have clearly paid 20-25m gambling on the belief that he can still be a shadow of the player he used to be, one we ourselves thought was once worth 75m. Now they will most probably have a better version of him - at least initially when there a no expectations of him and he can do the underdog thing. Some goals and assists in the initial games, when he thinks he's inconspicuous, and is not expected to be the main man. When they're bringing him on sparingly, especially in big games. But if they expect him to start, they start thinking any decent performance in cameos shows the promise of more - he'll immediately crap the bed and self destruct again. He'll never come close to being that 75m player again - the mentality issues have visibly stunted his consistency and desire, he is now in capable of being any more than unpredictable sub who may put on a show. The mentality issues also let him be nonchalant about his visible regression in overall skills and fitness since the pre United days, there's a reason Dortmund themselves did not take him back for that money and lower wages after his loan. But more importantly, don't think he'll survive there once it becomes a matter of competing for a spot. He didn't have the mentality to compete against a toothless Antony, it's a matter of time before Chelsea find a longer term solution to start and want a more promising understudy/rotation option.
To truly become that 75m player, he needed to be with a brilliant motivator of a coach - someone who'll make him a project, develop a personal connection with him, and try to solve his mentality issues. United under SAF, or Liverpool under Klopp, perhaps. And he needed to do that two years ago, it feels like the issues are too deep and unsolvable now. And definitely not by someone as uncharismatic as Ten Hag, or throughly transactional and curt as Maresca seems to be.
Either way, it's a cheap punt for someone like Chelsea. And thankfully no longer our problem. Glad we don't have an elephant in our dressing room anymore - no matter what he will be later, he was never making it here anymore after all that baggage. Works out well for all parties.
Last edited:
It's for financial reasons, not football reasons. Chelsea's logic over the last 18 months has been to hoover up a load of players under the age of 25 with the intention of selling them in the next 1-3 years, then rinse and repeat.
There was zero noise about Sterling having a bad attitude or being a negative presence. He was a well liked and respected senior player. I’m convinced it’s just a salary thing, because forget Sancho, there’s no chance anyone at Chelsea thinks Sterling isn’t miles and miles better than Mudryk.
They are financially worse off no?
Are you not financially better salary wise keeping Sterling and not signing Sancho?
That's sort of my point. Forget Mudryk, Sterling is genuinely miles better than Sancho based on Premier League form. So the question sort of comes down to why put yourself in a financially worse situation to have a worse player.
I'm not saying that's exactly what is happening just my perspective and I'm curious to know what I'm missing.
Does Maresca just really like Sancho? Any inside news?
Well, if you look at my comments in the Osimhen thread it will make sense. I think the sticking point was the “loan year” in the loan with obligation to buy. The payout to the player in the loan year being different than the contact the player is under when they finally “sign”
Chelsea wanted a loan with an obligation to buy in Osimhen, but their contract once the purchase started was lower than his wages, and Napoli wasn’t willing to cover the difference. He wanted his full wages for that year, and then it probably snowballed from there.
Hence the reason, when the deal was falling through in real time, there were reports he was furious with Napoli…. Which makes little sense when a fee is agreed.
Anyway, the people I trust for reporting our side on Sancho have all said he understands he’s going in a contract that “fits the structure” if he’s purchased (god forbid 15th …. But it isn’t guaranteed). But that does t start til after the loan season.
Honestly I think the idea is to eventually lose Sterling’s wages for good, get Sancho in on relatively modest wages and build from there.
I’m not saying I agree with it. I wouldn’t have gone anywhere near Sancho, I’m not sure why they wanted him but the motivation to move Sterling out was purely salary related I think.
I assume their thinking is that they'll be able to turn a profit on a lot of these youngsters over the next couple of years, so they won't be financially worse off then. It is a mad strategy though - signing so many players in one go without a plan as to how they'll fit into the tactical setup.
Maybe I'm just connecting the two subconsciously because they both happened on the same day.
Just seems to me you had a decent English winger on a high salary that you didn't want to pay and the next day you had a rubbish English winger on a salary that was too high and still paying half of the other ones salary on top.
Maybe an over simplification.
No but we were talking about Sancho. Sancho makes no difference in them being able to sell the young players they have.
I know but I was responding to a poster who asked what the logic was behind getting rid of Sterling for Sancho. It was for financial reasons only. Sancho is younger and might have some resale value in 2 or 3 years.
You were responding to me.
If the answer is that they think Sancho will suddenly hold more value than 25m plus whatever they lose on this deal then the answer is basically just that they think Sancho will turn things around.
Huge gamble.
I don't see why he's gone to Chelsea. It's great for us to be rid of him and he's a winger so Chelsea seem to want to get them all but for him personally, I don't get this move. Surely going back to Germany made the most sense?
Depending on his wages, he may have just refused to go anywhere that wouldn't pay him the same and Chelaea were the only ones willing?
I don't see how Chelsea wins in this. No way Arsenal buy a 30y old on 250k+ next summer. You will need to sell Sancho back to Germany if he doesn't produce enough (spoiler: he won't). Dortmund will sniff around but won't offer the money needed to make a profit overall. Same for Juve and i doubt PSG really have any interest in him.
Ah my bad - it's getting late and I lost track of who I was responding to.
I'm no FFP/PSR expert but if Chelsea give Sancho a 5 year contract then I think that means they'll only have to pay 5m of the 25m fee next summer. And then let's say they sell him for 10m a year later then they can put that down as 10m on the books for that year. Isn't that how Villa, Everton and other clubs were circumnavigating the rules a couple of months ago by selling each other players right before the June 30th deadline?
Happy to be corrected on this though as my understanding on the PSR rules isn't as strong as other people on this forum.
The pre-United Jadon Sancho was miles better than anything we’ve ever seen from Raheem Sterling, but I’m not sure he can ever recover that form.
Huge gamble by Chelsea…but fortune tends to go to the brave.
Huge gamble by Chelsea…but fortune tends to go to the brave.
Brilliant deal for us to be honest. Chelsea has to sign him based on the obligations unless they get 14th which means we’ve one lesser competition for top 4.
That’s not how it works. By your definition, they’ll be losing out on 5m each year for the next 3 years after which defeats the purpose of trying to circumvent the rules and that’s not even counting the wages on the books.
I'm not sure it was, given how completely unable Sancho was to play like that in England.
Sterling was also a huge talent and he actually did it in the Premier League. He'd probably have dicked all over the Bundesliga too if he'd had the chance.
Sterling played a major role in PL title wins. I wanted us to sign Sancho as he showed more potential than Sterling but looking an incredible talent in an attack friendly Bundesliga whilst not winning anything important is not at the same level.
True, Sancho was brilliant in Germany but has performed poorly in England whereas there was a time when Sterling performed brilliantly in England. It’s fair to take into account the greater demands in England.
Fair point.
Why are you guys so worried about it? His original coaches, the people that developed him, brought him to City from Watford as a kid, believe he can be really special, and play on the wing in a way Sterling can’t. If they are wrong you can all laugh at us. No big deal.
Sterling is AWESOME! One of your teams should definitely buy him next year.
Worried about what? Sancho or Sterling? Selling Sancho is the best we’ve done in ages.
Who wouldn't take pay cut to join Chelsea. Next step is, players will actually pay money to Chelsea to play for them.