• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

1. So what the hell is the issue. Torres was an expensive way of getting an average player. Piazon was an expensive way of getting no player at all.

2. No one is questioning whether Torres has value

Oh yes you did.

2. You seem hung up on the price we paid for Torres. If it is personal there is little point in arguing. If you are saying that you knew Torres was going to disappoint but Piazon did have potential......

3. I think you are confusing risk with the size of the bet.

And even then, 30 semi-Piazons is 2 players like Torres (or rather 6 disappearing Mutus & Verons)

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
life   

Its looking like the opportunity cost of getting youngsters like paizon has been calculated, but the opportunity cost of torres has not been calculated, just 50 mill and wages. Torres has cost us getting or keeping better strikers (e.g. aguero,sturridge), the fact that we have spent big money to build 2 attacks around him and his lack of quality infront of goal has cost us on the pitch, hence cost us commercially and revenue wise , add 10 just goals to his tallies and our season looks different. So when we compare him to younsgters we are building to try and reach a certain stage where the contribute to us what we want, and if they don't we sell at a profit, we should take those torres costs into play, we are after all getting very technical here right?
I would side with droy in a normal circumstances if we had a top player like Drogba, then his theory makes perfect sense, why waste tons of money of a number of paizons, when we can buy aguero with that money and pay his wages and in a sense could have been cheaper, + I hate the system we have our youth in, we are not a club where they can realistically make it, but with torres? The cost is far too great imo...torres has not been a good deal in anyway.

I want the talented youngsters to develop somewhere else, so we can just take them when we need then

Edited by life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So what the hell is the issue. Torres was an expensive way of getting an average player. Piazon was an expensive way of getting no player at all.

2. No one is questioning whether Torres has value

Oh yes you did.

2. You seem hung up on the price we paid for Torres. If it is personal there is little point in arguing. If you are saying that you knew Torres was going to disappoint but Piazon did have potential......

3. I think you are confusing risk with the size of the bet.

And even then, 30 semi-Piazons is 2 players like Torres (or rather 6 disappearing Mutus & Verons)

1. Well, we seem to be drifting further and further away, but the original point was how you seem to equate value with playing matches for Chelsea.

2. I don't think I did. I don't value him highly, but that's not quite the same.

I was just going on using Torres as an example for a player whose cost are very high in relation to his contributions. Works perfectly well with a number of other players, although for past players, numbers are harder to find.

For what it's worth, I didn't think Torres was a good piece of business, when we bought him, but that was purely for financial reasons. I never expected him to do so badly.

3. I don't think I am. While you're looking at the Piazons as mostly lost money, it's not a case of "make-or-break" with them. Most of them will be sold on for a minor loss. Some for a relatively big one. And some will even make a ( maybe not so) small profit. On average, you're probably regaining a good part of what was invested.

And then, I expect, there might be a Courtois (and maybe a Lukaku), who will make it.

That's why they're (as a group) low risk. While a single investment of the same magnitude in one player will always be a higher risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Well, we seem to be drifting further and further away, but the original point was how you seem to equate value with playing matches for Chelsea.

Surely the point is how do you equate value by anything else than playing for Chelsea first team (or selling revenue).

I'm trying hard not to get too sarcastic here.

3. You are being far too positive about the proportion of costs covered. Probably because you are ignoring wages from age 17 - 21 and are unaware of how many players we have bought for £1m+ who have never appeared on first team bench.And perhaps because you think that if we loan a player to a championship club his wages could be covered.

As for low risk - you are trying to tell me that pumping £50m pound coins into a one arm bandit at las Vegas safe because no coin hurths, but putting £50m on Red or black at the casino is dangerous because you might have to stop gambling.

This is bringing out the worst in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the point is how do you equate value by anything else than playing for Chelsea first team (or selling revenue).

I'm trying hard not to get too sarcastic here.

3. You are being far too positive about the proportion of costs covered. Probably because you are ignoring wages from age 17 - 21 and are unaware of how many players we have bought for £1m+ who have never appeared on first team bench.And perhaps because you think that if we loan a player to a championship club his wages could be covered.

As for low risk - you are trying to tell me that pumping £50m pound coins into a one arm bandit at las Vegas safe because no coin hurths, but putting £50m on Red or black at the casino is dangerous because you might have to stop gambling.

This is bringing out the worst in me.

1. You don't buy players for the amount of time they have spent on the pitch, but for the time they will. And for their ability to reproduce (or improve on) their past performances.

Which is why a young player with potential is valued higher than his actual ability would suggest, and older players aren't the most expensive thing in sports.

A player can have great value without ever stepping on the pitch for the first team (see Courtois for example). Playing well adds value. Even on loan.

3. That's hardly the right simile. But let me try to bend it right.

I'd be feeding that one-armed bandit all night long, winning small amounts every now and then. With a small chance of getting lucky. In the end, I leave with most of my 50m. Because I do that, I can come back again, and again and again. Because I get 20m a year. And I can play until I win.

You go and bet all your money. It works out. You do it again, only this time it doesn't. Now you have to wait a year or two, until you have another 50m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really trying hard here.

Courtois - which is where I came in. A player with 40 starts with Genk, an established pro - whether he was 19 or 22. We paid top dollar - made him the 9th most expensive keeper ever. High price, low risk - just the kind of purchase likely to make a return.

What is the manager going to do while you are feeding the one armed bandit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GURJ SS   

So really the best way to make a profit on players is buy the best talent in goalkeepers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courtois - which is where I came in. A player with 40 starts with Genk, an established pro - whether he was 19 or 22. We paid top dollar - made him the 9th most expensive keeper ever. High price, low risk - just the kind of purchase likely to make a return.

What is the manager going to do while you are feeding the one armed bandit?

Matej Delac had around the same number of senior starts. He didn't work out. Wallace had a season under his wings, and hasn't made a peep since he came.

Past negative examples: Rajkovic, Di Santo, Nuno Morais, off the top of my head.

Whatever he feels like and thinks is the best way forward. My playing the one-armed bandit is the part of our budget that we didn't have any use for and has accumulated over time. And if need be, I can always cash in (or cut my losses) and throw my money in with his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matej Delac had around the same number of senior starts. He didn't work out. Wallace had a season under his wings, and hasn't made a peep since he came.

Past negative examples: Rajkovic, Di Santo, Nuno Morais, off the top of my head.

Delac & Wallace I think you are wrong. they signed with Chelsea before they'd made many appearances to the club they stayed on loan with.

Rajkovic - ditto.

Di Santo I have often argued as FA's single success - a player who at least made a PL career for himself. And he even made the Chelsea team just about.

Morais was signed in the pre-FA period when we were smarter. As were the likes of Diarra and Mikel.

As I understand it (my only source is Wikipedia), Delac signed with Chelsea in 2009 and most of his Inter Depresic appearances were after that. And Wallace signed 18 months before he left Fluminese. So neither had had many appearances before they were signed.

I think most of the young Chelsea Wiki articles are written by Juni and often replicate what he has written on TheChels site.

You are firing a lot of blanks here - I'm not sure if this is not just a wind up.

Whatever he feels like and thinks is the best way forward. My playing the one-armed bandit is the part of our budget that we didn't have any use for and has accumulated over time. And if need be, I can always cash in (or cut my losses) and throw my money in with his.

I think most people would advise you to stop playing the one legged bandits as soon as you can.

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