• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

Scooba   

Hazard won't leave. No way. Not a chance. End of.

The repetition of your posts annoy me and puts me off coming on this forum. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating what you've said a few posts back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so too. But crazier things have happened, surely.

Like who or what?

Robben was not a good decision, but surely there was some logic to it.

There was a lot of logic to Mata going (and a big price).

JM's going was odd, but not too surprising.

I can't think of anything crazier than Hazard going. At least not since the Mears backed Sexton over Hudson and Osgood and then sacking Sexton - in other words taking both sides of the argument and getting both wrong. But that was almost 40 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pretty surprised by Jose going at the time, tbf.

There'd been plenty of stories and rumours, many of which seemed legit, but I still couldn't get my head round sacking him. Never really believed it would happen until it already had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't agree. No one has ever clarified their own meaning. We are told that say, Wenger thought the loan fee for XXX was too high, but we are never told if that meant his share of the wages were too high or that a premium above the wages was too much.

What you are suggesting is that every mention of a loan fee means there was a premium. I disagree, and I suspect even the words "loan fee" are just hacks wanting to sound cool. They are told off the record that XXX was too expensive and write loan fee.

Well, as I say, my own feeling on hearing some of these comments has been that the two words are differentiated but you are right of course; we can't know that.

Fair enough. But tell me, as a huge fan of De Bruyne's potential, do you think Wolfsburg paid £18m for him?

As you know, I watched a lot of KDB during his season at Bremen and, as you may remember, I've posted a number of times to state my disagreement with the generally rave reviews he received for his performances there. He had good games of course, even some great ones, but I felt there were just as many bad games as good ones. Maybe even more. There were times when I felt certain he would be dropped. I often attributed the fact that he never was to Bremen wanting to avoid clauses in the loan agreement under which Chelsea charge a higher loan fee if the player is not used.

The upshot is that, based on my own assessment, I'd have been surprised at so high a fee. I do believe it however because Jose said it, repeated it and emphasised it vehemently. I'm certain that it's true.

This is interesting, Thanks. But still the main cost in taking on U18s is their wages as an 88, 19, 20 & 21 year old, before they start contributing.

Yes, this must be true.

That some of the cost can be offset is meaningless (some of the cost of buying a new car and insuring it and servicing it and garaging it can be off set in the second hand market). That half or more could be set off is a dream (except for those operating on a completely smaller scale).

No can't see that argument. If I decide to buy a lottery ticket for a couple of quid, am I going to be less likely to follow through with that plan if someone tells me that I can get 10p back on the ticket if it doesn't win? If I'm happy to accept that I'm probably throwing £2 away then the thought that it'll actually turn out to cost only £1.90, will just encourage me.

Tell that to the manager. And it is a weird argument. Torres is not worth his wages or his purchase fee, but he gets picked ahead of Ba regularly so he is presumably worth at least as much as Ba's fee and Ba's wages...

My point exactly. We aim to win every competition we enter and yet the these two players are getting regular games for us. As I said, we have to pick someone so, if all our options for a given position are substandard then some substandard players are inevitably going to get games. If I don't believe you can judge the quality of a striker by counting his goals, and I don't, then I'm not going to be sold on the idea that you can judge him by counting his appearances. These two players are examples of our inability to buy well, not the opposite.

... while Ba in turn at least occupies the bench as a capable replacement if needed. SWP the same. Piazon has done no of these things and looks very unlikely to do so.

I agree, Piazon does not look to me to be of the required standard but I do rate him as a better player than SWP. We bought badly we signed Shaun, as he has gone on to prove. The fact he got some games here is just happenstance. He is another example in support of the view that our buying has been less good than it ought to be.

He is the unused Ford Escort in the garage while I use my overpriced jag to drive to work. One might be a cheap car, one might be expensive, but only the jag provides anything to me.*

If you're going to drive then I suppose you'll drive the best car you've got but some of our transfers have been so poor that there have been times we'd bitten your hand off for a Skoda standard alternative!. :)

This is seriously wrong. Our track record in buying established players with 40+ first team starts behind them is excellent.

Hazard, mata, Oscar, Ramires, Cahill, the list is endless.

I could trade lists of course but I won't because I know that no one here needs any help from me to run off the names of players we simply should never have signed. I must say though that despite his being my favourite player, I'd say Rami belongs on the other list.

Look at loan players - the ones with established value - Lukaku, Courtois, Moses (de Bruyne), all had 40+ games behind them.

I think only Marin has been a failure.

Where we get it wrong is paying serious money for players who have not performed at first team level.

Well KDB has disappointed my hopes but when he is good he is such a beautiful footballer that we have been able to sell that hope to another club for a profit. I believe, although you don't, that we will recover our money on Thibaut but Victor & Marko? Throw in the fact that, if I recall correctly, you also do not see us breaking even on Romelu and we have taken what you say is a 50/50 chance and produced less than a 50% return. And you still say my claim is clearly wrong? :)

Edited by Bridgejunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like who or what?

Robben was not a good decision, but surely there was some logic to it.

There was a lot of logic to Mata going (and a big price).

JM's going was odd, but not too surprising.

I can't think of anything crazier than Hazard going. At least not since the Mears backed Sexton over Hudson and Osgood and then sacking Sexton - in other words taking both sides of the argument and getting both wrong. But that was almost 40 years ago.

Everything shows logical in hindsight. Certainly Hazard won't leave in this summer but I am not so confident about his commitment with the club. PeteRobo has some good points regarding this matter if I remember correctly. Ironically, it's the opposite of Mata's case, as the player is rumored to be unhappy with the manager's style.

I guess it will entirely depend on the team's performance next season. If Jose can solve the attacking issue, then surely we all can sleep well with Hazard's new contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The repetition of your posts annoy me and puts me off coming on this forum. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating what you've said a few posts back?

Sorry you feel that way. I am just replying to someone who said he would leave. That's allowed surely. Edited by James Prescott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I'd remembered you being much more positive on de Bruyne than that - my mistake. I think there possible ways that it might have happened that we did get £18m AND it does not represent a market value for the player.

On players - I still think players are a part of the production process of the football team, they are not works of art.

Their may contribute well or badly, but if picked they perform a role. If not in the squad their playing contribution is zero.

Aesthetically Piazon may be worth more than SWP. But for the production foreman (manager) he aint worth a cent.

If you follow a production accounting approach to football, you have to divide the value added to the club by the cost to get any proper concept of "expensive or cheap".

The only way to get your way of thinking into any accounting system is to give negative production values to player you don't like. I'm not having that - if a manager picks a player he adds value - full stop.

On Thibaut, Victor and Marin - the right way to slice the Academy/youth/buy and loan thing is IMO players with proper first team experience and those with little or none.

I'd arbitrarily say 30 to 40 first team starts setting the dividing line.

On that basis Kakuta, Piazon, Kalas, Omeruo when bought, Bertrand Traore, Bamford, Romeu all are amongst the experimental high risks signings.

But Oscar, Courtois, Hazard, Moses, De Bruyne, Lukaku, Courtois, Marin, Van Ginkel, Zouma have all been given a proper testing beforehand and represent much lower risk signings.

Atsu being borderline.

It seems to me pretty clear that the guys scouting at proper matches have done a great job. Those scouting at youth level haven't.

In other words, claiming that Courtois (41 pre-Chelsea appearances) , Lukaku(73) and De Bruyne(84) justifies out buy and loan system is missing the point. It justifies our senior player scouting. Our scouting of inexperienced players is the problem.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GURJ SS   

Not to get too deep into the Loanee debate or anything.

But from what I have seen from Piazon this season is a very composed quality player, who is able to find space and make a goal happen for himself, not only that but his final ball is excellent too.

I have not seen loads of him, but enough to see that he is a talent that the club would be folly to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting, Thanks. But still the main cost in taking on U18s is their wages as an 88, 19, 20 & 21 year old, before they start contributing.

Roy Bentley's was 24 when he joined Chelsea, his latest appearance was as a guest of the club, he is no longer on the wage book, 150 goals in 367 appearances was pretty good :)

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