Tammy

[Sniper]

Things haven't really worked out for him at Swansea, and maybe the jump from the Championship to the Prem was a bit too much?

I always said that he needed another season in the Championship to see if he could bag 20 goals again while playing against the same players, especially the defenders who would maybe have been a bit more savy second time round.

With the vibes that Bobby could be off, would you want Tammy back on loan again? I would in a heartbeat

[BobBobSuperBob]

I would take him in a heartbeat , especially with BR likely to depart

Like most I’ve thought we had zero chance of getting him back

But I did watch last night and have a little wonder

Still can’t see it , not sure at all that Tammy would want to take a step back into the Championship and what that would look like and I’m also not sure Chelsea would want him to go back to Championship (Before the finances consideration)

But you are right and the Swansea loan hasn’t worked out as well as he’d hope and he and Chelsea might (very small might) to look to have another good year in Championship and if that unlikely scenario was considered I think we would have a decent chance of getting him

What a good boost that would be to offset the potential loss of our cornerstones !

Too many ifs really , and I would anticipate he would go to another lower Prem Club

[BTRFTG]

You seem to forget Swansea spent something in the region of £10m to secure his services for the season ( and that's without his wages...)

[BobBobSuperBob]

Just now, BTRFTG said:

You seem to forget Swansea spent something in the region of £10m to secure his services for the season ( and that's without his wages...)

Blimey

If that’s true that’s the end of any slight faint hope

Where did you get that figure from BRFTG ?

[JasonM88]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

You seem to forget Swansea spent something in the region of £10m to secure his services for the season ( and that's without his wages...)

Not a chance that happened

[BTRFTG]

That's the loan option fee that was touted at the time. Chelsea not altogether happy as Newcastle were prepared to offer more. I believe their loan signings this year for the first time will produce income in excess of £100m. They run it a a discrete business model.

[BobBobSuperBob]

In a daft way , if we had a larger budget , a Championship Club actually possibly have a better chance of getting him on a perm

If they were prepared to pay a big Championship fee 

Can’t see him ever getting a spot at Chelsea (Still plenty of development time though) and I think it would be possible for a biggish Championship Club to persuade him to come and get promoted with them or get back to the prem by putting himself on Prem shopping lists

Guess it depends on how much Chelsea think he will develop but if I was a WBA or Villa etc.  I’d be enquiring

[Carey 6]

5 goals in 15 starts isn't too bad a return for a 20 year old. 

The service he'd have been getting there wouldn't have been great either.

[Lrrr]

No harm making the phone call to enquire but seriously doubt it would happen.

[BTRFTG]

The skill is to identify youth who are likely to make it but who need the showcase of a season so as to maximise their potental value. Key point is Chelsea don't acquire these players to play them (unless they develop into something special whilst out on loan,) rather they're a tradable commodity remaining in their ownership (so they hedge their bets.) If you've heard of them, they're probably already out of our league. I think they've 38 players out on loan and between the stars and the stars of tomorrow they've a load of mediocres such as Musonda (yes him, he's still around marking time but not much else) and caution Celtic coughed up over £5m as a loan fee to secure his services in January.

[The Batman]

The new contract he signed at Chelsea put him far beyond anything we could afford I imagine. You don't want disharmony amongst the ranks if he's on vastly superior wages to the rest of the players 

If conte leaves, the new Chelsea boss might utilise him more with the first team. He'll certainly get more chances playing with William, hazard, fabregas etc than the Swansea lineup

[Ska Junkie]

35 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You seem to forget Swansea spent something in the region of £10m to secure his services for the season ( and that's without his wages...)

Swansea paid £10M for 1 year??? I'm not doubting you at all but that seems extremely high with all possible respect.

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Swansea paid £10M for 1 year??? I'm not doubting you at all but that seems extremely high with all possible respect.

Actually for teams at the bottom end of the Premier (or newly promoted)) it makes perfect sense.  Wedge out £30m for a player on a 3 year deal at risk they don't cut it else you'd like their liability gone should you be relegated. You also don't have to raise the finance upfront to enjoy the benefits.

Think of it like this : I'm an oldie and have always bought my cars (because that was the only way when I were a lad,) but to a significant proportion of you y'ung 'uns that's dinosaur. Cars these days are mostly finance-leased with manufacturers and dealers making more from the finance than from the car itself. Chelsea were one of the first to spot the trend and are reaping the benefits.

[Ska Junkie]

5 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Actually for teams at the bottom end of the Premier (or newly promoted)) it makes perfect sense.  Wedge out £30m for a player on a 3 year deal at risk they don't cut it else you'd like their liability gone should you be relegated. You also don't have to raise the finance upfront to enjoy the benefits.

Think of it like this : I'm an oldie and have always bought my cars (because that was the only way when I were a lad,) but to a significant proportion of you y'ung 'uns that's dinosaur. Cars these days are mostly finance-leased with manufacturers and dealers making more from the finance than from the car itself. Chelsea were one of the first to spot the trend and are reaping the benefits.

I totally agree that it makes perfect sense but the figure is exorbitant. If he's started 15 games, Swansea have paid £667,000 per start. Even doubling the number of games it still seems a very high 'loan' payment BTRFTG.

I'm an oldie who still buys his cars too by the way.

[BTRFTG]

10 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

I totally agree that it makes perfect sense but the figure is exorbitant

It is but them's the going rates - and had he played twice as many games and scored enough to keep them up it would look great value...NB the team finishing bottom of the Premier next season is GUARANTEED a minimum £97m in rights monies alone (and that excludes things like parachutes and club earnings.)

More at our level look at the Gallagher lad Brum took from Soton. They wanted a £2m loan fee which was laughed off but they still ended up paying £1.2m plus £18k per week for a return of 6 goals.....(or in your terms a third of a million per goal...)

[RedRoss]

17 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Actually for teams at the bottom end of the Premier (or newly promoted)) it makes perfect sense.  Wedge out £30m for a player on a 3 year deal at risk they don't cut it else you'd like their liability gone should you be relegated. You also don't have to raise the finance upfront to enjoy the benefits.

Think of it like this : I'm an oldie and have always bought my cars (because that was the only way when I were a lad,) but to a significant proportion of you y'ung 'uns that's dinosaur. Cars these days are mostly finance-leased with manufacturers and dealers making more from the finance than from the car itself. Chelsea were one of the first to spot the trend and are reaping the benefits.

I understand the analogy you've just given but I think you've vastly outstated the fee involved.

I would be very surprised that Swansea would decide to fork out 10 million for a loan player just to attempt to secure Premiership status. No business model is going to be sustainable if you're not receiving any assets back when you're spending such a huge fee on loans. 

Just had a quick google at several news reports at the time and they all quote 1 million (which was the signing on fee for the player) and 50k a week to cover wages and the telegraph quotes in actual fact that there is no loan fee just the aforementioned. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/06/28/tammy-abraham-sign-50k-a-week-chelsea-contract-joining-swansea/

On a separate note I still don't think we'd get him anyway.

[CodeRed]

50k per week! jeez...that's even more than we pay Gary O'Neil

[Kingswoodactor]

I remember Brighton were extremely keen on him last Summer too. You can't help but think he'd have had a completely different season down there, with the football they play in the final third compared to Swansea. Although you can also argue that with Murray's form, he might not have got much time anyway! Don't think they expected GM to have anywhere near the impact that he did this season.

I just hope that he doesn't go to Cardiff..........

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

I understand the analogy you've just given but I think you've vastly outstated the fee involved.

As a rule of thumb the loan fee looks to be in the region of 0.3 - 0.4 times the supposed valuation, hence his year with us and all time profile high at the start of last season. Had Swansea signed him his lifecycle liability to them would have been in excess of £40m (albeit they may have recouped some of this were there a resale value.) As is he's cost them in the region of £13m and they'd have a hell of a problem trying to recoup £27m given he isn't as effective in the top flight as many predicted. Despite the silly monies Swansea did the right thing in only going for the loan.

[BTRFTG]

18 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Just had a quick google at several news reports at the time and they all quote 1 million (which was the signing on fee for the player) and 50k a week to cover wages and the telegraph quotes in actual fact that there is no loan fee just the aforementioned

That's partly the con. As they're compensatory fees for loss of service loan fee arrangement are not openly reported. They also increase either side of the transfer window as loan periods and transfer windows do not align, hence desperate clubs panic. In Tammy's case Newcastle thought the deal with Chelsea was done only for Tammy himself to scupper the move so late on his value actually cost Swansea more than had Tammy let it be known upfront he wasn't for moving North.

[AshtonGreat]

Certainly not a like-for-like replacement for Bobby, whose all-round game is much more dynamic. Tammy is a tap-in merchant, albeit a very good one at this level

[RedRoss]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As a rule of thumb the loan fee looks to be in the region of 0.3 - 0.4 times the supposed valuation, hence his year with us and all time profile high at the start of last season. Had Swansea signed him his lifecycle liability to them would have been in excess of £40m (albeit they may have recouped some of this were there a resale value.) As is he's cost them in the region of £13m and they'd have a hell of a problem trying to recoup £27m given he isn't as effective in the top flight as many predicted. Despite the silly monies Swansea did the right thing in only going for the loan.

I'm sorry but you've got your numbers more mixed up than Dianne Abbott.

You've completely disregarded the link I provided to show that the fee was reported as 1mil + wages. Not this so called 'rule of thumb' 0.3/0.4 the supposed valuation of the player ( which I don't think is accurate at all)

I think your right about the fact they wanted a loan (Chelsea wouldn't have sold him anyway)  to reduce the risk on a player like Tammy because he hadn't proven his pedigree yet in the PL but you've massively outstated the loan fee that is my point.

[RedRoss]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

That's partly the con. As they're compensatory fees for loss of service loan fee arrangement are not openly reported. They also increase either side of the transfer window as loan periods and transfer windows do not align, hence desperate clubs panic. In Tammy's case Newcastle thought the deal with Chelsea was done only for Tammy himself to scupper the move so late on his value actually cost Swansea more than had Tammy let it be known upfront he wasn't for moving North.

So if they are not openly reported - How would you know this?

Sorry I'm just really struggling to understand how you've come to this 10 million fee if its a 'con' and not 'openly reported'.

[BTRFTG]

13 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

So if they are not openly reported - How would you know this?

I spent over half my life working in The Fourth Estate. Also look at Chelsea's accounts which although they do not provide details of individual deals do show the overall income from players out on loan.

The £1m was Tammy's fee ( if he isn't sold then the usual signing-on arrangements don't apply, hence there are alternative sweeteners for loans.) It's the compensatory fee to the club that's not reported.

It's also self evident what the leverage rates are, else if one could loan a player annually at 1/30th of their market valuation why would anybody ever buy a player again?

[Punkymatt]

Think this is a really interesting topic, personally think we would be unlikely to have Tammy return (but if possible I’d love it). 

Think it adds something to the debate about Bobby moving to the prem and whether it would be a good move for his footballing career. 

Obviously money talks but I think most of us would have expected Tammy to have done better/had more opportunity at Swansea. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

In a daft way , if we had a larger budget , a Championship Club actually possibly have a better chance of getting him on a perm

If they were prepared to pay a big Championship fee 

Can’t see him ever getting a spot at Chelsea (Still plenty of development time though) and I think it would be possible for a biggish Championship Club to persuade him to come and get promoted with them or get back to the prem by putting himself on Prem shopping lists

Guess it depends on how much Chelsea think he will develop but if I was a WBA or Villa etc.  I’d be enquiring

Large fee like that (assuming the £10m loan fee has any truth to it)? WBA maybe able to, but Villa have financial issues incoming if they stay down I'd suggest.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As for Tammy, great prospect and would love him back here, but Swansea don't tend to play 4-4-2 so it's hard to know where he would have slotted in best tbh. Still an okay return in a struggling side in his first PL season though!

[Bar BS3]

42 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

I'm sorry but you've got your numbers more mixed up than Dianne Abbott.

You've completely disregarded the link I provided to show that the fee was reported as 1mil + wages. Not this so called 'rule of thumb' 0.3/0.4 the supposed valuation of the player ( which I don't think is accurate at all)

I think your right about the fact they wanted a loan (Chelsea wouldn't have sold him anyway)  to reduce the risk on a player like Tammy because he hadn't proven his pedigree yet in the PL but you've massively outstated the loan fee that is my point.

I have to agree with this. 

I would be utterly gobsmacked if Swansea paid anything even remotely close to £10million, plus wages..! For someone who never scored a goal in the premier league before. 

The poster actually backs his claim up with some credible sounding knowledge, but I’m sorry, I simply don’t believe it. 

£1-2million MAX I should think. 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

26 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I spent over half my life working in The Fourth Estate. Also look at Chelsea's accounts which although they do not provide details of individual deals do show the overall income from players out on loan.

The £1m was Tammy's fee ( if he isn't sold then the usual signing-on arrangements don't apply, hence there are alternative sweeteners for loans.) It's the compensatory fee to the club that's not reported.

It's also self evident what the leverage rates are, else if one could loan a player annually at 1/30th of their market valuation why would anybody ever buy a player again?

A link to where this has been reported then please. If it's self-evident and the numbers are in Chelsea's accounts then it's no big secret and football journalists (maybe the likes of David Conn) would've picked this up. It will have been reported somewhere, if true. 

[BRISTOL86]

Not a chance in hell of this being even remotely possible. Move on people!