Transfer Deadline Day 2020

[Floyd25]

Rudi is 27, not getting any better, was woeful last season, Tomori was inconsistent but at least showed signs of potential so I know which one I’d loan/sell, just my opinion. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Floyd25

[Floyd25]

McEachran loaned to Maastricht (not heard of them), Castillo loaned to Az. Brown came back from Union SG, expect him and a few others will still get loaned to championship and lower tier English teams, Sterling, Clarke-Salter etc..rest will hang about until Jan. 

[SimonH]

We have 4 left backs, 3 right backs and 5 centre backs on the books. It’s a disaster really. Hope we find a home for some of these somehow 

[driller97]

22 hours ago, ForeverCarefree said:

If this transfer window has taught us anything it's that we're not settling for 2nd choice transfer targets. 

Arsenal have been tracking Partey for 2 years, they've had personal terms agreed with him for ages. He was never realistically going to sign for Chelsea. 

Selling the likes of Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Zappacosta wouldn't have had any bearing on signing Rice. We needed to sell 1 or 2 players currently in the first team set up to do that... Truth is we were massively overstocked on midfielders, many of them more suited to playing in more advanced positions than sitting deep. We've let Barkley and RLC go out on loan but we've still got Jorginho, Kovacic, Kante and Gillmore fighting it out for 2 positions then you've got Mount, Havertz and possibly Ziyech competing for the attacking midfield option. 

There's too much work to do to create space for another midfielder in the squad to make signing another midfielder realistic right now, especially in a market where so few clubs are willing to spend any money. 

Fair point, but this is a case where the 2nd choice for me is quite clearly better than the first choice.

We are just massively overstocked throughout the squad. Currently on around 30 loanees, with that number only looking to get bigger which is a shocker really because we made progress on reducing the loan players in the past couple of windows, only to go and throw it all in the bin now.

Just hoping we can sort out the mess by next summer where the new rules come into play

[ForeverCarefree]

1 hour ago, driller97 said:

Fair point, but this is a case where the 2nd choice for me is quite clearly better than the first choice.

That's an objective opinion on your part.

If the manager has identified a player they want at the moment the club is demonstrating they'll go all in to get that player. Previously we weren't doing that and were content to recruit plan B, C, D... That's how we ended up with the likes of Zappacosta, Bakayoko and Morata all of which no longer play for Chelsea which should tell you something. We're following a similar model to Liverpool's approach to recruit which is to target and recruit specific players. Which is why Partey was never going to come to Chelsea. 

1 hour ago, driller97 said:

We are just massively overstocked throughout the squad. Currently on around 30 loanees, with that number only looking to get bigger which is a shocker really because we made progress on reducing the loan players in the past couple of windows, only to go and throw it all in the bin now.

Just hoping we can sort out the mess by next summer where the new rules come into play

I'm sure the plan was to continue to reduce the number of players employed by Chelsea by the market right now is making it near impossible to sell players on permanent deals. Look at the transfer activity in Serie A during this window, most of it is loan deals.

FIFA/UEFA have already had to back track on the maximum loan players deadline and they'll have to do it again. You can't reduce your number of contracted players if no one can buy them. 

The loan system is an important means of Chelsea supplementing income, we don't have grounds as big as many other Premier League sides with no option to expand the stadium outside of a complete rebuild. So to avoid falling behind financially we have our loan system where we get a regular annual income of loan fees which has proved a successful model for years now. I really see now issues with it at all. 

By the way, if you want to see a truly impressive number of loan players, I suggest taking a look at Atalanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atalanta_B.C.#Out_on_loan

[dkw]

Wasnt it Udinese who had about 70 players that were either out on loan or part owned a few years ago ? The Italian transfer stuff is beyond mental at times. 

[driller97]

On 07/10/2020 at 10:51, ForeverCarefree said:

That's an objective opinion on your part.

If the manager has identified a player they want at the moment the club is demonstrating they'll go all in to get that player. Previously we weren't doing that and were content to recruit plan B, C, D... That's how we ended up with the likes of Zappacosta, Bakayoko and Morata all of which no longer play for Chelsea which should tell you something. We're following a similar model to Liverpool's approach to recruit which is to target and recruit specific players. Which is why Partey was never going to come to Chelsea. 

I'm sure the plan was to continue to reduce the number of players employed by Chelsea by the market right now is making it near impossible to sell players on permanent deals. Look at the transfer activity in Serie A during this window, most of it is loan deals.

FIFA/UEFA have already had to back track on the maximum loan players deadline and they'll have to do it again. You can't reduce your number of contracted players if no one can buy them. 

The loan system is an important means of Chelsea supplementing income, we don't have grounds as big as many other Premier League sides with no option to expand the stadium outside of a complete rebuild. So to avoid falling behind financially we have our loan system where we get a regular annual income of loan fees which has proved a successful model for years now. I really see now issues with it at all. 

By the way, if you want to see a truly impressive number of loan players, I suggest taking a look at Atalanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atalanta_B.C.#Out_on_loan

Well at this rate they're just going to run down their contracts and get released on a free.

Also this argument where the loans supplement income is ridiculous, the only player who we even got a loan fee for is Bakayoko and that was only a measly 1.8m, not a single one of the other loanees has a loan fee and were loaned for free.

[ForeverCarefree]

16 minutes ago, driller97 said:

Also this argument where the loans supplement income is ridiculous, the only player who we even got a loan fee for is Bakayoko and that was only a measly 1.8m, not a single one of the other loanees has a loan fee and were loaned for free.

I refer you to the below reply I made to this in the Partey rumour thread. Bakayoko isn't the only player who received a loan fee and that fee was £4.5m no £1.8m. 

I'm not sure why you keep making the same baseless assertion over and over? 

If Chelsea didn't make money from the loan system, why do you think they've been doing it for over a decade now? 

What exactly do you think the club are doing when they buy players for £5m or under and then loan them out continuously for 5 or so years? 

 

EDIT: Why don't we see loan fees more widely reported? A quick Google search and the official EFL website has this:

"48.2 Subject to Regulation 52.1, Transfer Fees, Compensation Fees and Loan Fees shall be treated as private and confidential." Source: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-6---players/

Just because a loan fee isn't reported doesn't mean there isn't one. Perhaps don't treat TransferMarkt.com as gospel. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by ForeverCarefree

[driller97]

21 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

I refer you to the below reply I made to this in the Partey rumour thread. Bakayoko isn't the only player who received a loan fee and that fee was £4.5m no £1.8m. 

I'm not sure why you keep making the same baseless assertion over and over? 

If Chelsea didn't make money from the loan system, why do you think they've been doing it for over a decade now? 

What exactly do you think the club are doing when they buy players for £5m or under and then loan them out continuously for 5 or so years? 

 

EDIT: Why don't we see loan fees more widely reported? A quick Google search and the official EFL website has this:

"48.2 Subject to Regulation 52.1, Transfer Fees, Compensation Fees and Loan Fees shall be treated as private and confidential." Source: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-6---players/

Just because a loan fee isn't reported doesn't mean there isn't one. Perhaps don't treat TransferMarkt.com as gospel. 

Right I see.

Well in that case I stand corrected then! Would be better if I could know the fee's they actually get to see just how worthwhile doing this is.