This seems crazy to me. Chelsea have released Solomon Kalou, 26, as his contract expires this summer. Kalou played 250 games for Chelsea, scoring 60 goals, and was a very big part of their double winning side this season. He has been at Chelsea for six years, but spent big parts of his first few seasons on the bench. I think Kalou is awesome and could be a great free signing, with PL winning, and Champions League experience. At only 26 he could give us years of service. Jose Bosingwa is also being released, but I can understand that more. Thoughts?
Not bad for a free; don't think we are likely to get him though unless we bring in AVB and Kalou likes him. More likely to go to Arsenal as they are known admirers and he could remain in London, even Spuds are more likely than us, especially when you consider we are not paying the best wages.
If Kalou were to take a pay cut to 60 mil then perhaps, but as it stands atm he would be a Joe Cole and want 90+ and thus be a complete waste of money
Blimey we may not be paying top dollar but 60 mill a week seems a bit excessive !!! Not sure about him he is a decent player who never seemed to get a long run at Chelsea. Although he played 250 games I guess many of those were as sub. For the right wage structure could be a decent signing but don't think it will happen. chances are he will be snapped up before we are in a position to make any signings
Kalou is another danny Murphy. he turns up when the team is playing well and gets a few goals against the weaker teams but every time there is a big game he wanders about looking scared and gets taken off. ho he got on ahead of sturridge in the cl final i do not know.
and most of the time, he's completely useless . To be fair to the lad, he always gives his all for the team and I hope he does well wherever he goes.
Isn't that precisely our problem at the moment, struggling against the small teams? At 26 years old, and on a free, he must be worth a shot as a squad player depending on what ridiculous wages he's after but I could see Arsenal/Spuds going for him also.
yeah but hang on you are now saying he'd lead us v weaker teams when i am saying he plays in the CHELSEA side playing well and pops up against weaker teasm.... Cheslea under mourinho said win home and away v the bottom ten and thats 60 points... their players still adhere to that when they bother to work for a manager. the guy is a defeatist, he runs scared so he can't be asked to elad us to beating weaker teams!. but most of all guys he plays the same channel suarez should play... you choose.
Easy. He tracks back and works hard for the team and has far more intelligence, knows when to pass etc
Luckily, I don't need to choose :> Not saying he's the answer to our problems, but he could be a useful squad player on a free, especially if we're getting rid of Kuyt/Maxi. It's all irrelevant discussion anyway, we have no manager/dof to even consider what signings the team needs. We'll be buying no one (except for the youth) until some positions are filled.
pass back you mean! the guy is released for a reason..... that is he disappears in big games... i absolutely love to see his name on the team sheet when we play them... i would put it this way... 60k/week = 3mil per year. you'd not buy someone for that. then ally in the running thing (which kuyt is less able to do in my opinion)... i'd run like a dog for 60k per week... it'd take me less time than joe cole to get in shape to go do it too.... i dunno... i don't think he's that hot but when you do put it out there that maxi and kuyt are going i can see where the make do punt would work. 60k per week is not so much for a free.
haircuts... he's got some better ones than meireles for one. I reckon you might have missed the fact he comes on as a sub when games are won to score the odd goal and pick up medals paid for by vast russian oil reverves.
That comment really grates me when I hear / see it. It implies that, since he is free, we should go for it. IMO, if we wouldn't be prepared to pay for a player then we shouldn't get them just because they are free. Whether they are free or cost £50m, a player is either good enough or he isn't. Obviosuly the budget comes into it if they cost money but don't say "not bad for a free" Edit: Not getting at you Shanks, just saying generally
I think the point is that you are able to bring in a player that you would ordinarily not get. Is Kalou worth 5-10mil? probably, would we want to pay that for him of course not! Would he add something to the squad? Of course he would even if we only ever brought him on as a substitute. With a 30mil budget(allegedly), it would add another player to the mix, another way of looking at it is would you have payed 3-4mil for Bellamy? No, probably not does that mean we should not have brought him in because we didn't want to pay a fee? Just because you may not like a phrase does not mean it is not valid! As long as you pay an average wage to the guy you are always likely to be able to offload them if it doesn't work out, anyway I don't think he will come to us anyway as I already said.
And my point is would we be talking about him had he not been available on a free...??? Snapping up freebies has gotten us into trouble many times in the past and, IMO, it is about time we learnt from it. How many free signings have we made that have turned out to be a success...? I see an article discussing Jermiane Defoe joining us. The gist is, we don't want a Spurs reject. However, we are happy to take a chelsea reject because he is free...???? I am not saying we should or shouldn't sign Kalou. I am saying the cost of a player should not come into it, the players abilities and how he would improve the squad are the things that should be considered. The cost is only an issue if we can't afford them! I think Kalou is an okay player that would be a decent squad player for us. IMO, we should be signing players that will improve the first team which would make the squad stronger anyway.
