• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

paulw66   
40 minutes ago, didierforever said:

Mate, you do know that Besiktas are even rumored to be paying even a loan fee of 3m according to Turkish sources itself.

https://www.ntvspor.net/transfer/michy-batshuayi-den-besiktas-taraftarina-mesaj-611a1962c6598c171cb2f7c6

Do you seriously think they would not pay all his wages but pay 3m to the club and then the club pays the rest of his wages?

I think as chelsea fans we are severely underating michy here. Even a bang average footballer like sorloth went to Turkish league and banged in 25 goals. This would be a massive buy for them

I have no idea how reliable NTV Spor is, to be honest, but it seems like they are guessing like the rest of us.

It says they have paid 3m EUR for 1 year.........If true, that could be to cover (partly) his wages. 

13 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

 

Unfortunately, it's much less plausible that any other club is going to pay money to pay a player their Chelsea wage.

We're talking about what each of us thinks is most likely here, what each of us believes makes most sense. That's fine, because neither of us really know. Just weird to take such a hardline on it.

Particularly in a league with little money (by PL standards)

I could have potentially been persuaded that a PL team would match his wages, but not one in Turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bison   
20 hours ago, Diddymen said:

Palace already have Conor Gallagher from us so can't take any another player. There are also rumours that Newcastle want to take Ampadu on loan (which would leave us short on midfielders)

I would have thought Moyes might take a punt on Barkley. *puts tin hat on". I actually thought Barkley played well under Sarri and that the signing of Drinwater was okay too. But his performances thereafter were crap

Ah, forgot about Conor's loan there. Thanks. 

Think Ampadu should head out on loan because I don't believe he's a serious option for Tuchel yet in any position. Newcastle would be a good spot for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bison   
1 hour ago, Ham said:

Great news *if true*

Very good young player, has room for improvement and fills a position we lack numbers. 

Think a lot hinges on if Monaco qualify for the Champions League. They lost the first leg at home to a strong Shaktar team so are likely headed to the Europa League. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

1.   No. It's weird, imo, to think otherwise. 

2.  The contract wouldn't need to equal his Chelsea pay. It would just need to better whatever is currently on offer.

1. yes.
2.  It wouldn't even have to better it.  
A clue here is that his contract extension has been announced at the same time as his loan.  Seems likely to me that the contract is conditional on the loan and he is getting some 80 - 100% of the amount Beşiktaş are paying for him.
If Beşiktaş were willing to offer a 3 year contract I'm sure he would take it.  But without that I would say his negotiating position in 12 months time would be stronger if he can come back to pre-season training at Cobham rather than being unemployed in Istanbul.

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

You're all missing the point.

....

I mean, surely nobody believes their contracts are being extended at the same levels as when they signed? 

No - actually the point is that loads of people seem to think that contracts are extended at the same level.
That is why I have challenged people to guess what Bats is on.  To break the cycle that goes:

"board are idiots" => "Bats is getting the same pay" => "and that proves the board are idiots"   cycle.

So I'm pleased this is being discussed properly now.

1 hour ago, Rob B said:

Yep loads of clubs would take him at £90k a week.  Most of the bottom half of the PL.  He wouldn’t even need to be a club’s first choice striker on those wages - they will have goalkeepers earning more.

No one is paying £90k a week to players in the bottom half of the Prem.  Except big 6 teams that underperform.

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

https://salarysport.com/football/turkish-super-league/beşiktaş-a.ş./

https://eurofootballrumours.com/fenerbahce-sk-players-salaries/

Two random articles.........both suggesting Besiktas and Fenerbache top earners are on 70k a week.

There is no way in hell, Besiktas are making a discarded CF their highest paid player by nearly 30%

Quite.  Equally a survey a few years ago showed that the top paid player in the Championship is on £20-odd k a week.

1 hour ago, Ham said:

You're missing the point that I'm challenging £10k a month. 

What point?  challenging £10k doesn't mean anything.  Put a number down so that we can laugh at you.
Are you challenging it with £20k - or are you challenging it with £80k.

 

Clarification - £90k for old Bats contract.  This number was mentioned as press talk by Didierforever so I have used it as a "lets say" number.  But neither Didierforever or I or anyone has suggested that it is certain number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

I have no idea how reliable NTV Spor is, to be honest, but it seems like they are guessing like the rest of us.

It says they have paid 3m EUR for 1 year.........If true, that could be to cover (partly) his wages. 

Hard to convince if nothing suffices. 

Again, just 2 of these things have happened:

1. The club keeps extending these contracts at the same wages or a little pay cut because they see clubs are WILLING to pay those wages specially when no massive transfer fee is involved.

2. Players keep taking a massive pay cut year in and year out to go out on loan so the club can benefit with a fee when they actually get one.

Btw, how many players have rejected such extensions, if any. Willian for one comes to mind. The players NORMALLY do tend to sign on the dotted line and I am guessing not all of them feel so charitable towards the club. I am sure a lot of them would gladly plunge into the free agent market than take a 50% pay cut on an extension to play on loan. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
7 minutes ago, Bison said:

Great news *if true*

Have never seen him play. What's he like? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, didierforever said:

Hard to convince if nothing suffices. 

Again, just 2 of these things have happened:

1. The club keeps extending these contracts at the same wages or a little pay cut because they see clubs are WILLING to pay those wages specially when no massive transfer fee is involved.

2. Players keep taking a massive pay cut year in and year out to go out on loan so the club can benefit with a fee when they actually get one.

Btw, how many players have rejected such extensions, if any. Willian for one comes to mind. The players NORMALLY do tend to sign on the dotted line and I am guessing not all of them feel so charitable towards the club. I am sure a lot of them would gladly plunge into the free agent market than take a 50% pay cut on an extension to play on loan. 

 

Amazingly the club still sees a chance of getting a fee for some of these players, so they keep making them sign extensions before they go on loan. If all goes well we get a fee at the end, as happened with Moses and Kalas. Hence the loans of Kenedy, Batshuayi and probably Emerson. Then there are other players that the club doesn't think they'll make money on, so they don't make them sign extension as really it's about helping academy graduates/injured players continue their careers - such as Clarke-Salter, Ziger and van Ginkel (last season).

They probably still think they can make money on Bakayoko, Miazga, Zappacosta and Baba Rahman so if they're loaned they would have to sign extensions. Whilst Baker and Musonda would probably just be helped to continue their careers. If anyone takes Drinkwater on loan I would assume there won't be an extension - we're not getting anything back for him!

It all seems very optimistic to me, but the club knows the market and the costs involved better than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rob B   
23 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

No one is paying £90k a week to players in the bottom half of the Prem.  Except big 6 teams that underperform.

There’s so much wrong with this I don’t even know where to begin.

Assume big 6 teams are Man City, Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and us?

Which would exclude the likes of Leicester, Everton, Aston Villa, West Ham, etc? 

Either way, by definition you don’t think the likes of Vardy, Maddison, Tielemans, Richarlson, Mings, Bamford, Yarmalenko, Zaha, Calvert-Lewin earn £90k a week?!? 

I think you’re seriously underestimating wages in the PL nowadays.  I’ll repeat, there are clubs in the championship paying players more than £70k.  I know that for a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bison   
16 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Have never seen him play. What's he like? 

Tall, athletic, box-to-box midfielder. Wins a lot of ariel duels, interceptions and brilliant off the ball. He can do a very good Kante impression. 

He is not a great passer but he certainly isn't Bakayoko. And look at Kante when he first arrived and the development he has made since - you would hope with better coaching and teammates he could make a similar jump. 

He has not yet made his France debut but he has played for all the lower age groups at national level.

Comes with the Cesc seal of approval:  “He has the potential to be the complete midfielder. Modern midfield player.” 

And of course, the obligatory YouTube comp

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

...

I'm being po-faced here but I wouldn't go in too hard on another poster's opinions when you can't stick to one opinion of your own for two or three posts.

I expects hundreds of players in world football are signing contracts for less money. Some of them are doing it very publicly because it suits their PR (Pique at Barca as an example) but the vast majority won't want anything said or known about it because it weakens their positions.

Almost all the figures we talk about here are just made up so I'm not gonna put numbers to anything, but I find it really easy to believe Bats signed on for much, much less. Is he even half as important or valuable to us now as he was when we bought him? I think that would be generous. So why wouldn't we be paying him accordingly? There's so much focus on what Bats's incentive to sign a lesser contract would be and no discussion about what the club's motivation to throw money away is. What are we saying it is? Stupidity?

Yeah sorry I know I did, I didn’t mean it to sound that way. Apologies - what I meant was no one would *normally* re-sign for less eg a long term deal, but a reduction on a one year extension just to make sure the club got some money is definitely possible. 
 

I don’t think he re-signed for “much much” less. Tbh I couldn’t care less really 🤣🧨

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now