Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
urban.spaceman

Ben Chilwell

By urban.spaceman, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

peach0000

peach0000

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

Walker was 2/3 years ago hardly years ago 🤔

3 years ago. Fair play seems way longer would have sworn he moved way before that but I was wrong.

 

Even in 3 years though transfer fees have become increasingly crazy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
winteriscoming

winteriscoming

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, messerschmitt said:

hope so, begs the question why pay him for another year.

Agree. Unpopular opinion but I wouldn’t of given Fuchs or Morgan another year. Gotta move on from title winning side. Possibly would of given Morgan a coaching role at the club. Not a playing contract. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

If we were another club, who’d sell a player for £50m and the owners would bank the money, I’d not be happy with this. We’re lucky that we can sell players and be very confident that the money will

be put into the transfer budget or be used for the good of the club.

 

I don’t think transfers like this make us a ‘selling club’, because if the price wasn’t right (massively inflated), we wouldn’t sell. This is great business and providing we have a better replacement coming in, even for an equal fee, it’d be good business. The likelihood is we’ll improve our left-back position, having plenty if change left over is a massive bonus.

 

Comparing us to Southampton isn’t fair at all. 

 

Bottom line is we know how tough it is to shift the deadwood, the majority of them we won't receive a fee for and spend their time out on loan until they leave when their contract is up.

 

A lot of people on here somehow expect us to compete with the elite clubs with a much smaller income and budget.

 

If we don't utilise the transfer market for sales then we'll only be buying one player a year on our £25m average net spend.

 

I can't fault the club in the last 4 years. Kante went because of a release clause and Mahrez had to struggle like a mofo to get out. Of the other big sales Drinkwater, Maguire and now Chilwell were all probably not in the best half a dozen players at the club but we got top prices for all of them and I daresay all of them were way overvalued which equals excellent business.

 

To all those whinging how many would you have been happy to pay £35m for a 2017 Drinkwater, £80m for Maguire and £50m + add ons for Chilwell if they were all playing for Southampton?

Edited by Gerard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nod.E

Nod.E

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, messerschmitt said:

No, just a lot of people on here think we can replace Chilwell with someone better for half the money. I wonder why Chelsea just didn't go and get "that " player

Same reason they signed Drinkwater after we'd bought N'didi.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

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. 

 

We've proved over the last few years that we're tough nuts to crack when we have hostile bids for our players. If the club are happy to deal this early on then that's good enough for me.

 

Maybe the fee will end up being £60m+ in total. Maybe it's only £50m but BR was happy to sell Chilwell at that price as he accepts he's not improved that much since he got here and has flaws in his game. Maybe BR knows we can get a LB who fits the style of play better for a fraction of the the Chilwell price?

 

One thing I'm almost certain of is that we haven't been railroaded and we're happy to deal at this price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
messerschmitt

messerschmitt

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

Personally I think we will already have a deal lined up for Tagliafico prior to the sale. £30m I reckon it’ll be.

Hope so and hope we've learned from the Maguire transfer, we were looking at a replacement after we sold, and balked at the price of Tarkowski and Ake, we got lucky with Soyuncu, lets not kid ourselves.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Of course the club would rather keep their best players, never sell unless on their terms, be able to bring quality in year on year and reward all their performing players with new contracts worth £100-50k a week. The simple economics is, in order to do so we have to increase our turnover by at least £100m and even then we'd still be less than half what Man Utd turnover. Commercially we are nothing compared to the top 6, so unless our fans have answers to turning that around overnight then our model seems to be the most viable option.

 

I don't see any other clubs like us (Wolves, Everton, West Ham, Newcastle, Southampton - some of which turnover more than we do) winning a Prem and following it up in eecent years with a top 5 finish. Trust the process.

 

Ideal scenario for the club is, bigger ground and sustained top 6 finishes = more commercial growth and then ability to keep sought after stars and continue to strengthen. It's really not that hard to grasp, be thankful so dear we play this game quite well.

 

The reality is that "Wolves, Everton, West Ham, Newcastle, Southampton" are our long term competitors, not Chelsea and Man Utd.

 

Anyone who says different doesn't have a grasp on the reality of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Aeropars said:

Are people also forgetting we haven’t spent the Harry Maguire money as well. Coupled with this, we could have a nice wedge to spend. 

We owe money to other clubs, have a training ground and stadium to finance along with spending a large amount last summer and reduced income this season... I doubt there is much left if anything of that now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sly

Sly

Posted
Posted
Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

People talking about how we're a selling club and how we should keep him, Ben doesn't want to be here anymore, he wants to move on to different challenges, live in London, experience the lifestyle etc. Goodluck to him.

How do we know he doesn’t want to be here?!? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, peach0000 said:

He's worth a lot more than 50 million in my opinion. Maguire should have been the benchmark. We are selling a player who is still very young and Englands first choice in that position his value just from that is astronomical.

 

I personally think a few people on this forum will get a wake up call when Chilwell leaves. He is a fantastic full back and one of the very best in the world. I have seen him look like a world beater on numerous occasions! Whoever we end up signing as a replacement will not be up to Chilwells standard and I don't see how people don't realise that. 

 

50 million is a joke and we have been had by Chelsea if that is true. We are asking to become Southampton bending over like that. I thought we had more ambition than that.

 

Jeees.

 

I've defended Chilwell for years saying he had the potential to be a world class LB but he's the same player as that kid with potential at 20/21. If you haven't progressed your game from the age of 20/21 to 23 then chances are you never will. He's an average defender with below average delivery but a top class athlete who gets up and down all day. If you want to compare him to top drawer full backs look how he measures up to Ricardo. 

 

£50m isn't a joke as it's probably nearer £60m which makes him the 30th most expensive player of all time. How many people on hear would be happy to see us spend £50/60m on chilwell if he played for Southampton?

 

I would argue that out of our best XI he probably rates as our 10th best player just ahead of Perez. Where do you rate him and ahead of who if you think the fee was a joke?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sacreblueits442

sacreblueits442

Posted
Posted
4 hours 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.

 

..perhaps that is more a compliment to us!!!

  I get the feeling that playing for us is a bit like going to finishing school, very good, quality assured and of exceptional character.

  The suggestion that we are perhaps unlikable is a contradiction as the reason for your post is, why we are a club that other clubs seek to buy from. If your premise was correct any prospective buyer would not be approaching us for our players.

  There are probably six teams in the Premiership that attracts players as a matter of their name and history. We struggle to match that and will continue to do so, not just because of ability but the perceived kudos apportioned to them, by individual players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whoareyaaa

whoareyaaa

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

Agree. Unpopular opinion but I wouldn’t of given Fuchs or Morgan another year. Gotta move on from title winning side. Possibly would of given Morgan a coaching role at the club. Not a playing contract. 

Fuchs I would agree with Morgan though as shown in the last 3 games can still do a job

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blaaklint

blaaklint

Posted
Posted

just thought it would be interesting to point out that chilwell has more goals and assists in fewer minutes (3 + 3 in 2376) than ricardo (3 + 2 in 2520). now, i think ricardo is a better player but they're certainly not so far apart as some of you seem to be suggesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
volpeazzurro

volpeazzurro

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jeffschlupp said:

On that basis you are keeping 33 players at the club, and need 8 U21 players in that 33. You don't see clubs keeping three specialist left-backs, especially when their two right-backs have both played dozens of games on the left in their careers.

 

I agree we can't play the strongest XI in every game but we have an outstanding injury record and our starters play the vast majority of games - it's also about a gulf in quality that exists for almost all clubs from starting XI to the rest, which means only really Manchester City can rotate comfortably as you're suggesting.

 

If the new signing plays 33-35 league games and 3-4 Europa League games there's hardly any games for a further two left-backs. It would be a complete waste of time for Thomas.

In non Premiership and European games I would play Thomas ahead of Fuchs who will be off at the end of the season. Neither do we know how reliable Fuchs is now going to be due to age and injury. Thomas appears to have got the blame for two of the goals conceded in one game but I thought that was stretching it a bit. One was supposedly when he lost the ball in an advanced position outside the opposition box in which case I would ask who was covering for him. Also, Perez and Tielemans were forever giving the ball away but by luck they didn't lead to a goal, not to mention Schmeichel. 

We had a number of first teamers out and the overall performances were shocking as were at times the managers tactics and substitutions. Overall Thomas made some excellent contributions and was far in advance of what I was expecting. Depending on who we buy and who we sell, there are others I'd leave out of the whole squad before him.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...