Donkai Havertz | Arsenal Watch

TheLord

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
1,709
I think some German fans are bitter that the hottest German prodigy left Germany for a cut-price deal to England.

Understandable. I would have probably felt the same way had Rooney or Lampard or Gerrard or Kane left England for Germany just at the beginning of their prime careers for a dirt-cheap fee.

Or maybe the Leverkusen fans are hurt because the club couldn't get a penny more than £70m (including add-ons) when another German club didn't budge for anything less than €120m for a similarly prodigal young English player.
 
Last edited:

pratyush_utd

Can't tell DeGea and Onana apart.
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
8,431
I think some German fans are bitter that the hottest German prodigy left Germany for a cut-price deal to England.

Understandable. I would have probably felt the same way had Rooney or Lampard or Gerrard or Kane left England for Germany just at the beginning of their prime careers for a dirt-cheap fee.
He is the most expensive German player ever. Since when 100m euros is cut price deal?
 

Mount's Goatieson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
545
Supports
Chelsea
He is the most expensive German player ever. Since when 100m euros is cut price deal?
Its not €100m though is it? With differing figures flying around its safe to say no one has a clue what it really is. It'll also make no sense to choose one figure supposedly briefed by one club over that briefed by the other. Only way we'll get to know is if one party decides to make the official transfer documents public knowledge, which will never happen.
 

Rektsanwalt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,572
Supports
Schalke 04
How many players have left the Premier League in their prime to go and play in the Bundesliga? Doesn't feel like a lot.
Barely any if any, but that's hardly surprising. Average income in the Premier League was 3,3m€ in 2018 while the average Bundesliga player earned 1,4m€. Money talks in this business and the Premier League is without any doubt much more attractive for the average player than the Bundesliga. While talking about averages, we should keep in mind that Bayern is no average club and they can potentially have a strong pull for a player like Havertz. Especially since we don't know at all how he will turn out for his new club.

It will be well over 100 mil even with a year left imo this is IF he even runs his contract down
Yea how would you able to tell at this point in time?:houllier: Having an opinion is fine, but since in this case it'd mean being able to predict the next 5 years, it occurs this opinion isn't worth the bytes on this forum, which is by no means meant as an offense. It's just pretty obvious no one is able to tell. Predictions, sure, most likely scenarios, why not, but not looking at the case in a differentiated way simply leeds to unfounded views. Which for a football fan is pretty normal, but since we're talking about it, it's mentionable.

I think some German fans are bitter that the hottest German prodigy left Germany for a cut-price deal to England.

Understandable. I would have probably felt the same way had Rooney or Lampard or Gerrard or Kane left England for Germany just at the beginning of their prime careers for a dirt-cheap fee.

Or maybe the Leverkusen fans are hurt because the club couldn't get a penny more than £70m (including add-ons) when another German club didn't budge for anything less than €120m for a similarly prodigal young English player.
Everyone here has their own opinion regarding the transfer fee, but as most have pointed out, we are not able to tell whether it was 78m€ with bonuses or 100m€ with bonuses. The more logical statement regarding the transfer fee would be that it could be a cut-price and therefor a great deal. But bear in mind, these are corona times and I'd personally say that in the current corona affected market even 78m€ for a player like Havertz hardly is a steal or a cut-price. Havertz is a great talent but most of the money is paid for his potential to become a great player, not his current abilities.

Based on how much Dortmund are overcharging us for Sancho.
Sancho is currently at another level in my opinion, which is backed statistics. Watched him a lot in the recent season and in my opinion he's currently simply better than Havertz (I'm considering the different positions they play and value them relatively) and has a higher skill ceiling. Sancho's transfer fee won't be paid mostly for his potential, but for his potential and current worth he can be for the team. He's much less likely to not be able to adjust or to become a flop than Havertz.
Also, since he's English, it's hardly surprising that he's more expensive than Havertz, since the BPL clubs tend to pay more money for british players in general.

Its not €100m though is it? With differing figures flying around its safe to say no one has a clue what it really is. It'll also make no sense to choose one figure supposedly briefed by one club over that briefed by the other. Only way we'll get to know is if one party decides to make the official transfer documents public knowledge, which will never happen.
Yea, everyone can have his own opinion on this one, I guess. I personally think 100m€ with bonuses included seems the likely number at this point in time. I mean, kicker even stated that the different bonus clauses will most likely be triggered, which shows quite some insight. It's not provable, but it seems logical considering how this transfer went and who the parties involved are. Not saying thinking anything below 100m€ is delusional, just a little bit fan-viewish.:wenger::wenger::wenger:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan

strongwalker

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,579
Location
2km from Olympiastadion München
Supports
FC Bayern München
Chelsea themselves named him their "record signing" on their website. I'd be pissed if Havertz went for such a small fee after all but I' convinced the probability that the kicker report is wrong is very, very low.
Opposed to 99% of other media talking about matters football, Kicker does not rely on fat headlines and sensations. If they report one number, and all the tabloids report a different, higher one, I tend to believe kicker
 

TheLord

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
1,709
He is the most expensive German player ever. Since when 100m euros is cut price deal?
Reliable press like the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the BBC have all reported that “the total fee will rise to the maximum of £70m after add-ons.” You should be reading better papers for your sources.
 

2ndTouch

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Messages
2,644
Supports
Bayern München
Its not €100m though is it? With differing figures flying around its safe to say no one has a clue what it really is.
Depending on who you believe the figure floats between 90-100m €. Neither figure exactly qualifies for the term "dirt cheap". It's just a WUM attempt from a frustrated Sancho muppet, as made clear by the reference.
 

Rektsanwalt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,572
Supports
Schalke 04
Reliable press like the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the BBC have all reported that “the total fee will rise to the maximum of £70m after add-ons.” You should be reading better papers for your sources.
You mean reliable like the Guardian, which reports initial 72m£ on the 31st of August and 70m£ including bonuses on the 4th of September? :wenger::wenger::wenger: Unless I understand the term "initial" wrong in this context, those numbers are simply different.
31st of August
4th of September

Edit: funny enough, those 72m£ would be exactly 80m€, which are reported by the kicker. But hey, that's just coincidene, I guess.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,777
Reliable press like the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the BBC have all reported that “the total fee will rise to the maximum of £70m after add-ons.” You should be reading better papers for your sources.
Chelsea website reported as "record fee".

They wouldn't have reported it as record fee if the initial fee itself didn't break the record.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
I think some German fans are bitter that the hottest German prodigy left Germany for a cut-price deal to England.

Understandable. I would have probably felt the same way had Rooney or Lampard or Gerrard or Kane left England for Germany just at the beginning of their prime careers for a dirt-cheap fee.

Or maybe the Leverkusen fans are hurt because the club couldn't get a penny more than £70m (including add-ons) when another German club didn't budge for anything less than €120m for a similarly prodigal young English player.
Dirt-cheap fee? Are you feeling ok?
 

Kasper

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
3,586
Supports
Hansa Rostock / Bradford City
Dislike Chelsea but its great to see Bayern fans getting salty about him leaving :lol: Völler is a wanker but his mentality to do everything possible to stop his players going to Bayern is great.

I`m positive about Havertz development, if I were a Chelsea fan I`d be way more worried about Werner hitting the ground.
 

2ndTouch

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Messages
2,644
Supports
Bayern München
Dislike Chelsea but its great to see Bayern fans getting salty about him leaving :lol:
He's got a lot of fanboys among our ranks, their dreams are shattered now:D

Völler is a wanker but his mentality to do everything possible to stop his players going to Bayern is great.
While that's true in general, this is still Havertz fed up of "challenging" Top4 in the BuLi for the Traditionsplastikverein more than anything else.
 

pratyush_utd

Can't tell DeGea and Onana apart.
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
8,431
Reliable press like the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the BBC have all reported that “the total fee will rise to the maximum of £70m after add-ons.” You should be reading better papers for your sources.
Reliable sources in Germany are saying opposite. Maybe you should consider trusting foreign sources rather than English ones.
 

TheLord

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
1,709
Dirt-cheap fee? Are you feeling ok?
70m including add-ons for Havertz is dirt-cheap. If we get Sancho for 85m including add-ons today, it will be dirt-cheap too.

Everything is relative to the composite sum of the player’s age, his current football standard, his potential/ceiling, marketability, resale value, injury history, existing contract issues, the pedigree of the clubs involved in the negotiations, and so forth.

Sometimes “absolute numbers” don’t mean much.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
70m including add-ons for Havertz is dirt-cheap. If we get Sancho for 85m including add-ons today, it will be dirt-cheap too.

Everything is relative to the composite sum of the player’s age, his current football standard, his potential/ceiling, marketability, resale value, injury history, existing contract issues, the pedigree of the clubs involved in the negotiations, and so forth.

Sometimes “absolute numbers” don’t mean much.
It is not dirt-cheap at all in the current climate.
 
Last edited:

pratyush_utd

Can't tell DeGea and Onana apart.
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
8,431
Again it's not 70m including add-ons. Chelsea reported it as record fee. Kepa was 72m if I am not mistaken.

Also in what world 72m pounds upfront fee ( reported by so called reliable sources , add ons would probably take it closer to 100m euros ) is dirt cheap. Even by relative terms, it's probably in top 10-15 transfer of all time.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,777
Reliable sources in Germany are saying opposite. Maybe you should consider trusting foreign sources rather than English ones.
Forget foreign or english papers, Chelsea website reported it as "Record fee" and that user somehow ignores that point and keep on coming up with "70 million including add ons". Odd.
 

UsualSuspect

Full Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
446
Supports
Chelsea
Forget foreign or english papers, Chelsea website reported it as "Record fee" and that user somehow ignores that point and keep on coming up with "70 million including add ons". Odd.
I could care less about which papers report it. If Matt Law says it's 71 million including add ons - that is what I, and most Chelsea fans, will go with. Why would it make any sense for any reasonable fan to argue against probably THE most trusted club reporter.
 

Rektsanwalt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,572
Supports
Schalke 04
I could care less about which papers report it. If Matt Law says it's 71 million including add ons - that is what I, and most Chelsea fans, will go with. Why would it make any sense for any reasonable fan to argue against probably THE most trusted club reporter.
That's so wilfully ignorant. Why though? I don't get it :lol:
 

TheLord

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reliable sources in Germany are saying opposite. Maybe you should consider trusting foreign sources rather than English ones.
I see no point why player fees should be downplayed by any party. If Bayer can inflate the fees to 100m, they’d be vindicated for selling their hottest property. If Chelsea can inflate the fees to 100m, it immediately adds value to the property, and they’d benefit just in case they need to sell Havertz in one or two years’ time. He’d help sell more shirts, and the club would gather better media attention too.

In my experience, the lower values quoted by papers tend to be more accurate than the higher values quoted in other papers.

I don’t know about the German papers, but very rarely would the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the BBC, the Times, skysports.com, and transfermarkt.com all get it wrong ! That hardly ever happens.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,100
Why does it matter how much Chelsea paid? It's Abramovich's money.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I could care less about which papers report it. If Matt Law says it's 71 million including add ons - that is what I, and most Chelsea fans, will go with. Why would it make any sense for any reasonable fan to argue against probably THE most trusted club reporter.
You go with Matt Law, whoever that is, over the public statement of your very own club?

I'm fighting against windmills at this point, but if you consider all reports and what's been reported in the months of preparation of this transfer, it's much more likely that the 80 + 20 reports are true. Honestly, I don't have even a remainder of a doubt that we'll get the 100m out of this transfer eventually. Just seems odd to me that some in here choose to believe less likely reports instead of seeing the whole picture.
 

Rajiztar

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
2,103
Supports
Chelsea
I could care less about which papers report it. If Matt Law says it's 71 million including add ons - that is what I, and most Chelsea fans, will go with. Why would it make any sense for any reasonable fan to argue against probably THE most trusted club reporter.
71 mn or 100 mn nothing will change that he is now a Chelsea player and Bayern fans can only dream about him he will be theirs in five year time. Good luck for them for their dream come true.

Hopefully he will establish himself as blue legend with his performances in five years time. That's all I care about anyway.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I see no point why player fees should be downplayed by any party. If Bayer can inflate the fees to 100m, they’d be vindicated for selling their hottest property. If Chelsea can inflate the fees to 100m, it immediately adds value to the property, and they’d benefit just in case they need to sell Havertz in one or two years’ time. He’d help sell more shirts, and the club would gather better media attention too.

In my experience, the lower values quoted by papers tend to be more accurate than the higher values quoted in other papers.

I don’t know about the German papers, but very rarely would the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the BBC, the Times, skysports.com, and transfermarkt.com all get it wrong ! That hardly ever happens.
It's s weird that you guys keep mentioning transfermarkt as a point of reference :lol: That's like quoting RedCafe as a source.

But alright, transfermarkt goes with the kicker evaluation and has Havertz at 80m € right now. That's exactly the initial fee. The sum will go up once the add ons are due.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
You go with Matt Law, whoever that is, over the public statement of your very own club?

I'm fighting against windmills at this point, but if you consider all reports and what's been reported in the months of preparation of this transfer, it's much more likely that the 80 + 20 reports are true. Honestly, I don't have even a remainder of a doubt that we'll get the 100m out of this transfer eventually. Just seems odd to me that some in here choose to believe less likely reports instead of seeing the whole picture.
Do Leverkusen not have to announce their business in public or can they keep it quiet?
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Do Leverkusen not have to announce their business in public or can they keep it quiet?
We keep quiet on basically all our transfer fees. Bayer obviously has to publish such statements but as far as I know they don't into enough detail to conclude anything more insightful than general payments etc.
 

UsualSuspect

Full Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
446
Supports
Chelsea
You go with Matt Law, whoever that is, over the public statement of your very own club?

I'm fighting against windmills at this point, but if you consider all reports and what's been reported in the months of preparation of this transfer, it's much more likely that the 80 + 20 reports are true. Honestly, I don't have even a remainder of a doubt that we'll get the 100m out of this transfer eventually. Just seems odd to me that some in here choose to believe less likely reports instead of seeing the whole picture.
I can understand why it may not make sense to you, but essentially Matt Law IS the public statement from our club, and has been for a long time. There is almost no room for error in the stuff he reports and you will hardly ever see any form of speculation.

80+20 reported as gospel by the same guys who just reported that Mason Mount is unhappy with the Havertz transfer only for Mount's father to rubbish it immediately....
 

Number32

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
920
I could care less about which papers report it. If Matt Law says it's 71 million including add ons - that is what I, and most Chelsea fans, will go with. Why would it make any sense for any reasonable fan to argue against probably THE most trusted club reporter.
Do you really want to know why? Because some Jurnos was in love with Lampard and try to protect Harvertz in case he can't live with the transfer record expectation.
You don't want him to be another Kepa right? Another jurnos will dig in his price tag when Harvertz has a bad game, like they did with Maguire and Pogba.

I smell a diversionary PR strategy from the fact Lampard has spent 250 millions and the pressure is on him now.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
8,140
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I can understand why it may not make sense to you, but essentially Matt Law IS the public statement from our club, and has been for a long time. There is almost no room for error in the stuff he reports and you will hardly ever see any form of speculation.

80+20 reported as gospel by the same guys who just reported that Mason Mount is unhappy with the Havertz transfer only for Mount's father to rubbish it immediately....
Thing is, as far as I know even those reports read "72m pound + add ons" which is essentially "80m € + add ons". This is generally in line with the caption "80m + 20m add ons" of the kicker - and that's the most reliable German source you can find. And the kicker went into much detail, they even seem to know the nature of the add on clauses, their probability of becoming due ("as far as it is humanly possible to judge, the add ons will become due with probability bordering certainty") and that they're not dependent on title wins. That's very, very specific.

The one discrepancy between both reports is that the ones you choose to go with suggested that Havertz is not the new record signing. But then there's the caption on your very own website that suggests the opposite. So at least partially, your reports were wrong. Oh and by the way, transfermarkt goes with 80m initial fee which would be a record initial fee, too (72m pound instead of 71m).

Add to that the fact that 100m as a target fee was reported from the very beginning of the saga and the kicker report is much more conclusive. As I said, I don't even have a remainder of a doubt that we'll get the 100m we wanted eventually.


Thank you!

Hopefully he does a bit better than the bloke whose record he took.
Hope so :) I'm really excited how he'll do at Chelsea. Treat him well ;)
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,777
I could care less about which papers report it. If Matt Law says it's 71 million including add ons - that is what I, and most Chelsea fans, will go with. Why would it make any sense for any reasonable fan to argue against probably THE most trusted club reporter.
Did you even read the post? Forget papers, go by official website.
 

pratyush_utd

Can't tell DeGea and Onana apart.
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
8,431
I see no point why player fees should be downplayed by any party. If Bayer can inflate the fees to 100m, they’d be vindicated for selling their hottest property. If Chelsea can inflate the fees to 100m, it immediately adds value to the property, and they’d benefit just in case they need to sell Havertz in one or two years’ time. He’d help sell more shirts, and the club would gather better media attention too.

In my experience, the lower values quoted by papers tend to be more accurate than the higher values quoted in other papers.

I don’t know about the German papers, but very rarely would the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the BBC, the Times, skysports.com, and transfermarkt.com all get it wrong ! That hardly ever happens.
All of them reported fee leaked by Chelsea while Germany papers (reliable ones) reported fee mentioned by BL. Chelsea mentions it as record fee. How is that dirt cheap? Even for a your argument sake if i believe 72m pounds fee (which may not include potential add on but still), how is that dirt cheap?

Chelsea wants to reduce pressure on Lampard so has more incentive in under reporting.Already few articles are popping up for a title challenge Also there is no sense in inflating your spending. Your argument about value to property does not make sense. . So i guess English papers might have reported what Chelsea leaked to them.