Yes Reece James is very good when fit. He's also averages 15 games in all comps the last 2 seasons.
Ben Chilwell
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
- Status
Yes Reece James is very good when fit. He's also averages 15 games in all comps the last 2 seasons.
Shaw, Malacia and Chilwell will spend more time on treatment table than on the field.
Do not want Chilwell at all. Don't care if he's English or not. He's a nothing player.
We should sign Chillwell and James on cut price deals. Along with shaw the odds are we'll have one wingback fit at any one time. 4D Chess.
Taking punts is why we've been a bloody mess for the last 6 years.
As long as Chelsea cover most of his wages.
I wouldn't even take him on a free. He's a deadwood on arrival and would have at least a three year contract.
In theory he would lighten the load on our other injury prone players, and allow Amass a year to develop under less pressure, but it would be typical that they'll all be injured at the same time and we'll have Lindelof at left back. Also he appears to be on 200k a week at Chelsea so feck that
Saw this thread title and just came in here to say “absolutely not”.
i'm leaning towards risking it with Shaw for one more season and giving Amass his chance in the Europa league and Cup games. It might backfire on us but I think on paper we have enough left back options without dipping into a temporary option like Chilly.
I'd take him if chelsea cover the wages. His injury record is awful, but hopefully the physios can have one of the three fit at any given game 
I never thought he was that good when Chelsea signed him, never mind this version.
Unless it’s no loan fee and we’re barely paying any wages then no.
Unless it’s no loan fee and we’re barely paying any wages then no.
He's injury prone and he's average at best, this guy makes Shaw look reliable in terms of injury. Only way I'd want him in the team is as cover, pay as you play contract free transfer. Chelsea can go find another team to rip off for him, hopefully the days of us being those mugs are long gone.
Great player when fit. Problem is he never is. A loan wouldn't be too bad.
I'd rather have Cucurella
I'd rather have Cucurella
One year loan as 4th choice full back isn’t the worst idea. We’re still awfully light at full back IMO.
Malacia is coming off a 14 month injury, no chance he’s going to be in any sort of match fitness or rhythm when he’s back and wouldn’t surprise me if we send him on loan in January to get up to speed.
Mazraoui, Dalot and Shaw is way too thin for full back options when you consider Maz and Shaws injury history, Amass still not physically ready for one more year. Can we also expect Dalot to be available all season like he was last year? With europa, domestic cups and internationals we’re talking 60-70 games.
Also would be good to have another natural left footer for balance
Malacia is coming off a 14 month injury, no chance he’s going to be in any sort of match fitness or rhythm when he’s back and wouldn’t surprise me if we send him on loan in January to get up to speed.
Mazraoui, Dalot and Shaw is way too thin for full back options when you consider Maz and Shaws injury history, Amass still not physically ready for one more year. Can we also expect Dalot to be available all season like he was last year? With europa, domestic cups and internationals we’re talking 60-70 games.
Also would be good to have another natural left footer for balance
One year loan? If he is not currently injured, why not?
He's on £250k/week wages (£200k base+bonus). Not really sure it'd be a sound investment unless we can get him for a fraction of that (£100k?). If Amass is not ready, I'd rather prefer we buy an up and coming backup for £10m. Chilwell usually doesn't last beyond 20 games a season. Honestly, I just think we should let Chelsea bleed with deadwood in their books.
At first glance I was all for this, but his injury record is a concern. If we can get him on a Reguilon type deal where Chelsea cover some of his wages and we can send him home at Christmas if it's not working then I think it's still work a punt
If we say he earns 150k too much, then a loan with just paying his wages costs us 7.8 million. Not too bad for a decent punt imo.
If he sticks to wanting such a big wage, there’s not a future for him at United though. Contract ends in 2027 so he’ll be hard for Chelsea to get off their books.
What's better than 2 crocked LB? It's 3 crocked LB obviously.
I see only two reasons such bullshit options even offered up to media for discussion, which then winds up fans:
1. Agents/selling club trying to generate interest where there is none
2. United's PR pushing out such rumors so we eventually go "you know, if these are our options maybe we indeed are better off not signing any LB" and thus reducing the impact of them never wanting to spend on LB in the first place
1. Agents/selling club trying to generate interest where there is none
2. United's PR pushing out such rumors so we eventually go "you know, if these are our options maybe we indeed are better off not signing any LB" and thus reducing the impact of them never wanting to spend on LB in the first place
No FFS
27, 7, 23 & 13 is the amount of league games he's played for Chelsea since he signed from Leicester. We can't afford to have another injury prone left back. Hopefully we can be a bit smarter than that by now.
Gee, thanks Chelsea.
Straight swap for Malacia would be an equal blow to Chelsea and a nice no problem solved shit situation.
Well, this is wrong. They absolutely did earmark this as a position they wanted to spend on, but none of the targets were available for a price that outweighed their desire to address other positions more immediately, whether anybody agrees or disagrees with the hierarchy's priorities.
A loan deal is not the worst idea ever. Its 1 year and it allows us to keep Amass out of the spotlight incase Shaw gets injured. Chilwell is injury prone but he should be okay if he is the second option and only likely to play 10-15 games.
Half his wages and 3-4m loan fee. Or his whole wages and no loan fee. Whatever is better for PSR reasons.
Half his wages and 3-4m loan fee. Or his whole wages and no loan fee. Whatever is better for PSR reasons.
More like Ben Chillunwell
First one definitley.
Second one, Im not sure Ineos feel the need to go down the Glazer style PR route about targets to cover the lack of willingness to spend. Or at least I hope so.
You know our left back position is an issue when you see 27 and 23 games played in a season and think thats actually not too bad. Christ.
Have we not learned from taking on Chelsea’s outcasts? His recent injury record is actually worse than Shaw (as alluded to by a poster above) and he’s painstakingly average. Would make little sense even at a low fee.
putting his proneness to injuries aside, is he even any good?
Luke Shaw at home
Nailed it.
Not Ben Chillinginthephysioroomonbigwagesaswell?
I'd say yes, but he's mostly been used as an advanced left wing-back. He's great at arriving the right places and creating chances, but I can't say I know enough about his defensive qualities as I've mostly watched him in attack. His role would be different here at United in a 4-3-3.
thanks for the insights, but all I know about him is being injured all the time.
Which is also true. Long term I doubt he's the answer here. Too big wages and on a contract till '27.
I doubt we hold any legitimate interest in Chilwell, it sounds like his agent is just trying to shop him around to anyone who might take him. I think The Athletic already said we aren't going to sign a LB this window.
You just know that if we did this they would sync up. All be available at the same time and all get injured at the same time.
- Status