Jump to content

Abramovich ordered chelsea to sign de bruyne


Guest
Chelsea Megastore
Chelsea Megastore

Chelsea Megastore

Recommended Posts

http://m.goal.com/s/en/news/11/transfer-zone/2016/04/16/22473362/abramovich-ordered-chelsea-to-sign-de-bruyne

Piet de Visser, a scout who has worked at Stamford Bridge since 2005, has revealed that the Chelsea owner requested the signing after being impressed by the Belgian

Chelsea signed Kevin De Bruyne following direct orders from Roman Abramovich.

Piet de Visser has been scouting for Chelsea since 2005 and has personally liaised with Abramovich on potential transfer targets, and has revealed that he needed to go directly to the Chelsea owner about De Bruyne’s talent.

“One of the best players I’ve scouted is Kevin De Bruyne,” De Visser wrote in his new book Master Scout, which has been serialised by Het Nieuwsblad.

“Kevin was 18. Even then he had a great technique. I had rarely seen such a thing. He was an attacking midfielder with a superb first touch and immediately moved the game, created openings. For me, he was an instant revelation.

"I asked for the tapes of De Bruyne and took them to Chelsea. I showed them to the chief scout.

“He said he liked De Bruyne but added there are plenty of players like him.

“I said 'No, this boy has something extra'. I called the director of Genk [Dirk Degraen].

“He told me many more teams were watching him. I had to take action, I had to be bold and I took the tape to the big boss of Chelsea, Roman Abramovich.

“Roman is a genuine football lover. He not only wants to win, he wants to see beautiful football. He watched the tape, didn't say anything, but called the scouting department.

“’That De Bruyne guy has to come’, he said. If the big boss likes you, that is of course a great way to make your entry."

De Bruyne joined Chelsea from Genk in 2012 for a fee in the region of £7 million but was sold to Wolfsburg for £18m just two years later after failing to secure a regular role in the first team under Jose Mourinho.

De Bruyne spent just 19 months in the Bundesliga before Manchester City signed the midfielder in a £55m deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Poor decision to not really do our utmost to get the best of him.

Did we really need to sign schurrle nd Willian that summer when we had decided Brunner coming in off a more impressive season than either of them?

Did we allow him to makes mistakes and grow as a player?

There were reports he wasn't the best trainer although his attitude has been praised by every manager he has worked with. Mark Hughes wasn't a great trainer but he was top drawer come much day.

Hopefully we learn from this and show more patience with developing players, and we give the likes of Christianson and musonda a real shot in the first team, let them make mistakes on the pitch and give them confidence to improve.

The whole de Bruyne situation just smacks of short termism, which is what has left us in the situation we are in now.

Edited by big blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can vividly picture De B and Hazard linking up fantastically in a game, might of been a pre season, i thought wow this could be a pre cursor to great things, it never materialised, and i still don't understand why, but at the time and probably still is, we have the best Belgian in our ranks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



We can't all Hazard the best Belgian right now there are many ahead of him. If he gets back to his best then we an debate but as of now he's one of the worst.

We only have 2 Belgians in our ranks as far as im aware, and there both not hot atm.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Hindsight is so wonderful.... If we backed every player that some one said was going to be special would be a dangerous strategy. 

 

If I remember rightly Oscar and Hazard where at the time probably just, or maybe even more coveted players..... Willian is to me arguably as good.

 

I don't remember that much upset when KDB left either.

 

It is also daft to say that Jose restricted players, his methods have been the most prolific in Europe over the last decade. 

 

This seasons early form and the fact that a few players have gone on to do very well is just exasperated the perception of what happen under Jose.

 

To me there has only been one genuine brilliant "I told you so" moment in football and that was of all people Uncle Harry talking about Lamps.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

absolutely fair points andy.

 

I absolutely backed his decision at the time given he wasn't playing, we got matic who filled a position we needed filling far more than de bruyne's and he went on to be a key player for us as we won the league. it was good business overall I felt. and most people were of that opinion. far more was made of mata not being used and eventually being sold at the time.

 

it is very easy to look back and change our minds with the benefit of hindsight.

 

HOWEVER- we do have the benefit of hindsight as fans. and it is our right to be able to change our minds about these things. we have to be allowed to judge a managers decisions. they are professionals and it is their job to get them right. it is fair to expect them to be better than us in making judgements on football matters.

 

and on that basis jose clearly got de bruyne badly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Something was discussed before the Swindon cup game of what Mourinho wanted from de Bruyne to prove to him about more game time. He was substituted early and there was a problem between the two of them. It's never come out what was said but that I think was the beginning of the end for de Bruyne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



absolutely fair points andy.

 

I absolutely backed his decision at the time given he wasn't playing, we got matic who filled a position we needed filling far more than de bruyne's and he went on to be a key player for us as we won the league. it was good business overall I felt. and most people were of that opinion. far more was made of mata not being used and eventually being sold at the time.

 

it is very easy to look back and change our minds with the benefit of hindsight.

 

HOWEVER- we do have the benefit of hindsight as fans. and it is our right to be able to change our minds about these things. we have to be allowed to judge a managers decisions. they are professionals and it is their job to get them right. it is fair to expect them to be better than us in making judgements on football matters.

 

and on that basis jose clearly got de bruyne badly wrong.

 

There is the rumour that Jose didn't want to sell De Bruyne from Kristof Terreur and he told the board that. Given the board's transfer dealings over the last couple of seasons the idea that we'd sell De Bruyne to cover the cost of signing Matic, who was integral to us winning the league, isn't that far-fetched is it? Maybe we need to spread the blame for this one.

 

The thing with the whole De Bruyne thing is what Richard P mentioned above. People might not remember but Azpilicueta wasn't being included in the first-team either at the start of that season but both got chances in the Swindon game and one took it. Now I'm sure we all wish the club hadn't sold him but I think that there was something else going on that limited De Bruyne's chances. Ultimately he just wanted to play and he got his way. I think he said a loan or sale wasn't important, he just wanted to be on the pitch.

 

Nice to see De Visser getting some credit though because he was way ahead of the curve on what was coming out of Belgium. The idea that he had to go directly to Roman is somewhat revealing of what's going on at our club though. Personally I'm not that comfortable with Roman being such a large presence at this club simply because he's completely unaccountable to anyone and doesn't even address the fans on anything approaching a regular basis, but that's another discussion entirely and requires the use of a word I know people get arsey about - plaything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is the rumour that Jose didn't want to sell De Bruyne from Kristof Terreur and he told the board that. Given the board's transfer dealings over the last couple of seasons the idea that we'd sell De Bruyne to cover the cost of signing Matic, who was integral to us winning the league, isn't that far-fetched is it? Maybe we need to spread the blame for this one.

The thing with the whole De Bruyne thing is what Richard P mentioned above. People might not remember but Azpilicueta wasn't being included in the first-team either at the start of that season but both got chances in the Swindon game and one took it. Now I'm sure we all wish the club hadn't sold him but I think that there was something else going on that limited De Bruyne's chances. Ultimately he just wanted to play and he got his way. I think he said a loan or sale wasn't important, he just wanted to be on the pitch.

Nice to see De Visser getting some credit though because he was way ahead of the curve on what was coming out of Belgium. The idea that he had to go directly to Roman is somewhat revealing of what's going on at our club though. Personally I'm not that comfortable with Roman being such a large presence at this club simply because he's completely unaccountable to anyone and doesn't even address the fans on anything approaching a regular basis, but that's another discussion entirely and requires the use of a word I know people get arsey about - plaything.

You keep saying we sold kdb to buy Matic, but mata's transfer fee more than covered that purchase, if it was a case of balancing the books.

You could also argue we replaced kdb with Salah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You keep saying we sold kdb to buy Matic, but mata's transfer fee more than covered that purchase, if it was a case of balancing the books.

You could also argue we replaced kdb with Salah.

 

I've never said we did do that, just that it's a possiblity. If you're looking at a one-in, one-out policy then you could argue that the Mata transfer replacement was actually Willian who cost roughly the same (give or take a Cahill) and actually seemed to be the player who supplanted Mata in that team considering Mourinho's penchant for viewing Mata as a right-winger.

 

When you look at the players we're talking about though (Willian and Matic), you're talking about two players who were key to us winning the league last year. I know why the decision to sell De Bruyne is getting a lot of attention but I think it becomes a minor point if we do the things we should've done in the summer and strengthen a title-winning squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember De Bruyne got a terrible injury pre-season when his knee bent the wrong way. I think it was in Indonesia. He has also been out with long injury this season. If he turns out to be injury prone, selling could prove to be a shrewd move. Lets see if he can go a full season next year before we start going overboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never said we did do that, just that it's a possiblity. If you're looking at a one-in, one-out policy then you could argue that the Mata transfer replacement was actually Willian who cost roughly the same (give or take a Cahill) and actually seemed to be the player who supplanted Mata in that team considering Mourinho's penchant for viewing Mata as a right-winger.

When you look at the players we're talking about though (Willian and Matic), you're talking about two players who were key to us winning the league last year. I know why the decision to sell De Bruyne is getting a lot of attention but I think it becomes a minor point if we do the things we should've done in the summer and strengthen a title-winning squad.

You have insinuated a couple of times that the sale waas justified, because it was a choice between kdb or Matic, I don't think that was the case.

You just suggested mata was sold to balance the Willian signing? So we signed Willian knowing we would have to push our player of the year out the door by January to balance the books? Add mata even kicked a ball for mourinho at that point?

It was all poor decision to allow kdb to be sold. We didn't need money, and although it has been brought to the front of everyone's minds this season, there was plenty of fans that thought it was a bad decision at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You have insinuated a couple of times that the sale waas justified, because it was a choice between kdb or Matic, I don't think that was the case.

You just suggested mata was sold to balance the Willian signing? So we signed Willian knowing we would have to push our player of the year out the door by January to balance the books? Add mata even kicked a ball for mourinho at that point?

It was all poor decision to allow kdb to be sold. We didn't need money, and although it has been brought to the front of everyone's minds this season, there was plenty of fans that thought it was a bad decision at the time.

 

I've suggested that based on our transfer dealings over the last couple of season's, De Bruyne out and Matic in seems like the type of move this club would make. I think Mata was always likely to be out under Jose simply because of the style of player he is and Willian is very much a Jose (and Conte in many ways) type player.

 

You say we didn't need money though - really? In the financial year ending June 2015 we made a loss of £23.1 million. Now I'm not sure of the payment structure of the De Bruyne deal but aren't there always FFP implications for these type of things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've suggested that based on our transfer dealings over the last couple of season's, De Bruyne out and Matic in seems like the type of move this club would make. I think Mata was always likely to be out under Jose simply because of the style of player he is and Willian is very much a Jose (and Conte in many ways) type player.

You say we didn't need money though - really? In the financial year ending June 2015 we made a loss of £23.1 million. Now I'm not sure of the payment structure of the De Bruyne deal but aren't there always FFP implications for these type of things?

We would not have signed Salah for £15m had kdb stayed. So we would have loss around extra £2m, hardly going to make a massive difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People might not remember but Azpilicueta wasn't being included in the first-team either at the start of that season but both got chances in the Swindon game and one took it. 

Difference being that Azpilicueta was already a first team member under Rafa, had plenty of games under his belt to build an understanding with his teammates so making his way back into the team was considerably easier compared to KDB.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up

Well, this is awkward!

Happy Sunny Days GIF by Atlassian

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to show these to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum running. Over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off and whitelisting the website? Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interference with your experience on The Shed End.

If you don't want to view any adverts while logged in and using your account, consider using the Ad-Free Subscription which is renewable every year. To buy a subscription, log in to your account and click the link under the Newbies forum on the home page.

Cheers now!

Sure, let me in!