Ben Chilwell

[UHDrive]

9 hours ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

Benkovic - loan

Chilwell - sold

Mendy - Free

Amartey - Loan

Silva - Sold

James - Loan

Gray - Sold

Diabate - Sold

Ghezzal - Sold

Slimani - Sold

 

Leaves you with twenty players, room for 5 new signings.

Exactly, yet we sell our best players when "we don't need to" and when chillwell "won't be going anywhere", according to BR. If we concentrated on selling dead wood and getting their salary off the books to sign more quality then we'd be in a lot better position to move forward as opposed to selling our best assets.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, UHDrive said:

Exactly, yet we sell our best players when "we don't need to" and when chillwell "won't be going anywhere", according to BR. If we concentrated on selling dead wood and getting their salary off the books to sign more quality then we'd be in a lot better position to move forward as opposed to selling our best assets.

I realise you're getting it from all angles, so I apologise for joining in - but maybe, just maybe, Chilwell wants to leave and it is actually for the best that he is sold.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, UHDrive said:

Exactly, yet we sell our best players when "we don't need to" and when chillwell "won't be going anywhere", according to BR. If we concentrated on selling dead wood and getting their salary off the books to sign more quality then we'd be in a lot better position to move forward as opposed to selling our best assets.

Can you see the problem ???  
dead wood on decent wages ....  that would simply be crystallising a prospective loss which can be spread over several years 

[st albans fox]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

I realise you're getting it from all angles, so I apologise for joining in - but maybe, just maybe, Chilwell wants to leave and it is actually for the best that he is sold.

Elephant in room .... he wanted to move to London ....... we need players who are totally committed ...well as much as they can be in this modern age ....

[CloudFox]

7 minutes ago, UHDrive said:

Exactly, yet we sell our best players when "we don't need to" and when chillwell "won't be going anywhere", according to BR. If we concentrated on selling dead wood and getting their salary off the books to sign more quality then we'd be in a lot better position to move forward as opposed to selling our best assets.

A lovely thought, but sadly dead wood by its very nature is hard to shift. We've been trying to shift Silva and Slimani for years now. It's not that easy to sell from the PL unless they are players in demand.

[stu]

You can keep your Percy’s and Ornstein’s when you have cutting edge journalism like this...

[UHDrive]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can you see the problem ???  
dead wood on decent wages ....  that would simply be crystallising a prospective loss which can be spread over several years 

Sorry for sounding thick but I dont understand what you've said? I'm hiding behind my naivety still on here.

[Ric Flair]

15 minutes ago, los dedos said:

Out of interest how many English left backs are regular starters for their team in the prem.

Taylor at Burnley

Shaw or Williams at Man Utd

Lewis at Norwich

Rose at Newcastle

Bertrand at Southampton

 

[UHDrive]

2 minutes ago, CloudFox said:

A lovely thought, but sadly dead wood by its very nature is hard to shift. We've been trying to shift Silva and Slimani for years now. It's not that easy to sell from the PL unless they are players in demand.

I do get that. I wonder whether our club ethos as a *family* makes it harder? I see a lot of other clubs selling/loaning their players at cut throat prices with the clear message that your surplus to requirements.

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Taylor at Burnley

Shaw or Williams at Man Utd

Lewis at Norwich

Rose at Newcastle

Bertrand at Southampton

 

Lewis is Northern Irish.

 

If chilwell was right footed he wouldn't have a cap yet. Nor if he was Scottish.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Abrasive fox said:

Lewis is Northern Irish.

 

If chilwell was right footed he wouldn't have a cap yet. Nor if he was Scottish.

Oh yes, my bad. It really isn't difficult to see why Chilwell gets in for England.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, UHDrive said:

Sorry for sounding thick but I dont understand what you've said? I'm hiding behind my naivety still on here.

If you make a bad signing or give out a bad contact renewal then that’s money you’re committed to spend each year (Most fees are paid in instalments to protect cash flow). 

 

the accountants will mess about with the numbers to make them look better than they really are on these things and the annual loss in the accounts will be minimised.   If you get rid of the player (Low fee) and have to pay off their contract then that loss is hard to hide.  The player would usually be an asset on the books based on what you paid for them (diminishing year on year). Disposing of them for the low fee now brings that loss directly into the current years accounts. 
 

im not an accountant and hopefully someone who is can articulate it better ......

[Nick]

So it’s even on bbc mainstream news quoting ‘reports’ and the figure of £50 million. 

[UHDrive]

Just now, st albans fox said:

If you make a bad signing or give out a bad contact renewal then that’s money you’re committed to spend each year (Most fees are paid in instalments to protect cash flow). 

 

the accountants will mess about with the numbers to make them look better than they really are on these things and the annual loss in the accounts will be minimised.   If you get rid of the player (Low fee) and have to pay off their contract then that loss is hard to hide.  The player would usually be an asset on the books based on what you paid for them (diminishing year on year). Disposing of them for the low fee now brings that loss directly into the current years accounts. 
 

im not an accountant and hopefully someone who is can articulate it better ......

Thanks, thats really helpful.

[Matt]

29 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Elephant in room .... he wanted to move to London ....... we need players who are totally committed ...well as much as they can be in this modern age ....

Not gonna happen though is it.

 

Whilst we're seen as a selling club by teams who we are trying to be direct rivals to, spoil the party and where we aspire to be, whilst also seen as a stepping stone by incoming players.

 

Now of course players will want to go on and better themselves and who am I to begrudge that. However, how do we grow as a club when we keep selling our talents, you can only successfully replace them for so long before it catches up with you, you have one bad season and the plan gets scrapped.

 

As I keep saying no other club seems to have their (or a) high profile players poached every single summer, other clubs don't seem to have players that "don't want to be there" - I'm not saying all clubs but alot, it seems every summer a player or players simply don't want to be here.

 

They get stronger as a direct hit we get weaker than we already are with a thin 11, let alone squad.

 

I can't help but feel this squad and many of the players in it are very unlikeable, I can probably count on one hand the likeable players who are truly commited to the cause but as for the others it points towards so many problems and arguably the cause for our downturn in form, the irony is we suffered due to poor performances and didn't get our top 4 finish, whilst certain players try and engineer moves out of the club too a club who finished in the top 4.

 

I'm not too bothered about losing Chilwell per se, i'm bothered about what it says about us as a club after we've sold yet again and i'm bothered about how thin on the ground we are as it is.

 

Mentalities need to change.

 

Edited 22 August 2020 by Matt

[Jazzy_Jeff]

Regardless of the fee, his ability and available replacements the fact is he doesn’t want to be here and we’re best off getting rid if his heart is not in it.

 

If we sign a decent replacement and have some money left over to invest in rest of the squad I’ll be happy 

 

Thomas looks a great prospect for 2/3 years time so can see why the Ajax fella is being chased as opposed to someone younger

 

 

[AKCJ]

With the price being so low I'll only be happy with Tagliafico.

 

If we sell Chilwell for 45m and then spend more than half that on Jamal ****ing Lewis then we have well and truly had our kegs dropped.

[st albans fox]

One thing to bear in mind here is that we are scrupulously private when it comes to transfer dealings.  The only person who has an insight will be Percy.  The media narrative out there is 45/50m.  That will be from the chelsea end. Percy has said 50m plus instalments. that’s quite vague. Seems pretty clear that Chelsea want the story to be 45/50 to suit them in their pursuit of Havertz.  And for the time being, we don’t seem bothered to mess with that story. It suits us as we try and make some signings of our own. 
 

it could be that as with Youri, until Percy gets details at the back end of the window, we may not know the value of the deal. 

[fleckneymike]

Chilwell has had the misfortune of playing more under Puel. I think Puel made the right long term decision to play him but he suffered in the short term and has carried that with him since. 
 

At the time he was put in the side he wasn’t defensively as sound as Fuchs and therefore looked ‘worse’ than perhaps he was. He also joined a side that was trying and largely failing to transition to a new style of play. He very much had to learn as he went. I can’t think of many other Leicester youngsters who’ve had to learn at this level (be it top six aspirations, off the back of a trophy, and or a campaign in Europe). Most players are blooded in the championship and grow into a role, Chilwell had to hit the grown running and occasionally he stumbled. That perception of inconsistency has stuck with him ever since and caused him to get criticism more readily than others. 

[Bluearmyfox28]

8 hours ago, honeybradger said:

I dont think you can argue that both dortmund and ajax wouldnt be better off if they kept their star players. Same with spurs and bale/modric. Selling clubs can never challenge consistently at the highest level, there is always a drop off period associated with this model. Im sure if you asked the people running these selling clubs they would much rather hold onto their star players than sell them. 

Of course everyone would rather keep there key players that’s not in question. But the truth is we don’t have oil money so If it means selling one key player every year or two, to then fund for 2/3 key players and continue our progress then I’m up for it.

[Haywood_6]

17 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Taylor at Burnley

Shaw or Williams at Man Utd

Lewis at Norwich

Rose at Newcastle

Bertrand at Southampton

 

Aaron Creswell too

[brookfox]

Pretty gutted to see him go. Wasn’t sure when he first came into the team but great to see a player go from our academy to England regular. Yes he’s got flaws to his game but overall he’s worked hard with what has.

 

Reality is though our model is clearly develop, sell for profit, reinvest. Out of our really valuable players; Ndidi, Soyuncu, Ricardo, Maddison, Chilwell, if one had to go I’d choose Chilwell. It’s now all down to the recruitment team in terms of how well they reinvest. Get that bit wrong and the whole model falls down.

[reynard]

47 minutes ago, dbtcity said:

If we bag 50m up front then a potential 10m in instalments that will make him the most expensive full back ever signed and the 5th most expensive defender ever signed.... not bad going considering the times we’re currently in 

Yes but it is Chelsea. They have limiltless funds and the scrapping of FFP for 12 months has played right into their hands. I'd be very disappointed with 50 million. Simply nowhere near enough. it should be 80 million up front and add ons or player exchange.

[Bluearmyfox28]

7 hours ago, honeybradger said:

Rodri and griezmann left to man city and barca last year, lucas hernandez to bayern although that was probably a good deal for athleti. Im just saying that if youre a selling club then it sets a precedent for all your best players wanting to leave, if you look at the players these big selling clubs have had in 3-4 season windows, if they had just held onto them they could have been challenging the likes of real, barca, bayern but instead those 3 are comfortably winning titles as they can hold onto their best players. I understand that the selling model is good for growing a club but at some point it has to stop as it's a very limited model in terms of how succesful it can be. For example imagine if liverpool had sold mane and salah at the end of 17/18 to build up the rest of their squad, i also think athletico madrid could have won la liga if they still had griezmann and rodri this year.

We are far from a selling club. We set ridiculous fee’s on our key players, to the point that everyone knows the buyer is having their pants down. We then sit back. If you want him, pay the fee or fvck off. That’s the mindset of the club and it’s amazing as we’ve now got the reputation of not getting bullied into lower prices. I can guarantee the big clubs dread dealing with us, on the simple basis they know we will grab them by the bollocks.

 

Unless you are Barca or Real Madrid, going off your theory means every club, except them two teams are selling clubs. 

Every player has a price.

 

Also some clubs depend on these sales to fund key players with big contracts etc. The owners don’t pay out of their own back pockets. We are smart and spend what we can afford. The bigger you get, the more expensive players get. So you sell a player or two to help fund 3/4. It’s simple business, sell and reinvest. If done correctly can make you very successful too.

[Stevosevic]

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

Not gonna happen though is it.

 

Whilst we're seen as a selling club by teams who we are trying to be direct rivals to, spoil the party and where we aspire to be, whilst also seen as a stepping stone by incoming players.

 

Now of course players will want to go on and better themselves and who am I to begrudge that. However, how do we grow as a club when we keep selling our talents, you can only successfully replace them for so long before it catches up with you, you have one bad season and the plan gets scrapped.

 

As I keep saying no other club seems to have their (or a) high profile players poached every single summer, other clubs don't seem to have players that "don't want to be there" - I'm not saying all clubs but alot, it seems every summer a player or players simply don't want to be here.

 

They get stronger as a direct hit we get weaker than we already are with a thin 11, let alone squad.

 

I can't help but feel this squad and many of the players in it are very unlikeable, I can probably count on one hand the likeable players who are truly commited to the cause but as for the others it points towards so many problems and arguably the cause for our downturn in form, the irony is we suffered due to poor performances and didn't get our top 4 finish, whilst certain players try and engineer moves out of the club too a club who finished in the top 4.

 

I'm not too bothered about losing Chilwell per se, i'm bothered about what it says about us as a club after we've sold yet again and i'm bothered about how thin on the ground we are as it is.

 

Mentalities need to change.

 

To be honest I don't think there's any other club outside the top 6 who has as many players in demand as us. 

 

West Ham, Everton etc...don't loose a player each summer because they don't have the top 6 chasing them. If they did, then they would. This year it's Chilwell but it could so easily have been any of Ndidi, Soyuncu, Maddison, Ricardo moving to the top 6.

 

I see what you're saying but when you have good players there is interest and there is more interest in our squad than most others. 

 

The only other squad I can see being as in demand as us is Wolves so let's see what happens with them in the next couple of years.