[Albion] Marc Cucurella *Signed For Chelsea 05/08/2022*

[Stato]

I know I keep banging this drum..... But are you honestly telling me that you would sacrifice signing the next Gareth Bale because after a couple of seasons of absolute joy and brilliant performances for us we would have to give him back.

On that basis we should never have signed Wayne bridge.


I'm not having it.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

The fact is that it doesn't fit the club's business plan. Barber and Ashworth have both said that we will always struggle to compete financially for the top players and have to find a different way of working. Signing any player for this club is an investment and has a degree of risk attached. The risk of paying the higher wages involved in a new contract for Ben White has obviously been worthwhile because of the return the club has made on transfer fees. Investment in a player whose value is fixed by a deal with the selling club is obviously a greater risk and, while it would not necessarily put an end to a deal, it would make it far more likely that the club may be able to find better investments elsewhere.

If you think about it, Chelsea have wrapped Southampton into a deal that is actually worse than a loan. Should Livramento have a career ending injury or should he fail to live up to his promise, unlike in a loan deal it would be Southampton's risk, not Chelsea's. However, if his value increases greatly the benefit goes to Chelsea, not to Southampton. It reminds me of the private/public partnership deals where governments didn't want to invest capital and so made deals with private investors that involve being saddled with all of the future risk, but ceding rewards in return for money up front.

I would suspect that the club has just decided that, whatever the potential short term gain on the pitch, its not a model that is likely to help the club in the longer term. The proliferation of deals like this will just strengthen the already advantaged in the division to the detriment of the smaller clubs. I would guess that Tony Bloom does not feel that his club is in the financial situation that would give him little choice than to let Chelsea do him over. Southampton's owners are either less confident about their financial security, or feel that they are more in need of the possible short term playing gain that he might provide.

 

[dwayne]

The fact is that it doesn't fit the club's business plan. Barber and Ashworth have both said that we will always struggle to compete financially for the top players and have to find a different way of working. Signing any player for this club is an investment and has a degree of risk attached. The risk of paying the higher wages involved in a new contract for Ben White has obviously been worthwhile because of the return the club has made on transfer fees. Investment in a player whose value is fixed by a deal with the selling club is obviously a greater risk and, while it would not necessarily put an end to a deal, it would make it far more likely that the club may be able to find better investments elsewhere.

If you think about it, Chelsea have wrapped Southampton into a deal that is actually worse than a loan. Should Livramento have a career ending injury or should he fail to live up to his promise, unlike in a loan deal it would be Southampton's risk, not Chelsea's. However, if his value increases greatly the benefit goes to Chelsea, not to Southampton. It reminds me of the private/public partnership deals where governments didn't want to invest capital and so made deals with private investors that involve being saddled with all of the future risk, but ceding rewards in return for money up front.

I would suspect that the club has just decided that, whatever the potential short term gain on the pitch, its not a model that is likely to help the club in the longer term. The proliferation of deals like this will just strengthen the already advantaged in the division to the detriment of the smaller clubs. I would guess that Tony Bloom does not feel that his club is in the financial situation that would give him little choice than to let Chelsea do him over. Southampton's owners are either less confident about their financial security, or feel that they are more in need of the possible short term playing gain that he might provide.

Again we don't know the finer detail.

But

We pay out 5 million for this kid (chump change in EPL terms) there's no real risk there. Much less than locadia or Ali j.

Turns out he's amazing. He gives us incredible performances, he's better than most of our players and lifts us up the table for 2 seasons.

2 seasons later Chelsea want to buy him back. He's worth 45m but they're giving us 25m as that's what the contract states.

Ok in theory we've 'lost' 25m ..... But we haven't really have we because we never had it in the first place. But we still make a 20m profit and the kid has given us incredible service.

Wheres the downside again ?

1) he's been great. Given fans a lot of pleasure. Lifted us up the table.
2) we make 20m profit.

Think about it. For Chelsea to want to buy this kid back he would have to be IMMENSE.

Let's even flip it another way. Would Tony bloom pay 25m now for a player that he knew would be gauranteed to be worth 45 in 2 seasons time. Of course he would.

 

[chaileyjem]

Again we don't know the finer detail.

Assuming the reporting saying we were interested was correct Its a bit moot arguing we should have accepted this term or that term to get the deal over the line and if the club could have done something differently - when, as others have rightly argued, we've no idea what the details of the contract were. (i mean its interesting to debate the hypothetical but who knows what clauses Chelsea insisted on or if they were acceptable to the Albion or not).

As for whether he's the next Gareth Bale. Well nobody knows that either. He's 18 and has played 1 game. He might well be a White or a Wan Bissaka or equally he could be plagued by injuries or end up on the bench in the Championship next season.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Again we don't know the finer detail.

But

We pay out 5 million for this kid (chump change in EPL terms) there's no real risk there. Much less than locadia or Ali j.

Turns out he's amazing. He gives us incredible performances, he's better than most of our players and lifts us up the table for 2 seasons.

2 seasons later Chelsea want to buy him back. He's worth 45m but they're giving us 25m as that's what the contract states.

Ok in theory we've 'lost' 25m ..... But we haven't really have we because we never had it in the first place. But we still make a 20m profit and the kid has given us incredible service.

Wheres the downside again ?

1) he's been great. Given fans a lot of pleasure. Lifted us up the table.
2) we make 20m profit.

Think about it. For Chelsea to want to buy this kid back he would have to be IMMENSE.

Let's even flip it another way. Would Tony bloom pay 25m now for a player that he knew would be gauranteed to be worth 45 in 2 seasons time. Of course he would.

Plus of course you'd have to factor in the extra money for finishing higher in the league. Plus the reduced chance of financial disaster due to relegation

There is also the possibility that he turns out to be amazing, but Chelsea don't want to re-sign him, because they can't afford to at the time (maybe they've bought Haaland or something), or they're very well stocked in that position, or the player flat out refuses, or their chairman has got on the wrong side of Putin and been sent to a gulag ... or any manner of things.

I'm not convinced these deals are wholly bad for the buying (loanee) club either ... but the devil will be in the detail

 

[Stato]

Again we don't know the finer detail.

But

We pay out 5 million for this kid (chump change in EPL terms) there's no real risk there. Much less than locadia or Ali j.

Turns out he's amazing. He gives us incredible performances, he's better than most of our players and lifts us up the table for 2 seasons.

2 seasons later Chelsea want to buy him back. He's worth 45m but they're giving us 25m as that's what the contract states.

Ok in theory we've 'lost' 25m ..... But we haven't really have we because we never had it in the first place. But we still make a 20m profit and the kid has given us incredible service.

Wheres the downside again ?

1) he's been great. Given fans a lot of pleasure. Lifted us up the table.
2) we make 20m profit.

Think about it. For Chelsea to want to buy this kid back he would have to be IMMENSE.

Let's even flip it another way. Would Tony bloom pay 25m now for a player that he knew would be gauranteed to be worth 45 in 2 seasons time. Of course he would.

But there is no guarantee. If you only consider the possibility of him being a success, you're going to struggle to see a down side. If he's a failure you've spent wages and transfer fees on him that could have been spent on another player who could have had a better risk/reward profile. No transfer is made in isolation.

Also by accepting Chelsea's terms you are also making it more likely that the model will be in common use in the future and that could put you at a disadvantage. We seem to be in the same business as Chelsea in trying to develop a lot of young players and selling on the ones that we can't use, albeit on a smaller scale. I wouldn't be surprised to see the club being more keen to use the model itself to sell players on to clubs further down the pyramid, but I'm guessing that in this case, they just thought that Chelsea's terms changed the risk profile enough for them to consider that their money could be better invested elsewhere.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Again we don't know the finer detail.

But

We pay out 5 million for this kid (chump change in EPL terms) there's no real risk there. Much less than locadia or Ali j.

Turns out he's amazing. He gives us incredible performances, he's better than most of our players and lifts us up the table for 2 seasons.

2 seasons later Chelsea want to buy him back. He's worth 45m but they're giving us 25m as that's what the contract states.

Ok in theory we've 'lost' 25m ..... But we haven't really have we because we never had it in the first place. But we still make a 20m profit and the kid has given us incredible service.

Wheres the downside again ?

1) he's been great. Given fans a lot of pleasure. Lifted us up the table.
2) we make 20m profit.

Think about it. For Chelsea to want to buy this kid back he would have to be IMMENSE.

Let's even flip it another way. Would Tony bloom pay 25m now for a player that he knew would be gauranteed to be worth 45 in 2 seasons time. Of course he would.

In normal (workplace) recruitment I have been involved in conversations over the years about do you appoint a high-flyer or a steady Eddie, mostly as a school governor.

It usually came down to the high-flyer, who might move on sooner rather than later, but think what good they might do you in the meantime. It invariably worked. So a superstar with strings attached would not bother me, but you would have to have it in mind what to do if and when they move on.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

You'll be able to chart my desperation to do anything but glossing as I cling onto NSC, as opposed to the alternative.

Is the Vuelta not that interesting this year? I must admit I was quite surprised to see the top Ineos Grenadiers rider was only 9th. I thought they'd be among the leading contenders, though I suppose Tom Pidcock is only in for fun after his mountain bike gold medal in the Olympics.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

This in absolute bucketloads. Spot on

The club isn’t without fault in certain aspects (no club is) ….. but to claim they have dropped a ball with a transfer without knowing anything about it is clueless.

Player club was interested in chose another club … it happens. Some people need to move on rather than blaming the club without any facts

Don't Chelsea have a buy back clause on him? I'm not sure we'd want a club we'd just bought a player from being able to hold us to terms like that, particularly not the timing of the buy back. Not that I know of course, but perhaps we didn't want to buy on those terms. If that was the case, fair play to the club.

 

[Ecosse Exile]

So if we bought Livramento for 5m and Chelsea had a 25 million buy back clause, maybe in a years time he looks fantastic, Man Utd want to buy him and are happy to pay 35 million, we say no, we're holding out for 50 million, he's that good! Then Chelsea come in give us 25 million and sell to Man Utd for the 35 million we were refusing. Easy money for Chelsea and we have lost one of our most promising players for less than he's worth. Totally agree with the clubs stance on this one, I'd rather pay more to not have the buy back clause.
Yes we would have made 20 million, but we now have to replace a 50 million pound player for less than half that money.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Don't Chelsea have a buy back clause on him? I'm not sure we'd want a club we'd just bought a player from being able to hold us to terms like that, particularly not the timing of the buy back. Not that I know of course, but perhaps we didn't want to buy on those terms. If that was the case, fair play to the club.

Tony doesn't sanction release clauses. A buyback is pretty similar to a release clause so I'm not surprised we may not sign up to them.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Hi, where do I go for the Cucurella thread? I think the Livramento one has been labelled incorrectly. Ta.

 

[BBassic]

Pretty sure Chelsea are putting buy-back clauses in because they've just had to (re)spunk millions of pounds signing Lukaku.

 

[Stato]

Hi, where do I go for the Cucurella thread? I think the Livramento one has been labelled incorrectly. Ta.

Imagine you're in a bus queue and the bus hasn't come and doesn't look like its coming. The other people waiting are just chatting to kill time until it appears.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Pretty sure Chelsea are putting buy-back clauses in because they've just had to (re)spunk millions of pounds signing Lukaku.

Plus they really f**ked up with Lamptey.

Edit to add: I doubt any buy back clause would last as long as Lukaku has been away - I think they usually only last 2 or 3 years from the initial sale, unless someone can correct me.

 

[GT49er]

Plus they really f**ked up with Lamptey.

Edit to add: I doubt any buy back clause would last as long as Lukaku has been away - I think they usually only last 2 or 3 years from the initial sale, unless someone can correct me.

Surely any buy-back clause would last as long as stipulated in the contract?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Surely any buy-back clause would last as long as stipulated in the contract?

Yep. Looks like i've got it the wrong way round, as this article outlines:

https://www.danielgeey.com/post/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained/

Often the selling club won't be able to activate the buy back for the first year or 2.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Imagine you're in a bus queue and the bus hasn't come and doesn't look like its coming. The other people waiting are just chatting to kill time until it appears.

Who’s playing the part of the drunk who’s pissed himself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GT49er]

Yep. Looks like i've got it the wrong way round, as this article outlines:

https://www.danielgeey.com/post/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained/

Often the selling club won't be able to activate the buy back for the first year or 2.

Yes, and my point really is tat the buy-back clause can be whatever the two clubs agree, both in terms of the agreed fee to buy the player back, and the time scale in which the agreement is binding.
Could get interesting if the player doesn't want to move back and absolutely refuses to sign for the original club when they trigger the buy-back clause.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Pretty sure Chelsea are putting buy-back clauses in because they've just had to (re)spunk millions of pounds signing Lukaku.

Just imagine if Tuchel tells the club he wants De Bruyne & Salah as well!! [emoji23]

 

[Justice]

Who’s playing the part of the drunk who’s pissed himself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Swansman ?