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
urban.spaceman

Ben Chilwell

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I'd take three. But our striker situation is perilous. Unfortunately we have to start thinking beyond Vardy, he isn't getting younger and he picks up an injury that puts him out then I would lose a lot of confidence. I know this could happen anyway, regardless of age, but Vardy does seem to be picking things up more frequently which is only natural as he ages. We can't have Kalechi and Perez as the only two options if this were the case i'd worry. Even Ollie Watkins would be enough. Given the fact our form was abysmal in the second half of last season, and we have an even tougher campaign ahead will be even more strenuous we really need more options in the squad. That't why i feel a minimum of four players would do. 

It's a situation with no easy answer, purely because Vardy is still arguably the best player in our squad and has a clinicality which few players in the world can match. Any club would struggle with replacing that. I think unless we switch to a 2 striker formation or use it much more often, a third striker in our squad is unrealistic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FatDave said:

Just to clarify: “up front” doesn’t mean one lump sum. Up front simply means that component of a transfer fee distinct from clauses and additional payments.

 

Typically, a club will pay/receive the up front figure over the length of the contract signed by the moving player.

 

In this case, Chilwell has signed a five-year deal and Chelsea will pay the bulk of the fee over the same period.

 

The deal normally involves a 5-10% initial payment. Chelsea look to have paid £5 million now and will pay LCFC £8 million a year for the next 5 years, with some additional clauses for additional payments.

 

That’s just how most deals are constructed, although some fans start to foam at the mouth when it’s explained to them. Go back and read about how Liverpool fans reacted when it was confirmed that Suarez (and Countinho) were sold on similar terms......

Even if correct it's a slightly moot point. We operate in the same market so would be signing players under the same payment terms. It's not like we'd be selling at £8mil per year and in return, paying £22mil up front for Tagliafico. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Progress then 

 

Wasn’t that long ago that the likes of Stoke could have had the pick of our best players 

 

Tbf, jokes aside this is a pretty good way of looking at it. 

 

It's a genuine compliment that one of the highest spending clubs in the world has spent 30m+ each on three of our players in five years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FatDave said:

Just to clarify: “up front” doesn’t mean one lump sum. Up front simply means that component of a transfer fee distinct from clauses and additional payments.

 

Typically, a club will pay/receive the up front figure over the length of the contract signed by the moving player.

 

In this case, Chilwell has signed a five-year deal and Chelsea will pay the bulk of the fee over the same period.

 

The deal normally involves a 5-10% initial payment. Chelsea look to have paid £5 million now and will pay LCFC £8 million a year for the next 5 years, with some additional clauses for additional payments.

 

That’s just how most deals are constructed, although some fans start to foam at the mouth when it’s explained to them. Go back and read about how Liverpool fans reacted when it was confirmed that Suarez (and Countinho) were sold on similar terms......

From Percy's article I'm pretty sure we'll be getting the £50m in a lump sum, then further instalments of the main fee, which is more likely to be around £65m; then 'add-ons' if he wins the PL or CL. Like Maguire, we wanted a positional world record fee and we got an £80m lump sum, with further instalments PLUS add-ons for qualifying for the CL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Honestly don't see the logic that some people on here think we have the God given right to compete with clubs who turnover three or four times what we do especially when the vast majority of our income is from PL rights and not money we generate ourselves. I've been used to seeing Leicester compete with clubs like Barnsley most of my life and now some think we shouldn't be selling to Man Utd and Chelsea even though they're great offers because these clubs are our rivals.

 

The only advantage we have over them is we can afford to bring in a 21yo for £20m and let him develop in the first team.  Our modus operandi should be giving the world's top young talent a platform here and sell them when they're ripe and repeat the process and as you say it gets easier to keep them as time goes on.

Couldn't agree more.

 

Perhaps these people only started supporting us when we won the league, or have memory problems.

 

Or maybe they're just classic spoilt brats whose parents never told them "no" and catered to their every little whim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The People's Hero said:

We are getting a very substantial up front amount. Same as we did with Maguire.

 

Our negotiating (and indeed the clauses we allow in players' contracts) has come a long way in the last few years.

Long gone is the Micky Adams era when we gave all our best players relegation release clauses of about £250k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

It's a situation with no easy answer, purely because Vardy is still arguably the best player in our squad and has a clinicality which few players in the world can match. Any club would struggle with replacing that. I think unless we switch to a 2 striker formation or use it much more often, a third striker in our squad is unrealistic. 

I agree with you, which makes the next move a vital one. I’m sure the club have a plan in place, it’s just hard to see at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

Chelsea lost Eden Hazard to Real Madrid.

Liverpool lost Phillipe Coutinho to Barcelona.

Spurs lost Gareth Bale and Luka Modric to Real Madrid. They lost Kyle Walker to Man City.

Arsenal have lost countless players over the years to Man City.

 

The only clubs that don't really lose players are the two Manchester clubs and even then, Man U lost a world player of the year in Ronaldo to Real Madrid. Man City lost Leroy Sane to Bayern Munich, though that's because he didn't want to sign a new contract.

 

As Ric Flair says, it's a food chain, and we've moved up the chain considerably over the last 10 years!

 

 

You can add a few more names to that list like Sterling, Tevez, Eriksen, Van Persie, Henry, Campbell, Kroos, Mascherano, Suarez, Owen etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben is Not a local lad but whatever his love is for the club 190000 x 260 is one hell of a sweetener to go elsewhere. Who would say no and would fans prefer us to keep him and put him.on a similar deal? Seagrave is a massive statement of our long term ambitions and imho a much sounder investment than paying crazy wages. Did well to get Maddison to commit looking at this. Both Manchester clubs Liverpool and 3 London clubs all feel they have a God given right to be a top 4 club. You need stability over a number of years to challenge and we are going in the right direction imo

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am appalled that we would sell chillwell to a rival.  Let's just give the traditional top 6 a 2 goal start in every game.   Having financial muscle is useless if we allow rivals to poach our players.   Chillwell and this agent could have found a club abroad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

Chelsea lost Eden Hazard to Real Madrid.

Liverpool lost Phillipe Coutinho to Barcelona.

Spurs lost Gareth Bale and Luka Modric to Real Madrid. They lost Kyle Walker to Man City.

Arsenal have lost countless players over the years to Man City.

 

The only clubs that don't really lose players are the two Manchester clubs and even then, Man U lost a world player of the year in Ronaldo to Real Madrid. Man City lost Leroy Sane to Bayern Munich, though that's because he didn't want to sign a new contract.

 

As Ric Flair says, it's a food chain, and we've moved up the chain considerably over the last 10 years!

 

 

Ric... unless the contracts were up... they let these prayer go to foreign teams .. and not their domestic rivals 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

I am appalled that we would sell chillwell to a rival.  Let's just give the traditional top 6 a 2 goal start in every game.   Having financial muscle is useless if we allow rivals to poach our players.   Chillwell and this agent could have found a club abroad.

 

Lets come back in a week's time and see if you still think we've given away the advantage/momentum.

 

Not saying everything will come off, but let's not judge at this point in time. As Finners said; its all about how you replace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

I am appalled that we would sell chillwell to a rival.  Let's just give the traditional top 6 a 2 goal start in every game.   Having financial muscle is useless if we allow rivals to poach our players.   Chillwell and this agent could have found a club abroad.

 

Probably not with a 5yr £10 million a year wage packet. If we have no replacement lined up fine bit of a worry. Last summer we sold Harry M for an obscene amount if we had kept him what would have worth now and Cags would probably have gone on the cheap. Our experts who scout and watch players train deserve a bit more credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

I am appalled that we would sell chillwell to a rival.  Let's just give the traditional top 6 a 2 goal start in every game.   Having financial muscle is useless if we allow rivals to poach our players.   Chillwell and this agent could have found a club abroad.

 

Us being without chillwell will make us stronger and the opposition weaker.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

Never clearer what motivates footballers - the almighty pound.

 

If I were Chilwell I'd be looking for a different club, the reaction he's getting from Chelsea fans online. It would make me feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. 

Who cares about online fan reactions? It's exactly the same whichever club he'd choose to join. You might have a problem with Chelsea, but I don't see why Chilwell should have. Besides, it's not like there's a plethora of clubs lined up and willing to pay his transfer fee and offer £150k+ per week...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xen said:

How so?

 

Man City/Liverpool are streets ahead, sure. Chelsea look to be up there if all their signings gel (no guarantee) and Man Utd have a solid claim. But who else is going to push us out of the top 6? Wolves are pretty similar to us, although I've not heard any rumours of them strengthening yet. Tottenham without Erikson are good, but not spectacular and Arsenal seem to be stagnating. We've got competition for top 6, sure, but I don't think it'll 'take something special', I think we just need to play within our capability and we've got a good chance of it. If we can strengthen by bringing in a few of the rumoured players over the next couple of weeks then we're in a really good position to solidify top 6 next year.

Whilst I admire your optimism, you talk about Arsenal stagnating and Spurs not being spectacular.

Yet credit us as top 6 and ignore the following

 

 

matchday 18-38

 

image.png.91c3d753e138560bce9cb2801a9b481c.png

 

 

matchday 28-38

image.png.141f3fb665d2266d385d979e2cff70ea.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

How does losing out first choice left back to a club we were competing with last season make us stronger in anyway lol

 

Because we're selling our 10th best player for money above his ability. We're selling a player at what I believe will be his peak value and that is rarely a bad thing to do.

 

If you disagree Chilwell is our 10th best player then feel free to tell us what position you think he is?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

We don't really know what the transfer market is going to look like in a post covid world tbf. Nobody's really moving all that much. 

 

Plus I mean, how many defenders have ever been sold for fifty or more? You can count them on one hand I think? 

 

Walker, Maguire, Laporte, VVD? 

That’s not my point though is it. 
 

We set a precedent by selling Maguire for an astronomical fee. In my opinion Chilwell has more potential and is by far the better footballer. We could’ve got more money from Chelsea, it’s not like they’re short of money they’re going all out. Especially when they were considering him as their no.1 target. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shen said:

When have Chelsea ripped us off? They paid over the odds for Kanté and Drinkwater and I'd say by today's standards £50m is really not a small amount for someone of Chilwell's quality. I'd argue his worth to us is less than £50m - especially when you compare him to Ricardo, who is a far better player IMO.

Kante was worth much more than the transfer fee he left for. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

Ric... unless the contracts were up... they let these prayer go to foreign teams .. and not their domestic rivals 

Tevez, Walker, Van Persie, Ashley Cole/Gallas, Diarra, Cech, Sterling, Clichy, Kolo Touré etc. all moved for fees domestically to rivals. Not sure what your point is as it's clearly not a rare occurrence that rival clubs in England try to poach the better players from one another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bert said:

That’s not my point though is it. 
 

We set a precedent by selling Maguire for an astronomical fee. In my opinion Chilwell has more potential and is by far the better footballer. We could’ve got more money from Chelsea, it’s not like they’re short of money they’re going all out. Especially when they were considering him as their no.1 target. 

I'd love to agree with this. But I have that distinct memory of Southampton at home last season. From that moment on, I no longer rated Chilwell as a starting XI left back. Take the £50m, wish him well and search for a replacement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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