Still don't quite understand why we're giving Chelsea a leg up here. I'm very interested to see how the upfront fee is structured, as obtaining low-interest loans is much harder nowadays, meaning that clubs can't simply take out a loan backed by the installments they'd expect to receive as we've heard of them do in the past. I do think Havertz can fill in well across the front, but I'd almost rather watch Chelsea drown.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@sensiblepuffin @DarkUFO I get the impression the Saudis will be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to helping out Chelski. Four of their players are supposedly linked with Saudi clubs, in addition to Kante's free transfer.

[–] sensiblepuffin 2 points 1 year ago

You're probably correct - I think I heard something about one of the big Chelsea stakeholders having previously been associated with the same Saudi groups trying to power level their league. But if that's the case, why are we not able to play a little hard to get? I would have been pretty satisfied if the deal had been worth around 50 in total.

Besides, no one else has even mentioned (to my knowledge) any other clubs that are interested in Havertz. Why is it that when we try and sell Leno, a backup but serviceable keeper, he only wants to go to a London club and fetches less than 10M, but when we want to buy a disappointing midfielder that only impressed in Germany and are completely unchallenged they cost almost as much as the original club paid for him? Rant over.