• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

It is a business?

A proper business?

Most of these players are costing us £15 to 20K a week 12 months a year, and being loaned to lower league clubs with tight budgets (proper businesses).

If they are good (Bamford) they'll get taken back in 6 months and pushed up to a higher league.

If they are OK they'll become available 2 years later as 23 year olds on £5-10k a week.

And yet some here reckon there is a business to be had in loaning inexperienced 19 year olds to clubs for 3, 4 or 9 months a year to clubs where the club captain is on less than they are.

Way to get hung up on something that was basically a figure of speech.

I don't care if it's profitable. Maybe it's not making major money. Quite possibly minor losses, even. It's definitely a way of loading up on assets before FFP hits.

And I don't think there's another way of developing young players under present conditions, while staying competitive. If FFP doesn't crumble under the weight of PSG and City, it'll be important. Unless we're looking to spend waaaay more than we are allowed under FFP, we NEED this scheme, because our future squad will be based, to no small part, on these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jones   

It is a business?

A proper business?

Most of these players are costing us £15 to 20K a week 12 months a year, and being loaned to lower league clubs with tight budgets (proper businesses).

If they are good (Bamford) they'll get taken back in 6 months and pushed up to a higher league.

If they are OK they'll become available 2 years later as 23 year olds on £5-10k a week.

And yet some here reckon there is a business to be had in loaning inexperienced 19 year olds to clubs for 3, 4 or 9 months a year to clubs where the club captain is on less than they are.

Well, what's the alternative? If we want another John Terry, it is going to cost. And even though this set up sees some significant investments yielding close to zero returns, at least it accommodates for a few huge returns (De Bruyne). Thorgan is already worth 10mp, Bertrand 5mp-ish, Atsu probably 7-8mp etc, so there are certain players we buy (relatively expensive) that still increase significantly in value. Whether or not this business model is fianncially sustainable or not remains to be seen, simply because the scope is long-term. At least, we have the financial muscles to operate in this way, and I would rather we aimed big than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if it's profitable. Maybe it's not making major money. Quite possibly minor losses, even. It's definitely a way of loading up on assets before FFP hits.

Major Losses. FFP hit some time ago, and we are committed to paying wages to the end of their contracts. It is killing us under FFP.

And I don't think there's another way of developing young players under present conditions, while staying competitive. If FFP doesn't crumble under the weight of PSG and City, it'll be important. Unless we're looking to spend waaaay more than we are allowed under FFP, we NEED this scheme, because our future squad will be based, to no small part, on these guys.

Just stop digging - you and Chelsea.

That way the club will be competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what's the alternative? If we want another John Terry, it is going to cost.

Ivanovic, Cahill.

Buy players, not lottery tickets - it works out a hell of a lot cheaper.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jones   

Ivanovic, Cahill.

Buy players, not lottery tickets - it works out a hell of a lot cheaper.

Are you joking? You know that for every Cahill and Ivanovic, there is a del Horno, Boulahrouz, Glen Johnson, Bosingwa and SWP. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^All of them playing games and being paid out of the first team budget (which is there for players playing for Chelsea) not out of some slush fund to be thrown away on players who never contribute the CFC fist team.

Del Horno was a lot cheaper than Kakuta . Boulah was a lot cheaper than Slobodan Rajkovic. Glen Johnson was a bargain who won 2 PL titles with us and cost less than some who have started no more than 2 or 3 games for us. . SWP cost Chelsea in transfers and wages about twice that of Piazon. But then SWP made 60 starts for the team that brings in revenue. Piazon has made 2 in the LC.

Once you start looking at costs per appearance you'll soon learn that Sheva and Torres were absolute bargains compared to the Academy program.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose might play a 4-3-3 next year, or a flexible 4-2-3-1 - they are interchangable, you can play both without actually changing personnel on the pitch. I think, ideally, that's how Jose would prefer it. And both systems work.

Remember, Jose has said this year he stopped the attacking progression of the team in order to secure us in the top 4. He didn't have the personnel to complete our evolution attacking wise and the only way to secure top 3, compete for titles and do well in the CL with our squad and inexprience was to play the way we did, based on solid defence.

Next year will be different.

Its easy to forget how attacking we were playing before Christmas with Oscar, Hazard and Willian pressing extremely high. Games such as the 4-3 Sunderland, 3-1 Nowrich, 0-1 Everton, 3-2 Stoke are examples of games we played some great football but were caught out because we didn't take our chances. I believe the Sunderland LC game was the turning point when Jose decided that we didn't have the fire power to play so attacking as we were not chance efficient. Next season I believe the plan is to mix that early season attacking football with a more clinical team improved by a new LB, CM and a striker. The general plan is to get 2/3 goals up and then kill them game. In terms of squad rotation this season we have struggled to give players like KDB, Kalas, Schurrle (mid-season) a regular go because so often we would be hanging on to a 1-0 lead and rarely have we ever had a game won after 60 minutes. We have certainly made lots of subs this season but there is the standard striker change at 60 every game, one change in the AM position and Mikel on at 80 minutes. There are many positives to take from this season and as James says, Jose quite clearly stated mid-season he was sacrificing attacking football to ensure top 4. Next season there are no excuses and I personally expect to see something like the old Jose telling the press that we are the finished article and can sweep aside anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear...

I think you're the one who is always on about the academy making massive losses. I think the situation for loans is quite different (and must be, for several Portugese and Italian sides make their living on it)...

http://www.transfermarkt.de/en/fc-chelsea/verliehen/verein_631.html

According to this website, our loanees have a market value in excess of 150m Euros. And all figures could potentially rise (and probably will).
Add to this the fact that the more accomplished players will have their wages paid by the loaning club, PLUS a loan fee (think Moses, Marin, Lukaku, Romeu, Courtois), which should cover the partial wages for most of the rest.

Would warrant a guess that we might actually see some profit from the loan scheme in the next few seasons.

FFP hit some time ago, and we are committed to paying wages to the end of their contracts. It is killing us under FFP.

No it didn't, this is the first summer it is in effect. The monitoring period goes back 3 seasons, but we've been stockpiling since then.



That said, your opinion can be put down by simple common sense. If the academy (which gets bankrolled by RA and doesn't affect FFP, anyway) and the loanees were so bad for Chelsea, would they be doing it? Or do you think, just maybe, you might've gotten something wrong.
I can understand having your point of view, but not being so adamant about it. No real info supporting your opinion (or mine, for that matter, but then I'm a lot more careful about it)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

How you make statements below as fact is beyond me.

Del Horno was a lot cheaper than Kakuta .

Del Horno cost £8m.....Kakuta cost next to nothing relatively.

SWP cost Chelsea in transfers and wages about twice that of Piazon.

Really? Explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Nobody actually can find a definition of what a loan fee is,l so be careful making assumptions about it. It is not clear even when a loan fee is claimed, that the fee is additional to the player wages.

Lukaku and Courtois aside, I doubt that we cover our wage costs on any of our players. Certainly not Marin or Moses or Romeu - who are only on loan because they were flops.

Meanwhile Lukaku and Courtois have run down 3 years each of their contracts with barely an appearance for Chelsea between them. One appears in the top ten most expensive teenagers in football, the other in the top 10 keepers. Selling them on for a profit will not be as easy as you think.

2. De Bruyne is said to have gone for£18m to Wolfsburg. The same club that sold Mandzukic for EUR13m 18 months earlier. believe that and you'll believe any numbers.

3. .transfermarkt.de do do a heroic job in trying to value players. It is heroic bull all the same. Bertrand Traore worth EUR 0.5m, Romeu worth EUR 7m. ????

It is nonsense. Moses is worth double what we paid for him - after the massive pay rise he'd have got, and after his form has collapsed?

4. FFP has been counting finances from 2010. The exemption for Academy spending is unclear - but certainly does no include wages for players 18+, (which is the major expense) or transfer fees for players 18+. Whether it excludes agents fees, signing on fees or transfer fees for U18s is debatable.

In other word the loading up on assets theory is bollocks.

How you make statements below as fact is beyond me.

Del Horno cost £8m.....Kakuta cost next to nothing relatively.

Really? Explain.

Del Horno was sold for EUR 8m and stayed just one year. So he cost £1m in fees and £2 or 3m in wages.

kakuta has been costing us around £1m a year for some time now.

SWP vs Piazon - you do the maths yourself (and research how much Piazon cost - it is quite an eye-opener).

This is just cost to the club, never mind the contribution to the first team effort.

Edited by Droy was my hero

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