Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Comments

  • They don't seem to have factored in the wages paid to those players but they are clearly generating income AND winning trophies.
  • edited August 2017

    They don't seem to have factored in the wages paid to those players but they are clearly generating income AND winning trophies.

    Exactly important to count wages, but also contributions to the side which is difficult to monetize. But yeah, for all the stick they get about loan players, and rightly so in my opinion, they now turn a profit by getting players in young who have pogential/higher potential resale value.

    Also, I don't see Oscar in there but may have missed him. His sale was huge.

    It should also be noted, however, that while they make a profit there are players like Lukaku and De Bruyne and probably Salah who they let go who they'd presumably love to have back now. I could also see that being the case with Nathan Ake, Nathaniel Chalobah, and especially Dominic Solanke.
  • I think it would be a very sensible approach to the modern game if they were then giving the top couple of players a chance in the first team rather than reinvesting the money earned in the team anyway.

    SDAddick's examples above are spot on - Lukaku should have been given his chance the year they rotated Torres, Eto'o and Ba to little effect - he could have been their no.9 for years, Ake could have been kept over signing Rudgier, De Bruyne over Cuadrado/Salah then Pedro etc.
  • As Henry said the wage cost could have been a big chunk of that.
  • I think it would be a very sensible approach to the modern game if they were then giving the top couple of players a chance in the first team rather than reinvesting the money earned in the team anyway.

    SDAddick's examples above are spot on - Lukaku should have been given his chance the year they rotated Torres, Eto'o and Ba to little effect - he could have been their no.9 for years, Ake could have been kept over signing Rudgier, De Bruyne over Cuadrado/Salah then Pedro etc.

    Good point. To add one more, Daniel Sturridge. He had problems with injuries and consistency at Chelsea but he had his two best season after leaving them.
  • Redhenry said:

    As Henry said the wage cost could have been a big chunk of that.

    Don't they loan players out with clubs paying wages and/or loan fees?
  • Scoham said:

    Redhenry said:

    As Henry said the wage cost could have been a big chunk of that.

    Don't they loan players out with clubs paying wages and/or loan fees?
    Wait, that's allowed?!?!?!

    BRB gotta email the SMT.
  • edited August 2017
    Scoham said:

    Redhenry said:

    As Henry said the wage cost could have been a big chunk of that.

    Don't they loan players out with clubs paying wages and/or loan fees?
    Seriously though, I doubt Vitesse can afford the wages of the likes of Baker and Swift and Van Aarholt and Maziga etc and so on over the past 2-3 years. They probably pay something but not the entirety of their wages.

    Also, doesn't Abramovich have a stake in Vitesse?
  • edited August 2017
    SDAddick said:

    They don't seem to have factored in the wages paid to those players but they are clearly generating income AND winning trophies.

    Exactly important to count wages, but also contributions to the side which is difficult to monetize. But yeah, for all the stick they get about loan players, and rightly so in my opinion, they now turn a profit by getting players in young who have pogential/higher potential resale value.

    Also, I don't see Oscar in there but may have missed him. His sale was huge.

    It should also be noted, however, that while they make a profit there are players like Lukaku and De Bruyne and probably Salah who they let go who they'd presumably love to have back now. I could also see that being the case with Nathan Ake, Nathaniel Chalobah, and especially Dominic Solanke.
    Oscar doesn't count as a farm player in that list as he was signed for the first team.

    The issue they have with these good players is that they get them young enough to be cheap but too young to ever really consistently be in the first team. Lukaku wouldn't be as good as he is now without those first team seasons at Everton and West Brom, but he also wasn't willing to keep on being loaned out. De Bruyne didn't fancy being on the bench at Chelsea, but he didn't flourish until his time at Wolfsburg. Salah didn't take his chances when he played for Chelsea but he developed at Fiorentina and Roma. The problem is the time it takes a player to develop into a Champions League level player is longer than a player is willing to be relentlessly loaned out and Chelsea haven't thought of a way to bridge that gap yet.

    They seem to have got a bit wiser to this by inserting a buy-back clause in Ake's deal that I bet they wish they'd put in Lukaku and De Bruyne's deals. Chelsea are so concerned about being successful every season that they just aren't willing to risk having a team full of developing players. The funny thing is today because of their injuries and suspensions they had to start Rudiger and Christensen; Rudiger looked like a bit of a liability but Christensen was immense against one the best teams in the league. Wonder when he would have got his first Premier League start if Cahill hadn't been suspended
  • Sponsored links:


  • Completely ridiculous to say this is the profit when you factor in the wages as Henry said.

    How many players have been bought, loaned out and come back strong into the team? I can only think of Courtois. Christiansen is playing at the minute. Yes they are finding players for good fees and selling them on for profit, but it's still ridiculous when most of them ever barely ever play for the club.

    Is it that successful when the likes of De Bruyne and Lukaku would walk into their team and cost their new clubs a lot more than Chelsea sold them for. Matic also cost them a lot more than what they sold him for. You could argue they are winning trophies but they are still spending a fortune on new players.

    They are just continually throwing money at young players and that is the growing problem with football. They will still join Chelsea even when they know they probably won't ever get a chance when they know they will get paid a fortune to play on loan elsewhere.
  • depressing article really. can't see how this is good for football. certainly not good for Charlton as I'm sure Roland's eyes will light up when hearing of it!
  • redman said:

    depressing article really. can't see how this is good for football. certainly not good for Charlton as I'm sure Roland's eyes will light up when hearing of it!

    He's getting it all wrong though. Does he not know you loan them out and sell them on for profit? Not pay them off like Watt or give them away like Ceballos.
  • I wonder if a similar idea was in Duchatelets's mind when he first took us over .. a network AND an academy to provide players for all of his clubs, plus a few 'surplus' to 'franchise' out at a profit
  • edited August 2017

    I wonder if a similar idea was in Duchatelets's mind when he first took us over .. a network AND an academy to provide players for all of his clubs, plus a few 'surplus' to 'franchise' out at a profit

    I have no doubt it was Lincs. The main flaw in his plan was knowing feck all about English football and putting a complete nubbin in charge.
  • I mean, Christensen really benefited from his two years at Gladbach. Abraham and Loftus-Cheek seem to have really benefited from playing regularly in the Prem this season. Batshuayi has looked very good at times for BVB, less so at others. On his day he's good enough to be around the Chelsea team, but consistency is a problem with him. He's still very raw.

    I would argue that even five or six years later Lukaku is not quite up to the standard that Chelsea want from their center forwards. Salah is a wonderful player, but he does really benefit from being in a high pressing, pace-based team that looks to get in behind. Yes his talent was squandered at Stamford Bridge, but he's another one where going somewhere and playing regularly for a couple years really helped, and it was just arguably a mistake that it was a permanent deal and not a loan. De Bruyne was a mistake.

    This model though is something the biggest clubs in Europe have used for a while. In Italy you have co-ownership, in Spain Real Madrid are notorious for doing this, in smaller leagues the big clubs in a league snap up all the domestic talent. It is weird that Jamal Blackman and Todd Kane are still Chelsea players into their mid-20s, but the set-up does provide young, exciting players like Fikayo Tomori or Mason Mount or even a Jay DaSilva the chance to play regular senior football. We've seen it with KAG, it's really hard when you have a player at a crossroads in their career who needs to be playing regularly, but who isn't quite good enough to be doing that in your league in your first team.

    All that said, there definitely seems to be talent being squandered there. Whether it's because of the natural churn of players in the game, or all the upheaval of not really having a permanent home, you do have players like Ake or McEachran or Lewis Baker who show promise from a young age but (to this point with Ake and Baker) haven't really delivered on it. Kasey Palmer felt like he was drifting that way earlier this season as well.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!