Is it any more ridiculous than giving Baxter £10k a week on a 5-year deal when he'd only signed on loan for L2 Yeovil a few months before? He'd just finished a loan spell in the National League. It seems nuts to me that you'd give a young keeper £10k a week on a 5-year deal when he's only played 4/5 months at L2 level. There's a very good reason why these Chelsea kids stay so long, it's because they get paid an absolute fortune.
Yes it is more ridiculous. What's more ridiculous is thinking even if he is on that amount a week at Chelsea that we would agree to pay 100% of it.
Part of Chelsea businessplan is to warehouse young talent and loan it out for a profit, Vale didn't work out, but Baxter hasn't failed here by any stretch but for fitness and it looks like we might be signing Simons.
I think that's just the going rate. Chukwuemeka rejected £100k a week from Villa and he was part of the same u19s team. Carney is a lot better though I don't think they profit from loaning players to the extent people think. Take Baxter, they would have been heavily subsidising his wages in the first 3 years of his current contract and probably last year as well to a lesser extent. It would seem fair that it would have cost them £1.5m to subsidise his wages over the length of his current contract. And they wouldn't be able to sell him either as the clubs who would be interested wouldn't be able to cover his wages. until probably this year and his contract is up anyway
They profit from the eventual sale. The loans are just so the players are in the 'shop window' and getting minutes. As you say yourself, they subsidise Baxter's wages, so why would Vale - who you claim is on 2.5x Baxter's wage - be any different?
Because Vale is one of the best players in the world and was being tracked by the likes of Real Madrid and PSG
Of course, it's the deals like Tomori & Tammy where they really profit. You've got to take hindsight out of it for Vale, he wasn't considered ****e when we signed him. In the summer Chelsea was struggling to tie him down to a new deal, they wanted to keep him but he had plenty of interest. It was said at the time that we won the race to sign him on loan ahead of other championship clubs so we'd have to offer a competitive financial package (probably the best) to Chelsea as part of that. Chelsea rate him highly and he's made senior appearances so it all pointed towards him being a good signing
I never suggested Vale was ****e at all, I suggested that Chelsea would have subsidised his wage just like they do on all deals, as you yourself said. That was the start and end of it. Simons had also made a senior appearance.
Chelsea don't subsidise all loan wages, in fact if it's one of their top prospects it's 100% and loan fee or your not getting the player. It's well known in the game. The younger/lesser players they will contribute 10/30%.. we make a mistake with vale&sim but hopefully we learn not to rush and react without thinking. Financially it's been a big loss
If Vale's one of their top prospects they're in worse shape than I thought. No wonder they're buying so many players in this window.
I never said that, I said when you put Baxter on £10k but send him on loan to L2 or Accrington, they aren't paying anywhere close to that. I hope we had some subsidy on Vale but I can't see it being massive, he was too highly rated Simons was meant to go on loan to Wimbledon though till we stepped in
Sure but you cited Vale having a senior appearance for Chelsea as if it meant anything. It's done, and he's back at Chelsea and not worth fixating on.
He's a huge talent and just because it hasn't worked here for him doesn't change that. It's up to him to make a career for himself, but saying he isn't a top prospect is just wrong
If we paid anything close to 25k a week for anyone with no senior experience behind them it's ****ing idiotic, and that's not hindsight. Anyway what's done is done. Another winger potentially coming in, more relevant news.
