In his latest article for the Fancast, @CFCScience questions the definition of ‘good business’. And, he ponders whether Willian’s departure would be worthwhile for the club.
Would you sell him for that money? Most probably would. Perhaps that would be a good bit of business. But as rumours of our Brazilian winger’s possible departure surface again this week, it raises a dilemma that has become increasingly important with Chelsea’s new-found desire to operate within their means.
To what extent does “good business” matter in transfer dealings? And what even is “good business”? There are no easy answers to that, and it probably deserves a good bit more thought than it is often given.
Sometimes, a player just wants to leave. Their agent is agitating for a move; their personal situation isn’t ideal; they don’t like the manager. It happens. Maybe that’s true for Willian. If it is, then “good business” is obviously maximising whatever money we can get for him.
But sometimes it’s not as simple as that. There can be many factors that make this large sum of money look more appealing than it really is.
The most apparent example is if Willian’s prospective replacement costs more than the fee we’ve attained for the Brazilian’s services. Even if the new player is an “upgrade”, there is still a financial cost to the deal. And that’s without considering the fact that Chelsea probably won’t see all £65M because of agents’ fees and other expenses.
In the same vein, what if the incoming player doesn’t arrive straight away? Prices rise quickly in football, so the £65M sat in the bank buys less and less with each passing month. Unless the replacement is lined up right away, this inflation has to be a factor.
Then there’s the fact that a player coming into the team can take a while to settle, especially if they are coming from France or Spain where the pace of the game is so different from the Premier League. There’s almost certainly a good player somewhere inside Tiémoué Bakayoko, but it’s taking a while for him to find it! Investing in a new player has to take this acclimatisation period into account. Would you rather have Willian for that period of time or the new guy who’s still learning the ropes?
And, for the sake of the cohesion of the squad, having a settled set of players helps everyone. A constant flux of new players arriving and experienced players leaving disturbs the team and makes everyone have to change their roles a little bit. How do you include that disruption in the calculation of “good business”?
Finally, what about the fact that it would be quite nice to have some good players in the team?! Willian single-handedly dragged us through months of a bad spell a few years ago, so he is undoubtedly a tremendous talent. A big football club like Chelsea might be a business, but that business is going nowhere without a decent team to win games and get revenue-generating bums on seats. Selling Willian might be good in the short term, but if we sell too many of our good players, then the sporting side of the club will suffer.
So, bottom line, there’s more to the question of “good business” than extracting every last penny from a potential buyer of one of our players.
Take a couple of examples from our current squad: For how much would you sell Eden Hazard? Perhaps it depends on the buyer – selling to United or City might require a higher price than PSG or Real. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s PSG who are interested. Taking all the possible factors into account, is £100M enough? Or £150M? £200M? Perhaps no price would represent “good business” for a player as talented as him.
Here’s a harder one: What about César Azpilicueta? He’s a hugely valuable player for the team and has been with us for a while, so he undoubtedly helps keep things ticking behind the scenes. And we bought him for a really low price, so selling him for almost any amount would count as a profit. What price would you take for him? Or is he unsellable? It’s a tough one!
Written by @CFCScience. What are your thoughts? Let us know!
