Ben Chilwell

[NaijaFox]

10 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

I see FFP has gone out the window this year for Chelsea. Can we get it confirmed by a real person?

FFP is effectively suspended due to Covid.

[Matt]

Going abit off topic here but i'm going back to why other clubs don't lose their players and taking Wolves and Tottenham as example to raise question.

 

What I wanna know is how Tottenham and Wolves keep their players happy.

 

I read someone say Wolves players have a good relationship with agents, so? If others clubs come sniffing (Which I don't get why they're aren't or media try and engineer, push a move again, they don't seem too) these players are going to have their heads turned as do ours. Whilst I wouldn't imagine they pay as much as us. What I will say is Wolves seem to have our old 'band of brothers' squad mentality, something we seem to have lost.

 

Tottenham is even more of a bizzare situation and shock compared to Wolves as they keep hold tbh. They are (or certainly were, it might have changed since Kane's and Lloris'(?) improved contracts) notoriously tight, low payers (So I am led to believe - football terms) and don't have all that much money due to the new stadium and well as i've said they're just tight really, I think a couple of years back alot of our players were on more than theres (We're probably similar payers in reality), now someone's gonna come back on this point and say 'Who wants a load of bottlers?', 'They've never won anything', correct but they still have decent players there, and besides surely that should be a point for their players wanting to move on, but they somehow manage to keep them, paying poorly (again, in football terms and its only rumours), and players not engineering moves out. Ok so they lost Kyle Walker in 2017, Trippier in 2019 (But something had gone on there) and Vertonghan has just left as a free agent, but it's hardly like our scenario of letting one go every year.

 

Edited 23 August 2020 by Matt

[adam95581]

 

8 minutes ago, Matt said:

Going abit off topic here but i'm going back to why other clubs don't lose their players and taking Wolves and Tottenham as example to raise question.

 

What I wanna know is how Tottenham and Wolves keep their players happy.

 

I read someone say Wolves players have a good relationship with agents, so? If others clubs come sniffing (Which I don't get why they're aren't or media try and engineer, push a move again, they don't seem too) these players are going to have their heads turned as do ours. Whilst I wouldn't imagine they pay as much as us. What I will say is Wolves seem to have our old 'band of brothers' squad mentality, something we seem to have lost.

 

Tottenham is even more of a shock that Wolves that they don't lose players tbh. They are (or certainly were, it might have changed since Kane's and Lloris'(?) improved contracts) notoriously tight, low payers and don't have all that much money due to the new stadium and well as i've said they're just tight really, I think a couple of years back alot of our players were on more than theres (We're probably similar payers in reality), now someone's gonna come back on this point and say 'Who wants a load of bottlers?', 'They've never won anything', correct but they still have decent players there, and besides surely that should be a point for their players wanting to move on, but they somehow manage to keep them, paying poorly (In football terms - so I am led to believe), and players not engineering moves out. Ok so they lost Kyle Walker in 2017, Trippier in 2019 (But something had gone on there) and Vertonghan has just left as a free agent, but it's hardly like our scenario of letting one go every year.

They have also lost Eriksen and Bale in recent years too. The fact is, bottlers or not, they’ve been competing for the past few years. Looked to be our closest challengers in 2016, a couple more top 4 finishes, Champs League finals etc. Players will generally stay when that’s the case, especially if there isn’t a clear step up available - Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea have all been pretty inconsistent in that time.  
 

Also, they’ve kept the core of their team together for quite a while and so this probably makes it more appealing to stay - people generally want to work with people they like and know

[walkerleeds]

Not saying Luke Thomas is the answer yet, but I'd certainly like to see him given an extended chance. Especially given our weirdo fans won't be allowed to drain his confidence for at least a few months this season. 

[Matt]

18 minutes ago, adam95581 said:

 

They have also lost Eriksen and Bale in recent years too. The fact is, bottlers or not, they’ve been competing for the past few years. Looked to be our closest challengers in 2016, a couple more top 4 finishes, Champs League finals etc. Players will generally stay when that’s the case, especially if there isn’t a clear step up available - Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea have all been pretty inconsistent in that time.  
 

Also, they’ve kept the core of their team together for quite a while and so this probably makes it more appealing to stay - people generally want to work with people they like and know

Admittedly I had forgot about Eriksen, Bale was 7 or 8 years ago.

 

Granted CL and top 4 finishes generate more money - but this season I think a few of our players need to take a long hard look at themselves and take some responsibility for the failure of that objective. We won the league, made CL quarter final and still lost 2 of the 5 during those times, with a 3rd throwing his toys out the pram.

 

The last point you make is the crux of my points when I say apart from a handful of players we have some very unlikeable players (someone quoted me yesterday on that and think they misunderstood me) and have lost our core team spirit, our old 'band of brothers' mentality.

 

Edited 23 August 2020 by Matt

[Sunbury Fox]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Admittedly I had forgot about Eriksen, Bale was 7 or 8 years ago.

 

Granted CL and top 4 finishes generate more money, we won the league, made CL quarter final and still lost 2 of the 5 during those times, with a 3rd throwing his toys out the pram.

 

The last point you make is the crux of my points when I say apart from a handful of players we have some very unlikeable players (someone quoted me yesterday on that and think they misunderstood me) and have lost our core team spirit, our old 'band of brothers' mentality.

 

 

The band of brothers culture didn't enable us to hold on to Kanté, even after we'd just won the league, though, so not sure that's enough on its own to keep players.

 

I also don't think you can compare us to Tottenham. I know people on here love to mock them but they are a historically big club now playing in probably the best stadium in the league in one of the world's greatest cities. That's way more attractive to players whatever we might think about Spurs.

 

However, the Wolves comparison is very interesting. From what I've seen they definitely pay less than us and let's face it Wolverhampton makes Leicester look like San Tropez. Yes, they have ambitions to be a bigger team but so do we. True, they had more success than us in the 1950s and earlier but I doubt many modern players take that into account. Plus we've been way more successful in the past 25 years. When I asked previously why we keep selling players to bigger clubs and they don't, one poster suggested their players were not rated as highly as ours individually - possibly but I would have thought that bigger clubs would rate the likes of Neves, Jota, Jiminez and the new version of Traoré. And yet there is hardly any suggestion of them losing players at all. I find it really odd. Is it all down to their relationship with Mendez, given that many transfers seem to begin with agents leaking stories to the press about their client being unhappy or being interested in a move to a big club, etc? 

[mozartfox]

You would hope that the Chilwell move is delayed until such time his replacement is tied up.  A repeat of the Maguire situation with us being held to ransom, as selling Clubs know we are need of a replacement, strikes me as something we should avoid at all costs.

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

Admittedly I had forgot about Eriksen, Bale was 7 or 8 years ago.

 

Granted CL and top 4 finishes generate more money, we won the league, made CL quarter final and still lost 2 of the 5 during those times, with a 3rd throwing his toys out the pram.

 

The last point you make is the crux of my points when I say apart from a handful of players we have some very unlikeable players (someone quoted me yesterday on that and think they misunderstood me) and have lost our core team spirit, our old 'band of brothers' mentality.

 

whatever we may think on here spurs are an attractive proposition for a player. 
1) in London - it really matters on comparison to the e Midlands 

2) state of the art training ground and stadium

3) ‘global’ fanbase due to being a top club for decades ........remember they were the team of the early sixties and parents hand that down to their kids. There are spurs fans all over the U.K. due to that.   Mahrez wouldn’t have been asking where spurs were??
4) the past dozen years they have consistently been top six 

5) they were ‘bad’ payers but that’s changed over the last few years. Their wage bill is now 20% higher than ours and I’m sure they still use their big bonus model on top of that 

 

 

1 hour ago, NaijaFox said:

FFP is effectively suspended due to Covid.

that’s true but not as simple to say it’s cancelled - you can’t just spend spend spend as losses are still limited over a period - that loss is just bigger now. 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Nicolo Barella said:

He probably would start if we did go with that, yeah.

I'd tell Chelsea in quite simple terms that if they want Chilwell then they step away from Malang Sarr. People moaning we need £10 extra million up front for Chilwell, but if we sign Sarr on a free we've saved £15-20m we are likely going to spend on a centre half. Maybe £5m on a signing on fee etc. Can't miss an opportunity like this, he is a classy young player.

[peach0000]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

You know, we could go all Trent Alexander Arnold with Luke Thomas and just not loan him out. He’d learn his trade in the Premier League then. 
 

A few others have done it as well ....

 

 

Players don’t need to go put on loan. If they’re good enough, they’re ready.

 

I don’t see that working. Our fans are awful for giving a player a chance. One or two bad game and the fans would be on his back. That’s no way to develop a young player. Chilwell got hammered by our fans and he is one of the best in the league, I’m worried thomas’ development would be harmed by our fans.

[The People's Hero]

11 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd tell Chelsea in quite simple terms that if they want Chilwell then they step away from Malang Sarr. People moaning we need £10 extra million up front for Chilwell, but if we sign Sarr on a free we've saved £15-20m we are likely going to spend on a centre half. Maybe £5m on a signing on fee etc. Can't miss an opportunity like this, he is a classy young player.

isn’t the issue that the player himself wants Chelsea ? 

[Lesta2014]

12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd tell Chelsea in quite simple terms that if they want Chilwell then they step away from Malang Sarr. People moaning we need £10 extra million up front for Chilwell, but if we sign Sarr on a free we've saved £15-20m we are likely going to spend on a centre half. Maybe £5m on a signing on fee etc. Can't miss an opportunity like this, he is a classy young player.

Are we interested in Sarr?

[st albans fox]

I dont think clubs like Chelsea allow themselves to be told who they can and cannot buy.  

[The People's Hero]

3 minutes ago, Lesta2014 said:

Are we interested in Sarr?

Thought we had tracked him for ages. 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, adam95581 said:

 

They have also lost Eriksen and Bale in recent years too. The fact is, bottlers or not, they’ve been competing for the past few years. Looked to be our closest challengers in 2016, a couple more top 4 finishes, Champs League finals etc. Players will generally stay when that’s the case, especially if there isn’t a clear step up available - Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea have all been pretty inconsistent in that time.  
 

Also, they’ve kept the core of their team together for quite a while and so this probably makes it more appealing to stay - people generally want to work with people they like and know

Also London. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but if you’re loaded and young, you would get all of the advantages without any of the disadvantages.

[lcfcbluearmy]

2 hours ago, mozartfox said:

You would hope that the Chilwell move is delayed until such time his replacement is tied up.  A repeat of the Maguire situation with us being held to ransom, as selling Clubs know we are need of a replacement, strikes me as something we should avoid at all costs.

Although I sort of agree with this I don’t think it matters other than the player having time to settle in.

 

As soon as we approach a club for a first team left back they are going to assume it is a replacement for Chilwell so the price won’t be different weather we have sold him or not.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

Although I sort of agree with this I don’t think it matters other than the player having time to settle in.

 

As soon as we approach a club for a first team left back they are going to assume it is a replacement for Chilwell so the price won’t be different weather we have sold him or not.

Considering the story was that we wanted 80m, I think the price on his replacement may well not have been agreed ..... the selling club will have stuck a 10m surcharge onto their price - we may well be able to get that down now the story is we’re only selling for around 50m

[Sly]

2 hours ago, peach0000 said:

I don’t see that working. Our fans are awful for giving a player a chance. One or two bad game and the fans would be on his back. That’s no way to develop a young player. Chilwell got hammered by our fans and he is one of the best in the league, I’m worried thomas’ development would be harmed by our fans.

Now is a better time than ever then ....... no fans in the stadium! 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

isn’t the issue that the player himself wants Chelsea ? 

they will loan him straight out, he just wants the bunce!

[peach0000]

33 minutes ago, Sly said:

Now is a better time than ever then ....... no fans in the stadium! 

That may be true but I feel social media is worse than crowds for destroying players these days

[whoareyaaa]

1 hour ago, peach0000 said:

That may be true but I feel social media is worse than crowds for destroying players these days

players don't have to use it

[Nicolo Barella]

4 hours ago, Sunbury Fox said:

 

The band of brothers culture didn't enable us to hold on to Kanté, even after we'd just won the league, though, so not sure that's enough on its own to keep players.

 

I also don't think you can compare us to Tottenham. I know people on here love to mock them but they are a historically big club now playing in probably the best stadium in the league in one of the world's greatest cities. That's way more attractive to players whatever we might think about Spurs.

 

However, the Wolves comparison is very interesting. From what I've seen they definitely pay less than us and let's face it Wolverhampton makes Leicester look like San Tropez. Yes, they have ambitions to be a bigger team but so do we. True, they had more success than us in the 1950s and earlier but I doubt many modern players take that into account. Plus we've been way more successful in the past 25 years. When I asked previously why we keep selling players to bigger clubs and they don't, one poster suggested their players were not rated as highly as ours individually - possibly but I would have thought that bigger clubs would rate the likes of Neves, Jota, Jiminez and the new version of Traoré. And yet there is hardly any suggestion of them losing players at all. I find it really odd. Is it all down to their relationship with Mendez, given that many transfers seem to begin with agents leaking stories to the press about their client being unhappy or being interested in a move to a big club, etc? 

I would suggest it's because Wolves have a bit of an anachronistic playstyle, so their best players would have to adapt to a more posession-based, 4 at the back system in a transfer to a new team, whereas we prepare players for essentially a very similar system to bigger teams like Man Utd, Chelsea etc.

[peach0000]

12 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

players don't have to use it

He (or any player) shouldn't be afraid to use it because of the abuse their own fans give them. 

 

What a strange statement

[whoareyaaa]

11 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

He (or any player) shouldn't be afraid to use it because of the abuse their own fans give them. 

 

What a strange statement

its not about being afraid to use it, you either use it or you don't... knowing full well there are trolls on there.

 

if twitter comments are effecting a player emotionally and how they play then they really shouldn't be on there

[KingsX]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

Going abit off topic here but i'm going back to why other clubs don't lose their players and taking Wolves and Tottenham as example to raise question.

 

What I wanna know is how Tottenham and Wolves keep their players happy.

 

I read someone say Wolves players have a good relationship with agents, so? If others clubs come sniffing (Which I don't get why they're aren't or media try and engineer, push a move again, they don't seem too) these players are going to have their heads turned as do ours. Whilst I wouldn't imagine they pay as much as us. What I will say is Wolves seem to have our old 'band of brothers' squad mentality, something we seem to have lost.

 

Wolves own a chunk of Mendes’ agency.   So Gestifute is going to bring a caliber of players to Wolves that “surprises” people.  Don’t be so surprised.  Nor if they outgrow the club, yet stay put.  Mendes is not going to shop them round like any other agent.

 

Jimenez (not a Gestifute client) has been linked away.  While the likes of Jota are not.  If Jota was not with Mendes, surely his name would be all over the media.  He’s only 23 and worth more than 50K/week.

 

The League having allowed a club to link up with an agent distorts the competitive environment.  But worse, it means no one is speaking for the players.  Their trusted third party is actually part of ownership.  Why enhance their packets, or subject the club to competition for their services, when you can simply advise them to stay put?