Cole Palmer City to Chelsea



samaistonsrightfoot said:
Aye sorry it was around 3000.
Click to expand...
Still miles off. Foden turned 21 at the end of May 2021. He played the following minutes in the 3 seasons before he turned 21 according to Transfermarkt:
20/21 - 3,374
19/20 - 1,770
18/19 - 1,107

That’s 6,251 just in the 3 seasons before he turned 21, so more than 3 times your original claim, more than double your updated claim, and more than 4 times the playing time Palmer has actually had.

Besides, I wasn’t saying Cole Palmer isn’t a good player - I was saying he wasn’t getting plenty of minutes, which is correct. I’m not sure why you felt the need to jump on me about it.

He needs more to develop at his age, he needs to either leave or be loaned out IMO.
 
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot said:
They haven’t always bought the best. Lots have been punts. Though they have bought De Bruyne, Salah etc but sold too early because they were spending fortunes on older, established players like Torres etc.

Brightons model is to buy players both for the first team and for trading (they loan plenty out themselves for a season or two to develop) but they don’t have the money Chelsea do or the initial basis to build off so have to go for lower priced ones (until they have more money to invest in better, more expensive ones).

You seem to be arguing that it is a gamble when I’ve said all along it’s a gamble. But it’s what they are doing.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering why they are gambling when they do really need to? They aren't in Brighton's position of needing to do it to keep funding. Chelsea don't need to do that.

It's also a very scattergun approach they're employing. I just think they don't actually have a model and are just buying for buying sake. That American they have in charge seems to be an absolute fruitcake.
 
Mickdundee said:
Still miles off. Foden turned 21 at the end of May 2021. He played the following minutes in the 3 seasons before he turned 21 according to Transfermarkt:
20/21 - 3,374
19/20 - 1,770
18/19 - 1,107

That’s 6,251 just in the 3 seasons before he turned 21, so more than 3 times your original claim, more than double your updated claim, and more than 4 times the playing time Palmer has actually had.

Besides, I wasn’t saying Cole Palmer isn’t a good player - I was saying he wasn’t getting plenty of minutes, which is correct. He needs more to develop at his age, he needs to either leave or be loaned out IMO.
Click to expand...


I’m looking at Fbref but only PL mins I think and it’s around 3000. More if you count the nearly 900 for PL2 games (which I’m not). 1600 in 20/21.

Although it’s a moot point anyway with regards to minutes.

The conversation was with regards to fee for a player with limited PL minutes which was totally ignoring player ability and team he was playing for to achieve that amount of time.

Unless I’ve misunderstood the entire thing as I thought you were trying to suggest he’s not worth that fee (like most others)?
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
I’m looking at Fbref but only PL mins I think and it’s around 3000. More if you count the nearly 900 for PL2 games (which I’m not). 1600 in 20/21.

Although it’s a moot point anyway with regards to minutes.

The conversation was with regards to fee for a player with limited PL minutes which was totally ignoring player ability and team he was playing for to achieve that amount of time.

Unless I’ve misunderstood the entire thing as I thought you were trying to suggest he’s not worth that fee (like most others)?
Click to expand...
No I’m saying he needs more game time. I replied to a post saying City won’t sell him because Pep likes him and gives him plenty of minutes.

Cole Palmer’s 1,500 isn’t PL mins it’s all first team competitions, which is why I’ve stated 6,000 mins for Foden. Palmer has less than 500 PL mins in 3 seasons compared to Foden’s 3,000 at the same age.
 
Last edited:
Mboma said:
I'm wondering why they are gambling when they do really need to? They aren't in Brighton's position of needing to do it to keep funding. Chelsea don't need to do that.

It's also a very scattergun approach they're employing. I just think they don't actually have a model and are just buying for buying sake. That American they have in charge seems to be an absolute fruitcake.
Click to expand...

Most likely an FFP thing more than anything partly due to how much they are getting in now for players plus wages off the books so they are peppering the market using future amortisation deductions to play off against income.

Some of them like Enzo and Caicedo will be long term (or midfield for next decade), some will be punts in the hope they either develop really week and can stay long term and some will literally be bought to loan out and sell on to fund future purchases and will see them away from future FFP issues.

It’s not just total chaos. It’s just a big gamble but obviously nobody else has done it on this scale to even know if it will work.

If fees keep exploding every year like they are then some fees just by transfer inflation may seem them tick over enough without big ongoing investment. Or they could pop altogether.

I think they got one of the most exciting squads in the league at the min tbh and it’s annoying as fuck because I can’t stand them 😂
Mickdundee said:
No I’m saying he needs more game time.

Coke Palmer’s 1,500 isn’t PL mins it’s all firstvteam competitions, which is why I’ve stated 6,000 mins for Foden. Palmer has less than 500 PL mins in 3 seasons compared to Foden’s 3,000.
Click to expand...

Fair enough then, apologies.
 
Last edited:
Makes you wonder who is advising the kid.

Playing in the world’s best team under arguably the best manager at the age of 21 and he wants to swap it for that absolute basket case of a club where he may not even get more game time. Crazy.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Most likely an FFP thing more than anything partly due to how much they are getting in now for players plus wages off the books so they are peppering the market using future amortisation deductions to play off against income.

Some of them like Enzo and Caicedo will be long term (or midfield for next decade), some will be punts in the hope they either develop really week and can stay long term and some will literally be bought to loan out and sell on to fund future purchases and will see them away from future FFP issues.

It’s not just total chaos. It’s just a big gamble but obviously nobody else has done it on this scale to even know if it will work.

If fees keep exploding every year like they are then some fees just by transfer inflation may seem them tick over enough without big ongoing investment. Or they could pop altogether.

I think they got one of the most exciting squads in the league at the min tbh and it’s annoying as fuck because I can’t stand them 😂


Fair enough then, apologies.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it working tbh. You say they're buying players for the next decade, but theres not many players stay at clubs that long. It'll be interesting to see what they do next summer as their approach this season was to just outbid clubs for their targets and then dress it up as some longterm plan.

My guess is that plan goes out the window if they don't see some kind of relative success for the billion or so spent so far.

It's pretty f#cking pathetic that they've been aloud to use these loopholes tbh and I hope it cripples them ASAP.
 
Mboma said:
I just don't see it working tbh. You say they're buying players for the next decade, but theres not many players stay at clubs that long. It'll be interesting to see what they do next summer as their approach this season was to just outbid clubs for their targets and then dress it up as some longterm plan.

My guess is that plan goes out the window if they don't see some kind of relative success for the billion or so spent so far.

It's pretty f#cking pathetic that they've been aloud to use these loopholes tbh and I hope it cripples them ASAP.
Click to expand...

All of them won’t be but the really big fees like Caicedo will be seen as long term. Not many players do stay that long but if they are good enough for a top club they tend to stay longer (you touched in this yourself in a previous post). It’s the ones for smaller/medium fees that will be the ones that will be sold on or integrated fully if they really kick on.

This isn’t so much a loop hole but what they were doing before by amortising the contracts over 8 years was but it’s been stopped now.
 
Quite a few Man City fans on social media happy about it, saying he looked sensational when he first appeared but more recently just hasn't looked like the star they hoped he would be
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
All of them won’t be but the really big fees like Caicedo will be seen as long term. Not many players do stay that long but if they are good enough for a top club they tend to stay longer (you touched in this yourself in a previous post). It’s the ones for smaller/medium fees that will be the ones that will be sold on or integrated fully if they really kick on.

This isn’t so much a loop hole but what they were doing before by amortising the contracts over 8 years was but it’s been stopped now.
Click to expand...

Well, it's going to take some patience for it to work out and a lot of things to go their way. I'll expect unsettled players and a revolving door in the head coach department when it doesn't go to plan....if their ever was much of a plan.
 

Back
Top