The Footie Thread

[AmandaJR]

Do Chelsea buy good players and make them bad or just buy bad players?

Caicedo? Wasn't he hugely in demand and destined to be a superstar? Looks an accident waiting to happen all the time.

They really are so poor as an attacking side and scarily useless at playing out from the back too.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

As a Fulham fan I'm happy but so surprised with that. It's normally Fulham who find a way to throw points away in the last knockings of a game so to actually get a winner in Fergie time was great. What a shambles United looked and Rashford is mugging a living at the moment. He looked so dis-interested. We played great even without our best player but United should have had enough to win this fixture. Does the blame lie with EtH, and is he getting enough from the team. Is it the players that are simply not trying? I think Merson got it right in his rant on Soccer Saturday and they are a million miles from winning the PL again

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think Poch is a good manager but went to the wrong club

Chelsea are a mess off the pitch , they have a bunch of rich people buying playing like it’s Football Manager

Who is picking the players to arrive ?

They have spent £1bn in the last three transfer windows and it’s very hard to see where they have managed to get any value from any of the players they have bought

Caciedo £118mil
Enzo - £106mil

both of those outshone by someone costing £17mil

Mudryk £88mil

Players like Fofana at £70mil , Cucurella at £60mil have been injured

Both Liverpool and Chelsea were after Lavia , they ended up paying £60mil - why when they spent £118mil on Caicedo

It’s prob only Palmer who has done ok but the place is a mess - I suspect Pochettino will be gone before the end of the season


As for yesterday

Have a feeling that the win meant quite a lot to Klopp -was buzzing afterwards , 8 Academy players picking up medals , brilliant to see them be given a chance in such a big game

 

[Swango1980]

Do Chelsea buy good players and make them bad or just buy bad players?

Caicedo? Wasn't he hugely in demand and destined to be a superstar? Looks an accident waiting to happen all the time.

They really are so poor as an attacking side and scarily useless at playing out from the back too.

I think Liverpool were in for him, and I suspect he was good enough that Liverpool fans would have been happy to see him at the club.

But, he has gone to Chelsea. My perception is they have bought so many players, that well over 20 of them probably think they commanded such high fees that they should be 1st team footballers. So even a player well over £100 million SHOULD think he is an integral part of the 1st team, but with so many other players in that squad, he might also have a background thought he is a squad player and less important. Does that undermine his confidence and his value to the team?

Casting my mind back to the "good old days", when Utd spent big (or just got a huge bargain) they would maybe only do so on one player per season or every other season. That player was brought in to be an integral part of the 1st team. Cantona came in to make a huge difference. Roy Keane, Van Nistleroy, Yorke, Rooney, Ronaldo, Ferdinand, Van Persie, etc. All brought in at different times to really freshen things up. Only big player it didn't really work out for was Veron, but not so much because he was bad, just because Beckham, Scholes, Keane and Giggs were just so good.

Had Utd just gone out one summer and bought 5 or 6 high caliber, high cost players, I think it would be a car crash. Their importance to the team is massively diluted, and perhaps their own confidence in their own ability. Fair enough, Utd had a good foundation at that point, so didn't need to buy a full team. But surely Chelsea should have just focused on a maximum of 2-3 key signings in the transfer window (with one def being a striker), and then any other players cheaper young talent with potential to grow into great players. Then try and build something over 3-4 seasons.

 

[Bdill93]

I think Liverpool were in for him, and I suspect he was good enough that Liverpool fans would have been happy to see him at the club.

But, he has gone to Chelsea. My perception is they have bought so many players, that well over 20 of them probably think they commanded such high fees that they should be 1st team footballers. So even a player well over £100 million SHOULD think he is an integral part of the 1st team, but with so many other players in that squad, he might also have a background thought he is a squad player and less important. Does that undermine his confidence and his value to the team?

Casting my mind back to the "good old days", when Utd spent big (or just got a huge bargain) they would maybe only do so on one player per season or every other season. That player was brought in to be an integral part of the 1st team. Cantona came in to make a huge difference. Roy Keane, Van Nistleroy, Yorke, Rooney, Ronaldo, Ferdinand, Van Persie, etc. All brought in at different times to really freshen things up. Only big player it didn't really work out for was Veron, but not so much because he was bad, just because Beckham, Scholes, Keane and Giggs were just so good.

Had Utd just gone out one summer and bought 5 or 6 high caliber, high cost players, I think it would be a car crash. Their importance to the team is massively diluted, and perhaps their own confidence in their own ability. Fair enough, Utd had a good foundation at that point, so didn't need to buy a full team. But surely Chelsea should have just focused on a maximum of 2-3 key signings in the transfer window (with one def being a striker), and then any other players cheaper young talent with potential to grow into great players. Then try and build something over 3-4 seasons.

That's the best way to do business, City do it now.

Add one or two every year, let one or two go and keep refreshing the squad over a 5-6 year cycle. Some players will last the distance, the really good ones, the rest come and do their bit and then depart again after 5/6 years.

Chelsea had a half decent squad before the 1 bill spend, they didn't need to go so hard at transfers.

 

[AmandaJR]

Fair points plus he was a big fish in a small pond so the new club, new sense of his own importance and value could have an impact on confidence and performance. Then he tries too hard and becomes a bit of a liability and it goes from bad to worse.

Perhaps he's not being managed well. I watched Palmer closely yesterday and a couple of times he showed frustration at his teammates for not making a pass. Think he also needs to be managed better and could be going the opposite way - too big for his yellow boots!

 

[Hobbit]

That's the best way to do business, City do it now.

Add one or two every year, let one or two go and keep refreshing the squad over a 5-6 year cycle. Some players will last the distance, the really good ones, the rest come and do their bit and then depart again after 5/6 years.

Chelsea had a half decent squad before the 1 bill spend, they didn't need to go so hard at transfers.

Interesting point on the £1bn spend. If they’d got it right, would it still have been a good return on investment? What would 5 years of domestic league & CL success be worth? Would it equate to £1bn + wages? Equally, the £1bn has a resale value if not successful, though maybe less than £1bn.

 

[Bdill93]

Interesting point on the £1bn spend. If they’d got it right, would it still have been a good return on investment? What would 5 years of domestic league & CL success be worth? Would it equate to £1bn + wages? Equally, the £1bn has a resale value if not successful, though maybe less than £1bn.

If they won say 3 leagues and a CL within 5 years it would be a success.

Players would be worth more than purchase fees (predominantly - a few may drop), income would be higher and commercial deals would improve.

They have brought young players, they all have a chance of increasing in value for sure.

 

[Swango1980]

Fair points plus he was a big fish in a small pond so the new club, new sense of his own importance and value could have an impact on confidence and performance. Then he tries too hard and becomes a bit of a liability and it goes from bad to worse.

Perhaps he's not being managed well. I watched Palmer closely yesterday and a couple of times he showed frustration at his teammates for not making a pass. Think he also needs to be managed better and could be going the opposite way - too big for his yellow boots!

Could be talking about Kalvin Phillips I suppose.

Pretty big fish in a small pond at Leeds. Pretty big signing by Man City (north of £40 million). Thinks he is a big player now, tries too hard (or maybe not hard enough) and becomes a liability. Not managed well (manager calls him fat). And now he is a shadow of the player he thought he had become.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That's the best way to do business, City do it now.

Add one or two every year, let one or two go and keep refreshing the squad over a 5-6 year cycle. Some players will last the distance, the really good ones, the rest come and do their bit and then depart again after 5/6 years.

Chelsea had a half decent squad before the 1 bill spend, they didn't need to go so hard at transfers.

It takes a bit of time for clubs to be able to build up to get to the stage where it’s just adding players into the squad

City in 08 spent £160mil bringing in 7 players then £190mil bringing in 7 the year after which helped them build a foundation which they then added on top off of that

Then managerial changes happened and they didn’t it again 15/16 spending around £200 mil and then Pep arrived and he spent £500mil over two summer bringing in 13 players

Foundations have to be there for clubs to be able to just add the odd player in - Man City built those foundations quickly , Chelsea have tried doing that as well

 

[Bdill93]

It takes a bit of time for clubs to be able to build up to get to the stage where it’s just adding players into the squad

City in 08 spent £160mil bringing in 7 players then £190mil bringing in 7 the year after which helped them build a foundation which they then added on top off of that

Then managerial changes happened and they didn’t it again 15/16 spending around £200 mil and then Pep arrived and he spent £500mil over two summer bringing in 13 players

Foundations have to be there for clubs to be able to just add the odd player in - Man City built those foundations quickly , Chelsea have tried doing that as well

Absolutely they do, everyone does it differently.

Chelsea were only 2 years off a CL win though (I think it was 2) they still had a large crop of solid players, this wasn't necessary.

 

[Swango1980]

If they won say 3 leagues and a CL within 5 years it would be a success.

Players would be worth more than purchase fees (predominantly - a few may drop), income would be higher and commercial deals would improve.

They have brought young players, they all have a chance of increasing in value for sure.

Young players have a chance of increasing in value, if you buy them at sensible prices. You need to try and pay a price more for the player they are on the day of signing, rather than the player you think they will become (inevitably it'll be a price somewhere between the 2 values).

Looking at some of the "young" players, even if they ended up playing well for the next 2 years, how much do you think the value will increase for the following young players if someone else was to buy them:

Fernandez - 121m Euro
Caicedo - 116m Euro
Fofana - 80.3m Euro
Mudryk - 70m Euro
Cucerella - 65.3m Euro
Lavia - 62.1m Euro
Nkunku - 60m Euro
Sterling - 56.2m Euro
Disasi - 45m Euro
Badiashile - 38m Euro
Jackson - 37m Euro
Madueke - 35m Euro
Gusto - £30m Euro

I assume most of them are young, although I know Sterling is nearly 30 now. I just picked the players over 30m Euro in last 2 seasons. Looking at a lot of those prices, I would have thought the odds of probability would suggest that although a few of those players could increase in value in normal circumstances, a lot of them won't. Not even because they are bad players, but just because they were bought with hugely inflated prices to begin with.

 

[Bdill93]

Young players have a chance of increasing in value, if you buy them at sensible prices. You need to try and pay a price more for the player they are on the day of signing, rather than the player you think they will become (inevitably it'll be a price somewhere between the 2 values).

Looking at some of the "young" players, even if they ended up playing well for the next 2 years, how much do you think the value will increase for the following young players if someone else was to buy them:

Fernandez - 121m Euro
Caicedo - 116m Euro
Fofana - 80.3m Euro
Mudryk - 70m Euro
Cucerella - 65.3m Euro
Lavia - 62.1m Euro
Nkunku - 60m Euro
Sterling - 56.2m Euro
Disasi - 45m Euro
Badiashile - 38m Euro
Jackson - 37m Euro
Madueke - 35m Euro
Gusto - £30m Euro

I assume most of them are young, although I know Sterling is nearly 30 now. I just picked the players over 30m Euro in last 2 seasons. Looking at a lot of those prices, I would have thought the odds of probability would suggest that although a few of those players could increase in value in normal circumstances, a lot of them won't. Not even because they are bad players, but just because they were bought with hugely inflated prices to begin with.

Everyone I've highlighted could go up in value. Ones missing from the list (brought cheaper) also have the higher chance of increasing I suppose.

Nkunku could double in value or more technically speaking despite being 60m.

Ive left out anyone over 60m because theres little chance of payback but still some.

The 2 most expensive are probably the 2 biggest flops too. Enzo looks rubbish to me.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Those numbers are an absolute mess. The balance sheet in years to come will make horrible viewing.

 

[Swango1980]

It takes a bit of time for clubs to be able to build up to get to the stage where it’s just adding players into the squad

City in 08 spent £160mil bringing in 7 players then £190mil bringing in 7 the year after which helped them build a foundation which they then added on top off of that

Then managerial changes happened and they didn’t it again 15/16 spending around £200 mil and then Pep arrived and he spent £500mil over two summer bringing in 13 players

Foundations have to be there for clubs to be able to just add the odd player in - Man City built those foundations quickly , Chelsea have tried doing that as well

Chelsea need to consider the following though:

Times are different. Chelsea did pretty well when Abramovich came in and spend loads. City built quickly when they were taken over. But, they were vastly rich clubs at the time with little competition (and probably no FFP to deal with a lot of the time). Man Utd and Liverpool were probably the only very wealthy clubs (from a global fan base perspective) that they had to directly content with (maybe Arsenal as well?). Today, Chelsea could try and spend all the money in the world if they find FFP loopholes, but they still have to content with Man City, Man Utd and Liverpool. Plus other clubs also have wealthy owners now.

In 15/16 City did spend nearly £200 million. But, there were only 3 big fee players, De Bruyne, Sterling and Otamendi. 16/17 they brought in Stones, Sane, Jesus and Gundogan as big signings and in 17/18 they brought in Laporte, Mendy, Walker, Silva, Ederson and Danilo. Yes, City spend loads over a few seasons. But, you can see a structure there. A plan. In 15/16 they didn't bring in a million players, but 3 players in key positions. They added a few technically excellent players the following season, and the season after that invested in a defence that could play Peps way. This doesn't appear to be what Chelsea has done. They've just gone out and seemingly spent big money on any player that the owner has read positive reports on in FourFourTwo magazine

 

[Swango1980]

Everyone I've highlighted could go up in value. Ones missing from the list (brought cheaper) also have the higher chance of increasing I suppose.

Nkunku could double in value or more technically speaking despite being 60m.

Ive left out anyone over 60m because theres little chance of payback but still some.

The 2 most expensive are probably the 2 biggest flops too. Enzo looks rubbish to me.

Wierdly, a few months after playing at Chelsea, loads of pundits praised him. I don't analyse Chelsea enough to know if that was true, but found it strange given how bad the team were. I didn't think he was special in the final yesterday. I thought Gallagher was their best player, just sadly he couldn't finish. But then again, it is saying something when you spend so much money and you are needing Gallagher to stick it in the net. Jackson seemed really poor. That being said, I'd a million times percent rather have him play as a No. 9 for man Utd than Rashford.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Everton's fine has been reduced to 6 points. We are climbing the table, get below us Brentford .

The big question now, what about the other charge? Will this impact it, when will the outcome of that be announced?

 

[Don Barzini]

Everton's fine has been reduced to 6 points. We are climbing the table, get below us Brentford .

The big question now, what about the other charge? Will this impact it, when will the outcome of that be announced?

Although the immediate impact is we go down a place, I see this as good news for Forest in the longer term.

 

[Bdill93]

Everton's fine has been reduced to 6 points. We are climbing the table, get below us Brentford .

The big question now, what about the other charge? Will this impact it, when will the outcome of that be announced?

Glad about that, 10 was a bit silly.

Have they addressed the second charge? (The one that was just the same charge but within the same 3 years of accounts?)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Although the immediate impact is we go down a place, I see this as good news for Forest in the longer term.

I don't know how your charges compared to our original ones but assuming they are not as bad then you can take 6 points as a worse case scenario. Hopefully less.