Liverpool didn't have a player bayer wanted or bayer can able to afford wage wise.
Morgan Rogers | Ornstein: Villa accept £117m Chelsea bid || signs for Chelsea
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
- Status
Don’t think he showed anything this WC - his form had dipped off at the back end of the season as he was fantastic earlier. The debate of him or Jude now seems ridiculous.
He is a good player but him and Anderson at £115m+ is a joke.
Still, he is going to another good manager in Alonso still still plenty of scope to improve yet more.
He is a good player but him and Anderson at £115m+ is a joke.
Still, he is going to another good manager in Alonso still still plenty of scope to improve yet more.
Agreed. That's why that transfer was just overpaying for a player.
Forgot about that. That's not a crazy price, though. That feels like both Liverpool and Bayer agreeing to add £10m to their respective fees both ways. Bending the rules, but not as brazenly as some of the academy deals that have been going on, or what a hugely inflated fee for Jackson would be.
Really, really bad.
What would constitute a reasonable fee for Jackson to you?
People have mentioned £70 million in this thread (which hasn't been reported anywhere so feck knows where that came from). I'd definitely call that hugely inflated.
Anything less than £50 mil would be reasonable to me.
Maybe I'm going crazy but to me anything below 50m seems pretty cheap with how this markets going. Just turned 25, put up respectable numbers in the prem can play multiple positions across the front line. 50m seems more than fair.
We had money and we wanted the player and villa condition met. We did similar with caicedo by paying up front. Paying up front not out of the blue.
Arsenal tried to sign him for 100 mn. Similar player wirtz went for similar amount unlike wirtz rogers is a PL proven player. We tried to sign him from man city days. So his valuation not not out of the blue.
You don’t think Chelsea have overpaid here?
Chelsea paid the market price for pl proven player. Market determined the price. If wirtz went for 70 mn Anderson went for 80 mn then I would say yes chelsea overpaid. But that's not the case.
Paying £117m upfront is out of the blue.
Yes, Arsenal tried to sign him for £100m, which will have been in multiple payments and including add-ons.
His valuation is out of the blue though, not many clubs are going to pay the staggering valuation set by Villa, which was set so high because they knew they didn't have to sell to meet any financial regulations.
He's a good player, but trying to back up your claim of Chelsea not overpaying because his valuation of £117m is 'not out of the blue' is a brittle reasoning, with very little substance behind it and screams of you trying to convince yourself that it isn't an overpay.
You can just say yes or no. So you don’t think the overpaid and that £117m represents fair value? Fair enough.
I am sure Chelsea and Villa are going to do some transfers between them to massage figures. However, I don't see this fee as crazy as people are making out. We actually have quite a lot of transfers this Summer, which make this seem like the going rate:
1) Anderson for £116m
2) Tonali for £100m
3) Wirtz last Summer for £116m
4) Isak last Summer £128m
5) Arsenal already at £100m+ for Rogers themselves.
Personally, I think the market is mental.
1) Anderson for £116m
2) Tonali for £100m
3) Wirtz last Summer for £116m
4) Isak last Summer £128m
5) Arsenal already at £100m+ for Rogers themselves.
Personally, I think the market is mental.
What would the very top tier of players cost now? £200m + for Bellingham? £250m for Haarland?
If any team desperately want their service then they have to pay what the selling club demands. 200 or 250 or 300 mn
Another crazy fee this summer. Honestly Rogers looked great first part of last season, then his form dropped but so did of all Villa players. He's not worth 117m pounds but only 24 so there's room for improvement over next few years. Could be good transfer for all sides, certainly is for Villa with their financial issues etc.
PL transfer fees are getting crazier each season.
You know, it's alright for a club to overpay every now and then. At the time, £24m for a 29 van Persie was overpaying and we all know how successful that proved to be in his first season. Arsenal are probably about to overpay for Bruno G and I'm totally fine with that (within reason). It made sense for City to overpay as 115 could potentially limit future spending, so stockpiling talent is a good contingency (though one that I'm annoyed they're being allowed). And Spurs overpaying for Tonali and Fernandes also makes sense as they make relatively large revenues and were very nearly relegated which would be catastrophic for the club.
TLDR - It's ok to admit you've overpaid.
He is very clearly an overpay. It's taken me a few days to get over the shock of this transfer.
When Arsenal were linked with him at £70-80m, I thought Arsenal would be stupid to cave and pay £100m. Funny how that worked out.
When Arsenal were linked with him at £70-80m, I thought Arsenal would be stupid to cave and pay £100m. Funny how that worked out.
I'm almost certain now Arsenal will pivot and find somebody else and that somebody else will cost them more than £100m too. The players they've been linked with post Rogers to Chelsea announcement are Barcola and Diomande, both who whom will likely cost more than Rogers.
They're not being serious.
£70m for someone who's been a mouldering in his grave a few years is a bit much IMO!
Not only is it an overpay, it’s a massive overpay in the exact same way that Anderson was for City.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we’re getting a very, very good player who we already know can cut it in the PL and UCL and who is a massive upgrade on who we otherwise would’ve had in this position.
After the insanely stupid and risky signings we’ve made in this area of the pitch in recent years this one is refreshing. Even if we’ve paid a massive premium.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we’re getting a very, very good player who we already know can cut it in the PL and UCL and who is a massive upgrade on who we otherwise would’ve had in this position.
After the insanely stupid and risky signings we’ve made in this area of the pitch in recent years this one is refreshing. Even if we’ve paid a massive premium.
I suppose the market is inflated and he is a proven player. It just seems he's not a word beater. Maybe I've just not seen ebough of him.
All i wanna say is that, they don’t really care about price
It’s the only way to compete when valuations are off the wall.
Before criticising others, try looking at the man in the mirror first
It was always a ridiculous debate. You are out of your mind if you seriously debated Jude vs Rogers.
Appears that Arsenal wouldn’t go higher than £80m.
117m is definetly absurd. Rogers is a good player but he is not world class player. He's probably on similar level to Cunha.
However, ignoring the price, Rogers is a good addition for Xabi Alonso. He fits the system that Alonso wants to play in his 3421. Him, Palmer, and Joao Pedro look like a solid front three on paper for this season.
However, ignoring the price, Rogers is a good addition for Xabi Alonso. He fits the system that Alonso wants to play in his 3421. Him, Palmer, and Joao Pedro look like a solid front three on paper for this season.
But it don't sing and dance
And it don't walk
someone’s diddling the books
Will be interesting to see how Alonso gets the front three to work together, as all three seem to operate in the same areas. There's already a debate about whether playing Pedro is part of the reason Palmer looked stifled last season, since Pedro was continually dropping into the same spaces on the edge of the box. The theory being that Palmer worked better with Jackson, who would press more, play on centre backs and generally be kind of chaotic and make opportunities for Palmer to take advantage of. Rogers' signature move is obviously a cut back into the centre and then a long range shot, but that takes him into the same space as those others.
I guess the plan is to stretch the pitch with wing backs so that there's space for all 3? But with Pedro being an ok header but hardly a towering threat, and Palmer and Rogers not being box strikers at all, it does feel like packing the box and simply letting Chelsea cross the ball and dealing with it is an obvious counter.
I guess the plan is to stretch the pitch with wing backs so that there's space for all 3? But with Pedro being an ok header but hardly a towering threat, and Palmer and Rogers not being box strikers at all, it does feel like packing the box and simply letting Chelsea cross the ball and dealing with it is an obvious counter.
As frustrating as it can be I applaud INEOS with out transfer stance - the market here is off the scale mad. Anderson £130m, Rogers £117m, Tonali £100m, all over priced by at least £35m. We could end up with Santos, Tielemans and Kone for the same price as Anderson.
I don’t like the way this transfer is making me feel.
I guess everyone wants their pretty young thing
- Status