moneyball by its nature looks risky but is actually risk adverse. moneyball targets a player that's not necessarily the hottest property going or a superstar but has a record/data showing their performance above their value. when players have data and a record this value is easier to see. when we won't take Enzo Fernández but Benfica will as we want to see how he copes in the big leagues or caicedo to Brighton then we are looking for more data than moneyball. we are looking for sure things.
Chelsea close to signing Joao Felix on loan......fifth most expensive player of all time............never been impressed
He’s hardly in a team where he can showcase his talents though, is he? A player like him should never end up under Simeone imo….I’ve no idea if he has what it takes to succeed in a more attacking team in the PL tbh; he could be great of flop….will be interesting to watch.
Tbf I did think similar last night. At Arsenal. Individually though I don't think he's a match winner.
guess we’ll find out soon enough - one thing is for sure, he’ll be well schooled in his work off the ball!
Okay, you Tobes and Astro used to argue this stuff till the cows came home, and now two of those are no longer with us we'll have to just take your word for it. What you'll have to take my word for (hopefully) is that there was an article in the Echo explaining all this a year ago, and that came up with £350m figure at that time, and was updated this summer before that window's transaction. As said, I don't think it was saying how much actual money we HAD - just how much money we could SPEND and not transgress FFP. As to how much doss we have, I keep making the point that if Chelsea can simply write off £1.5bn of what Abramovich gave them to buy players, then surely, if FSG ARE selling the club (?), then can they not lump £1bn on to the value by splashing out that much on players in this window, then whoever is buying pays that extra knowing that will have increased the value of the club AND circumvented FFP as Chelsea did?
