SSN Confirm chelsea bid for Anelka

Most clubs have made Chelsea pay stupid money. Will we be the same? Anelka could be Chelseas key to the Champions league/Premier and FA CUP

If I were an agent working for BWFC on the Anelka transfer, this would be an easy one for me.

 

January is a month of panic signings to strengthen weak areas of your team for the second half of the season.

 

In the summer transfers are done at a more leisurely pace, especially when looking for bargains from the relegated teams.

 

So if Charlton managed to get ?16M for Darren Bent - Anelka is worth more.

 

 

That is a very good point IMO. I will be unhappy if we settle for anything less the ?19 Million

Most clubs have made Chelsea pay stupid money. Will we be the same? Anelka could be Chelseas key to the Champions league/Premier and FA CUP

 

It wouldn't be stupid money though, would it? He is worth a lot in a division where goalscorers come at a premium. You are right in saying that he could be the key that opens the door to ECL triumph and he regularly scores for his country France who will possibly make a big impact at this summer's European Championships. Therefore they are buying top drawer quality. There is no-one else "on the market" at the minute who fits into this category.

My take on the Anelka to Chelsea saga is as follows:

 

This is the 1st time we?re actually in the driving seat as far as having a guy under contract and don?t need to sell etc. so the board will be in a position to push for a decent bid. The only limiting factors as far as I?m aware will be the bank that holds our debt having an influence and the time etc required to get the money in and find a worthy replacement.

 

Great work by the board in getting Anelka to sign that contract extension to make our position so good, but I bet the mongalongs won?t mention that!

I know this has been done to death, but I also can't help but feel that the sh1tty attendances at the Reebok are going to be a factor in the transfer.

 

a) the club aren't clawing in the revenue they would have budgeted for - thus need to recoup some money from elsewhere - and Anelka is the jewel in our crown.

 

Anelka cannot be "excited" playing in front of empty stadiums when clubs with regularly 40-50-60 thousand are after his services.

My take on the Anelka to Chelsea saga is as follows:

 

This is the 1st time we?re actually in the driving seat as far as having a guy under contract and don?t need to sell etc. so the board will be in a position to push for a decent bid. The only limiting factors as far as I?m aware will be the bank that holds our debt having an influence and the time etc required to get the money in and find a worthy replacement.

 

Great work by the board in getting Anelka to sign that contract extension to make our position so good, but I bet the mongalongs won?t mention that!

 

pretty sure that will have no bearing on the deal, the club is on a sound footing with the bank, the club 40 million in debt, the last set of accounts did not show the 35 million sky money, if we went down we would get a parachute payment of 15 million on top of the 35 million, add the anelka fee of around 15 million plus the value of the squad and were rolling in cash.

can we stop talking about darren bent ?

 

spurs paid too much for him so to use that as the benchmark is stupid.

 

if the bloke in front of you gets overchargeed at the bar, it does nt mean that you also have to pay too much.

 

if we have turned down ?12m I could see us possibly stretching this up to ?15m as a max.

 

if we then spend this wisely we will be a better team.

 

if we dont spend it or buy badly we are well and truely fucked.

Over a morning coffee I have just read an article in The Times about the Anelka transfer. This paragraph grabbed my attention:

 

Bolton are playing a dangerous game, however, because Chelsea are the only serious bidders for a player who has resolved to move on. Although there is no escape clause in his contract, Anelka was told that he could leave if a club playing in the Champions League came in for him when he signed a new contract last year, while his chequered history of playing for seven clubs in ten years suggests that he does not perform when he is unhappy.

 

Once again the media is trying to make out that Anelka is unhappy at Bolton and we are fools to turn down the first bid we have received.

 

If Matt Hughes, the writer of this piece, was selling his car and he valued it at ?5,000 - would he accept a bid of ?2,000 purely on the grounds that it is the first offer he has received?

I know this has been done to death, but I also can't help but feel that the sh1tty attendances at the Reebok are going to be a factor in the transfer.

 

a) the club aren't clawing in the revenue they would have budgeted for - thus need to recoup some money from elsewhere - and Anelka is the jewel in our crown.

Anelka cannot be "excited" playing in front of empty stadiums when clubs with regularly 40-50-60 thousand are after his services.

 

dont think the low crowds have a great bearing either if crowds were 3k up this would only bring in 1.5 million over the season, in the great scheme of things it is not a lot of money, however your second point is very valid.

Edited January 8, 200818 yr by Mounts Kipper

can we stop talking about darren bent ?

 

spurs paid too much for him so to use that as the benchmark is stupid.

 

You need a benchmark in any walk of life.

 

If you are selling your house do you have a guess at what it may be worth or do you make comparisons to the sale of similar houses to yours?

 

In this case, Darren Bent makes as good a benchmark as any.

If you are selling your house do you have a guess at what it may be worth or do you make comparisons to the sale of similar houses to yours?

 

you get an independant party to come and value your house and take it from there

 

if you have a notoriously prolifigate party interested you say nothing, just encourage them

 

not even if you're well aware that the walls have damp

 

not their fault if they don't get a survey done

With regards to benchmarks - we need to look at forwards who regularly feature and score goals at this level. We also need to exclude the likes of Ronaldo - as he doesn't play up the middle.

 

For instance....

Yakubu - ?11m.

Torres - ?20m

Drogba - ?22m.

 

If we think that Anelka fits somewhere between these players - then the range is approx ?11m.

Therefore we should be looking around ?16m - ?17m for him.

You need a benchmark in any walk of life.

 

If you are selling your house do you have a guess at what it may be worth or do you make comparisons to the sale of similar houses to yours?

 

In this case, Darren Bent makes as good a benchmark as any.

 

if you use the highest possible price paid for something that is not a benchmark it is an extreme.

 

 

does anyone think ?16.5m for Bent was the 'right' price ?

With regards to benchmarks - we need to look at forwards who regularly feature and score goals at this level. We also need to exclude the likes of Ronaldo - as he doesn't play up the middle.

 

For instance....

Yakubu - ?11m.

Torres - ?20m

Drogba - ?22m.

 

If we think that Anelka fits somewhere between these players - then the range is approx ?11m.

Therefore we should be looking around ?16m - ?17m for him.

 

the torres price actually makes anelka look expensive at ?16-17M given his age and experience

 

yakubu at the time of the purchase was 2nd top premier league goal scorer behind henry (over I think 3-4 seasons), which again makes ?16-17M look high

 

at the time Drogba was too expensive, but at the time Chelsea were splashing left right and centre, they're not anymore though (or so they'd have us believe)

If I were an agent working for BWFC on the Anelka transfer, this would be an easy one for me.

 

January is a month of panic signings to strengthen weak areas of your team for the second half of the season.

 

In the summer transfers are done at a more leisurely pace, especially when looking for bargains from the relegated teams.

 

So if Charlton managed to get ?16M for Darren Bent - Anelka is worth more.

 

That is a very good point IMO. I will be unhappy if we settle for anything less the ?19 Million

 

in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king

in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king

 

 

So are you saying that Bolton were wrong to reject the reported ?11M or ?12M initial bid from Chelsea?

 

I stated Darren Bent at ?16M is a good benchmark and your last post seems to agree?

it was mainly at this comment

 

"If I were an agent working for BWFC on the Anelka transfer, this would be an easy one for me."

 

Darren Bent is not a good benchmark at all

 

he is not worth ?16M

 

if you were an agent working for BWFC and you said to Chelsea "we want more than what Darren Bent is worth" they'd probably reduce their offer of ?12M

 

if you said "spurs paid ?16M for bent so we want more", they'd say "it's not our fault spurs are f**king stupid"

 

using Torres and Yakubu as benchmarks he'd be worth around ?15M

 

Spurs charge ?71 for Category A matches in their upper tier down the side of the pitch

 

does that therefore mean we should also charge ?71 for our west and east upper for cateogry A+ games? because we've been better than them over the last 5 years - no, it's an unrealistic benchmark, just because spurs do it, doesn't mean everyone should follow suit, and if spurs fans are willing to pay it, then like their board, they are f**king stupid

Chelsea want Anelka, a lot more than we want to sell him. We are not in any financial situation in which we need to sell (that I know of), he has stated that it would not be the worst thing to stay here as he is happy and we have him on a long term contract.

 

Chelsea at the moment are fcuked, they are way behind the leaders and their star striker has injury problems, is unhappy and is off to the ANC.

 

We should tell them to fcuk off, and not come back unless it is with ?20m. The likelihood is that we wouldn't get a ?20m offer but it would be a lot closer than ?12m is.

I still think the question is, will megson get any serious transfer money? We were after cisse all summer at (i think) ?6.5mill, and then how much do we actually spend in the summer?

I still think the question is, will megson get any serious transfer money? We were after cisse all summer at (i think) ?6.5mill, and then how much do we actually spend in the summer?

 

That will only be the question if Anelka is sold.

 

At the moment he isn't.

 

However, I think that being close to agreeing terms with Pompey over a ?3-4m rated player is an indication that if the players we want are out there, we are in a position to spend at least that.

I still think the question is, will megson get any serious transfer money? We were after cisse all summer at (i think) ?6.5mill, and then how much do we actually spend in the summer?

 

We don't want Cisse, he is dross IMO...

I still think the question is, will megson get any serious transfer money? We were after cisse all summer at (i think) ?6.5mill, and then how much do we actually spend in the summer?

 

remains to be seen, gartside apparently asked megson to draw up a wish list which is promising, as was the rumoured ?3m bid for taylor, if you think ?3m is serious

 

just because we didn't spend the ?6,5M we offered for cisse, doesn't mean it wasn't there, just meant there was no one else we fancied, which is a good thing, i'd hate to think we'd spend a kitty just to appease

can we stop talking about darren bent ?

 

spurs paid too much for him so to use that as the benchmark is stupid.

 

if the bloke in front of you gets overchargeed at the bar, it does nt mean that you also have to pay too much.

 

if we have turned down ?12m I could see us possibly stretching this up to ?15m as a max.

 

if we then spend this wisely we will be a better team.

 

Some sense at last.

 

What has Bent got to do with anything?

 

Spurs paid over the odds for him because he's English, and that comes with a premium attached, and West Ham were entertaining delusions of getting him, and ?16million was how much of their Icelandic money that they bid.

 

Having said that, he's only 23, so anyone buying Darren Bent is buying a player with far more playing years ahead of him than Anelka, who will be 29 in March and is probably on a downward slope now and is very unlikely to hold his value in another transfer move when is 30+.

 

If we get more than this ?12million then we have made a very tidy profit indeed on the investment, and if that money is spent well, we should be a better team than the shite one we have been ever since Anelka arrived.

Chelsea want Anelka, a lot more than we want to sell him. We are not in any financial situation in which we need to sell (that I know of), he has stated that it would not be the worst thing to stay here as he is happy and we have him on a long term contract.

 

Chelsea at the moment are fcuked, they are way behind the leaders and their star striker has injury problems, is unhappy and is off to the ANC.

 

We should tell them to fcuk off, and not come back unless it is with ?20m. The likelihood is that we wouldn't get a ?20m offer but it would be a lot closer than ?12m is.

 

you reckon?

you reckon?

 

What I should have said was, Chelsea want Anelka, a lot more than we HAVE to sell Anelka.