Jan 2016 transfer window: Page 21 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Jan 2016 transfer window

goon

It's silly to turn down buying players at any stage of their career/development if you think they have talent, whether it's an academy player, raw potential, a ready made world class player in their prime or anything in between.

The market is far too competitive to be picky, and going down just any one route will lead to issues down the line. Need to have all your bases covered.

jones

Not sure why we're getting Leicester's scouts either to be honest, they got a couple of good players but they haven't nearly proven themselves enough to say they're on the level of what we need. Would much rather get someone involved with Porto, Udinese Calcio, Genk in recent years etc.

That said I completely disagree with Rex' other point. Arsenal as a club has neither the money nor the status to get every player on a whim. The only clubs who do are the Spanish big two but even they do loads of scouting in lower and foreign leagues and get talents before they get big. They also do it not just to get players for the first team but to generate money out of talented players who aren't good enough for them, something the chavs do all the time and we did just once really with Vela.

mdgoonah41

as scummy as they are, even though theyve made some bad choices, chelsea basically have the right idea. buy top talents when they are 17-18, farm them out to teams that will play the players and develop them, keep some, sell the rest for a profit. we should still be spending the bulk of our yearly transfer fund on the first team and improving those 25 squad slots, but the best way to continue to steadily add talent to the first team is to buy those players before they end up at big clubs. barca, madrid, bayern, and the other big clubs are still our competition, we need to sign the best of the best before they end up at those clubs.

jones

It's scummy, that's what it is. If football's governing bodies had a shred of decency or sanity left they'd prohibit this strategy of buying young and farming out, but since it's very unlikely we can expect anything of the sort from them we might as well join the chavs in doing it.

Rex

Yeah, I detest that practice as well.

Segway

I dunno. It's not like it's slavery. The players know full well what they are getting into when they sign for Chelsea and they also have to accept a loan offer from another club so Chelsea can't just "farm out" young players at will. I'm sure they are also getting handily compensated for any inconveniences.

Anyway, I'm not sure their policy has paid off. Hardly any of their youth players ever get a chance to play for the first team and there's been many examples of young hype jobs going there without profiting in terms of their development. A guy like Piazon was hailed as the next Kaka but where is he now?

Maybe Chelsea earn a little when they sell these young players but I doubt they profit when you put together all their expenses.

Looking at all these Chelsea youngsters who seems to get lost after loan after loan it puts into context what a remarkable determination Joel Campbell must have to come back after all these loan spells and perform like he does currently.

Clrnc

They definitely have a fair share of profits, but what is more important for them is that if just 5% of those talents became good, their squad is strengthened a lot without needing to spend the equivalent.

Ricky1985

Hard to say for sure whether they're making profits when all is said and done when we can't know all the dodgy money that they pay out to win the signatures of these talented kids from other big clubs.

The whole operation probably costs them a fortune.

jones

Segway wrote:
I dunno. It's not like it's slavery. The players know full well what they are getting into when they sign for Chelsea and they also have to accept a loan offer from another club so Chelsea can't just "farm out" young players at will. I'm sure they are also getting handily compensated for any inconveniences.

Anyway, I'm not sure their policy has paid off. Hardly any of their youth players ever get a chance to play for the first team and there's been many examples of young hype jobs going there without profiting in terms of their development. A guy like Piazon was hailed as the next Kaka but where is he now?

Maybe Chelsea earn a little when they sell these young players but I doubt they profit when you put together all their expenses.

Looking at all these Chelsea youngsters who seems to get lost after loan after loan it puts into context what a remarkable determination Joel Campbell must have to come back after all these loan spells and perform like he does currently.

It's not the treatment of the players but their original clubs that is scummy. Players like De Bruyne were bought despite them never having had any plans to play him; instead of Genk receiving a payout for his education they got some 5m or so for him while Chelsea got 20m+, and that's leaving out the ridiculous money that Wolfsburg themselves got for him just a season later.

What this method causes is just a further concentration of funds at the top where they aren't needed in any way and it starves clubs out who unlike the chavs actually invest money and competence into their youth setups. Genk for example had the likes of Courtois, De Bruyne and Benteke come through their academy and scouted the likes of Koulibaly and Milinkovic-Savic when they were just teenagers; if you deprive them of the funds they should earn for that work you can be certain that it won't be Chelsea who'll unearth the next KDB in their place.

Qwiss

Genk got around £23m for those players. I don't have any real problem with taking young, talented players and loaning them out while they improve. Chelsea of course are always getting caught breaking rules when it comes to do and should have the book thrown at them but there is no reason why we shouldn't operate a similar system in a fair way (we sort of already do, we just aren't as good/ambitious at it).

jones

Qwiss! wrote:
Genk got around £23m for those players.

And Chelsea got 23m for Kevin de Bruyne alone despite having fuck all to do with him. That money surely will see better use in Genk's hands than Chelsea's, that's pretty much my sole point.

Since it's legal we absolutely have to get involved in this system ourselves I agree with you. But for football as a whole it would be much better if it were illegal to sign players where the only intention is to loan them out and to make money off of them.

goon

How can you prove someone's intention though? And to be honest I don't think it was their intention to eventually sell them, the only one they've really profited from significantly is KDB and they fucked up by selling him considering he went to City a year later for over double the amount.

Lukaku was supposed to be their next Drogba, they bought him for 18m and they could probably use him now. Of course, once again Mourinho didn't like him so the rest is history.

jones

You could impose a limit for the amount of loan players on your books for starters. You could also include clauses that would make it more difficult to make the decision in the first place, i.e. you can only sign one or two players per window if you're not immediately getting a work permit for them.

There are loads of other clauses FIFA/UEFA could include if they were actually worried about the state of the game. I reckon most of us could immediately tell with 90% of Chelsea's signings if they ever had a chance of getting even a second of game time at their club or not, why should football's governing bodies be unable to do the same.

goon

It's a difficult one to restrict because the moment you do you get a load of lawyers and agents sharpening their forks and winging at the EU.

Qwiss

I don't really see the difference to Genk in the KDB situation vs say the Benteke situation where he was signed to play first team football. They still got a solid fee in both cases and the player got to move on and play at a higher level. What difference does it make to Genk is the player is loaned after the sale or not? And for KDB himself he still got to play regularly for a team in one of Europes top leagues where he could improve by playing against a higher level of opposition. Everyone involved wins.

Claudius

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/21/real-madrid-happy-to-let-isco-seal-arsenal-transfer-report-5637020/

Links to Isco. Only Daily Star and Metro, so likely a candidate to best new fiction. But if it can be done, we must play the trigger. We need a guy who can start next to and in place of Ozil

Clrnc

A lot of reports about us going for Ben Chilwell. Would be class if its true, get rid of Gibbs once and for all.

Ray

I don't know why Wenger didn't go for Grimaldo, Chilwell looks like the next Gibbs.

Mirth

Claudius wrote:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/21/real-madrid-happy-to-let-isco-seal-arsenal-transfer-report-5637020/

Links to Isco. Only Daily Star and Metro, so likely a candidate to best new fiction. But if it can be done, we must play the trigger. We need a guy who can start next to and in place of Ozil

If we're only going to go for one big name player this summer - which is probably the case - I hope it's not Isco.

Rex

Agreed

« Previous Page Next Page »