Other clubs' transfers

[r0cafella]

35 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said:

So Osimhen didn’t end up at Chelsea or Saudi and now Napoli have left him out of their Serie A squad. Madness.

The conte effect

 

 

[nemtizz]

40 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said:

So Osimhen didn’t end up at Chelsea or Saudi and now Napoli have left him out of their Serie A squad. Madness.

 

Hasn't played for them since March

[duo]

So Chalobah to Palace got over the line

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9d145799gvo

 

Surely if we tried we could have got him - madness if we didn't.

[BermyToon]

4 hours ago, duo said:

So Chalobah to Palace got over the line

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9d145799gvo

 

Surely if we tried we could have got him - madness if we didn't.

 

I guess Chelsea may see us as competition for European spots next season, so didn't want to strengthen us?

[gbandit]

6 hours ago, Jaqen said:

Osimehn excluded from Napoli's squad for the season 

Is that to force through a sale to Saudi?

[High Five o]

5 hours ago, duo said:

So Chalobah to Palace got over the line

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9d145799gvo

 

Surely if we tried we could have got him - madness if we didn't.

How is it madness? we obviously do not rate him. 
 

 

[Nine]

Not sure if mentioned here, but Jackson has signed a contract extension with Chelsea that will run until 2033. Yes, 2033.

[Nobody]

So what are the noticeable omissions from the Chelsea squad list then? Got to be a fair few there, right? 

[Erikse]

On 31/08/2024 at 13:04, GeordieDazzler said:

So Osimhen didn’t end up at Chelsea or Saudi and now Napoli have left him out of their Serie A squad. Madness.

 

They rejected 140m euros for him last summer. Insane.

[geordie_b]

15 minutes ago, Nine said:

Not sure if mentioned here, but Jackson has signed a contract extension with Chelsea that will run until 2033. Yes, 2033.

 

Chelsea players under contract until 2033: Jackson, Palmer, Estevao Willian, Kendry Paez

 

Until 2032: Enzo Fernandez, Mike Penders

 

Until 2031: Mykhailo Mudryk, Pedro Neto, Filip Jorgensen, Moises Caicedo (+ one-year option), Renato Veiga (+1), Joao Felix

 

Until 2030: Robert Sanchez, Benoit Badiashile, Noni Madueke (+1), Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall (+1), Malo Gusto, Deivid Washington (+1), Omari Kellyman (+1), Romeo Lavia

[Ben]

6 hours ago, geordie_b said:

 

Chelsea players under contract until 2033: Jackson, Palmer, Estevao Willian, Kendry Paez

 

Until 2032: Enzo Fernandez, Mike Penders

 

Until 2031: Mykhailo Mudryk, Pedro Neto, Filip Jorgensen, Moises Caicedo (+ one-year option), Renato Veiga (+1), Joao Felix

 

Until 2030: Robert Sanchez, Benoit Badiashile, Noni Madueke (+1), Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall (+1), Malo Gusto, Deivid Washington (+1), Omari Kellyman (+1), Romeo Lavia

 

Does American sports give their players long contracts ? If so are they binding like in the UK ? 

[GeordieDazzler]

They are trying to protect their value I suppose. Most of them aren’t on mental wages or at least on performance related salaries. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, GeordieDazzler said:

They are trying to protect their value I suppose. Most of them aren’t on mental wages or at least on performance related salaries. 

Absolutely, it’s a high risk approach of course but it could pay off handsomely for them. The Bosman rule essential doesn’t apply to them. 

[Ben]

13 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Absolutely, it’s a high risk approach of course but it could pay off handsomely for them. The Bosman rule essential doesn’t apply to them. 

Not for Mudryk surely, they can only lose money on him.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Ben said:

Not for Mudryk surely, they can only lose money on him.

So here’s sure it gets interesting, will they? 
 

Will they sell him for what they paid? Of course they won’t he’s shit. 
 

Will they find some mug to pay off the remaining amortisation in a couple of years? Maybe, just maybe. 

[Nucasol]

10 minutes ago, Ben said:

Not for Mudryk surely, they can only lose money on him.

Mudryk was £80m over 8 years, so not seeing anyone bailing out his amortisation value until year 5 onwards. He’s a complete dud.

[Dr.Spaceman]

7 hours ago, geordie_b said:

 

Chelsea players under contract until 2033: Jackson, Palmer, Estevao Willian, Kendry Paez

 

Until 2032: Enzo Fernandez, Mike Penders

 

Until 2031: Mykhailo Mudryk, Pedro Neto, Filip Jorgensen, Moises Caicedo (+ one-year option), Renato Veiga (+1), Joao Felix

 

Until 2030: Robert Sanchez, Benoit Badiashile, Noni Madueke (+1), Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall (+1), Malo Gusto, Deivid Washington (+1), Omari Kellyman (+1), Romeo Lavia

 

I wonder how long they're going to be stuck with Jadon Sancho for. Insane that they looked at his time at Man Utd and were encouraged to sign him. I know he had a decent stint with Dortmund but you can't ignore his failure at Man Utd. He seems so fragile mentally too, just what they need when they've got one of the coldest managers the PL has ever seen 

[kingxlnc]

Chelsea have got previous for buying Man U flops based on their past reputation, Veron being one and Falcao being another 

[Checko]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

 

Does American sports give their players long contracts ? If so are they binding like in the UK ? 

You get them in baseball - there was a 14 year contract extension a few years ago. Core baseball salaries are guaranteed as well. It's the only major US sport without a salary cap, which probably influences that as well as they won't have to be squeezing within a salary limit every year.

 

Probably less chance of injuries compared to football and top players can usually play a lot longer as well, late 30s early 40s is pretty common.

 

Patrick Mahomes (arguably best NFL quarterback) signed a 10 year deal a few years ago, though again, QBs tend to play for a long time. Actually, seems a few QBs have signed 10 year deals: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/patrick-mahomes-becomes-sixth-nfl-star-ever-to-get-deal-of-10-years-or-more-heres-how-the-others/

 

Also, in most American sports AFAIK, [assuming a player doesn't have a no trade clause] a team can trade a player to another team & the player has to go & the new team takes over the exisiting contract, they don't sign a new deal. So you don't have that issue of a player not wanting to give up their cushty long-term deal.

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[Tiresias]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Absolutely, it’s a high risk approach of course but it could pay off handsomely for them. The Bosman rule essential doesn’t apply to them. 

 

But what i don't get if what value does a player who say hasn't played in first team for 2 years hold? Who is going to bid large amounts when football transfers are always based on who was good in last 6 months. Not saying that is reasonable but also reasonable not to value a player who hasn't played in ages. 

 

To try and keep value they will have to keep rotating and playing the players managers don't want, but even then if the team isn't good that again hurts the value. I just think they reckon that if 1 in 5 of theirs players can be sold for huge profit it becomes worth while but i just doubt it

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, Bunk Moreland said:

 

 

Seems an absolutely no-chance situation there. Low fee and player they don't want to sell. Makes no sense. 

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

 

But what i don't get if what value does a player who say hasn't played in first team for 2 years hold? Who is going to bid large amounts when football transfers are always based on who was good in last 6 months. Not saying that is reasonable but also reasonable not to value a player who hasn't played in ages. 

 

To try and keep value they will have to keep rotating and playing the players managers don't want, but even then if the team isn't good that again hurts the value. I just think they reckon that if 1 in 5 of theirs players can be sold for huge profit it becomes worth while but i just doubt it

They’ve amortised the fee by 40% at least at that stage and that’s based upon them signing someone and sending them straight to the shadow realm. 
 

They don’t need to keep value; they just need to make sure they don’t take a loss of 20% annual to break even on the fees. 
 

and two important things to remember. 
 

1, they have the best academy in the country, as long as they can sell players for pure profit they are good. 
 

2, they already have strong revenues this helps a lot. 
 

Bonus point, we are unlikely to see them spend a billion in 2 years again 

[Froggy]

Heard Casemiro can play on the wing. 

[Tiresias]

10 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

They’ve amortised the fee by 40% at least at that stage and that’s based upon them signing someone and sending them straight to the shadow realm. 
 

They don’t need to keep value; they just need to make sure they don’t take a loss of 20% annual to break even on the fees. 
 

and two important things to remember. 
 

1, they have the best academy in the country, as long as they can sell players for pure profit they are good. 
 

2, they already have strong revenues this helps a lot. 
 

Bonus point, we are unlikely to see them spend a billion in 2 years again 

 

Ok i get that to some degree, and the low wages I guess does reduce the risk of people just sitting taking a wage and refusing transfers but I still think there will be fair bit of that. I think a) it will have negative impact on the pitch which we have already seen, maybe once the spending settles down it will improve a lot especially if they stick with a manager, but I kinda think if a club is a basketcase they don't fix themselves overnight. b) you're right the academy is probably the get out of jail free card but I also think the incentivising of selling home grown players is the most obviously outrageous aspects of the FFP regulations which I can see being changed relatively soon(albeit clubs wont vote for that without something else to make things easier to comply coming in, but a lot are pissed at chelsea so think there will be support). If that changes will screw them over a lot. 

 

 

Edited September 2 by Tiresias