Following a rush of newspaper speculation in November, it all went very quiet on the Chelsea transfer gossip front.
Until Friday that was, when the Telegraph kick-started the Aguero gossip again with the suggestion that Chelsea have made a bid of £30m to Atletico for his services. The Daily Express joined the party yesterday, suggesting that the Argentine’s club had offered him to Chelsea for that figure under the proviso that he could stay with them on loan until the end of the season. The weekend has also seen rumours of a bid upwards of £30m for Wolfsburg striker Edin Dzeko.
But, despite a new round of gossip, I’m still unconvinced Chelsea will be making any major moves this month (I’m still convinced however that, if they can, they should - here's what my Chelsea transfer dealings might be). But what lies behind Chelsea’s reticence in the transfer market?
Shevchenko syndrome?
Big spending is no longer the Chelsea way. Having bought a number of players for figures over and above £20m – including Drogba, Essien and Wright-Phillips – Chelsea’s last major purchase was Shevchenko in the summer of 2006. Is the failure of the club’s record signing to make any form of impact at the club the reason behind Abramovich’s frugality?
Becoming financially stable
Three and a half years without a ‘major’ signing might indicate a Shevchenko syndrome (and sounds almost spoilt - oops). But it might go further than just feeling stung by Chelsea’s only real ‘marquee’ signing. There is a very real desire at Chelsea to become financially stable, as signified by ever-increasing reductions in annual loss figures and Abramovich’s writing-off of the club’s debt to him.
Spending figures - and indeed the amounts recovered through transfer fees - have only been going in one direction over the past three years:
As the table above (which shows money received/ spent from significant transfer dealings) shows, Chelsea transfer expenditure has been in almost continual decline since the summer of 2004. In contrast, the amount received from transfers has steadily increased in that period. In fact, during the 08/09 season, Chelsea actually made money through its dealings.
Whilst income and expenditure figures for transfer deals now appear to be converging, the real threat to Chelsea's stated aim to fund new purchases through player sales could well be the low transfer value of the club's current crop of ageing stars.
Will the ban stick?
Why appeal the FIFA transfer ban - off the back of the supposed wrongdoings over Kakuta's move from Lens - and request the decision be pushed back so the club is free to make transfers in the January window if there are no plans to actually do any deals?
Maybe it’s because Chelsea really don’t feel the deal will stick. We have heard nothing about the likely progression of the CAS verdict over the last month or so, but the last rumours suggested Chelsea may have been misinformed by the young Frenchman’s mother and that UEFA and the French/ English FA may have ratified the deal at the time. If any of this is true, Chelsea’s transfer ban could well be reduced or even rescinded altogether.
You can read my latest view on how Chelsea’s defence of their actions during Kakuta-gate might have grown here.
Focusing on young talent
As has regularly been stated by both Ancelotti and Chelsea’s senior management, the club is keen to see its young players start to make an impact at the club (presumably for both financial and footballing reasons). Given that Chelsea have invested at least £30m in young talent over the past few years however, it might not be as thrifty a solution as it first seems.
Changing the Chelsea name
Abramovich and Gourlay are tired of paying over the odds for players. Following the burst of wild spending between 2004 and 2006, the Chelsea name became synonymous with ‘money no object’ bids. Clubs saw them coming and took advantage.
As evidenced by the drawn-out attempt in the summer of 2008 to acquire Robinho, Chelsea no longer want to be held to ransom by clubs (or players) who look to make too much of the Stamford Bridge outfit’s wallet-size. Taking a deliberately harder line in negotiation is one part of a strategy to strengthen Chelsea’s position when dealing with other clubs.
I firmly believe deals do need to be done this January – although not necessarily for big name players. I’ve written about what deals I think Chelsea need to make here. Who knows what’s around the corner this month? But, even if a star name becomes available, don’t expect Chelsea to pay crazy money. Those days are behind us.
interesting, especially the detial on how much we've spent and recieved. does that include money spent on youth players?
guess the finances might look better, but if roman's got the money i think we need some reinforcement, especially for when the ban comes. do you recokon it'll be rescinded?
roman's just bought himself an island, sure he can afford aguero
Posted by: chelsfan | 11 January 2010 at 11:07
"Given that Chelsea have invested at least £30m in young talent over the past few years however, it might not be as thrifty a solution as it first seems."
I beg to differ. If youngsters like Stoch, Kakuta, Bruma, Borini, Di Santo and Sturridge live up to their promise, they will collectively be worth much more than that in five years time. Not to mention the fact that when you promote players from within the club, you tend to have much more leverage in contract negotiations thus keeping down wages as well. Roughly speaking, Stoch could easily become a 15 million player, Kakuta 30, Borini 15, Sturidge 15 and Di Santo 8. That's based on how much hype they are recieving though so it can be more or less. Mancienne was valued at 5 mil in the summer and with a season of prem footy behind he is surely worth more now. Hutchinson? Bridcut? They are all worth a few bob if we sell them so I think the youth set up will be more than value for money.
Posted by: Wasu | 11 January 2010 at 12:04
Go to http://transferleague.co.uk/ and along the very bottom of the page scroll to Chelsea, click on it and review their list against what you have. It differs quite a lot. Chelsea made transfer profits in 2 of the last 4 seasons, with a nett total spend of £6.4m. Your figures should read:
2004/5 Out 59.85m In 12.7m
2005/6 Out 111.9m In 20.8m
2006/7 Out 12m In 15.8m
2007/8 Out 56.7m In 33m
2008/9 Out 8m In 35m
2009/10 Out 19.5m In 6m
Posted by: Squiddy | 11 January 2010 at 12:49
Hi Squiddy - looks like a useful resource. The reason my figures are so different though (I don't think they're wrong) is that transferleague.co.uk have put some of the transfers in different seasons. Some of them quite strangely.
So, for example, they made Cech, Robben and Fereirra 03/04 purchases, where I've made them 04/05 purchases (realise perhaps two of them were supposedly Ranieri buys, but I'd still class them as 04/05).
Similarly transferleague.co.uk has a very high figure for 05/06 because it's put the likes of the Sheva transfer in there. He joined in the summer of 2006 - surely it's more accurate to make him a 06/07 purchase?
In my lists, any player signed in the summer close season is put down as a transfer for the following season (eg. Sheva: bought summer 06, in the 06/07 pot).
Hope my figures make more sense now.
Posted by: Russell Saunders | 11 January 2010 at 13:08
great post BV...looks like u like stats very much like me,,,
Posted by: zaneeBlue | 11 January 2010 at 15:35
I have always held the position that Ancelotti was brought in because he is a do more with less type of manager. His time at Milan proved that. I do not think that Chelsea should spend this January. Why? Because we have already proven that we have what we need to win the Premier League. The first few months of the season proved that. Certainly we have hit a poor run of form, but I still think we have all we need to win the league. Then the only reason to buy is the Champions League, the problem there is most of the players that would help us in the CL are already tied up. This means by-in-large anybody worth getting won't help us in that competition. So why bother. The wild card of course is the ban, but I am not certain it will stick. Seems to be losing steam already.
I say save the money for next summer and we can bring some good young players on board that will continue to strengthen our side. I think the money is better spent in the summer.
Posted by: Michael Hepp | 12 January 2010 at 01:41