1 hour ago, Le Fantôme Noir said:

I'm convinced Sarri didn't know how to unlock his secret level.

 

Nor could he find the Jade Monkey. Useless bastard that he was.

Played most of the season and offered pretty much nothing at all, a lot of minutes played with no impact, Pointless player along with Bakayoko and Drinkwater, at least with Drinkwater he offers some value counting towards homegrown for CL quota

1 minute ago, tmarmsi said:

Played most of the season and offered pretty much nothing at all, a lot of minutes played with no impact, Pointless player along with Bakayoko and Drinkwater, at least with Drinkwater he offers some value counting towards homegrown for CL quota

That won't be a problem anyways, so if you're going to use that as an argument for Drinkwater over Kovacic, it's a pretty poor stance.

I understand the frustration of some fans with his lack of goal output but saying that he operates at the level of Drinkwater & Bakayako is just plain nonsensical.

The issue in signing Kovacic is that we have a couple of players in midfield who are arguably better than him in that holding role with a somewhat similar goal output, we cant play Kante, Jorginho & Kovacic together in a 3 man midfield especially now that Hazard is no longer with us. However with the transfer Ban I wouldnt mind getting him in as midfield cover especially with Loftus Cheek likely to miss the first half of the season.

20 minutes ago, mwblue10 said:

That won't be a problem anyways, so if you're going to use that as an argument for Drinkwater over Kovacic, it's a pretty poor stance.

Obviously didn't read what I wrote, I said all 3 are pointless, any player that plays most of the season and offers close to nothing surely has no use what so ever, with a player like Drinkwater who didn't play at all still counted towards homegrown, this isn't an argument it's a fact and needed in the squad.

Personally I dont think Drinkwater should play or is even good enough and a complete waste of wages but that's another argument.

2 minutes ago, tmarmsi said:

Obviously didn't read what I wrote, I said all 3 are pointless, any player that plays most of the season and offers close to nothing surely has no use what so ever, with a player like Drinkwater who didn't play at all still counted towards homegrown, this isn't an argument it's a fact and needed in the squad.

Personally I dont think Drinkwater should play or is even good enough and a complete waste of wages but that's another argument.

Yes, you said all 3 are pointless, and then you proceeded to give a reason why you would take Drinkwater over Kovacic.  The reason you gave would have no bearing on Drinkwater playing, or even being kept, over Kovacic.

The rule isn't that you have to have a certain amount of homegrown players, it's that you can only have so many non-homegrown players.  So, my point is, we could very likely only register 23 or 24 players in a certain competition (likely the CL) if we don't have enough qualifying homegrown players.

Looks like we were forced to buy him. 

Why spunk nearly 1/2 of the Eden sale dosh on this bloke ?  

If he was going for 15 mill fair enough but he brought very little imo last season to warrant a 50 mill Euro transfer but this is Chelsea so who knows roll on July 1st and him not here

4 minutes ago, General said:

Why spunk nearly 1/2 of the Eden sale dosh on this bloke ?  

If he was going for 15 mill fair enough but he brought very little imo last season to warrant a 50 mill Euro transfer but this is Chelsea so who knows roll on July 1st and him not here

I think you have to look at the whole picture when it comes to the funds.  Sure, if you phrase it as half the Hazard sale, it makes it look like a lot or at least a big portion of our budget.  But if you factor in other player sales and the fact that it's the only money we will be spending this summer, then we come out waaaaay ahead, even when you consider that our net spend has not been much over the past few years.

4 minutes ago, General said:

Why spunk nearly 1/2 of the Eden sale dosh on this bloke ?  

If he was going for 15 mill fair enough but he brought very little imo last season to warrant a 50 mill Euro transfer but this is Chelsea so who knows roll on July 1st and him not here

No goals.  More yellow cards than assists.  Is that what 50 million buys you these days?

2 hours ago, loz said:

Nor could he find the Jade Monkey. Useless bastard that he was.

Well actually sir, we found the Jade Monkey. It was in your glove compartment

well if Kovacic can duplicate his performances over the gooners in the Europa League Final (I sorta remember him doing well in the first match in the beginning of the season too vs le arse) then I can look past his lack of goal scoring. I rather he distributes the ball to someone that can score. here is debut vs le arse.

 

On 09/08/2018 at 05:30, JMaher94 said:

Wait, some of you are unhappy because we may or may not be "developing a Madrid player".

We need Kovacic because our current crop of midfielders aren't good enough for Sarri's system and we desperately need to get back into the top four.

Kovavic will be a success and will stay at Chelsea past his loan period is my prediction.

 

Looks like you might be correct - give yourself a pat on the back

Edited June 26, 20197 yr by robdog

25 minutes ago, mwblue10 said:

I think you have to look at the whole picture when it comes to the funds.  Sure, if you phrase it as half the Hazard sale, it makes it look like a lot or at least a big portion of our budget.  But if you factor in other player sales and the fact that it's the only money we will be spending this summer, then we come out waaaaay ahead, even when you consider that our net spend has not been much over the past few years.

I disagree.  Overpaying b/c you think you have no choice is a bad habit and sets a bad precedent (not that we haven't already done that).  Also, money spent now is money that can't be spent later (and better).  Again, I don't think there was going to be any real interest in Kovacic for 50M and Kovacic is not a clearly necessary player for us.  20-30M?  OK.  50M?  Hell no.

My other concern is that players you spend 50M on play b/c you spent 50M on them.  He's a solid player that would be an asset to the team in the right role but if he's starting over younger players because the club and manager feel the need to justify the expenditure, it doubles the problem.  That's not the kind of box I want to put Lampard in.  The one benefit of the transfer ban would be the opportunity to give young players a legit chance with lowered expectations.  50M for Kovacic could undermine that. 

25 minutes ago, mwblue10 said:

I think you have to look at the whole picture when it comes to the funds.  Sure, if you phrase it as half the Hazard sale, it makes it look like a lot or at least a big portion of our budget.  But if you factor in other player sales and the fact that it's the only money we will be spending this summer, then we come out waaaaay ahead, even when you consider that our net spend has not been much over the past few years.

I disagree.  Overpaying b/c you think you have no choice is a bad habit and sets a bad precedent (not that we haven't already done that).  Also, money spent now is money that can't be spent later (and better).  Again, I don't think there was going to be any real interest in Kovacic for 50M and Kovacic is not a clearly necessary player for us.  20-30M?  OK.  50M?  Hell no.

My other concern is that players you spend 50M on play b/c you spent 50M on them.  He's a solid player that would be an asset to the team in the right role but if he's starting over younger players because the club and manager feel the need to justify the expenditure, it doubles the problem.  That's not the kind of box I want to put Lampard in.  The one benefit of the transfer ban would be the opportunity to give young players a legit chance with lowered expectations.  50M for Kovacic could undermine that. 

1 minute ago, floydgator said:

I disagree.  Overpaying b/c you think you have no choice is a bad habit and sets a bad precedent (not that we haven't already done that).  Also, money spent now is money that can't be spent later (and better).  Again, I don't think there was going to be any real interest in Kovacic for 50M and Kovacic is not a clearly necessary player for us.  20-30M?  OK.  50M?  Hell no.

My other concern is that players you spend 50M on play b/c you spent 50M on them.  He's a solid player that would be an asset to the team in the right role but if he's starting over younger players because the club and manager feel the need to justify the expenditure, it doubles the problem.  That's not the kind of box I want to put Lampard in.  The one benefit of the transfer ban would be the opportunity to give young players a legit chance with lowered expectations.  50M for Kovacic could undermine that. 

I don't think the club is considering buying him because they think they don't have a choice.  Obviously they have a choice.  My point is, we aren't even going to feel it on the balance sheet because we are not buying any other players, as it currently stands, for the next 12 months.  So in previous years, where we buy a bunch of players and end up with a slight net spend, this year we will make likely north of 200 million, even if we were to buy Kovacic on the high end at 50m

That being said, I doubt that we are going to pay 50m for Kovacic - Marina has shown she gets her way and I assume that is part of the reason that we are up against the clock here, she's working the price down.

Hope you are right.  As I said before, I'd like to have him back at a reasonable value.  I think that you are in pretty good shape if you are bringing guys like Kovacic in off the bench.

 Have they not looked at his pathetic stats?  Have they not watched him be hauled off every game?  All clubs make big  mistakes in the transfer market, but what i've never seen a top club do is have a trial run, see the player do nothing game after game, then go ahead and sign him. We're being brave bringing in Frank, so why not continue this and promote another youth player.  He could hardly do any worse!

Di Marzio just confirmed the deal is done now. 50 million euros but that's including clauses so i assume what we pay right now is significantly less.

That is basically 45mill pounds. If that is straight up cash that is a poor deal. Spurs are getting a much better player for only  a quarter more of the price.

He isn't worth more than 30m. So the club decided to keep a bang average player that over his whole career spent most of his time on the bench, even with our midfield players he simply can't finish a full 90 minutes game.

23 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

He isn't worth more than 30m. So the club decided to keep a bang average player that over his whole career spent most of his time on the bench, even with our midfield players he simply can't finish a full 90 minutes game.

Apparently Lamps wants him. What is next? Higuain? 

2 hours ago, floydgator said:

I disagree.  Overpaying b/c you think you have no choice is a bad habit and sets a bad precedent (not that we haven't already done that).   

Any other time I would agree but this time it's different.

As flawed as Kovacic can be he is 100x preferable to Bakayoko who could well take the back up role to Jorginho/Kante if he doesn't come in.

If Frank is moving to a double pivot for us that could explain the sudden decision to retain him.

He would be quality in that position as it plays to all his strengths and negates all his weaknesses. Jorginho, Kante and Kova would be class pivot options, remember how desperate we were for as much as one player of that standard in our famous 2013 pivot issues?

Edited June 26, 20197 yr by Argo

We're facing a difficult season, so i could understand and be prepared to tolerate another year on loan. Signing him is showing a real lowering of expectations for what we want and need as a Chelsea player.  The guy is going to be around for years now, stinking the place out like Kalou and Mikel.

double post.

Edited June 26, 20197 yr by Dixons