Suspect this is close to the truth
Victor Osimhen | out of options | goes to Gala on loan
- Thread starter L1nk
- Start date
- Status
But then we'd have had no strikers last year and only 1 this year...maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd rather have Højlund and Zirkzee over just Osimhen.
No way Napoli will give him away on the cheap.
Im with you in that minority. Osimhen is just nowhere near worth what Napoli would demand.
Lukaku’s ego dislikes this.
Honesty 65m€ or so plus Lukaku who is actual deadwood for them is a good deal for Chelsea, if you're convinced he's all that.
His agent seems like a joy to work with 
Would be interested to see how he does in England, never been particularly convinced by him.
His agent seems like a joy to work with
The Lukaku of agents.
Good. Let Chelsea continue with Jackson upfront. I wish we hadn't wasted so much money over the years to the point we're left requiring to sell to buy, we should be all over this. He's only 25, would take our attack to the next level.
The fact that Napoli are willing to value Lukaku anywhere between £30-£40m at the age of 31 on those crazy wages, whilst we can't get anyone to offer us a packet of crisps for Case or Sancho boils my blood.
Seems foolish to be saying that when the package is exactly what the problem is. There aren't many suitors for Osi this summer, and likely won't ever be unless he becomes significantly cheaper.
He's had 1 really good season and 3 or 4 decent ones. I'd say he's had a decent career.
Only if we sort out our supply line to the strikers. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if it’s him, Hojlund, Ruud or Willy fecking Wonka upfront
TBF Willy is a chocolate guy not a striker
Says it all that De Laurentiis is happy to send him on loan for a year rather than trying to rinse someone for him.
Interesting, Athletic jumped the gun somewhat?
Yep. For all his qualities as a player, his injury record is definitely a bit of a red flag and most/all clubs will be hesitant to splurge big money on him without at least getting to try him on loan first. He's never played more than 40 games across a single season all competitions included, and largely due to the injuries he's only once cracked 20+ goals in a season. For a 100M+ striker clubs surely want better availability than what Osimhen is likely to give.
His reputation is 100% riding on that title winning season at Napoli and the fact he couldn't replicate anywhere near the same kind of world class performances last season speaks against him. They'd definitely have got a 100M+ move last year when his stock was at it's peak but I doubt that's going to happen this year unless PSG suddenly change their mind and decide to make a crazy bid which they have previously decided against.
I don't see how a loan with a conditional obligation (based on UCL qualification or the player's goal record) to make the move permanent would be a bad deal from Osimhen's POV. Surely if he backs himself to succeed he'd think it's a mere formality to finalize the permanent move next year. And if him / his camp don't actually believe he's going to succeed then they're just looking for a money grab before his stock falls further.
As a Chelsea fan I would be 100% on board a loan, even with conditional obligations, but also fully against a straight permanent transfer for 100M. The potential upside of having Osimhen is massive but I think the risks are just too high to pay that kind of money straight away.
He really wouldn't do much more than Hojlund did last season
That is outrageous, his all round game is a different level, even with the same level of service, his output would have been comfortably better.
I think one of the big issues is wages. Predictably reports of this differ and there is confusion due to whether its net, gross, etc and the tax situation in Italy. But it seems likely that he's on a pretty big wage already (many reports suggesting 10m euros after tax) after his new contract with Napoli signed last fall and he probably wants at least the same if not an increase.
This also makes a loan with obligation trickier as you need to work out with the player in advance what the wage packet will be if the obligation is met. Osimhen seems to want a wage that is higher than Chelsea has been willing to pay in general, at least since the initial summer when they signed Sterling.
Overall, I think his agent and De Laurentiis kind of fecked up and misjudged his market. They gave him a new deal with high wages and a pretty big release clause assuming he'd have a big market this summer, probably looking back at the previous year when lots of players went for fees around or over 100m (Rice, Caicedo, Bellingham, Kane, Gvardiol, Kolo Muani). I can see why you might look at that and think that somebody will pay 100m for the top striker on the market. But this summer has been so much quieter. The most expensive summer transfer listed on Transfermarkt right now is Yoro for 62m base. The fee for Joao Neves will probably go over that but he might be the only one.
This also makes a loan with obligation trickier as you need to work out with the player in advance what the wage packet will be if the obligation is met. Osimhen seems to want a wage that is higher than Chelsea has been willing to pay in general, at least since the initial summer when they signed Sterling.
Overall, I think his agent and De Laurentiis kind of fecked up and misjudged his market. They gave him a new deal with high wages and a pretty big release clause assuming he'd have a big market this summer, probably looking back at the previous year when lots of players went for fees around or over 100m (Rice, Caicedo, Bellingham, Kane, Gvardiol, Kolo Muani). I can see why you might look at that and think that somebody will pay 100m for the top striker on the market. But this summer has been so much quieter. The most expensive summer transfer listed on Transfermarkt right now is Yoro for 62m base. The fee for Joao Neves will probably go over that but he might be the only one.
Last edited:
"even with the same level of service" do you have any evidence for that? Or you just really undervalue how bad Hojlund had it last season.
Maybe Osimhen would've marginally been better last season, but the Dane is the better prospect. You don't buy a 25 year old striker when you have a similar 21 year old who will probably develop into something better than the 25 year old currently is.
Always makes me laugh when people just assume better strikers would have been banging them in for fun for us last year, when Hojlund literally was never passed the ball in the final third and the majority of his (respectable) goal tally were solo efforts of mostly his own work.
Swap Hojlund and Nunez last year and the narratives would be far different.
They just said discussions took place. Which could be true, but far from an agreement this
'Publicly outraged agent' is fast becoming my pet peeve of the summer.
I agree. I think it's clear that while Hojlund isn't the finished product yet, he's the least of our problems. We need to collectively get better and then his goal tally will massively increase.
What evidence do you have that Hojlund would be better than Osimhen.
He has all the tools to do it and seemingly has an excellent mental profile too.
So Ornstein reports the loan option, while Romano via Osimhen’s agent claims the loan option is fake news. Interested to see how this unfolds.
I’m personally not that interested in Osimhen on a permanent deal. A loan with an option to buy I’d accept without even thinking though.
I’m personally not that interested in Osimhen on a permanent deal. A loan with an option to buy I’d accept without even thinking though.
Your owners are crazy enough, that nothing is off the table.
Does PSR and FFP only apply to the likes of United?
I highly doubt Chelsea will pay bucks for Osimhen. They would have done it a long time ago if they were willing to do it. Ornstein is rarely wrong.
Not sure what this is referring to?
Chelsea have already sold around 100m worth of players (the big fees being 37m Maatsen, 27m Hall and 20m Hutchinson) and we're about to add Gallagher and Lukaku to that.
I think this has something to do with it.
And how much have you spent in the same time period? More than €2.47B. Thats a €1B negative net spend.
I mean that's pretty close to United numbers... It's not all that goes into FFP but at the end of the day, Chelsea and City selling a lot do help them alleviate the spending.
I think one thing that doesn’t really get reported is the amount of money that never counts toward spend. The amounts in the media are added up for the entire price, but many players are sold before the amortization is completed. That money is never subtracted in the media, but it is for FFP and PSR.
How many strikers have a 1 in 2 record?
- Status