Dorset Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 This may have been a record breaking transfer season in terms of money spent, but Chelsea fans will never remember it as such. Expectations were high, yet the club’s transfer business did not appear to satisfy the coach, nor the fans hoped for progression, reflected as it is in diverse desires spanning both the acquisition of major signing(s) and the lofty ideal of youth/loanee breakthrough. In short, our business has been far from usual, lurching from one extreme to another and, to use a classic LVG obscuration, it eventually became an unfathomable ‘process’ that left most of us wondering what on earth was going on in a directional sense. Indeed, making sense of it all is probably beyond our ken and even [if we had one] our Fred Elliot too, but nevertheless I’ll have a stab at it… Significantly, the nine deals done might best be described musically, as interwoven variations based on an old Financial Fair Play theme. The high notes, those early acquisitions, struck a perceptive pro or re-active (PP/R) chord with most of us, but the bass line buys drowned them out in the end, being questionable and quirky (QQ). Each in turn reveals an alarming shift of tempo, from opening window calm right through to a frenetic closure, with the conductor of our orchestra left wavy-armed and increasingly frustrated by the minute-waltzing around of a board that received his wish list in April, only to let it lie dormant in the ’pending’ tray. Asmir Begovic, following Roman’s magnanimous gesture in letting Petr go to the Gunners, and Radamel Falcao, after Didier’s departure, were clearly high on Jose’s list and their arrival gave no indication of the questionable quirkiness to come. Indeed, when Pedro snubbed United to sign for us, everything seemed set fair for a transfer window similar to last season. But interestingly, it was to be Pedro’s transfer that highlighted our need to rely on opportunism in today’s market place, when in the last we obviously had our shopping [hit] list ready and got the targets even earlier. A better example of lethargy starting to creep in, compared to the last campaign, is seen with the next arrival. Baba Rahman’s purchase, which turned into an interminably long saga, dragging on until August and way past the sell by date of Filipe Luis. Whether the delay was of any relevance when it came to team selection for the opening games is anyone’s guess, but let’s just say Jose didn’t clutch at that particular straw after Branna’s parlous Palace performance, nor did he take the opportunity to blood Baba when he could have, preferring instead to showcase the potential star of this transfer window. The Kenedy deal was both perceptive and proactive and his propulsion into the first team squad a classic example of how good it can be if youth is given a chance and it’s grabbed with both feet. Admittedly, the difference between the emergence of Kenedy and that of Martial at ManU may ultimately turn out to be miniscule in terms of impact, but as it stands at the moment we’ve struck gold for £6.7m while United have paid upwards of £30m for merely the permit to prospect for the stuff. Moreover, if ever there were glaring examples of the use and misuse of money in the pre [stringent] and post [relaxed] FFP world these bits of business are definitely a reflection of it. Put bluntly, we’re still abiding by rules that LVG has long since processed into obscurity, while Man City have demonstrated they’ve money to de Bruyne, but once in a blue moon [and the irony of using that phrase should not go unnoticed] the benefits of playing the FFP game properly pay off big time. Okay, I accept that it is easy to be smart when taking these three transfers in isolation, especially when a massive bid for John Stones would have restored some balance to the debate [if it had been successful] but I maintain that we as a club have recognised benefits within the FFP rules as first mooted and have consequently tempered our need to spend limitlessly, unlike the two profligate Manchester clubs. Why so and where is the evidence? Well, Uefa did produce figures to show that first phase FFP [through to 2014] dramatically reduced indebtedness of clubs across Europe from €1.7bn to €400m and therefore it must have had the desired effect of lowering transfer fees and wages. Last year’s living proof of this was seen with Chelsea breaking even for the first time under Roman and, like it or not, directives relating to squad sizes and home grown player requirements were probably the driving force behind our current manipulation [can’t think of a better word] of the loan system. I would contend that in the case of John Stones we went so far but no further in terms of meeting an English-inflated price, although merely pursuing him in preference to a clutch of our own on-loan defenders spoke volumes when it came to the existing quality within our ranks and positively shouted from the rooftops when we consider the next four purchases made… Nathan, Danilo Pantic and Michael Hector, like all our buy-then-loan acquisitions, fall into the questionable and quirky buys category, for no other reason than their immediate loan out means they will not be treated as anything other than a disposable commodity destined to waddle off the end of our loanee conveyor belt eventually - unless and until at least one [from the masses already out there] takes a regular first team spot. Bertrand Traore might just be that one, but, with Falcao and Remy sitting next to him on the bench on match days, only time will tell if he’s better placed there than Patrick Bamford is at Crystal Palace. In short, anyone looking at a youngster’s route map to the top at Chelsea soon realises that being loaned out doesn’t feature as a landmark on it that often, if at all. Of course, most kids coming through the system will be more than happy to get to the loan out stage, doubtless as happy as Papy Djilobodji is to avoid it entirely. Not a kid anymore, Djilobodji is the last odd-shaped piece in this season’s transfer jigsaw and for me his purchase and subsequent omission from the CL squad was tantamount to pinning a ‘Closed for Real Business - Stockpiling in Progress’ notice on our front door. While most fans waited expectantly for sign of a Superstar‘s coming, or Stones being but a £35million throw away, here we had the ultimate in dampener put on both deals. Should I be proved wrong and these expectations are met when the January window opens, it will only serve to highlight the pointlessness of the last four purchases made and show how quickly players become expendable within our current policy on loans and transfers. And so, to summarise, if the club insist on keeping one eye firmly fixed on the principle behind FFP and the other on pursuing a loan policy designed to circumvent the financial restraint element of it, they must expect to preside over cockeyed transfer windows like the last. Ignoring the massive spend option may be laudable, but we wont be praised for frugality, just as our rivals haven’t been pilloried for every ’statement of intent’ they’ve made recently. Equally, there is nothing wrong or unethical in a bulk buy and sell-on loan business, so why not be openly proud of our actions and counter Media criticism with outright acclaim of the cottage industry we have created? Silence is not golden in this instance, it is instead implied acceptance of the condemnation coming our way and it will eventually lead to the FA opting for a loan quota per club solution to satisfy the clamour to stop us cornering the market. Were this to happen we would then be left with an Academy packed with kids heading for graduation and nowhere to go thereafter, an already bloated second stage of our process constricted by decree for the benefit of nobody, least of all Gordon Taylor and the players he purports to represent. Radical change might not be needed, but a vociferous defence of our existing loan system would be, and is desirable now, along with a rapid integration of the top loanees into our first team squad. Alternatively, there should be an open admittance of defeat in our attempt to abide by FFP rules after Uefa’s relaxation of them and the kybosh that put on matters from a financial prudence point of view. It could even be stated that the club is being forced against its better judgement to revert to a spend culture that was once abhorred in order to compete at the highest level, the saving grace being that it is now evidently acceptable in the eyes of everyone else, the Media included. And, as a parting shot, just imagine how much of a field day Jose would have fronting this type of press conference announcement! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remodez Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Silence is not golden in this instance, it is instead implied acceptance of the condemnation coming our way and it will eventually lead to the FA opting for a loan quota per club solution to satisfy the clamour to stop us cornering the market. Were this to happen we would then be left with an Academy packed with kids heading for graduation and nowhere to go thereafter, an already bloated second stage of our process constricted by decree for the benefit of nobody, least of all Gordon Taylor and the players he purports to represent. Radical change might not be needed, but a vociferous defence of our existing loan system would be, and is desirable now, along with a rapid integration of the top loanees into our first team squad. I think a loan limit would be a good idea, something like limiting the number of players you can loan who haven't been at the club for, say, 2 years. That way it still allows clubs to loan out academy players for them to gain experience, you can still loan out players who you want to sell and the odd player here and there who can't get a work permit would be exempt from this. This would prevent clubs from stockpiling youth and sending them out on loan without them ever having spent any time at the club. Of course they have somewhere to go after, plenty of clubs are interested in our youth. As they should be with the performances they have put in at youth level. Selling them is much more beneficial to the players, Graham Taylor and us, in the long term, than the constant loans, which 9 times out of 10 result in stalled developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evissy Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) My question on the loan dealings is what is the difference in playing a long season at a club as a loanee or owned by the club? Same money, same shirt...has Victor Moses ever said he is disappointed to be owned by Chelsea? Or is he glad he might very easily be part of Chelsea squad? I know it is not traditional or how it is done before but please explain why it is bad for the player or any club. Edited September 11, 2015 by evissy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remodez Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) My question on the loan dealings is what is the difference in playing a long season at a club as a loanee or owned by the club? Same money, same shirt...has Victor Moses ever said he is disappointed to be owned by Chelsea? Or is he glad he might very easily be part of Chelsea squad? I know it is not traditional or how it is done before but please explain why it is bad for the player or any club. I read an article a few days ago which made a interesting comparison. It said something along the lines of our repeated loans being like a child attending university while still living at home with their parents. They don't fully get the experience of having to depend on themselves, don't establish any roots at a club or have any real goals set out for them. Young players need to be continually challenged and pushed in order to develop. I'll use Chalobah as an example here, he was way above others in his age group, sent out on loan to Watford and did very well. At that stage we should have either introduced him into the squad or sold him, sending him out again for more championship loans benefits no one and ruins his development. He needed the next step up, if we weren't prepared to give it to him there were others clubs who were happy to oblige. Arsenal were reportedly interested for one. All players that are way better than their age groups need the step up, if they don't get that they lose all their momentum and their development stalls. If we don't change the way we do things then the same thing will happen to Ola Ania and others. I don't understand how we can do such a brilliant job with youth all the way through the academy but as soon as they turn 18/19 we mess it all up, they should know that constant loans, at random clubs too which makes it worse, isn't the right way to go about it. Makes me think that the loaning system is more geared towards making money rather than development, which would be fine if they came out and said that. It'll put me at ease anyway. I do, however, think we are missing the bigger picture if that is the way the club has decided to go. We should be adopting the strategies used by Barcelona and Madrid, which is developing youngsters and selling them when they are at their peak before their development stalls with the idea being to buy them back if they reach their full potential. We did this with Matic and I think all would agree it worked out well in the end. To me, this seems like the best solution and as close to a win-win as a club of our stature is going to get with regards to youth (I'll hold off on the celebrations of RLC for now, far too early to say either way). We have already taken a step towards this by selling Thorgan Hazard and including a buy back clause, I hope we carry on doing so in the future. I eagerly await the day when we have two Hazard's in our team but if it never arrives I won't be disappointed because I know the club gave him the best possible opportunity to develop, if he fails it is solely down to him and not because of constant loans. Edited September 11, 2015 by Remodez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMendez Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) If he fails it is solely down to him and not because of constant loans. Surely constant loans can't be an excuse for failing to make it. Surely if you are talented enough and have the right mentality you will make it no matter what happens to you loan wise. I do, however, think we are missing the bigger picture if that is the way the club has decided to go. We should be adopting the strategies used by Barcelona and Madrid, which is developing youngsters and selling them when they are at their peak before their development stalls with the idea being to buy them back if they reach their full potential. We did this with Matic and I think all would agree it worked out well in the end. To me, this seems like the best solution and as close to a win-win as a club of our stature is going to get with regards to youth (I'll hold off on the celebrations of RLC for now, far too early to say either way). We have already taken a step towards this by selling Thorgan Hazard and including a buy back clause, I hope we carry on doing so in the future. I eagerly await the day when we have two Hazard's in our team but if it never arrives I won't be disappointed because I know the club gave him the best possible opportunity to develop, if he fails it is solely down to him and not because of constant loans. Teams like Barce and Madrid can do this as they have a B team which plays only 1 league lower than there first team so they get to play at a reasonably competitive standard, and can therefore develop enough to be at a good level before they need to consider loaning or selling the player. Where as we don't have that, the U21's is no where near the standard it needs to be for the players development the fact that 18y/o destroy the U21's (i.e Solanke), so where can our players go to develop to be good enough? in my eyes we have to loan them. Lets say we sell Chalobah or someone like that to the championship and then they progress to be better than championship quality do we buy them back and sell them to a better quality side. Hence why we need to loans in the early stages, and on Thorgan Hazard he is 22 so has already done most of his development, so there is less need to loan him and it makes more sense to loan him. Edited September 11, 2015 by PedroMendez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remodez Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) Surely constant loans can't be an excuse for failing to make it. Surely if you are talented enough and have the right mentality you will make it no matter what happens to you loan wise. Teams like Barce and Madrid can do this as they have a B team which plays only 1 league lower than there first team so they get to play at a reasonably competitive standard, and can therefore develop enough to be at a good level before they need to consider loaning or selling the player. Where as we don't have that, the U21's is no where near the standard it needs to be for the players development the fact that 18y/o destroy the U21's (i.e Solanke), so where can our players go to develop to be good enough? in my eyes we have to loan them. Lets say we sell Chalobah or someone like that to the championship and then they progress to be better than championship quality do we buy them back and sell them to a better quality side. Hence why we need to loans in the early stages, and on Thorgan Hazard he is 22 so has already done most of his development, so there is less need to loan him and it makes more sense to loan him. Wouldn't say it's an excuse, there are always exemptions, but for the most part it is a massive hindrance for a young player and has a direct effect on their talent and mentality. I'm not saying we shouldn't loan them, of course we should. What I'm saying is, and the reason why I brought up Barca and Madird, we should be making decisions far earlier into the players development thus eliminating the need for constant loans. We don't need B teams for this. Send them out on loan, players like Chalobah, Solanke, etc who are so far ahead of their age group generally only need one or two loans in the championship before they are ready to play in the premier league. Even if they aren't ready, just sell them as soon as they have a good season. You look at players like Walcott, Ox, Stones, etc, they were all in the same boat as Chalobah, etc and they all barely made more than 20 games in the championship. Chalobah has over 80 apps in the championship and is in a worse position now (ability wise that is he's done well to get a loan at Napoli), than he was 2/3 years ago. You would only buy back Chalobah if he ended being good enough to play for us. The point of it is twofold, to cash in when he's at his peak/ready for the next step and to have him go through his career developing the ideal way which is working his way up. A player is more likely to reach their potential this way than the current way which is constant loans, it also provides us with security in case he does go on to be a great player we would either still have our buy back clause or, like with Matic, the player would be happy to return to us. And on your Thorgan Hazard point, tell that to Bertrand before we eventually sold him. Age doesn't seem to matter. Edited September 11, 2015 by Remodez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMendez Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I personally think we should do more loans like MvG where the clubs pay less the more they play them and maybe longer loans like the Christensen loan which I believe is 2 years giving a more stable environment and more reason for them too develop the player.I do however think we loan a bit too frequently and chop a change locations too often, some players need a more stable environment, but I do think loaning helps progress youngsters and doesn't hinder them if they have the right attitude, however I do think finding the right club is hard, as finding a team at the right level who needs and wants the player isn't the easiest job in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Bridges Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 In regards to what Remodez is saying, it's worth noticing that our only real successful "loan star" is one that was loaned to the same club for multiple seasons in a row..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMendez Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Yes I completely agree with longer more stable loans especially when they come at top level clubs like Athletico Madrid, and they are definitely more suitable for the players.I also am of the belief that if a player isn't close to the top level at the age of 22 then they are very unlikely to be able to make it at Chelsea so should therefore be sold on with either a fee to buy them back if they massively progress and or a percentage of any future fee for the player. However I do also think that sometimes loans for older players can be useful either because they might potential be good squad players and we don't want to risk losing them just in case (Moses), If they are lacking form/playing time for Chelsea so can are loaned in an attempt to regain their form or just to increase their value (Cuadrado or Salah) or just no one wanted to buy them (Marin).I also can see the reasoning why shorter loans can happen for players at younger end as it is harder to be sure of things like; playing time, whether the player will settle, how the player will develop and whether the level and playing style suits the player or not.I wasn't attacking Remodez point at all it is actually quite a sensible point of view as it would stop some dudds sitting in our squad or being sent on many loans to never be good enough or increase in value, I was just pointing out that we can't run the system as efficiently as the likes of RM and Barca due to the poor level of the U21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChelseaBlues Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) I love the idea of having a loan army as we do. As mentioned above I would also like to see the players who do very well moved into the first team or sold with a buy back option for a set amount. Nothing wrong with having a bunch of players on loan. Just needs to be some sort of end game with some of them. 3 or 4 loans across different countries does nobody any good. Solanke for example, if he does well in Holland I'd give him one more year in English football then sell or bring into the team. Anyone know whats stopping us from having a B team by the way? Edited September 11, 2015 by TheChelseaBlues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PloKoon13 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Chelsea have had the biggest fall among England's biggest clubs in agents' fees: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34968159 Our expenditure on agent's fees has fallen from the highest in the league (£16.77m) to the fourth-highest (£11.96m). Liverpool (6th in the league) had the highest rate of spending in the league with £14.31m; Man Utd are second with a rise from £7.98m to £13.88m; Man City are third with £12.81m, we are fourth, and Arsenal are fifth, rising from £4.29m to a hefty £11.93m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 Chelsea have had the biggest fall among England's biggest clubs in agents' fees: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34968159 Our expenditure on agent's fees has fallen from the highest in the league (£16.77m) to the fourth-highest (£11.96m). Liverpool (6th in the league) had the highest rate of spending in the league with £14.31m; Man Utd are second with a rise from £7.98m to £13.88m; Man City are third with £12.81m, we are fourth, and Arsenal are fifth, rising from £4.29m to a hefty £11.93m. Some really perceptive reading-between-the-lines from you there, PloKoon, and it only serves to highlight the [anti-Chels] bias that's rife in BBC reporting these days. Here was an ideal opportunity to give praise where it is due [to Chelsea] but our exceptional level of leadership in this unwholesome field of deal-sweetening is totally ignored. Instead, we see a little bit of gentle finger-wagging in the general direction of Liverpool, whose position is virtually unaltered from the previous year, and mere statement of fact [rather than admonishment of any kind] for ManU and the Arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverCarefree Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Chelsea have had the biggest fall among England's biggest clubs in agents' fees: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34968159 Our expenditure on agent's fees has fallen from the highest in the league (£16.77m) to the fourth-highest (£11.96m). Liverpool (6th in the league) had the highest rate of spending in the league with £14.31m; Man Utd are second with a rise from £7.98m to £13.88m; Man City are third with £12.81m, we are fourth, and Arsenal are fifth, rising from £4.29m to a hefty £11.93m. When you consider our only high profile signing during the period of October 14 to September 15 was Pedro I would say we overspent on agent fees. No doubt the Falcao loan deal carried a huge fee for Mendes but when you consider that are deals during that period were for the likes of Cuadrado and Papy Djilobodji you have to wonder what exactly we are forking out so much money for? Had the Stones deal gone through we'd still be right at the top. Considering City signed the likes of KDB, Sterling, Otamendi and Bony during this period and only spent £0.5m more in fees than us I don't think it's much cause for back slapping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMendez Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The thing I get shocked by in this article is that le Arse managed to spend £12m on agent fees, whilst pretty much only signing Cech and Paulista.Cech's agent must be rolling in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted December 2, 2015 Author Share Posted December 2, 2015 When you consider our only high profile signing during the period of October 14 to September 15 was Pedro I would say we overspent on agent fees. No doubt the Falcao loan deal carried a huge fee for Mendes but when you consider that are deals during that period were for the likes of Cuadrado and Papy Djilobodji you have to wonder what exactly we are forking out so much money for? Had the Stones deal gone through we'd still be right at the top. Considering City signed the likes of KDB, Sterling, Otamendi and Bony during this period and only spent £0.5m more in fees than us I don't think it's much cause for back slapping. There are three separate points made in this reply, the first questioning the amount we spent on agents fees and what we got for our money, the second implying an element of hypocrisy [on the club’s part] in that we would have readily continued with the extravagance ourselves given half a chance and the availability of expensive talent, and the third contending that in any event City made a far better job of paying agents fees than us, so therefore our reducing them is not ’much cause for back-slapping’. Contradictions abound here - for instance are we saying that [regardless of principle] the payment of agents fees is acceptable if the player ultimately gives value for money? If so, this is no more than a justification of the current system continuing unchecked in it‘s present form, with clubs gambling on two fronts, by lobbing great dollops of extra percentage [on transfer fees, not loan deals] directly into agents laps, just to be first in a questionable queue for a signature. Let’s not forget that this happened in the Stones saga, when Barcelona and ManU were thrown into the mix as potential rival bidders at a late stage purely to create the conditions of play, with the fee duly hiked up almost by the hour thereafter. Yet Stones had already put in a transfer request, player and agent were [seemingly] happy with Chelsea being his new club, and it was only Everton, sitting right up there on a moral high ground of their own making, that pulled the plug on any potential deal. Admittedly, had it gone through we would have undoubtedly had to pay over the odds, but to say that the payment of his agent’s fee alone would have taken us back to the top of the table under discussion has to be hyperbole worthy of that used by KDB’s agent when he negotiated his client‘s [and his own] second massive payout in the space of a twelve month period - good work if you can get it… so cue the back-slapping for the two of them, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverCarefree Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Contradictions abound here - for instance are we saying that [regardless of principle] the payment of agents fees is acceptable if the player ultimately gives value for money? I don't think I ever alluded to this idea? My point was that despite not signing the likes of Stones, Pogba etc we still spent massively on agent fees. So for who and why? Was it Mendes for Jose's new contract and Falcao? If so you have to question the wisdom of handing over such large chunks of money to one agent. Was it for purchases for the likes of Cuadrado, Papy Djilobodji and Michael Hector? If so why are such apparent large agent fees being handed over for non-first team players? clubs gambling on two fronts, by lobbing great dollops of extra percentage [on transfer fees, not loan deals] directly into agents laps, just to be first in a questionable queue for a signature. Let’s not forget that this happened in the Stones saga, when Barcelona and ManU were thrown into the mix as potential rival bidders at a late stage purely to create the conditions of play, with the fee duly hiked up almost by the hour thereafter. Perhaps I am missing something here, are you suggesting our refusal to pay hiking agent fees was a contributing factor in not signing Stones? Maybe that's true but again I ask, what services exactly did we get for the £12m spent? Admittedly, had it gone through we would have undoubtedly had to pay over the odds, but to say that the payment of his agent’s fee alone would have taken us back to the top of the table under discussion has to be hyperbole In which way exactly is it hyperbole? If we spent £12m despite not signing Stones, Pogba or whoever for a transfer fee of £30m plus Is it really a stretch to suggest our total spend would have gone up by at least a further £2.5m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
startedwithglenn Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The thing I get shocked by in this article is that le Arse managed to spend £12m on agent fees, whilst pretty much only signing Cech and Paulista. Cech's agent must be rolling in it. Agents fees are incurred at times other than new signings, there's also contract renewals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted December 2, 2015 Author Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) I don't think I ever alluded to this idea? My point was that despite not signing the likes of Stones, Pogba etc we still spent massively on agent fees. “No doubt the Falcao loan deal carried a huge fee for Mendes but when you consider that are deals during that period were for the likes of Cuadrado and Papy Djilobodji you have to wonder what exactly we are forking out so much money for?” … is what you said, and I responded by pointing out that bringing up the lack of value for money [paid in agents fees] only serves to cloud the main issue, which is whether they should be paid such large amounts in the first place. Okay, you didn’t think you ever alluded to the idea [of getting value for money] being of importance, so why not clear the matter up once and for all - in principle, are you in favour of the club trying to lower the agents fee paid figure per year or not? And, since you asked, yes I was suggesting our refusal to ‘pay hiking agent fees was a contributing factor in not signing Stones’ and I am against agents taking an extortionate percentage every time their player moves, as KDB did [twice] recently. And I don’t think they should get congratulatory back-slapping for playing the system as they do, whereas I do think praise is due when they are given less per year by a club, regardless of the circumstances bringing about the reduction - what’s not to like? Then again, like you, perhaps I’m missing something here. Edited December 2, 2015 by Dorset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverCarefree Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 “No doubt the Falcao loan deal carried a huge fee for Mendes but when you consider that are deals during that period were for the likes of Cuadrado and Papy Djilobodji you have to wonder what exactly we are forking out so much money for?” … is what you said, and I responded by pointing out that bringing up the lack of value for money [paid in agents fees] only serves to cloud the main issue, which is whether they should be paid such large amounts in the first place. Okay, you didn’t think you ever alluded to the idea [of getting value for money] being of importance, so why not clear the matter up once and for all - in principle, are you in favour of the club trying to lower the agents fee paid figure per year or not? I don't object to large agents fees as such, it's a part of the game now and when you're the only club trying to take a moral stand you'll get left behind. However, despite not making large signings as City did we still spent massively on agent fees and I'm struggling to understand why we only spent £0.5m less than they did considering the good business they did in the transfer market compared to our own poor showing over the 12 month period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted December 2, 2015 Author Share Posted December 2, 2015 I don't object to large agents fees as such, it's a part of the game now and when you're the only club trying to take a moral stand you'll get left behind. If indeed we are pursuing a policy of reduction, we are not alone, although Chelsea is the biggest fish in a relatively small pool, we are the only one swimming against the Premiership tide, and it is all destined to be done without due recognition. James Ducker and George Caulkin (The Times 2/12/15) explain in the opening paragraphs of this article:- “For many, it was hard to look past the headline figure of almost £130 million spent on agent fees by Barclays Premier League clubs over the past year. They are head-spinning sums and all the more eye-watering when one considers that, between them, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea, the biggest spenders on agents, shelled out more or less the equivalent of the £54 million it cost to take Kevin de Bruyne from Wolfsburg to the Etihad Stadium in the summer. Dig a little deeper, though, and the names of three clubs stuck out for very different reasons amid the fog of exorbitant expenditure on agents. Bury, the Sky Bet League One club, and Accrington Stanley and Hartlepool, both of League Two, spent nothing in agent-related commission. Their determination to buy and sell players without enlisting third parties is rare.” The rest of the piece is full of interesting quotes, the best of which is introduced as follows:- “Hartlepool believe their refusal to pay agents has cost them players in the past. Until the summer, they were owned by IOR, an oil company. Since then they have been bought by JPNG, a recruitment firm. The club are debt-free and, in time, JPNG hopes to buy Victoria Park, their stadium, from the local council and have spoken about getting the club into the Sky Bet Championship, despite their flirtation with relegation in the past two seasons. Russ Green, the chief executive, said that not paying agents was a point of principle for the former owners but that the club could compromise. “We’ve never paid agent fees,” he said. “We’d agree terms with a player and whether they had an agent or not, that was what they were going to get. It’s difficult, but players are starting to realise that agents are using them, that the only time an agent really makes any money is when they move on.” Sadly, compromise is bound to occur the further Hartlepool swim upstream, but however long it lasts, Jeff Stelling should be proud of the stance taken by his club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverCarefree Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 That's all very interesting but it doesn't really address the point I've raised that despite Manchester City having a more active and successful period in the transfer market than ourselves over the last twelve months why did we spend only £0.5m less than them in agent fees? So is our reduced spending in said fees really anything to be proud of, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroMendez Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) What I don't get is an agent is suppose to be looking after the best interest of their client (finding the best for them and best deal etc), which in this case is the player. Surely its the player who should be paying the agents for doing this for them and not the club paying the agent for 'setting up the move'. I get you might want to give the agent a bonus if the negotiations were kept quite and went smoothly, but I really don't think a fee should be part of the negotiation. The agent shouldn't have any power in whether a transfer should go ahead or not and it should be done with what the player wants as the main goal where as introducing fees for agents has given them a huge amount of power which they shouldn't have. Edited December 2, 2015 by PedroMendez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) That's all very interesting but it doesn't really address the point I've raised that despite Manchester City having a more active and successful period in the transfer market than ourselves over the last twelve months why did we spend only £0.5m less than them in agent fees? With respect, I’m not sure that you have thoroughly addressed the point you raised either. Where are the facts to back up your claim that City had ‘a more active and successful period in the transfer market than ourselves over the last twelve months’ - on what grounds, other than the direct comparison of agents fees paid by both clubs, do you base the assertion? Admittedly, I haven’t responded in detail myself [on what I regard as a tangential issue] so let me correct that now by setting out the arrivals at both clubs in 2015/16 in full, the details taken from transfermarkt.co.uk. For some reason the website sets out the fees for City in pounds sterling and for Chelsea in euros [though this hardly matters when taking an overview] and the figures shown in brackets are the website’s perceived market values for each of the players at the time of transfer:- Man City Arrivals 2015/16:- Kevin de Bruyne - £51.80m (£31.50m) Raheem Sterling - £43.75m (£28m) Nicolas Otamendi - £31.22m (£17.50m) Fabian Delph - £8.05m (£7m) Patrick Roberts - £5.04m (£1.75m) Enes Onal - £2.10m (£2.24m) Chelsea Arrivals 2015/16:- Pedro - 27m euros (20m) Baba Rahman - 20m (10m) Asmir Begovic - 11m (12m) Falcao - £8.30m (35m loan) Kennedy - 8m (6m) Michael Hector - 5.40m (750k) Nathan - 4.50m (3m) Papy Djilobodji - 3.50m (6.50m) Cristian Manea - 2.70m (1.50m) Danilo Pantic - Free (1m) So, when specifically comparing the transfer activity of both clubs, what can be gleaned from this information? Well, City spent £141.96m on players with a market value assessed at £87.99m and Chelsea spent 90.40m euros on players assessed at 60.75m - an overspend of £53.97m by City and 29.65m euros by us. City bought six players, each costing more than a million pounds, Chelsea acquired ten, the costliest three offering experience, as opposed to potential. Using 22yrs as the age benchmark, both City and Chelsea invested in youth when making three of their signings, Sterling going straight into City’s first team, Roberts and Onal conspicuous only by absence, whereas Chelsea blooded Kenedy, by common consent to good effect. But does any of this matter? Not in the slightest, if you are still of the opinion that City have had a more active and successful period in the transfer market and don’t have any qualms over the payment of large agents fees in pursuit of transfers. However, taking a longer look at these acquisitions, the relative cost involved and overall value for money obtained, others may think differently. Whether it be a matter of pride or principle, I know I do. Edited December 3, 2015 by Dorset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverCarefree Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 With respect, I’m not sure that you have thoroughly addressed the point you raised either. Where are the facts to back up your claim that City had ‘a more active and successful period in the transfer market than ourselves over the last twelve months’ - on what grounds, other than the direct comparison of agents fees paid by both clubs, do you base the assertion? I think the first point I would point to would be the league table, with City clear favourites to win the title and we're languishing in the bottom half of the table currently looking unlikely to even qualify for Europe. Of City's signings Otamendi, Sterling and KDB all have significant playing time in the first team, a lot more than Kenedy, Rhaman and Falcao do. Pedro our most expensive signing has managed 1 goal and one assist, both on his debut in the league and one goal at the death in a league cup tie. Meanwhile City's new attacking midfielders have 15 goals and 8 assists between them. Pedro at 28 has 4 maybe 5 more good years in him, Sterling and KDB 10 years. Basically on current evidence I'm not sure how you could argue that they didn't have a better 12 months in the transfer market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think the first point I would point to would be the league table, with City clear favourites to win the title and we're languishing in the bottom half of the table currently looking unlikely to even qualify for Europe. At this early stage it is difficult to cite a direct correlation between the signings both clubs made and respective positions in the league table and my reasons for saying so will become clearer on responding to the other points made. Of City's signings Otamendi, Sterling and KDB all have significant playing time in the first team, a lot more than Kenedy, Rhaman and Falcao do. It would have been a major surprise if those big City signings didn’t get significant playing time, whereas the three Chelsea players named were all signed as back up for current first team players. Pedro our most expensive signing has managed 1 goal and one assist, both on his debut in the league and one goal at the death in a league cup tie. Meanwhile City's new attacking midfielders have 15 goals and 8 assists between them. All down to Pedro not performing is an unfair criticism, I’m sure you would agree. No matter how well City’s new midfielders have performed, I’ ll wager you would not have pressed for any of them as replacements for our midfielders when the transfer window was open in the summer - unless, of course, you wanted us to buy KDB back for an exorbitant amount, which I very much doubt. Pedro at 28 has 4 maybe 5 more good years in him, Sterling and KDB 10 years. And did City pay way over the odds for such longevity? Yes. Did they also get proven talent and a guaranteed level of long term commitment [as was shown towards their previous clubs]? I think not. Give me a willing Pedro and a box-to-box worker like Kenedy over both of them any day. Basically on current evidence I'm not sure how you could argue that they didn't have a better 12 months in the transfer market? Current [short term] evidence is not conclusive proof of anything much - that will be there for all to see at the end of this season. And even then I don’t anticipate Pellegrini ever citing KDB and Sterling’s tremendous work rate in midfield and Otamendi’s ability to nail down a regular place in the side as key factors in a successful Premiership campaign, let alone in regard to any CL improvement - should either or both happen it will be all about the usual suspects David Silva, Yaya Toure and Sergio Aguero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now