Partly true, though of course Covid arriving, creating financial unease for all but the richest and so effectively killing the market at exactly the time we wanted to sell, really didn't help. Agree Wood isn't a helpful yardstick unless you're selling a player you don't need to sell, to a club who will pay whatever is asked.
Doucoure's value dropped because he was essentially a training cone during our relegation season. I wouldn't say he's really done anything since that says he was worth more. As for relegation being an excuse for teams to take the piss, I'd use Ake's transfer to City to show that you can still command a decent fee for players.
Pretty sure Ake’s fee was agreed prior to Bournemouth’s relegation being confirmed and basically represented the midpoint of what they’d get if they went down or stayed up. As I said earlier I wouldn’t be averse to doing that with Sarr should someone be willing to lock in £40m now.
That seems like a bit of a silly and disingenuous way of measuring his quality as a player and impact; particularly given the current state of Everton football club.
You're right, but to be fair we did reasonably well in terms of getting good prices/holding on to players last time. Doucoure: £20m Estupinan: £15m Suarez: £10m While keeping Sarr and Hughes. Bournemouth managed to get £80m for Ake, Wilson and Ramsdale. Norwich managed to get £25m for Godfrey and £15m for Jamal Lewis. And that was at the peak of the depressed covid market. Of course, their values will take a hit, but I don't think some of the figures mentioned are too ridiculous
It wasn't that bad, but equally the effects of the covid-depressed market were also a boon for us and the other relegated clubs as it meant we were in a one-off uniquely 'strong' situation for being able to hold on to players to some degree, in the sense that the options were not necessarily there and for nowhere near the values we'd be prepared to sell them for in that moment - we're not going to get nothing for them, of course, but the plain fact is that we are basically certain to have to knock off an amount in the double-figure millions for our 'star' players from what we were intending to get/see as their peak value for us. Arguing about what we will actually get for them as above has to take into account relegation, or not, above all things, and it will be punitive in the event - especially when we consider that it's a 100% additional loss to the money we will lose for no longer being in the league. A relegation anti-bonus!
Chalobah has play 7 games for Fulham this season, either injured or not being picked. Seems to back up the decision to get rid.
Don't agree. Leaving aside the fact Fulham under Silva would slice us to pieces! Don't think he warranted a new contract. But we gave him away for nothing. Surely he would have offered more than the abysmal Kucka and Tufan. And had the trust of the manager to start more games than 5 game Louza. Basically we gave away a useful player a year early because Pozzo is childish.
A crap player is a crap player, whether his name is Ozan, or Nathaniel. And boy are they both crap. Do we know it was childishness from Pozzo? I'd heard Chalobah wanted to leave?
I'm sure you wouldn't have been complaining about Chalobah as a squad player at end of last season. But as with many of our posters on here, anyone who leaves is rubbish because anything else would imply a mistake by our lovely owner. So now he is "crap". As for Pozzo being a child, have a think. Both players with a year left on their contract and reticent to sign new deals. Is Pozzo pragmatic? No - Hughes is with the U23s and Chalobah is actually given away for nothing. Utter garbage like Kucka and Tufan brought in. And still they line up to defend him. It's even spun as a positive. "Pozzo had to replace the whole midfield don't you know?" Amazing fanbase we have.
Chalobah had a poor start to the season, but I thought he was generally pretty reasonable during the second half of the season. He had his flaws, but he would have offered infinitely more than Tufat has done this season.
I've been pretty consistent in my view that he's crap. Had roughly 10 good games (6 in Championship) in almost half a decade. Kucka has been mostly poor but has almost had as many good games in half a season! I'm also happy to admit when the owners make a mistake, of which there have been many. Do you know the intricate details of the Hughes/Chalobah contract negotiations? Hughes' desires? Chalobah's demands? As you mentioned on another thread, you are extremely anti-Pozzo so it can cloud your judgement. It's just a difference of opinion.
Sorry but to say Chalobah had only 6 good games in the Championship is ridiculous. Fair enough you don’t rate him but he played a big part for us in the second half of last season and that went far beyond 6 games. And Kucka hasn’t played well in near 6 games this season.
Maybe more than 6 games, you're not looking at much more than 10 though. And that doesn't really change the equation that he's had fewer than 5 good performances at the level we're playing at in the entire time he's been here. And how many post-injury? Sorry didn't word that very well, Kucka has almost matched him for good PL performances in half a season, and he's 57 years old. I'm glad we didn't match or better Fulham's contract offer, he'd be making a negative impact this season much like Tufan. If we'd gone down, he'd have maybe given us a few more decent games in and amongst more injuries. If we'd stayed up, he'd be hanging around taking up wages which people (rightly) moan about.
I think you’d have to be an idiot not to accept if you have a player who has played in the championship once, but you’ve promised they won’t have to again, who has two years left on his deal and you’ve just been relegated, that those things won’t all affect their price negatively. Financially the club won’t have a choice but to sell in that window, they’ve promised the player they will sell in that window, and if they don’t sell in that window his value plummets in the next window and again to virtually nothing after that. The balance of power shifts massively to the buying clubs, the only semblance of control we will have is if there are a few clubs who want to buy him thus driving the price up a bit. If only one club wants him then ultimately we’ll end up having to accept what that club will pay for him, not what we want. It’s basic economics and it’s baffling how many fail to grasp it, or how Newcastle triggering a release clause has any bearing on what we can sell players for after we’ve been relegated, who are nearing the end of their contracts and who won’t play for us in the championship. The Doucoure fee is great example, let’s not also forget Sarr has been inconsistent and injured for a large chunk of the season too, so if it wasn’t relegation that affected his fee and indeed bad form (questionable) then why wouldn’t similar issues also affect Sarr’s price negatively as well? We also only got a combined £4m for Hughes and Chalobah with one year left on their deals, I wonder why that was.
Yeah my comments weren’t really aimed at you. More a general observation. Someone on here was saying Doucoure hadn’t done well at Everton yesterday.
I'm not saying that Kucka or Tufan are better than Chalobah at all and I don't think we should have given him away, but maybe it was a balance between wages and the fact that his knees seem wrecked and he's hardly playing. It's not a defence of Gino - he should have recruited far better in midfield than geriatric Kucka and fat disinterested Tufan to replace Hughes and Chalobah.
It's also basic economics that as price level decreases demand increases. If we get relegated and Sarr is in the shop window for £25m more than one premier league club is going to be interested. Yes he's inconsistent but he has shown at times (under crap managers) that there is a top level player in there. We also have at least two assets to sell, meaning we won't be half as desperate to take low offers early doors. Plus there is no Deeney and Gray on massive contracts.
I don't think anyone's concerned whether we're going to be able to sell him, though - that's a given, one way or the other. It's no benefit saying that we will be able to shift him. The entire debate is around the effect on value, and having two players to sell is no advantage when they both belong at a higher level, are extremely aware of that themselves, and would definitely not even countenance playing in the Championship for us no matter how relatively small the transfer fee offered us is. Deeney and Gray also doesn't matter, because in any kind of real world/realpolitik sense, we have to acknowledge that it won't be in our power to keep them - that will not be our choice. We will therefore be in the weakest position possible, and have basically no leverage to start naming prices, regardless of whether we have other players on high wages or not. Obviously we're not going to let them go out the door for free on the opening day of the window, but then that was never going to be the case whatever the situation. Aside from that, for Sarr and Dennis in the event of relegation it would all be about the best offer we could attract - not selling them for their actual, let alone peak, value.
Agreed. Argument could be made though that we replaced Chalobah and Hughes with Etebo and Sissoko, in which case it's two massive upgrades (based on performances so far, hopefully keeps his level high).
How is Etebo a massive upgrade on Chalobah at this stage? He’s barely played and was slightly above average when he did. Far too early to make that kind of call.
Of course, but there is a huge difference between having a player who is happy in the league you’re in, has at least three years on his contract and the club having no financial need or desire to sell, vs having zero choice but to sell a player by a set date. The whole point of what you’re saying is that our situation will naturally determine an equilibrium in price due to him being cheap enough to attract multiple clubs, so by definition we won’t be getting anywhere near the price we could get under optimum conditions.
Absence sure makes the heart grow fonder, Chalobah was alright. The fact he was free and still could only muster a move to a Championship side says it all really. His best spell for us was that short time under Marco Silva and ironically, it's that same manager who know thinks he's not good enough to start games a level below whilst his team score 6 every game.
Now now, we have been civil recently, let’s try and keep it that way! I could easily say you have continually made the same comments about Chalobah no?
