Is he actually that good? Whenever I've watched Chelsea I've been somewhat unimpressed. Strikes me as another one like Mount that Chelsea are keen to offload for FFP benefits, but talent wise is the average CB that comes out of your academy and then ends up at a lower PL team
Trevoh Chalobah | to Palace on loan with no option or obligation to buy
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
No thank you.
He's no better than likes of Lindelof.
He's no better than likes of Lindelof.
Another Mount, foolish to give Chelsea any more money when they’ll go and get Tosin on a free and use our money to buy Todibo.
It is, we get a better CB for nothing and sell Chalobah and gain £25M.
Isn't he pretty poor in the air? His aerial duel success has been around the 47% mark over the last 2 seasons, which isn't much better than Lindelof and about the same as Shorty McShortison. Seems like him and Licha would be a pretty poor partnership against any team that fancied a long ball or a cross.
Debatable, and even if true it’s still bad business.
Chaloboah for me doesn't work in a 2, so it simply doesn't make sense to buy him. Just get Todibo, and if we can cash in on Lindelof then one more too.
In my mind the middle CB is a tall CB with a good heading.
EtH might not want to play 3 CB, but that could be something decided above him, maybe.
No it isn't, Chalobah has a 45% success rate at aerial duels. He's not good in the air.
I dont think he starts for most PL sides.
Had to look that up, that's surprisingly poor. He ranks 131 on Fbref in the league, which is worrying when the almost the entire top 30 is centre backs. Better than Lindelof though, so there's that.
Who?
Another Chelsea cast off. Mata, Matic, Mount. We never learn.
Another Chelsea cast off. Mata, Matic, Mount. We never learn.
Giving him too much credit. At least they were highly rated at one point for things they actually did and were relatively fit when we signed them. Trevoh started 6 premier league games last season and has had 1 fairly good season a couple of years ago, now hes aged of 24 and has a poor fitness record.
Signing him would be as bad as 2 of those poor signings above combined.
Some wasteman who is about to sign for Real Madrid.
if this is where we are, we might as well appoint Allardyce as manager
Give them 5m and that's about it.
Good times, him and the Everton CB Branthwaite together would be world class partnership.
So you move from Lindelof, Maguire, Varane, Martinez, Evans and Willy to:
new CB, Martinez and Willy
Is that wise after a season where our CBs have been consistently injure? We still don’t know if Martinez is going to last a season or whether (as I suspect) he is going to pick up increasing nibbling injuries now
I think unless we are investing in at least 2 in this area, we are going to see Maguire and either Lindelof or Evans stay
Maybe that's the key? Don't sign Chelsea players who have played well for them like Mata and Mount, sign the ones that haven't, like Olise, Guehi, and... Chalobah!?
Revers psychology, nice.
Oh yes I kind of misrepresented my idea, it was "one of Lindelof & Maguire" not both, and I prefer Maguire.
we had a freak season of injuries, even someone who was virtually available all the time like Maguire got injured several times this season, and also Lindelof who is rarely injured was injured too, it was really weird situation.
I also have an issue with Martinez being injured, so next season the club should rethink if he can remain fit or be moved on, he is too important to wait for to get fit, so either he is fit or he is moved on.
That's exactly why you're selling Chalobah. The analysts at Chelsea probably ran a stat model that showed Tosin is very similar to Chalobah and a like for like replacement. If they can sell Chalobah (hopefully not to us) for 30m and get Tosin for free, it's 150m they can use for amortization in FFP.
I'm not arguing whether that's the correct move or not, but the motive seems to be primarily driven by numbers here.
It's 100% driven by FFP reasons. They've put themselves in such a stupid hole with reckless spending that they now have to make transfers for the sake making transfers to boost the books. Tosin and Chalobah are very comparable players, but one has a deeper connection to the club and the fans so I reject the notion that it is a like for like replacement, it's only like for like in one aspect. It would be like if we sold Gallagher and then picked up McTominay on a free as his replacement. It would be stupid business because you're losing a part of the soul of the club for very little, if any at all, gain on the pitch.
If they sold Disasi for 30m and brought in Tosin as his replacement for example, I'd view it as excellent business because it's a like for like in every sense, but Tosin is a smaller hit on the books and they just about break even Disasi.
It's a weird one because on one hand I disagree with the rules that mean that homegrown players give better profit on the PSR front because clubs should be encouraged to keep those players more so and fans have more connection with players of that ilk usually, but on the other hand Chelsea have cornered themselves with those rules because of spending so recklessly.
You only get to place where you desperately need to sell homegrown players for pure profit when you've spent recklessly for a while. No other club in this league is in this situation. I have seen people talk about the rules incentivising selling academy players for pure profit is stupid but it's never been an issue before now - they are likely selling Gallagher, Chalobah, Maatsen and Hutchinson this summer, as well as Lewis Hall whose move is made permanent this summer, that's well over £130m in pure profit, but we'll be back here next summer with rumours hanging on Colwill's head probably and we'll have these same conversations again.
Well, yes and no. Yes, that can be a situation but also there's the problem that the clubs at the lower end of the table need to sell homegrown players to be able to spend more and try to move up the league. I don't think that's right.
Yeah fair enough, I hadn't considered that. I just meant selling academy players to avoid falling foul of the FFP rules. That's a self made problem and it's the club that should be criticised in this situation, not the rules. I understand though, that the rules themselves are causing different issues elsewhere.
That's why I don't have sympathy for Chelsea in this situation as they have the prestige, luxury and financial muscle to be more savvy in the market and spend more anyway.
Agree completely.
Why would be play our best CB by a country mile out of position at LB? Jesus wept
If we buy Jarrad Branthwaite, who is two footed and tall, he would be better centrally, besides it's not out of position, because it's the inverting LB position.
What? we could easily keep Chalobah we dont have to sell him.
We just got £35M for lewis Hall then we have money potentially for Broja, Maatsen, Hutchinson. Thats like over £100M pure profit.
It's simple the sporting directors dont rate Chalobah or Gallagher that highly. The two elite Cobham talents Colwill and James we keep.
Well if they can get close to £100m for Maatsen, Hall and Hutchinson and they’re still trying to sell Chalobah and especially Gallagher then that should tell you the finances are probably a lot worse than we think. The SDs not rating Chalobah and Gallagher is stupid and quite frankly irrelevant because I guarantee Maresca, if asked, would prefer to keep them and play them, especially Gallagher. They’re trying to sell them because they have to.
I'm starting to feel like we'll look very silly in a year if we buy Branthwaite. There are only so many academy graduates Chelsea can sell before it's Colwill's turn and I like him a lot more for a LCB.
I have a newfound respect for Maguire after he slogged through all the stick he got, played himself into form and was actually quietly good this season. I think he even kept Varane on the bench for a bit although that might just be Ten Hag being an idiot. I don't think we should actively look to sell him.
He's not the right partner for Martinez but I think he can play the role that Martinez plays for us adequately.
Back of the envelope maths….
Chelsea have made 34 signings for over 1bn in the last three windows, plus they are still carrying the final year(s) of Lukaku’s amortised transfer (and some others). All that means that by my calculations they are carrying amortised transfers costs of approximately 190-200m per season right now. Which is a lot. It’s especially a lot when their current wage bill is now the highest in the division at 404m per year. Meaning total player costs are around 609m per season currently. This set against last year’s record revenue of 656m. 93%. And that’s before we get to any other costs. Not a pretty picture.
Some of that has already been offset by sales. But next year there will be no CL again and reality will start to bite. To be sustainable under PSR there will surely have to be sales, and the wage bill will have to get cut considerably on a bloated squad. Then there is the ability to actually sign players, which probably requires further sales. And none of this takes into consideration costs from constantly hiring and firing the whole coaching set up.
It’s possible the picture is rosier than I’ve painted it, but the year before the club lost 115m, and I’d imagine it’ll be the same or worse this year. I think it’s pretty clear that sales need to happen and they have to happen with players who have no remaining amortised transfer costs on the books. So fully amortised or homegrown players. Those sales will hit the books in their entirety, all at once, as pure profit. Hence Gallagher and Chabaloh being on the block, and Mount the year before.
Edited for accuracy.
Last edited:
Um, where on earth are you getting that from?
The back of an envelope
Sports Business Journal, but it’s in dollars, apologies. 400m pounds.
The latest figures I’ve just seen are a 404m pound wage bill and a 205m pound amortisation schedule p/a. So the back of the envelope amortisation was pretty bang on. That’s 609m player costs vs 656m revenue. Alarming, and revenue is going down without CL football. I’ve adjusted the figures accordingly but the conclusions are identical.
Gotcha, makes sense - also aligns with what The Athletic have published:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5537794/2024/06/03/chelsea-finances-kepa-hazard-maatsen/
"Those showed Chelsea had the Premier League’s highest operating loss (-£249m) and second-highest wage bill (£404m) for the reporting period taking in the 2022-23 season."