You all look the same to me!
Selliott
- Thread starter SummerOnions
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Because tossing in the best young player in world football adds good balance to the discussion. ARE YOU A REAL FUCKING PERSON?
Why do you keep referencing a lack of pace? If he's playing the same role as Wirtz, he's central and close to the attack, he's quick enough and particularly on the break. He's not playing as a winger or on the shoulder. He's about as fast as Macca, maybe quicker, David Silva (as an example) wasn't a lightening quick player (nor was he big, the same height actually), you don't have to be in that role, it's about intelligence. Some people don't half talk FIFA generation rubbish.
David Silva wasn't lightning quick as you say but he wasn't slow either. He was a winger at Valencia.
You're right though, it's mostly about intelligence and awareness, but for me it's also about technique.
Hopefully the manager learns from last season and uses his squad.
I might be proven wrong in the end but personally I just don't think he's THAT good. He's got a good brain and is technically strong but there are plenty of players on the continent like that. I'd hoped he'd make it as a midfielder but his defensive weakness on top of the lack of athleticism just looks too much to overcome there. I don't agree that we'd be clamouring to sign him if he was some Spanish talent. Most would be worried about his very obvious shortcomings.
I can understand being pissed we're selling him if you think he's got world class potential, but I just don't.
I can understand being pissed we're selling him if you think he's got world class potential, but I just don't.
He's spent 100M on Wirtz though. Wirtz is going to be first choice and then he has Szobo and Jones who he seems to prefer to rotate with.
Is it likely that Elliot will get games do you think?
Because his lack of pace, mobilty and acceleration means that he won’t be able to play for us as RW.
It also means that he’s not a good option for us as a 10 either. Firstly his lack of mobility, pace and acceleration results in us not being able to play our pressing game in the way Slot wants us to.
Elliott is also extremely poor in take ons, progressive carries and recieving progressive passes. All traits that we have been on Szobo’s case for lacking as our 10 last season. Elliott is down in the 12-13th percentile while Wirtz is in the 75-96th.
Wirtz will give us the creative spark, pressing and ability to receive the ball and progress up the pitch at speed added with goals.
It’s an insane upgrade for our attack.
Elliott doesn’t have those traits. Extremely technical but lack the physical parts of the game. That’s got nothing to do with him being English or playing FIFA.
And please, let’s not compare him to David Silva. They might be of similar build but Silva was a unique footballer that ended up with 125 caps for Spain. He could play just about anywhere on the pitch (only a 1/3 of the games as a 10) with a ridiculously high level and output. Elliott has not shown anything like that yet in his career nor are there signs that he will be on that level.
Who knows Keni. We're in FOUR competitions, we've sold players and will sell more, we haven't just bloated the squad, you know this. The question is whether Elliott should be one of those players who goes. He's a much better player than Jones.
Oooh now that is a fighting statement ! Where's Moron?
On the subject of squad size.
Slot used just 14 players for the vast majority of matches last season (15 if you include Kelleher standing in for Ali). That's 1,800 mins or more over the season. You can add others that got significant minutes but only as injury replacements, subs or in matches of less importance (Tsimi 1,674 mins, Bradley 1,385', Quansah 1,290', Gomez 874', Endo 865' and Elliott 822'.
So pretty much 21 players all in. And 3 of those generally irrelevant to the big picture. I don't think Slot is going to increase that. But the squad players are now those he feels he can trust and he has higher quality in reserve. That should lead to fewer mins for the 'first XI' and more minutes for the back ups.
Slot used just 14 players for the vast majority of matches last season (15 if you include Kelleher standing in for Ali). That's 1,800 mins or more over the season. You can add others that got significant minutes but only as injury replacements, subs or in matches of less importance (Tsimi 1,674 mins, Bradley 1,385', Quansah 1,290', Gomez 874', Endo 865' and Elliott 822'.
So pretty much 21 players all in. And 3 of those generally irrelevant to the big picture. I don't think Slot is going to increase that. But the squad players are now those he feels he can trust and he has higher quality in reserve. That should lead to fewer mins for the 'first XI' and more minutes for the back ups.
Jones can play as an 8, 10, LW, RB and if need be as a 6. His versatility is why he’s a better option to have in the squad.
Not good enough to be a starter but a valuable squad player.
Elliot engenders a lot support / sympathy for his situation and I get why. He clearly loves the club and he's not without talent by any means.
I think what most are saying in this thread is come on, let's be realistic. We are in four competitions, sure, but we're talking about keeping a supposed 40M asset around to play in the domestic cups and maybe get the odd sub appearance here and there.
There are clubs that keep young players hanging about (like Chelsea and Real Madrid) but I don't think it's in either ours or Elliot's best interests to do this. The best way forward as things stand - given the actual reality of the situation (not the reality we wish) - is to sell with a buy back clause because unlike most players, I reckon if Elliot did manage to properly establish himself somewhere and we wanted him back, he'd come.
I don't even know if it's true to say Chelsea and Real keep these types of players hanging around. They typically go out on loan or, like we've seen with Madueke recently, get sold. Some of them go onto become very good or even great players, most of them are just assets that bring in funds to buy stars.
Bought young then loaned out, and sold a couple of years later when they've matured, they likely bring in a greater ROI than investing that money in stocks or a fund. It's a means to a financial end not sporting.
Last 3 seasons Chelsea have signed 31 players for 1 billion € and sold 33 players for 600 million €.
So far it’s not the best ROI. Their most valuable players in terms of sales are Palmer and Caicedo. The rest are not worth much more than what they paid for them.
So far it’s not the best ROI. Their most valuable players in terms of sales are Palmer and Caicedo. The rest are not worth much more than what they paid for them.
Nah. You can't evaluate it like that. That's far too simplistic. Maybe those players they sold all accrued more than 10-20% net profit which was then reinvested in better players.
A bit like FSG buying Liverpool for £300m, reinvesting profits in players and which is now worth $5.37 billion despite not taking any profits out of the club.
Its marginal for the few young players that have moved on after being bought. Some young expensive transfers are out on loan and not succeeding. Quite a lot of them as well.
But so far that doesn’t matter cause you have so many bad transfers that dwarfs any potential income:
Sterling, Joao Felix, Dewsbury Hall, Nkunku, Mudryk, Fofana, Disasi.
That’s 370 mill £ just there which will never ever get any positive return.
Go through the list and look at the young players they’ve bought and where they are today. It’s grim. As said previously.
Actually it's the opposite of grim ! Many are very young players bought for relatively small fees (20 of those players for under £20m) and many that are now out on loan. Those are in the investment basket.
To counter that you have those that they paid more for and that were destined (supposedly) for the first team. Those are the ones they have to worry about (lost £13m on Koulibaly) and will lose a fortune on Sterling, Fofana, Nkunku and Cucurella. But they are quite distinct from the investment youngsters.
Even then they made £22m on Maduoke and bought Palmer for £42m (worth £120m now)?
No, many of those young players have struggled out on loan. Given their bad transfer history for first team players they will have to hit several home runs for this to pay off. Which it doesn’t look like at the moment.
They bought Madueke for 30, paid 5 mill in wages over 2 years and sold for an initial 48. So 13 mill.
Sorry you can't include wages - they did actually use him. And you have discounted his updated amortised value too so on the books it'll be likely be more than the £22m I stated.
As for the youngsters - you are very much speculating, however obviously not all will be profit makers and some will make a lot more so cover the losses.
And you aren’t? 🤣
They will need to hit the lottery several times to cover their losses given their horrendous transfer history. That’s the point.
Did I? Where? I said they are investment material and not all will work out. They won't need to hit the lottery to cover the investment basket when all of those 20 players cost between £7m and £20m ... and with inflation over 3-4 years.
You have a problem differentiating 'investment for investment's sake' and buying for the first team where they've been abysmal and grossly overpaid. Those are two completely different strategies so separate them in your head.
Jeezzees. You can’t separate their costs as it’s quite natural that they are linked together.
Their policy of buying every youngster out there to turn a profit will have to have a record like Babe Ruth to make it all worthwhile given their general outlay.
It’s not like you can say Chelsea’s first team have a -300 mill expenditure, but that’s okay as the youth team is 100 mill in the green.
Excellent. All clear then.
But sure let’s appriciate their youth strategy as they only need to sell the women’s team and some hotels for them to keep moving forward with this approach.
More clubs should follow them with this strategy.
Brain into gear Hansern.
Nobody said they don't impact each other. I said they are two different strategies and that the youngster investment (revenue stream) could actually be a good strategy if you have the funds (which they do) so Lateral Thinking not Vertical Hansern.
Ironically, that is relevant to Elliott. We bought him for £4.3m and we should sell for ten times that. Not sure he'd have earned big bucks to really alter that equation.
We've done a few money making signings, which I'm not keen on as it misleads the player, but I think Elliott has obvious talent and had a genuine crack at becoming a starter. He came close and would walk into that Hodgson team someone posted. We're just on insane mode now.
We've done a few money making signings, which I'm not keen on as it misleads the player, but I think Elliott has obvious talent and had a genuine crack at becoming a starter. He came close and would walk into that Hodgson team someone posted. We're just on insane mode now.
