Danny Welbeck | Ornstein: Chelsea interested

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not too fussed. With Sesko's injury record so far we could do with a backup who can play twice a week for a number of weeks. Can't see Welbeck being that guy.
 
I think it would've made more sense to re-sign Welbeck a year or two ago than it would now so I can't say I'm too devastated about that, but it is a shame that he's going to Chelsea.

Not really any mention of a fee so far. You'd think Chelsea would've had to pay a decent amount for Brighton to be prepared to let him go so I imagine that will be why we haven't got involved. If it was a free transfer or nominal fee then I'm sure we would've as there has been some interest for the last couple of summers.
 
golden_blunder said:
We don’t need a more expensive player. We need someone experienced who can stand in for Sesko, help him and the other young forwards develop, and have a similar skill set. Welbeck offers all that and is homegrown
Click to expand...

A few years ago I would have backed this - maybe even a year ago. But Welbeck is 36 in november - maybe he will be a good player12 more months, or maybe his decline starts rapidly during the season. I would rather we spend £30-40 million on a player who can be useful 3-4 seasons than to waste £10 million + wages on a player who at best is useful for 12-18 months
 
lysglimt said:
A few years ago I would have backed this - maybe even a year ago. But Welbeck is 36 in november - maybe he will be a good player12 more months, or maybe his decline starts rapidly during the season. I would rather we spend £30-40 million on a player who can be useful 3-4 seasons than to waste £10 million + wages on a player who at best is useful for 12-18 months
Click to expand...
But are we going to spend that?

Maybe the fact we aren't in for Welbeck is a positive sign. Maybe it means they are confident they will find a move for Zirkzee and bring in someone like Watkins.

I hope so.
 
Cant believe anyone is bothered about us missing out on Welbeck...
 
OverratedOpinion said:
But are we going to spend that?

Maybe the fact we aren't in for Welbeck is a positive sign. Maybe it means they are confident they will find a move for Zirkzee and bring in someone like Watkins.

I hope so.
Click to expand...

We have a netspend of £40 million - we have probably left to sign a left back, a midfielder and an attacking player (and that probably wont happen unless we sell at least one of Zirkzee and Rashford)

So realistically - if we sell Bayindir for £3-4 million, Zirkzee or Rashford for at least £20 million, Vitek (with a buy back) for £15 million - that will mean we have a zero net spend before signing anyone else. So yeah - we can afford it. We are not THAT broke.
 
Why is there no reports on what the transfer fee is? Even Ornstein is quite tight lipped on this and why is Welbeck so motivated to move to a team without even European football at this stage of his career on a 2 year deal at that?
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Why is there no reports on what the transfer fee is? Even Ornstein is quite tight lipped on this and why is Welbeck so motivated to move to a team without even European football at this stage of his career on a 2 year deal at that?
Click to expand...
He's almost 36 years old. He's likely moving for a nominal fee (<5m) and he'll get a very decent pay day there. No brainer for him.
 
croadyman said:
You just know he is scoring against us
Click to expand...
He has 6 goals in 17 league matches against us, so scores roughly every third match. It is a good record, but nothing to sing about (even as opposition fan).
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Why is there no reports on what the transfer fee is? Even Ornstein is quite tight lipped on this and why is Welbeck so motivated to move to a team without even European football at this stage of his career on a 2 year deal at that?
Click to expand...

Bigger club than Brighton, will likely get bigger pay, a two year contract is as much as he could possible expect at his age (his current one ends in a year) and Chelsea have a good chance of being in the CL again next season.

It should pretty much be a non-decision for Welbeck.
 
A few years ago, when Welbeck was at Watford, if you'd have told me that United fans would be disappointed we couldn't sell a 28 year old Rashford to afford a 35 year old Welbeck then I'd have thought there was something seriously wrong with you.
 
I'll always fondly remember seeing him in New Islington on a blazing summer's day. Roof down on his Merc, sunnies on, music blaring, grinning like the Cheshire Cat. Parked up while a girl in the shortest skirt imaginable leant through the driver's window flirting away. It genuinely looked like a scene straight out of a '90s R&B video. The closest I've seen what celebrity lifestyle is like.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
But are we going to spend that?

Maybe the fact we aren't in for Welbeck is a positive sign. Maybe it means they are confident they will find a move for Zirkzee and bring in someone like Watkins.

I hope so.
Click to expand...
Crazy we've gone full circle to Watkins. Would have been better off signing him last season. I don't see the point in investing in him now, the argument for him last season was we needed quality immediately to get back into CL. Now we've reached it, we should dream a little bigger.
 
Lash said:
Crazy we've gone full circle to Watkins. Would have been better off signing him last season. I don't see the point in investing in him now, the argument for him last season was we needed quality immediately to get back into CL. Now we've reached it, we should dream a little bigger.
Click to expand...
I think the argument would be that we need to stay in the CL
 
Lash said:
True, just think you can do that whilst planning for the future, rather than a short term signing
Click to expand...
I don't really care either way as long as we build a good team.

The only younger on I've seen is linked to is the young German lad who was top scorer in the Belgian league. Very weak links though.

Who knows, need to find someone who will take Zirkzee first.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I don't really care either way as long as we build a good team.

The only younger on I've seen is linked to is the young German lad who was top scorer in the Belgian league. Very weak links though.

Who knows, need to find someone who will take Zirkzee first.
Click to expand...
I preferred Watkins to Sesko last season, so I wouldn't be against getting him now as a player. I'd like someone to be a bit more excited about the future direction of the squad though. I guess that's Sesko, who I'm not 100% sold on yet.

I think you're right, Zirkzee will be a domino.
 
Cypriot said:
He's almost 36 years old. He's likely moving for a nominal fee (<5m) and he'll get a very decent pay day there. No brainer for him.
Click to expand...
If this is it, I don’t understand why we aren’t in on this unless he still resents how he was treated before he left for Arsenal.
 
He’s 36, but as a cheap stop gap signing I would not be opposed to it. But I would not compete and overpay for him.
 
The more I think about it, the more I love this signing.
 
I'm gutted Welbeck could go to Chelsea. Forget his age, he is in great physical condition and has 2 good years in him. He is the type of stop gap we need, especially now that we are in the CL again. Such an experienced player with roots deep in the club, he would fight for the club. He offers something different, there are goals in him, more than playing Cunha in that position.

If the fee is around £8m we should involved, wages wouldn't be a problem either.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
If this is it, I don’t understand why we aren’t in on this unless he still resents how he was treated before he left for Arsenal.
Click to expand...
Let’s say the fee is £5m and he wants £125k a week for 2 years.

That’s £18m over the contract for a player that’ll be 37 when it expires and have zero value. That’s not a good value deal whichever way you slice it.

Free transfer on a 1+1? Yeah, why not. That’s £6.5m guaranteed outlay though, not almost triple that.
 
Not really sure why they'd sell Jackson and bring in Welbeck + sell Santos and bring in Henderson. Chelsea's strategy seems to swing pretty rapidly from "sign only new borns" to "sign only senior citizens above the age of 90". What they don't realize is both probably need diapers and it's going to stink.
 
IrwinwasbetterthanCarlos said:
Let’s say the fee is £5m and he wants £125k a week for 2 years.

That’s £18m over the contract for a player that’ll be 37 when it expires and have zero value. That’s not a good value deal whichever way you slice it.

Free transfer on a 1+1? Yeah, why not. That’s £6.5m guaranteed outlay though, not almost triple that.
Click to expand...

100%, thank you

We talk too much about transfer fees here and not about total outlay - the latter is almost always the better way to talk about things
 
bringbackbebe said:
Not really sure why they'd sell Jackson and bring in Welbeck + sell Santos and bring in Henderson. Chelsea's strategy seems to swing pretty rapidly from "sign only new borns" to "sign only senior citizens above the age of 90". What they don't realize is both probably need diapers and it's going to stink.
Click to expand...
Well put. Why not just bring back Bebé when they’re at it?
 
I love Danny but this ship has sailed - can arse about at Chelsea for a couple of years, good luck to him.
 
bringbackbebe said:
Not really sure why they'd sell Jackson and bring in Welbeck + sell Santos and bring in Henderson. Chelsea's strategy seems to swing pretty rapidly from "sign only new borns" to "sign only senior citizens above the age of 90". What they don't realize is both probably need diapers and it's going to stink.
Click to expand...

Henderson isn't the Santos replacement. I'm pretty sure we're still trying to sign one of Scott or Wharton on top of Henderson, who's probably more of a Lavia insurance policy than anything.
 
IrwinwasbetterthanCarlos said:
Let’s say the fee is £5m and he wants £125k a week for 2 years.

That’s £18m over the contract for a player that’ll be 37 when it expires and have zero value. That’s not a good value deal whichever way you slice it.

Free transfer on a 1+1? Yeah, why not. That’s £6.5m guaranteed outlay though, not almost triple that.
Click to expand...
We committed 5x that on Tielemens who is no spring chicken, either in terms of mileage, age or resale value.
 
Bobade said:
Cant believe anyone is bothered about us missing out on Welbeck...
Click to expand...
100% agree.

Also, if we did get him there would have been a sizable group on this forum complaining about us signing pensioners instead of players for the future.

Perhaps a decent move for Chelsea - we will see - but we are not missing out on anything.
 
He wasn't great at us or Arsenal. Brighton was his level and I can't see that changing at Chelsea.
 
Red4Life_#7 said:
I'm gutted Welbeck could go to Chelsea. Forget his age, he is in great physical condition and has 2 good years in him. He is the type of stop gap we need, especially now that we are in the CL again. Such an experienced player with roots deep in the club, he would fight for the club. He offers something different, there are goals in him, more than playing Cunha in that position.

If the fee is around £8m we should involved, wages wouldn't be a problem either.
Click to expand...
He will offer them a darn sight more than Liam Delap will. If they can keep him fit he will be a good influence round the club.
 
WeePat said:
Henderson isn't the Santos replacement. I'm pretty sure we're still trying to sign one of Scott or Wharton on top of Henderson, who's probably more of a Lavia insurance policy than anything.
Click to expand...
Whatever it is, the guys doing the math are like "Prime age for an outfield footballer is 28. So if we fill up the team with 5 players aged 16 and 5 players aged 40, we will have an average team age of 28 and we're going to win the champions league this year. While we're at it, let's also average out their positional intelligence, pace etc. The averages make us look unstoppable. We're the smartest set of analysts in football who've figured everything there is to know about the game, everyone else is an idiot".

It's moneyball, but run by Ed Woodward on steroids.
 
IrwinwasbetterthanCarlos said:
Behave. Tielemans has just turned 29, not about to turn 36. They’re totally different. One is at his peak, the other has a season, two at best, left in the tank.
Click to expand...
Tielemans has significantly more mileage than Welbeck. He is ofcourse more injury resilient, which hopefully makes the decision makers sleep better having offered him a 5 year deal.
 
bringbackbebe said:
Whatever it is, the guys doing the math are like "Prime age for an outfield footballer is 28. So if we fill up the team with 5 players aged 16 and 5 players aged 40, we will have an average team age of 28 and we're going to win the champions league this year. While we're at it, let's also average out their positional intelligence, pace etc. The averages make us look unstoppable. We're the smartest set of analysts in football who've figured everything there is to know about the game, everyone else is an idiot".

It's moneyball, but run by Ed Woodward on steroids.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. Half the starting line up are 24 or 25 now. We just don't have any true veterans in the squad, and haven't since Thiago Silva left. Every squad needs a dose of veteran leadership. Welbeck is a great addition. I might not like the Henderson deal but if Alonso does, then I'm okay with it.
 
WeePat said:
I don't see it that way. Half the starting line up are 24 or 25 now. We just don't have any true veterans in the squad, and haven't since Thiago Silva left. Every squad needs a dose of veteran leadership. Welbeck is a great addition. I might not like the Henderson deal but if Alonso does, then I'm okay with it.
Click to expand...

He's a great addition assuming he isn't coming to London on a decent wedge for early retirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.