Ben Chilwell

[foxinsocks]

Just now, The People's Hero said:

 

Ok, so we just sell him to where he and his agent have their heart set on. 

 

Which we just have.

 

Gotcha.

I didn't say that.... we sell him to a place we are comfortable with - his agent can make suggestions,,,and  we can say yes or no.  He signed a contract and we payed in extra wages to secure his services that he now wants to withdraw...  I can see we might get less money but that is the cost of remaining competitive.

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

I agree we may be better off with out either... yet I just don't think we should strengthen our rivals.    Chellwell signed a contgract - If he doesn't want to honour it then he and we are in a difficult position - but let his agent find a home we are happy with,.  Not Utd or chelsea the two teams who pushed us out oft he CL.

 

I have always been very competitive in business and sport  and |I would never strengthen a rival

I agree to a certain extent but I think we know when to stick or twist with our players and when to cash in from a rival. Its a dangerous game to play but if you accept that you can make them pay way over the odds for players which then allows you as a club to strengthen the team as a whole then that offsets the impact of a rival getting a singular asset of ours. 

[The People's Hero]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

I didn't say that.... we sell him to a place we are comfortable with - his agent can make suggestions,,,and  we can say yes or no.  He signed a contract and we payed in extra wages to secure his services that he now wants to withdraw...  I can see we might get less money but that is the cost of remaining competitive.

I see your angle, but evidently the club is comfortable with Chelsea.

 

As a young English full back, with the rules in place, he appeals mainly to English clubs. Believe he also wants to live in England... so.... ???

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

that's the cost of remaining competitive and not falling behind chelsea and man utd

But its not is it because not only have we lost the amount offered but also have to replace that player, all on a budget only a third of the likes of Man Utd. Arsenal got in to this boat and it cost them dearly.

[MIAMI_FOX]

50m (probably closer to 60m with add ons) for Chilwell in the current market is great business for us.

 

He is a decent full back at BEST.  no world beater, we have all seen it consistently from him.

 

Id be over the moon if we brought in Taglafico (an upgrade IMO) for around 30m ..... 20-30m profit. 

 

Happy days.

[foxinsocks]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I agree to a certain extent but I think we know when to stick or twist with our players and when to cash in from a rival. Its a dangerous game to play but if you accept that you can make them pay way over the odds for players which then allows you as a club to strengthen the team as a whole then that offsets the impact of a rival getting a singular asset of ours. 

Ric, I am getting a lot of push back - but my views are that we should never strengthen a rival.  I thought this is a reasonable position - yet it appears that everyone else would rather have the money. Well we got loads of money as utd paid "over the odds" for maguire but they got the CL place. 

This would also send a message to other players who have boosted their incomes by "committing" to us.  

This says = "sign for 5 years and we will roll over when you want us to".

 

Edited 25 August 2020 by foxinsocks

[MIAMI_FOX]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

Ric, I am getting a lot of push back - but my views are that we should never strengthen a rival.  I thought this is a reasonable position - yet it appears that everyone else would rather have the money. Well we got loads of money as utd paid "over the odds" for maguire but they got the CL place. 

this would also send a message tio other player who have boosted their incomes by "committing" to us.  

This says = "sign for 5 years and we will roll over when you want us to".

 

Not always as black and white as that though..... you have a player (Chilwell) who has clearly made it apparent to the club that he wants to move on.   do you take the money (good money!) or keep an unhappy player that was bang average last season to sulk and go through the motions until his contract expires.?

[HighPeakFox]

One might argue that by selling Chilwell to Chelsea, we are weakening one of our main rivals.

 

You might think that, I could not possibly comment...

[foxinsocks]

8 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I see your angle, but evidently the club is comfortable with Chelsea.

 

As a young English full back, with the rules in place, he appeals mainly to English clubs. Believe he also wants to live in England... so.... ???

you are right  - the club is evendently happy with this... but I think that they are wrong... clearly many on here are comfortable too.

[foxinsocks]

1 minute ago, MIAMI_FOX said:

Not always as black and white as that though..... you have a player (Chilwell) who has clearly made it apparent to the club that he wants to move on.   do you take the money (good money!) or keep an unhappy player that was bang average last season to sulk and go through the motions until his contract expires.?

the club would - I wouldn't. I would tell his agent to find him a clubs who is not a direct competitor.

[Gerard]

2 minutes ago, MIAMI_FOX said:

50m (probably closer to 60m with add ons) for Chilwell in the current market is great business for us.

 

He is a decent full back at BEST.  no world beater, we have all seen it consistently from him.

 

Id be over the moon if we brought in Taglafico (an upgrade IMO) for around 30m ..... 20-30m profit. 

 

Happy days.

 

The don't sell him brigade clearly have no concept of value or awareness of the nuances.

 

We can sell Maguire for £80m and Chilwell for an eventual £60m and that actually brings us closer to those teams if they overpay. If we never sold either we'd be £140m worse off which means fewer signings over the last couple of years and Man Utd & Chelsea end up going elsewhere and spending that money on much superior players.

 

There are a lot of similarities with both Chilwell and Maguire. We could afford to lose both of them and we got tremendous fees for the pair of them who are both decent players in our side but not essential players like Kante, Mahrez or Vardy. 

[MIAMI_FOX]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

you are right  - the club is evendently happy with this... but I think that they are wrong... clearly many on here are comfortable too.

I don't see that Chilwell improves Chelsea by any great shakes.     Now, if they were taking Pereira or Soyuncu of us.....YES they would be improving their squad dramatically.

[Dahnsouff]

In terms of do not strengthen a rival, this is difficult. If you want to fetch top dollar for your players then it is almost unavoidable you will be strengthening a rival. This is due to the riches in this league compared to others, so for example it is only a few clubs in foreign leagues who can pay such fees.

[MIAMI_FOX]

1 minute ago, foxinsocks said:

the club would - I wouldn't. I would tell his agent to find him a clubs who is not a direct competitor.

Fair enough....  Personally I'm happy I agree with billionaire business men that make the decisions  

[Vestan Pance]

9 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

Ric, I am getting a lot of push back - but my views are that we should never strengthen a rival.  I thought this is a reasonable position - yet it appears that everyone else would rather have the money. Well we got loads of money as utd paid "over the odds" for maguire but they got the CL place. 

This would also send a message to other players who have boosted their incomes by "committing" to us.  

This says = "sign for 5 years and we will roll over when you want us to".

 

It might just be the case that some at LCFC don't rate him that highly and are prepared to let him go at the right price. We certainly aren't rolling over since Kante, and appear to be getting what we want from these deals.

Edited 25 August 2020 by Vestan Pance

[goose2010]

18 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

that's the cost of remaining competitive and not falling behind chelsea and man utd

But without the money how do we move on? We don't have the funding of the big clubs. We have to sell to keep up. 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, foxinsocks said:

Ric, I am getting a lot of push back - but my views are that we should never strengthen a rival.  I thought this is a reasonable position - yet it appears that everyone else would rather have the money. Well we got loads of money as utd paid "over the odds" for maguire but they got the CL place. 

this would also send a message tio other player who have boosted their incomes by "committing" to us.  

This says = "sign for 5 years and we will roll over when you want us to".

 

The club might well wish they were in a position to only sell on their terms and never to a rival, but until we are in that position this is what we choose to do to progress ourselves. 

 

Think of it this way, lets put to one side our complete capitulation of the top 4 which was a capitulation and not solely because we lost Maguire and Man Utd signed him. Last season we signed 4 new players for around £100m and sold 1 first team player for £85m. Our net spend was low but we cannot ignore that around 75% of our entire revenue goes on wages, it's a fine line between being ambitious and paying talented young and experienced players as much as possible to get them and keep them and then having very little cash flow to keep progressing. If we want to keep growing we have to know when to cash in on a player with the bigger picture being that it allows us to strengthen the team as a whole. We could have sold Maguire abroad, probably could have found a club willing to buy him but it would have been for nowhere near £85m, therefore we wouldn't perhaps of been able to get the 4 new players in or give new deals to Maddison on £110k a week and Rodgers new deal etc.

 

If you think given all what this club has achieved, that they wouldn't keep their best players if they had the choice or that they would still sell to a rival if they could get as much elsewhere then you might need to consider how much you really appreciate what this club has done in the last 5 years. 

[The_77]

7 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

the club would - I wouldn't. I would tell his agent to find him a clubs who is not a direct competitor.

Why are you completely removing Ben Chilwell’s wishes from the equation?

[Finnegan]

1 hour 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.

 

 

This needs @Ultra levels of rolleyes emoji

[Gerard]

4 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

the club would - I wouldn't. I would tell his agent to find him a clubs who is not a direct competitor.

 

We've been a direct competitor to Chelsea or Man Utd for about two years in living memory, they're not our long term rivals.

 

The only way we can compete with these clubs is on the pitch. If we have ambitions to compete with these clubs long term then we have to utilise the transfer market heavily in our favour. that means we  need to sell players who are valued higher by the market than what we value them and buy players who increase in value or are under the market value.

 

Did selling Drinkwater to Chelsea strengthen them and weaken us?

Would you buy Maguire back for £80m?

If Chilwell played for Southampton would you be happy to see us buy him for £60m?

[Ric Flair]

7 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

the club would - I wouldn't. I would tell his agent to find him a clubs who is not a direct competitor.

You also wouldn't be the preferred choice for being in charge of trying to work to a budget that is the third of the biggest in the division. 

 

" Top, I could have got us £60m for Chilwell from Chelsea, but those bastards finished above us last season so I've managed to convince Roma to give us £30m as they won't trouble us. Oh by the way, Brendan wants Tagliafico for £25m and Kabak for £20m and we still haven't got a right winger in, but should be sound yeah? "

[The People's Hero]

Maybe the club aren't over convinced that this injury isn't part of a bigger issue?

[Gerard]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

You also wouldn't be the preferred choice for being in charge of trying to work to a budget that is the third of the biggest in the division. 

 

" Top, I could have got us £60m for Chilwell from Chelsea, but those bastards finished above us last season so I've managed to convince Roma to give us £30m as they won't trouble us. Oh by the way, Brendan wants Tagliafico for £25m and Kabak for £20m and we still haven't got a right winger in, but should be sound yeah? "

 

Should have sold Mahrez to Roma for £18m while we had the chance. 

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

You also wouldn't be the preferred choice for being in charge of trying to work to a budget that is the third of the biggest in the division. 

 

" Top, I could have got us £60m for Chilwell from Chelsea, but those bastards finished above us last season so I've managed to convince Roma to give us £30m as they won't trouble us. Oh by the way, Brendan wants Tagliafico for £25m and Kabak for £20m and we still haven't got a right winger in, but should be sound yeah? "

Indeed. The riches in this league allow very little other outcome.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Indeed. The riches in this league allow very little other outcome.

It's why the PL pays way more in transfer fees than other countries though. We could sell to non-rivals for less but we also aren't afforded the same luxury of being able to buy from non-rivals at the same prices that non-PL clubs get quoted for players. That's why the best model for clubs like us who have to work within reasonable parameters is purchase young players from the lower leagues or abroad for as low as reasonably possible and the cash in when offered stupid dough from the elite. We seem to be doing OK with this.