21 hours ago
52
No team in the Premier League has sold more players than Chelsea this summer. It should not be a surprise that no team has earned more from sales either.
Despite spending upwards of £235milllion (and counting) on new players, the work done to at least balance Enzo Maresca's squad, if not trim it, has left them with a middling net spend. Liverpool, for example, are the only club to have spent more but have recouped more than £30million less, and that is not likely to rise as much as Chelsea's in the coming weeks.
With a little less than three weeks to go of the window, Chelsea have the 10th lowest net spend. All of their rivals have a higher figure at this point, although plenty could still change.
Chelsea themselves are likely to only increase both the expenditure and income with Christopher Nkunku, Nicolas Jackson, Axel Disasi, and Renato Veiga all set to leave. At a rough estimate, this could bring in another £150million, whilst Alejandro Garnacho and Xavi Simons are currently priced at around £100million but Chelsea hope to bring it down considerably.
football.london wrote earlier this month that another big summer had mostly offset significant movement going the other way, and that trend looks set to continue. Although the overall effectiveness of buying players like Joao Felix and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall for a combined £75million last year must be questioned when both are sold within 12 months and without any serious meaningful impact, the ability to come out even close to breaking even is a good way to salvage the situation.
Losing Conor Gallagher, a player more than capable of filling both roles, is one of the many irreversible decisions that would likely have proved more valuable for Chelsea both on a sporting and financial level, even if he was used to try and navigate the threat of breaching profitability and sustainability rules. With the sale of the women's team, Champions League qualification, and the Club World Cup success, there is no current danger of falling the wrong side of the line.
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Among Chelsea's business is receiving a possible £53million for Noni Madueke, as well what could rise to £44million for Joao Felix. Bournemouth paid £25million for Djordje Petrovic, and Dewsbury-Hall could cost Everton £29million if all add-ons are met.
Burnley have been a surprisingly common endpoint with £54million paid for Lesley Ugochukwu, Armando Broja, and Bashir Humphreys (who helped them gain promotion last season and had an obligation to buy in his loan). Mathis Amougou returned to France, sold to RC Strasbourg for £12million, and Kepa Arrizabalaga had his deliberately low release clause triggered by Arsenal at £5million.
In total, this is £222million, whilst Ishe Samuels-Smith has left the academy to join Strasbourg for £6million. Chelsea value Jackson at more than £70million and have a benchmark for Veiga of £35million from his collapsed deal to Atletico Madrid. Disasi and Nkunku have decreased in value with Chelsea likely to be after their booked price of around £25million and £35million.
A loan fee from Aston Villa for Disasi could see Chelsea accept even lower for the Frenchman. If these two deals are completed for even a combined £50million, Chelsea will move to £313million worth of sales including Veiga, and, for now, ignoring Jackson.
Compare this to Arsenal, who have spent heavily to improve Mikel Arteta's squad in recent years, and it is night and day. The Gunners have hardly managed to sell any players this window and have a poor track record overall.
In fact, the £29million from Dewsbury-Hall would rank as Arsenal's sixth most expensive sale. By contrast, it would be Chelsea's 24th.
Although the churn of players in and out of SW6 is unlikely to stop anytime soon - especially with such a focus of the Clearlake Capital-Todd Boehly ownership on flipping for profit and money-making through sales - what this window promises to do is end the bomb squad and unnecessary panic loans.
The next challenge is to ensure that the current crop does not end up in a similar position to large swathes of those from 2022, 2023, and 2024.
English (US) ·