Jadon Sancho (Out) | Chelsea reach deal to sign on loan with obligation to buy

Status
Not open for further replies.
justsomebloke said:
Mea culpa on the age. So make that "about to enter his thirties".

But he's hardly being forced out of Chelsea for financial reasons - they choose to move him on, rather than someone else. And right wing is not his best position (played there in 14 of his last 50 games). He is clearly not a good solution in that position for the longer haul, also considering his cost. So no, that doesn't change my conclusion. If we're thinking in terms of becoming a contender in the space of the next 3 seasons, this is absolutely the sort of move we should not be making.
Click to expand...
Chelsea have changed their salary model to one where you get low base wages with huge add-ons for performance, and Sterling was brought in before that happened. Now most of their new signings are on £100K base, which is what they're paying Felix. Sterling is on the old model and hence they want to get rid of him. Nobody seriously thinks Sterling is worse than Mudryk, for example, who continues to play.

Sterling is certainly a gamble. However its hard to argue that he's worse than Sancho. Sterling scored more league goals from open play last season than anyone in our team other than Hojland.

And if we fail to get a buyer for Sancho this summer, its hard to see us finding one next year, when he only has a year to go on his contract. So him being with us for another 2 seasons then going on a free is a very real possibility.

It would also depend on the terms of the deal for Sterling. A 5 year deal at his current Chelsea wage would be madness, but I think we're past those days as a club. A 3 year deal for Sterling at £200Kpw would cost us the same total salary outlay as Sancho is costing us for the next 2 years, with a better annual profile to boot. So, again, the pros and cons of the finances are open to debate. It would depend on what we can negotiate.

I can see someone tallying up the pros and cons and thinking its better to gamble with Sancho or gamble with Sterling. However I can't agree its not at least debatable.
 
quadrant said:
Chelsea have changed their salary model to one where you get low base wages with huge add-ons for performance, and Sterling was brought in before that happened. Now most of their new signings are on £100K base, which is what they're paying Felix. Sterling is on the old model and hence they want to get rid of him. Nobody seriously thinks Sterling is worse than Mudryk, for example, who continues to play.

Sterling is certainly a gamble. However its hard to argue that he's worse than Sancho. Sterling scored more league goals from open play last season than anyone in our team other than Hojland.

And if we fail to get a buyer for Sancho this summer, its hard to see us finding one next year, when he only has a year to go on his contract. So him being with us for another 2 seasons then going on a free is a very real possibility.

It would also depend on the terms of the deal for Sterling. A 5 year deal at his current Chelsea wage would be madness, but I think we're past those days as a club. A 3 year deal for Sterling at £200Kpw would cost us the same total salary outlay as Sancho is costing us for the next 2 years, with a better annual profile to boot. So, again, the pros and cons of the finances are open to debate. It would depend on what we can negotiate.

I can see someone tallying up the pros and cons and thinking its better to gamble with Sancho or gamble with Sterling. However I can't agree its not at least debatable.
Click to expand...

Come on. Sterling clearly did not have a great season last year, and if they thought he was an important piece for them, they would not have sold him - big wages or not. "Hard to argue he's worse than Sancho" isn't a good enough reason.

Nor is the choice between gambling with Sancho or gambling with Sterling. It's not like if we don't buy Sterling, we're stuck with Sancho.
 
quadrant said:
Chelsea have changed their salary model to one where you get low base wages with huge add-ons for performance, and Sterling was brought in before that happened. Now most of their new signings are on £100K base, which is what they're paying Felix. Sterling is on the old model and hence they want to get rid of him. Nobody seriously thinks Sterling is worse than Mudryk, for example, who continues to play.

Sterling is certainly a gamble. However its hard to argue that he's worse than Sancho. Sterling scored more league goals from open play last season than anyone in our team other than Hojland.

And if we fail to get a buyer for Sancho this summer, its hard to see us finding one next year, when he only has a year to go on his contract. So him being with us for another 2 seasons then going on a free is a very real possibility.

It would also depend on the terms of the deal for Sterling. A 5 year deal at his current Chelsea wage would be madness, but I think we're past those days as a club. A 3 year deal for Sterling at £200Kpw would cost us the same total salary outlay as Sancho is costing us for the next 2 years, with a better annual profile to boot. So, again, the pros and cons of the finances are open to debate. It would depend on what we can negotiate.

I can see someone tallying up the pros and cons and thinking its better to gamble with Sancho or gamble with Sterling. However I can't agree its not at least debatable.
Click to expand...
It's a terrible swap, let's be real here.
Honestly think selling Sancho for free and getting him off the wages bill is a better deal than swapping him for Sterling.
 
Syphon Wallet said:
It's a terrible swap, let's be real here.
Honestly think selling Sancho for free and getting him off the wages bill is a better deal than swapping him for Sterling.
Click to expand...
I doubt very much he’ll leave and give up his salary, since no team will pay him the same as we are. He’ll want a payoff I expect. So we’ll be paying some or all of that wages whatever happens.
 
justsomebloke said:
"Hard to argue he's worse than Sancho" isn't a good enough reason.
Click to expand...

Not really a fair summary of my points. He out scored all our players bar one. Imo he’s much better than Sancho. His situation opens the door to a move that’s financially favourable to us. I’m just trying to couch it in terms that accepts other people can have a different view.

justsomebloke said:
Nor is the choice between gambling with Sancho or gambling with Sterling. It's not like if we don't buy Sterling, we're stuck with Sancho.
Click to expand...
I said right at the outset that selling Sancho is the best option. This is about discussing what happens it that’s not possible.
 
quadrant said:
Chelsea have changed their salary model to one where you get low base wages with huge add-ons for performance, and Sterling was brought in before that happened. Now most of their new signings are on £100K base, which is what they're paying Felix. Sterling is on the old model and hence they want to get rid of him. Nobody seriously thinks Sterling is worse than Mudryk, for example, who continues to play.

Sterling is certainly a gamble. However its hard to argue that he's worse than Sancho. Sterling scored more league goals from open play last season than anyone in our team other than Hojland.

And if we fail to get a buyer for Sancho this summer, its hard to see us finding one next year, when he only has a year to go on his contract. So him being with us for another 2 seasons then going on a free is a very real possibility.

It would also depend on the terms of the deal for Sterling. A 5 year deal at his current Chelsea wage would be madness, but I think we're past those days as a club. A 3 year deal for Sterling at £200Kpw would cost us the same total salary outlay as Sancho is costing us for the next 2 years, with a better annual profile to boot. So, again, the pros and cons of the finances are open to debate. It would depend on what we can negotiate.

I can see someone tallying up the pros and cons and thinking its better to gamble with Sancho or gamble with Sterling. However I can't agree its not at least debatable.
Click to expand...
It’s probably doable IF there’s a big cash payment to us in addition to the swap. We are clearly going to value Sancho much higher than Sterling. Not saying I’m in favour at all, but there might be some rationale somewhere that could persuade the powers that be. Very much doubt it though.
 
George The Best said:
It’s probably doable IF there’s a big cash payment to us in addition to the swap. We are clearly going to value Sancho much higher than Sterling. Not saying I’m in favour at all, but there might be some rationale somewhere that could persuade the powers that be. Very much doubt it though.
Click to expand...
The only way this works is Chelsea need to add Carney Chukwemeka or R Lavia plus R Sterling plus £15m of cash taking the deal to £55m for Sancho, otherwise Jog on!
 
I’m all for sancho going but why would ETH play him in pre season and then abandon him in the league. Meanwhile Rashford gets a free pass every week.
 
DJ_21 said:
I’m all for sancho going but why would ETH play him in pre season and then abandon him in the league. Meanwhile Rashford gets a free pass every week.
Click to expand...

Sancho's performances are usually worse then Rashford's.
 
devilish said:
Sancho's performances are usually worse then Rashford's.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure of that. If you count Rashford's glorious season then it's Rashford > Sancho by some distance, but since then it's pretty much a wash between those two with Sancho pulling away in the disgrace department for off pitch problems. But in competition, if we can't sell Sancho then I would definitely have him higher up in the depth chart. Garnacho and Amad starters, then Antony to come on to defend a lead (ok, wishful thinking) then Sancho and then Rashford. A shame we sold Pellistri and couldn't move on either of Rashford or Sancho though, both of whom look disillusioned under ETH.
 
lex talionis said:
I'm not so sure of that. If you count Rashford's glorious season then it's Rashford > Sancho by some distance, but since then it's pretty much a wash between those two with Sancho pulling away in the disgrace department for off pitch problems. But in competition, if we can't sell Sancho then I would definitely have him higher up in the depth chart. Garnacho and Amad starters, then Antony to come on to defend a lead (ok, wishful thinking) then Sancho and then Rashford. A shame we sold Pellistri and couldn't move on either of Rashford or Sancho though, both of whom look disillusioned under ETH.
Click to expand...
Yeah not sure there is much difference between the two
 
lex talionis said:
I'm not so sure of that. If you count Rashford's glorious season then it's Rashford > Sancho by some distance, but since then it's pretty much a wash between those two with Sancho pulling away in the disgrace department for off pitch problems. But in competition, if we can't sell Sancho then I would definitely have him higher up in the depth chart. Garnacho and Amad starters, then Antony to come on to defend a lead (ok, wishful thinking) then Sancho and then Rashford. A shame we sold Pellistri and couldn't move on either of Rashford or Sancho though, both of whom look disillusioned under ETH.
Click to expand...

Both are on such huge wages that I hate to say it's hard to see how we shift either of them permanently
 
reddevilz007 said:
Is Chiesa a better option than Sterling?
Click to expand...
Apparently, according to 'On The Continent' Podcast, he's not the player he was due injuries and on big wages to the point that Juve have isolated him from the first team squad to make it crystal clear he should leave. I think Sterling would genuinely be better but ideally neither.
 
DJ_21 said:
I’m all for sancho going but why would ETH play him in pre season and then abandon him in the league. Meanwhile Rashford gets a free pass every week.
Click to expand...

We're supposed to press and win the ball back, Sancho doesn't seem to give a shit about running for the badge.
 
TheNewEra said:
We're supposed to press and win the ball back, Sancho doesn't seem to give a shit about running for the badge.
Click to expand...
As an oppose to Rashford who comes out with statements saying he cares but doesn’t show it on the pitch.
 
croadyman said:
Both are on such huge wages that I hate to say it's hard to see how we shift either of them permanently
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I see no benefit top paying either's salary while playing for another club. ETH could be ruthless and bench both indefinitely but it appears he has a soft spot for Rashford so he starts him regardless of how poor his form has been.
 
DJ_21 said:
As an oppose to Rashford who comes out with statements saying he cares but doesn’t show it on the pitch.
Click to expand...
Neither will press, but there is a chance Rashford will score. Sancho will do nothing. Both wouldn't be here in an ideal scenario, though.
 
Mickeza said:
What’s the point you’re making here? That in order to just score the same measly number of goals as last season rashford needs to have a worldie of a season?
Click to expand...
No. What I want to say is that adding goals doesn't mean adding another wide player who scored 8 goals in the league last year. It won't simply translate here.

Our overall play needs to get better: we need to move the ball much faster, we need to be more incisive with our passing, we need more control down the middle, we need our FB's to double up & overlap our wingers, we need to create numerical advantages in the attacking areas etc. etc.

The only player who I can see our goal scoring improving with is a top class striker who can hold up the ball and get others into play as we hoof the ball a lot and lose it more often than not because we don't have a player up top who is good at that. Zirkzee can be a solution but let's see how it works out as he is good at the other stuff but is not a lethal goal scorer.
 
Last edited:
SouthernRedDev said:
Mudryk looks lost at Chelsea, id happily swap him for sancho, cant be too dissimilar in value, with plenty of game time he may find some form, competing against Rashford he would play regularly.
Click to expand...
This.

Arsenal’s recent recruitment has been pretty darn good. They were super keen on him.

He is young enough to improve and adapt his game. His sheer pace provides an out ball and would negate the only reason to keep picking Rashford.

His wages wont be an issue instead it probably forces Sancho to take a pay cut to leave UTD or find himself training with the youth team again.
 
Strachan8 said:
This.

Arsenal’s recent recruitment has been pretty darn good. They were super keen on him.

He is young enough to improve and adapt his game. His sheer pace provides an out ball and would negate the only reason to keep picking Rashford.

His wages wont be an issue instead it probably forces Sancho to take a pay cut to leave UTD or find himself training with the youth team again.
Click to expand...

Presume none of Mudryk, Madueke or Chukwemeka are options on the table as not mentioned in tweet with Chilwell or Sterling
 
Woziak said:
The only way this works is Chelsea need to add Carney Chukwemeka or R Lavia plus R Sterling plus £15m of cash taking the deal to £55m for Sancho, otherwise Jog on!
Click to expand...
Would happily take Latvia plus 15 mill tbh. Chelsea have quite a few players who should be considered as makeweights in any deal, but who knows what’s going on. Looks like dippers are giving Juve some coin to put toward a potential Sancho deal, so hope it happens.
 
Overhaul FC said:
Hopefully Liverpool sign Chiesa so Juve can afford the permanent Sancho deal.
Click to expand...

Looks they have zero intention of permanent deal right now, however hope I'm proven wrong. Needs someone else to buy another of their makeweights to take it up around £40m
 
If we take Stirling we have learned nothing from the last decade of failure

An era which has included inexplicably signing a number of players Chelsea we're looking rid of for big money
 
All we need to do is put him in Scott's suitcase, and he's gone. Pay the extra Ryanair fee. Do whatever it takes.
 
DJ_21 said:
I’m all for sancho going but why would ETH play him in pre season and then abandon him in the league. Meanwhile Rashford gets a free pass every week.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the first time.

Give him a chance to get back into favour, and if not show potential buyers he's still around.

The sooner both are gone the better but nobody is taking on Rashford's wages this side of Saudi.
 
Right then, where are you going Mr Sancho?

Far too much of a problem to be left to mope around Carrington. He needs to be playing for someone in Europe and showing there is value in a transfer next summer. He has to go out on a non-obligation loan at the very least.
 
Greenwood
Pellestri
Forson
Sancho tbc

If Sancho goes there's no way we let that many wingers go and don't sign a winger at the end of the window.

If Sancho goes on a permanent deal we surely sign a winger/cm, or both.
 
Overhaul FC said:
Greenwood
Pellestri
Forson
Sancho tbc

If Sancho goes there's no way we let that many wingers go and don't sign a winger at the end of the window.

If Sancho goes on a permanent deal we surely sign a winger/cm, or both.
Click to expand...
Zirkzee can easily play on the left if needs be, wingers are the least of our worries. Do what arsenal did, cull the squad and then carefully add young talented players.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.