E="Puck, post: 10719808, member: 1019268"]Possibly. They got £75m from selling Ramires and Oscar to Chinese clubs and £40m (I think?) when they sold Luiz to PSG a couple of years ago plus Lukaku, De Bruyne and dozens of youngish players for £5-10m apiece.[/QUOTE] Thats right, even marko marin was there, all listed and a tidy profit.
Well that seems like very sensible level headed question If he helped us win the Champions League the next season I'm going to say ... Maybe?
Ah yes, but if we aren't going to win the league by January then what do you want to gain from a loan? Because if its just one place better then maybe a 2nd loan could be 2 places better etc. So where will it end? Its all about the long-term though isn't it. Very selective loans with no option to buy might be ok, but it has to balace with our strategy of growing our own and growing the club cos the next season you've lost them and what have you got to show for it ... ? Meantime if the youth players get less of a look in then maybe we've damaged our rep as a good club for young stars
This could turn into a long rally with no-one ever playing a winner methinks But how about if they aren't seen as being as good as RLC? If we had a loan CB last season would Jack still be playing in the reserves? I'm against short term loans in principle but you're right, if they help us during one season and don't hinder us by leaving, what's not to like?
Chelsea supporter over on another forum I read hates their transfer policy and makes some valid points about it. He says if you look at it overall (the £400m generated from selling "unwanted" players) is a smoke screen, as virtually every player sold was sold too cheaply if you look at them individually. Plus what they do with the money is a joke. He used Bertrand as an example, probably a £25m-£30m player now, sold for £10m, he was already good enough to play for Chelsea at the time, and they have used a past it Cole, Filipe Luis, Baba Rahman, out of position Azpilicueta, Marcos Alonso and now are rumoured to be spending a record fee on Alex Sandro. So to receive £10m for a player you have had at the club from the age of 15 to only go and spend close to £200m trying to fill the position that he plays shows zero planning.
What was Caceres then? I'd consider that equiv of a loan, as hr was a free agent but we only took him for the end of the season. And the point still stands that we had someone who could have blocked Jack, but thanks for your useful input...
Come on, don't be pedantic, u know the point I was making, he was a short term solution in the same way a loan would be. Jeez, wtf is wrong with people today, totally overlooking the point to make one of their own. Wll played ref.
They just won the bloody league though, so why does he even give a ****?! That's like getting married to Jessica Alba and then complaining cos she can't make very good toast.
He said that as long as the ends appear to justify the means (2 titles in 3 years) then it'll carry on, but if you delve a bit deeper into it they shouldn't be getting the plaudits they get over their transfer policy. It is happening again this summer, Traore for €10m is nothing, losing Solanke in the manner they have done means they will get far less than if they sold him normally and selling Ake for £20m to only go and spend alledgedly £35m on someone not much better and 4 years older could be the Bertrand situation all over again.
How about a discussion? Come on, a reason? A counter point? Do you have sore fingers? If we don't find a CM that we want (if we are looking), why would we not want to do this?
But if you have money to burn, then it is safer to buy established players for a bit more than take the risk on youngsters. Sad, but true. I bet that same fan wasn't saying they should play Bertrand 3 years ago.
