You're right, the team that paid Chelsea 60m for Kai Havertz is really averse to Chelsea making transfer fees. They're just loaning a player to not use him and paying part of his wages so as to avoid helping Chelsea sell him later on. 1000 IQ thinking by you and the club. Why go for the simplest explanation when you can come up with a ridiculous one?
Havertz was thought through deal and was 24 when we decided to spend big on him. He wasn’t last day loan deal to add another body. Also Edu said: To be fair, we never planned really to sign him when we started the transfer window, just to be very transparent.You're right, the team that paid Chelsea 60m for Kai Havertz is really averse to Chelsea making transfer fees. They're just loaning a player to not use him and paying part of his wages so as to avoid helping Chelsea sell him later on. 1000 IQ thinking by you and the club. Why go for the simplest explanation when you can come up with a ridiculous one?
There is nothing logical about suggesting that the club loaned a player and are purposefully not playing him to prevent helping Chelsea sell him. You would never loan the player if that was the case. What you're saying is utterly nonsensical.
The club loaned him in as cover for Nelson as they couldn’t sell Nelson. So Nelson go out there and make name for himself and get the club transfer money in the summer. In the meantime Sterling covers for him. Clubs loan players all the time they have no intention to buy. Chelsea knew this as well. But that’s the best option they had. Arsenal was never gonna buy 30 year old Sterling on over 300k
Raheem is not our player, so we don't have to treat him fairly. Not that I agree but that is probably how the club sees it. It is more beneficial to the club to give minutes to assets you own than a Chelsea player.
Like clockwork defeating your own argument. Your premise is that our primary reason for not playing him is to avoid helping Chelsea sell him yet you've just pointed out that we're saving Chelsea money by taking him on loan in the first place when we could just have left him there to collect all of his wages AND make it impossible for his value to grow.
I didn’t want to get too tin-foil hat on here as it’s only speculation but I think this is it.
We absolutely did not see him as potential signing. We never thought of him until end of the window. Edu even said it Ødegaard just turned 23. Sterling will be 30 years old in the summer on 320k and we saw him as potential signing….come on now
You always get stuck on something and argue from that point. Sterling was never in our plans. He’s brought in as cover until we can address the position in the summer. A loan player with no intention of future signing is never gonna get fair crack. Unless he’s miles ahead of the competition and blowing everyones mind in training which I doubt he is anyway
Chelsea are paying most of his wages..
Even then, whats the point of bringing him in if you aren't going play him and have a disgruntled player on the squad?
Yes, people who make effective arguments do tend to stick to a point. That's why you never win them. What you've said makes no logical sense which is why you're already kind of backtracking. Just as I stated, you still cannot explain why this player who wasn't in our plans and who we are apparently not playing so as not to help Chelsea was brought in for cover when the team had a myriad of other, cheaper ways to cover that position which would not have helped Chelsea. No team at this level is going to cut off their nose to spite their face with an eye towards the fee the club loaning us the player might get for the player. That's you thinking from a fan perspective rather than how anyone actually conducts business.
Yet everyone thinks you wrong and I’m right. When everyone think you wrong it’s time to reflect
Who is everyone? The 3 people who liked your posts? By the way, if you followed your own advice in the second sentence, you'd have stopped posting years ago.
Huh? He plays.
