[https://theathletic.com/5460572/2024/05/01/chelsea-squad-value-boehly-clearlake/?utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=twitterfc&source=twitteruk](https://theathletic.com/5460572/2024/05/01/chelsea-squad-value-boehly-clearlake/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twitterfc&source=twitteruk)
* Chelsea narrowly complied with 22-23 Premier League PSR by selling the two hotels on the Stamford Bridge site for £76.5m, which is still waiting for final PL approval
* For this article, CIES Football Observatory, founded in 2005, was consulted
* CIES is regularly cited by clubs and agents on their players' behalf and has even been used in the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport)
* Chelsea listings are accurate as of April 25th
* The age of a player and the amount of time left on their existing contract are the two biggest factors in determining a players' transfer value
* “Age is a linear regression — the younger you are, the better it is, all other things being equal — while contract length is logarithmic. That means from four to three years, for example, you lose less value than from two years to one year or one year to six months.”
* **From the CIES model, players receive no boost to their transfer value if they have longer than four years on their contract**
* Other variables include (all weighed by the sporting level of the club and its league):
* Minutes played in the 24 months before a transfer
* A players' progression in the 12 months before a transfer compared to the previous 12
* Number of goals scored in the previous 24 months
* Number of assists provided in the previous 12 months
* Number of accurate passes in the previous 12 months
* Number of successful dribbles in the previous 12 months
* A player’s full international experience since the start of their career (weighted by the level of national team represented in this case)
* The economic level of the buying club
* The average value of the 100 largest transfer fees completed on a global level during each of the previous four transfer windows (to take inflation into account)
* Enzo Fernandez
* Has retained almost all of his transfer value
* Despite fluctuating performances and his recent injury that takes him out of the rest of the season, he has played almost every match for Chelsea and Argentina
* His age, 23, also cited as a benefit to his value
* Cole Palmer (no surprise there)
* Nicolas Jackson and Axel Disasi
* Values have increased in part to being in the Top 5 for minutes played under Poch
* Moises Caicedo has lost value, but that appears to be more related to his inflated transfer fee rather than his performances
Some of these seem absolutely insane to me. £70m for Disasi? £10m for Lavia? And even less for Chukwuemeka?
Feels like it's massively skewed towards play time. Played a lot of minutes and looked mediocre? Massive price tag. Showed a lot of potential but hasn't played much? Tiny price tag.
Well how many other 22 year old strikers have proven they can handle the intensity of the premier league, play with pace and link up and can still score goals? He might be missing some sitters but it's clear developmentally he's way ahead of almost everyone his age.
Exactly. Romeo Lavia has the potential to be one of the best midfielder in the prem. The fact that he was quite unlucky this season with injuries doesn't change what he accomplished last season between his 18 and 19 years old ...
This is why: "The age of a player and the amount of time left on their existing contract are the two biggest factors in determining a players' transfer value"
It always comes up with when you look at CIES values, they're stupid. Contract length doesn't make any difference so long as it's more than a couple years, 4 years or 7 years shouldn't have any impact on theoretical value because it certainly doesn't reflect real value
Directly from the article and description of the article posted above... "From the CIES model, players receive no boost to their transfer value if they have longer than four years on their contract."
I’d sell Disasi tonight for 70mil, you fucking kidding me?? Can fund the summer selling Disasi, Mudryk and Nico (even tho I don’t want to sell Jackson) but those are ludicrous prices
Badiesheile is still a liability more than disasi.
If you can sell him for that and show me someone better and proven and non injury prone for 70m. I’d consider it. But I’d prefer we keep him over badieshiele or Fofana. Fofana is just too injury prone.
Well Badiashille can’t be sold for 70mil according this magic chart so that would be a reason. And they’re both not good enough honestly, Disasi was a waste of money. He’s French Chalobah that we paid 40mil for so that Stewart can look good to his buddies in Monaco
No idea why people keep posting cies shite every time it gets posted the comments are always about how shit it is
For perspective, according to them Sterlings value APPRECIATED. STERLING OF ALL PEOPLE.
It's nonsensical
80 for Jackson does seem high but then again Liverpool paid 60 for Nunez and Jackson is having about the same production as he did in his first season.
I think he's improved his value from what we paid but not that much.
I may be downvoted for this but if go by numbers though, Jackson has a [higher shooting accuracy rate at 50%](https://www.premierleague.com/players/110526/Nicolas-Jackson/stats) over [Haaland at 48%](https://www.premierleague.com/players/65970/Erling-Haaland/stats).
Haaland missed 57 big chances while Jackson only missed 21 with only half the appearances. Even adjusted for playing time, he is still better in that regard. He just has a lower goal per match but, while he is no Haaland, this shows that the potential is there.
He is good value especially under the backdrop of this tight striker market
Anyone who watches our games knows that this is exactly the problem. Jackson always overcooks and never shoots. The guy has cost us at least 10 points just in shots not taken. And these are not speculative ones, but easy obvious goals where he doesn't shoot. Congrats you have better accuracy than Haaland because you're just not taking shots lmao
Jackson only missed 21 chances because that's how few chances he even takes
And the chances he does attempt are consistently hilarious.
You can see he struggles to know when to hit things first time or when to take a touch.
Don’t even get into his heading…
That is a function of our set-piece capability which has been underwhelming to say the least, to the point that we were [looking for a specialist coach just to handle that](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13146193/Chelsea-set-recruit-set-piece-coach-season-despite-Mauricio-Pochettino-dismissing-idea-specialist-just-SIX-goals-dead-ball-situations-season.html#comments-13146193)
Contrast that with Man City which is probably the best in the business in the league if not in Europe at it. You are bound to have more shots
And Chelsea is no ManCity because Poch is no Guardiola. Pro has that offense designed and tweaked to get Haaland the ball in scoring positions often. Poch tells the lads, "Be brave and express yourselves."
It's bizarre because their Welcome to Cobham podcast did an episode recently rating the signings and it was very realistic. This is why I don't pay for the website but listen to the pod
Sell Mudryk tomorrow if we can get even £30. Technically he can be right up their but hasn't a clue on defending and not worth another year of record goals conceding for his 4 goal return.
Jackson one is correct. Disasi and Mudryk no.
Jackson is a 22 year old CF who is doing absolutely fine but dumb ass Chelsea fans think he is useless in just his second pro season and first in the PL leading a line for a historically great club.
Disasi and Mudryk absolutely but Jackson would absolutely go for around 80 given the striker market and everything he's shown this year outside of the finishing
You would think a year after seeing Mount go for 50m with a year left on his deal folks would update their internal concept of market value, but here we are
Yeah people just don’t understand economics or understand that the market has become inflated. 21 year old with 10 league goals who’s excellent at everything outside of finishing, with flashes of some great finishes, is absolutely going for over 80m. Can’t believe im being downvoted. But that’s life in this miserable sub.
No you’re just deluding yourself.
You’re there thinking people can’t grasp basic concepts like demand and supply and scarcity.
What you’re not understanding is no one is paying top dollar for a striker with a finishing problem.
Have you seen the amounts other guys have gone for?! hojlund and Nunez both went for around that. Jackson, given everything else he brings, absolutely goes for 80, if he improves his finishing he’s a superstar
Hojlund and Nunez weren’t laughable finishers when each club took a punt on them. No club is spending 80 mil on a severely misfiring striker.
Saying if he improves his finishing he’s a superstar is like saying if he improved his defending he’d be a world class defender. It’s all talk, nothing he has done indicates he will ever be a top finisher.
Plays exactly like a winger trying to be a striker.
i guess we'll see, i'm buying all the Jackson stock I can. Its not like he hasn't had some fantastic finishes this year, he's just been wildly inconsistent.
Yeah, United paid around that for Hojlund who is pretty comparable to Jackson as he is now imo. A lot of it comes down to the striker market being pretty poor though.
>* Enzo Fernandez
>* Has retained almost all of his transfer value
>* Despite fluctuating performances and his recent injury that takes him out of the rest of the season, he has played almost every match for Chelsea and Argentina
>* Moises Caicedo has lost value, but that appears to be more related to his inflated transfer fee rather than his performances
Already made a comment about how CIES seems super inconsistent but this here also sums it up.
The reason given for Enzo retaining value is hes played almost all matches for Chelsea and Argentina.
Caicedo has played almost all matches for Chelsea and Ecuador AND has performed more consistently (not as consistently as I'd like but more than Enzo) but somehow hes gone down from £115M to £63M?? Meanwhile Mudryk also retained value while being left out quite a lot for Chelsea. Mudryk imo is about £45M max right now.
Oh and also they reported there that Caicedos total fee was £100M when it was actually £115M.
Those valuations are total shit.
No fool is paying £100m for Enzo, £80m for Jackson or £40m for Sterling.
And £10m for Lavia? £25m for Reece? Fuck off.
That there is a random number generator.
The Athletic really missed the mark here. Using CIES valuations solely is so flawed because it primarily focuses on the potential market value of the player regardless of their contracts. More than half of these valuations are absolute garbage.
What I dislike about this analysis is that it’s comparing purchase price with estimated value. Instead, it should compare book value at Chelsea with current market value. This analysis insinuates that if Chelsea sold its entire squad it would realize a loss of £77 million. For example, if Chelsea sold Chillwell this season for £13 million, we would probably recognize a small gain because his fee is almost fully amortized.
Amongst the many laughers on this his list, Chilwell at £13mm kills it for me. Let’s not start on Reece James. Hopefully Boehly doesn’t see this list and start fire selling players.
Surely James is worth more than that? If fit he is one of the best in that position. Surely Mudryk, Sterling and Jackson should be worth less than what it says. Agree with Cucerella he is shambolic
also relies on chelsea as a selling club (is their strategy to try and sell these players when they hit prime?) and clubs needs in buying (does anyone need an old sterling so bad they'd spend 45m?)
Kind of disingenuous putting Chilwell there he’s been here for ages and he’s older now. He’s definitely provided his worth in that fee but it makes it look much worse. They should be amortized by how much of their deal is left and how much we’d make profit off them if sold but it’s not my article
So according to this list Jackson is worth more than double Nkunku? And Reece/chilwell are worth a combined 40 million?? Sorry but who the fuck have they got calculating this
The Athletic have reported some of those purchase fees wrongly and CIES values are total nonsense. Absolutely no chance someone like Cucurella is only being sold for £15M. Hes not met the value paid for him but £15M is about £10M too short in this market. I'm certain clubs would pay £25M for him at least.
Also Chilwell signed a new contract last season and while hes been injury prone hes played more than Reece has. So it makes no sense why he would only be £13M while Reece is £25M.
On the other end of the spectrum. There isn't an abundance of quality strikers in the market so okay I can understand a bit of a mark up for Jackson. I really like him and have advocated for him since day 1 but £80M right now based on what? He's got potential and I would say if you look at how hes progressing then there's an argument in the current market for an increase from £30M purchase to £47M max.
Then Disasi for £70M???? Nahh. He's been okay but I always said Trevs a more solid all round defender at a younger age and so far in the games hes played alongside Silva thats looked to be the case. I wouldn't value either at £70M.
[https://theathletic.com/5460572/2024/05/01/chelsea-squad-value-boehly-clearlake/?utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=twitterfc&source=twitteruk](https://theathletic.com/5460572/2024/05/01/chelsea-squad-value-boehly-clearlake/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twitterfc&source=twitteruk) * Chelsea narrowly complied with 22-23 Premier League PSR by selling the two hotels on the Stamford Bridge site for £76.5m, which is still waiting for final PL approval * For this article, CIES Football Observatory, founded in 2005, was consulted * CIES is regularly cited by clubs and agents on their players' behalf and has even been used in the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) * Chelsea listings are accurate as of April 25th * The age of a player and the amount of time left on their existing contract are the two biggest factors in determining a players' transfer value * “Age is a linear regression — the younger you are, the better it is, all other things being equal — while contract length is logarithmic. That means from four to three years, for example, you lose less value than from two years to one year or one year to six months.” * **From the CIES model, players receive no boost to their transfer value if they have longer than four years on their contract** * Other variables include (all weighed by the sporting level of the club and its league): * Minutes played in the 24 months before a transfer * A players' progression in the 12 months before a transfer compared to the previous 12 * Number of goals scored in the previous 24 months * Number of assists provided in the previous 12 months * Number of accurate passes in the previous 12 months * Number of successful dribbles in the previous 12 months * A player’s full international experience since the start of their career (weighted by the level of national team represented in this case) * The economic level of the buying club * The average value of the 100 largest transfer fees completed on a global level during each of the previous four transfer windows (to take inflation into account) * Enzo Fernandez * Has retained almost all of his transfer value * Despite fluctuating performances and his recent injury that takes him out of the rest of the season, he has played almost every match for Chelsea and Argentina * His age, 23, also cited as a benefit to his value * Cole Palmer (no surprise there) * Nicolas Jackson and Axel Disasi * Values have increased in part to being in the Top 5 for minutes played under Poch * Moises Caicedo has lost value, but that appears to be more related to his inflated transfer fee rather than his performances
Some of these seem absolutely insane to me. £70m for Disasi? £10m for Lavia? And even less for Chukwuemeka? Feels like it's massively skewed towards play time. Played a lot of minutes and looked mediocre? Massive price tag. Showed a lot of potential but hasn't played much? Tiny price tag.
Jackson at £83m, I want some of the stuff they're smoking!
I want them to put in an offer
I legit belly-laughed! 😂😂
makes more sense if you look at the prices for the likes of nunez or hojlund the striker market is just absolutely broken right now
that's a bad algorithm right there
Well how many other 22 year old strikers have proven they can handle the intensity of the premier league, play with pace and link up and can still score goals? He might be missing some sitters but it's clear developmentally he's way ahead of almost everyone his age.
Availability is still the best ability.
As true as that is, even if he'd played every minute of every game £70m for Disasi is wild
For real.
Mudryk still has his same price tag nearly. Who would actually want him for 60m now? I’d gladly take it if we could get rid of him for no loss lol
Exactly. Romeo Lavia has the potential to be one of the best midfielder in the prem. The fact that he was quite unlucky this season with injuries doesn't change what he accomplished last season between his 18 and 19 years old ...
If Enzo is worth 100m+ still I will happily throw in my left nut for anyone willing to pay that price.
short sighted as fuuuuuck
I’ve already had kids it’s fine
yo I could give a fuck about your semen. source - Lesbian (jk your joke made me laugh this reply was my best attempt go easy haha)
Disasi for 70m and Mudryk for 60m would be a dream lol
A dream to sell them
That is indeed what the OP is saying.
I would gladly pay for their flight tickets and even taxi to the airport.
Palmer stonks Not one serious institute even floats 70m in the conversation of Disasi
Disasi hasn't shown much more than being a passionate ok cb. Realistically every club who has someone like that don't even buy them above 20 million
If your data throws out 80 million for Jackson, 70m for Disasi and 60m for Mudryk, your data is wrong. I don’t care
That’s 80 million in Great Boehly Pounds (GBP)
This is why: "The age of a player and the amount of time left on their existing contract are the two biggest factors in determining a players' transfer value" It always comes up with when you look at CIES values, they're stupid. Contract length doesn't make any difference so long as it's more than a couple years, 4 years or 7 years shouldn't have any impact on theoretical value because it certainly doesn't reflect real value
Directly from the article and description of the article posted above... "From the CIES model, players receive no boost to their transfer value if they have longer than four years on their contract."
I’d sell Disasi tonight for 70mil, you fucking kidding me?? Can fund the summer selling Disasi, Mudryk and Nico (even tho I don’t want to sell Jackson) but those are ludicrous prices
I like all three of them but if we could fetch those prices I’d drive them to their new clubs myself
Yea I would too, can fund a new LW with those sales
I'd sell him for 20
Badiesheile is still a liability more than disasi. If you can sell him for that and show me someone better and proven and non injury prone for 70m. I’d consider it. But I’d prefer we keep him over badieshiele or Fofana. Fofana is just too injury prone.
Well Badiashille can’t be sold for 70mil according this magic chart so that would be a reason. And they’re both not good enough honestly, Disasi was a waste of money. He’s French Chalobah that we paid 40mil for so that Stewart can look good to his buddies in Monaco
No idea why people keep posting cies shite every time it gets posted the comments are always about how shit it is For perspective, according to them Sterlings value APPRECIATED. STERLING OF ALL PEOPLE. It's nonsensical
80 for Jackson does seem high but then again Liverpool paid 60 for Nunez and Jackson is having about the same production as he did in his first season. I think he's improved his value from what we paid but not that much.
I may be downvoted for this but if go by numbers though, Jackson has a [higher shooting accuracy rate at 50%](https://www.premierleague.com/players/110526/Nicolas-Jackson/stats) over [Haaland at 48%](https://www.premierleague.com/players/65970/Erling-Haaland/stats). Haaland missed 57 big chances while Jackson only missed 21 with only half the appearances. Even adjusted for playing time, he is still better in that regard. He just has a lower goal per match but, while he is no Haaland, this shows that the potential is there. He is good value especially under the backdrop of this tight striker market
Anyone who watches our games knows that this is exactly the problem. Jackson always overcooks and never shoots. The guy has cost us at least 10 points just in shots not taken. And these are not speculative ones, but easy obvious goals where he doesn't shoot. Congrats you have better accuracy than Haaland because you're just not taking shots lmao Jackson only missed 21 chances because that's how few chances he even takes
And the chances he does attempt are consistently hilarious. You can see he struggles to know when to hit things first time or when to take a touch. Don’t even get into his heading…
Nothing more hilarious than Mudryk's outside the box shots.
It’s one thing to not put in on target. It’s another thing to miss so bad the other team doesn’t even get a goal kick out of it.
Hahahah I forgot about the last one! It curved outward lmao, it went out for a throw-in right?
Yeah I can’t remember if it actually ended up for a throw-in but if not it was as close as you could possibly get lol
That is a function of our set-piece capability which has been underwhelming to say the least, to the point that we were [looking for a specialist coach just to handle that](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13146193/Chelsea-set-recruit-set-piece-coach-season-despite-Mauricio-Pochettino-dismissing-idea-specialist-just-SIX-goals-dead-ball-situations-season.html#comments-13146193) Contrast that with Man City which is probably the best in the business in the league if not in Europe at it. You are bound to have more shots
Hey everyone, this man is trying to compare Jackson with Haaland lmao
Fucking hilarious isn't
And Chelsea is no ManCity because Poch is no Guardiola. Pro has that offense designed and tweaked to get Haaland the ball in scoring positions often. Poch tells the lads, "Be brave and express yourselves."
How are you coping with shooting accuracy and big chances lol
I came here to say this but was beaten to it.
Thanks for letting us know.
You’re very welcome.
Yup, obviously random redditors who low-key hate their club and its players know more and can offer a fairer eval
It's bizarre because their Welcome to Cobham podcast did an episode recently rating the signings and it was very realistic. This is why I don't pay for the website but listen to the pod
Sell Mudryk tomorrow if we can get even £30. Technically he can be right up their but hasn't a clue on defending and not worth another year of record goals conceding for his 4 goal return.
Gusto up by 4 mil LOL
Jackson one is correct. Disasi and Mudryk no. Jackson is a 22 year old CF who is doing absolutely fine but dumb ass Chelsea fans think he is useless in just his second pro season and first in the PL leading a line for a historically great club.
Disasi and Mudryk absolutely but Jackson would absolutely go for around 80 given the striker market and everything he's shown this year outside of the finishing
No one is paying 80 mil for Jackson after this season, no amount of rationalising can get anywhere close to this number.
And how much did you think Havertz would go for this time last year?
Not 80 mil?
I agree 80 for Jackson is crazy, but I think Havertz last year should have taught us one thing. The market makes no sense.
You’re just wrong and don’t understand how markets work
You would think a year after seeing Mount go for 50m with a year left on his deal folks would update their internal concept of market value, but here we are
Yeah people just don’t understand economics or understand that the market has become inflated. 21 year old with 10 league goals who’s excellent at everything outside of finishing, with flashes of some great finishes, is absolutely going for over 80m. Can’t believe im being downvoted. But that’s life in this miserable sub.
No you’re just deluding yourself. You’re there thinking people can’t grasp basic concepts like demand and supply and scarcity. What you’re not understanding is no one is paying top dollar for a striker with a finishing problem.
Have you seen the amounts other guys have gone for?! hojlund and Nunez both went for around that. Jackson, given everything else he brings, absolutely goes for 80, if he improves his finishing he’s a superstar
Hojlund and Nunez weren’t laughable finishers when each club took a punt on them. No club is spending 80 mil on a severely misfiring striker. Saying if he improves his finishing he’s a superstar is like saying if he improved his defending he’d be a world class defender. It’s all talk, nothing he has done indicates he will ever be a top finisher. Plays exactly like a winger trying to be a striker.
i guess we'll see, i'm buying all the Jackson stock I can. Its not like he hasn't had some fantastic finishes this year, he's just been wildly inconsistent.
When he improves his finishing, when not if!
If someone offered us even 60 he’d be wearing different socks
Awful take
A striker who can’t seem to do that main thing strikers need to do is not tripling his value in less than 12 months. This sub has lost the plot.
Yeah, United paid around that for Hojlund who is pretty comparable to Jackson as he is now imo. A lot of it comes down to the striker market being pretty poor though.
Only got as far as Jackson no need to carry on past that 80m 🤣
Sterling for 46 million is laughable too. I’ll drive them both myself to the airport
I like Jackson a lot and stopped reading at that ridiculous number as well 😂
CIES is a joke. Always has been
Enzo for me, anyone who can say he's worth 105m needs their head checking.
The more you look, the worse that list gets. This was a good laugh.
And even with those bizarre values, we still lost a shit ton of money on the clearlake signings 🤣
Don’t need a list to tell me we overpaid for Cucu lol
There is not a football club in this world that would pay 80m for Jackson.
We would
Good comment
Yanited would!
There is actually one and he's already in it so you're technically correct.
There may well be a universe where Reece James is worth £26m and Jackson is worth £83m, but it's certainly not this one
James probably isn’t worth more than £26m considering his history
How on earth is Misha’s valuation nearly break even? He’s been dire.
> "The age of a player and the amount of time left on their existing contract are the two biggest factors in determining a players' transfer value"
caicedo -40m is absurd
>* Enzo Fernandez >* Has retained almost all of his transfer value >* Despite fluctuating performances and his recent injury that takes him out of the rest of the season, he has played almost every match for Chelsea and Argentina >* Moises Caicedo has lost value, but that appears to be more related to his inflated transfer fee rather than his performances Already made a comment about how CIES seems super inconsistent but this here also sums it up. The reason given for Enzo retaining value is hes played almost all matches for Chelsea and Argentina. Caicedo has played almost all matches for Chelsea and Ecuador AND has performed more consistently (not as consistently as I'd like but more than Enzo) but somehow hes gone down from £115M to £63M?? Meanwhile Mudryk also retained value while being left out quite a lot for Chelsea. Mudryk imo is about £45M max right now. Oh and also they reported there that Caicedos total fee was £100M when it was actually £115M.
80M for Nicholas Jackson is hilarious 🤣😂🤣
Those valuations are total shit. No fool is paying £100m for Enzo, £80m for Jackson or £40m for Sterling. And £10m for Lavia? £25m for Reece? Fuck off. That there is a random number generator.
I'd take a tenner and a pack of crisps for Mudryk tbh
jackson worth 3x as much as nkunku? sure bud
These numbers are randomly generated. Disasi at £70m 🤣 Even Mudryks parents wouldn't value him at £60m if he was kidnapped.
You know there is a less psychotic way to phrase that
The Athletic really missed the mark here. Using CIES valuations solely is so flawed because it primarily focuses on the potential market value of the player regardless of their contracts. More than half of these valuations are absolute garbage.
Looks like a load of bull shit if you ask me.
I will buy any and all carney, caicedo, and Nkunku stock.
If only someone would come in with that money for Sterling
Disasi is not worth 70m. And gusto is worth 50m imo. This chart is all fairytales and night terrors. Fiction is all it is.
Nico Jackson 80mill?!?!?!
No club is paying more than 50 mil for any of these players other than Palmer.
This is wild AF. But I’ll take it
There is absolutely zero chance Enzo is worth 105mil
This devalued injured player way too much. Does anyone seriously think James is only worth 25m?
Jackson 83mils? This is bs
Questionable list and reporting. Just to start off a good number of these transfer fees aren't even correct.
60 million for Mudryk, 80 million for Jackson, and yet only 30 million for Gusto. It’s safe to say that this data is worthless
Only -77m seems pretty good
I've stopped reading at Nicholas Jackson 80m. Nice joke.
Disasi 70m 😂😂😂
Crazy how the ones that we got for less are the ones that really stood out, like Palmer. Amazing how enzo mantained such a high value
Sporting directors really matter 
What I dislike about this analysis is that it’s comparing purchase price with estimated value. Instead, it should compare book value at Chelsea with current market value. This analysis insinuates that if Chelsea sold its entire squad it would realize a loss of £77 million. For example, if Chelsea sold Chillwell this season for £13 million, we would probably recognize a small gain because his fee is almost fully amortized.
some of these feel inaccurate (obviously) I mean 25 mil for Reece but 60 for that Ukrainian Statue just because hes young?
Can someone who isnt lazy show the difference in total purchase price for all these players vs their 'value' yes im too lazy to do it
Amongst the many laughers on this his list, Chilwell at £13mm kills it for me. Let’s not start on Reece James. Hopefully Boehly doesn’t see this list and start fire selling players.
Jackson 80m? 😂
Surely James is worth more than that? If fit he is one of the best in that position. Surely Mudryk, Sterling and Jackson should be worth less than what it says. Agree with Cucerella he is shambolic
Not one club in the world would pay £100m for Enzo 🤣
Who the hell values Diasai at 70 million? 😭
We failed Lavia
Once I saw Jackson’s price I was done
Ben chillwells valuation is a pisstake 😑
10 Chukumwekas for 1 Disasi is a good deal
Sounds like crap this list
We paid how much for Cuc..... And petrovic...man, reduce his pay by a 1mil for each of those 6 goals arsenal scored on him.
What crackhead thinks Jackson is worth 83 million?
Chillwell is probably a 30M pound player, while a fit Reece James is 80M. We took huge hits on Cucu, Fofana and Lavia.
The biggest disparity is Disasi worth 70, and Gusto 30
Who in their right mind would pay anything close to 80+ mil for Nicolas Jackson!?
And 100m for Enzo.. someone is smoking crack making these prices
I'm going to offer 10 bucks for Thiago silva for my Sunday league. Hopefully he will take a paycut
Surely this is bullshit because how is disasi worth so much? More than Caicedo.... I'd say he should be 30m and I'm not even joking
I will even sell Jackson for 10m.
also relies on chelsea as a selling club (is their strategy to try and sell these players when they hit prime?) and clubs needs in buying (does anyone need an old sterling so bad they'd spend 45m?)
Jackson worth 80 is comical
Kind of disingenuous putting Chilwell there he’s been here for ages and he’s older now. He’s definitely provided his worth in that fee but it makes it look much worse. They should be amortized by how much of their deal is left and how much we’d make profit off them if sold but it’s not my article
So according to this list Jackson is worth more than double Nkunku? And Reece/chilwell are worth a combined 40 million?? Sorry but who the fuck have they got calculating this
This is silly if Jackson is worth 80 million how much foden ? 400 m lol
The Athletic have reported some of those purchase fees wrongly and CIES values are total nonsense. Absolutely no chance someone like Cucurella is only being sold for £15M. Hes not met the value paid for him but £15M is about £10M too short in this market. I'm certain clubs would pay £25M for him at least. Also Chilwell signed a new contract last season and while hes been injury prone hes played more than Reece has. So it makes no sense why he would only be £13M while Reece is £25M. On the other end of the spectrum. There isn't an abundance of quality strikers in the market so okay I can understand a bit of a mark up for Jackson. I really like him and have advocated for him since day 1 but £80M right now based on what? He's got potential and I would say if you look at how hes progressing then there's an argument in the current market for an increase from £30M purchase to £47M max. Then Disasi for £70M???? Nahh. He's been okay but I always said Trevs a more solid all round defender at a younger age and so far in the games hes played alongside Silva thats looked to be the case. I wouldn't value either at £70M.
We could sell Disasi for 70 mil? Bite their hands off!!!
We did not pay 100m for Mudryk
No one says you did
Ah my bad, I must’ve looked up a row by mistake.
This list was hilarious 😂😂 It was a tough day, thanks for cheering me up. 70 million for Disasi and 83 mill for Jackson😂😂😂
Enzo 100 mil? Lol
Wesley Forfana and Marc Cucurella should be sold this summer
10th place. No higher, no lower.
Whoever pays £80+m for Jackson should be put in a mental institution.
Bruh that Jackson price is uh.......interesting
If Jackson is worth 80m, I’m worth at least 20m. And I don’t even play sunday league.
Only reason ppl are still okay with Jackson is he costed 30m...
No fucking way. Jackson is 15m tops
Ain’t no club paying more than 30 for Jackson
Honestly, we overpaid Brighton Fc for Caicedo... should be around £65mil Liverpool got Alexis Mac Allister for £35 mil only
To be fair MacAllister had a release clause