• Current Donation Goals

exiledblue

Official: Callum Hudson-Odoi Signs New 5-Year Contract

Recommended Posts

paulw66   
1 minute ago, LeBoeufsGolfBall said:

You are forgetting he did hand in a transfer request. CHO playing didn't affect the boards decision to sell, but it may have influenced CHO decision to really push that transfer through.

He handed the transfer request in for a reason. He is not a guaranteed starter now( regardless of recovering from injury), but he seemed more than happy to sign his new 5 year deal now.

so you think two starts against Forrest and Sheff Wednesday made him change his mind? 

9 months later he signs a new contract....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
1 minute ago, LeBoeufsGolfBall said:

But you did start by saying he played more in Jan due to number of games. Once it was clear we played more in December, it then switched to who the opposition was and what type of games we had in Jan.

It's a combination........the senior players had a busy December, and potentially busy January. 2 cup games at home to easy opponents = sensible time to give a young player a run out  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Droy was my hero said:

I only ask for direct quotes when someone asserts someone said something. Perhaps you can quote me a counter example  :)

But once again you have challenged me on a point (how clubs go about signing and sacking managers) without taking the opposite view.
Do you think they sack first then appoint a head hunter?

Yes, we can say he did a great job.  He more than deserves that.  4 great seasons with Napoli and Chelsea and head hunted by Juve.

So you think the club wanted Frank in 2019 rather than give him till 2020 to learn his trade.

So much of this is similar to the Trump impeachment (or the meaning of the word "is").  Total denial.  Demand a people's vote on it.

 

 

Depends how you look at things though. Trophies are not the be all and end all, but if you want to flag 4 great seasons with Napoli and Chelsea, then it can surely be countered with one trophy in what is arguably the weakest competition to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeBoeufsGolfBall said:

Depends how you look at things though. Trophies are not the be all and end all, but if you want to flag 4 great seasons with Napoli and Chelsea, then it can surely be countered with one trophy in what is arguably the weakest competition to win.

A plausible reason to have never have hired him.  A pointless reason to fire him after his first trophy with a team that could not hope for more than LC or EL or 4th.

Share this post


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

so you think two starts against Forrest and Sheff Wednesday made him change his mind? 

9 months later he signs a new contract....... 

Even discounting the Forest /Wednesday games, he was still more involved in January more than at any other point during the season.

I believe who those games are against are totally irrelevant. To me, it looked like the club were clearly doing what they could to show CHO how important he was in Jan, during the time that Bayern were all over him. The aim was to clearly get him to commit and sign a new contract, it never happened at the time and I accept these things can take a while.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
Just now, LeBoeufsGolfBall said:

Even discounting the Forest /Wednesday games, he was still more involved in January more than at any other point during the season.

I believe who those games are against are totally irrelevant. To me, it looked like the club were clearly doing what they could to show CHO how important he was in Jan, during the time that Bayern were all over him. The aim was to clearly get him to commit and sign a new contract, it never happened at the time and I accept these things can take a while.

 

In January, CHO was under contract for another 18 months. Him playing those extra games in January had no impact on whether Chelsea accepted or rejected any bids. 

The fact he then didn't sign for another 9 months suggest those extra January games made no difference. Lampard being in charge, Hazard sold.......that is what made the difference. 

Share this post


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

In January, CHO was under contract for another 18 months. Him playing those extra games in January had no impact on whether Chelsea accepted or rejected any bids. 

The fact he then didn't sign for another 9 months suggest those extra January games made no difference. Lampard being in charge, Hazard sold.......that is what made the difference. 

I agree it made no difference whatsoever. I think where we mostly disagree is the intentions behind why he was so involved in January and that it might be ever so slightly plausible that someone had a quiet word with Sarri about increasing his involvement at that time.

I bring you back to the quote - 'For Hudson Odoi to be playing at Chelsea at 17/18 means he has to be one of the best players in the world'

Sarri said that and he barely figured, as you would expect based on his words. Well something then seemed to change from January onwards, because he was far more involved at a time a European giant were clearly sniffing around him.

 

 

Share this post


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

1) Of course it can't be proven - that doesn't make it right! 

What we do know is that in the 16 years of Roman being in charge NO manager past or present has ever complained, indi cated, or implied that Roman or the board have interferred with team selection. All of a sudden, they do now?

Also, the window being open is irrelevant either way, as the board were in control of rejecting / accepting any bids. CHO didn't need to be playing in order for the board to reject Bayern's offer. 

2) do you think Bayern backed off because CHO started 2 games against championship teams?

1) Also doesn't make it wrong.

2) No.  I think that playing him was a bid to encourage him to want to stay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LeBoeufsGolfBall said:

I believe who those games are against are totally irrelevant.

Just 18 and the manager is supposed to ignore the opposition (and the exhaustion of other players) when choosing to pick him?

There is a myth that says that CHO last season was so amazingly good that only a blind man would not have picked him.  He really wasn't.  It is quite unfair to him to suggest he was.  He was not Mount in 2019 or Robben in 2004 or Mbappe.  He was a very promising 18 year old, and still is.

2 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

The fact he then didn't sign for another 9 months suggest those extra January games made no difference. Lampard being in charge, Hazard sold.......that is what made the difference. 

More dreaming - this time about Lampard.  He'd have signed before end of season had he not been injured (and there have been many hints to this in the past).  Most of that delay would have been to do with the insurance package.  No company would have written insurance until tests proved he was ready to play.

The real question is whether BM ever had a serious interest in him.  Some people think that a casual response to a leading question ("are you interested in young players like CHO?" - "yes we are" - Ham this is why I demand the quotes not just the claims) is proof of a big bid and a big willingness to pay a lot for him.
A more realistic view is that saying anything is evidence of no particular interest, and that all the rumours of bids came from the HO family which was negotiating the next contract.

He was always going to sign, played or not played, Lampard, Sarri or whoever.

2 minutes ago, LeBoeufsGolfBall said:

I bring you back to the quote - 'For Hudson Odoi to be playing at Chelsea at 17/18 means he has to be one of the best players in the world'

Sarri said that and he barely figured, as you would expect based on his words. Well something then seemed to change from January onwards, because he was far more involved at a time a European giant were clearly sniffing around him.

Kylian Mbappe at 18 no doubt would have been a regular.  He was/is one of the best players in the world. CHO wasn't and still isn't.

Sarri's words are perfectly logical.  

Vinicius Junior - 4or 5 months older.  Bought for EUR 46mn from Flamenco on his 18th birthday with already plenty of experience in Brazil.  He is also one of the best players in the world.  RM stuck him in RM B team.  Only after the B team manager got promoted to run the main team did Vinicius start appearing for RM proper.

Lets not kid ourselves that CHO is already in the class of Mbappe or Vinicius just because we can't get over Sarri being a success.

(It's the old Sarri is crap => all his decisions are crap => anything he did was wrong => proof that Sarri is crap).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
Just now, Ham said:

1) Also doesn't make it wrong.

2) No.  I think that playing him was a bid to encourage him to want to stay.

1.  Make something up that is impossible to disprove and so claim it is true. Strange logic. 

2.  If the board were forcing Sarri's hand, why didn't Sarri start him regularly until he signed the new contract? The transfer window is irrelevant. 

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