Vandamme (not the "actor") speaks about Eden Hazard
Jean-Michel Vandamme better have an unlimited package from his wireless carrier. The sporting director at Lille currently has one of the hottest young prospects in Europe on his books in the form of young Belgian Eden Hazard. Hazard was the best player in Ligue 1 last season as Lille powered to the title and a place in the group stages of the Champions League. He's subsequently been a very popular name around the rumor mill as it's pretty clear his future lies at a bigger club than Lille in a bigger league than France currently has. Vandamme did nothing to quench the fire in an interview with the Italian press today. When asked about the possibility of Hazard moving in January, Vandamme responded with the following:
If we can find someone willing to make a significant offer and willing to wait until June we may also find an agreement
Asked about what would constitute significant he responded:
I think a player like Hazard is easily worth at least 40 million Euros
While that is a lot of scratch, it really doesn't seem to be out of line with what the market has been dictating lately. At that price it would seem to preclude all but a handful of Europe's top clubs from legitimately bidding on Hazard's services going forward (sorry Arsenal fans, maybe you can afford Kalou).
We know Chelsea has interest in the player, and we know Chelsea have that type of money to spend. We also know that Hazard fits the exact mold of player whom Chelsea are looking to buy. Between he and Lucas Moura it really does appear that Chelsea will be in pretty good shape to land a young versatile attacker capable of playing centrally or on the wing, something that would really go a long way in rounding out this squad. I'm sure the media are going to run wild with these quotes today, but please take a second to reflect on them for what they are. Lille clearly know that they are nearing the point where they need to cash in on Hazard and are simply trying to drum up a market. It won't be as simple as calling Vandamme and meeting his asking price...like the Mata and Pastore situations last summer we'd have to satisfy the player as well. That said, Chelsea seem as likely a final destination as any so there is plenty of reason for hope...
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That translates to 33m pounds
Not that bad I guess. Don’t think we’ll find anyone cheaper for the type of player we’re looking for.
But it sounds like he won’t join any club before June “..willing to wait until June we may also find an agreement”.
by el chelsea fuerte on Jan 12, 2012 3:32 PM GMT reply actions
We're the club with the most need of the clubs who could reasonably afford him.
Not that need has ever stopped City or Real. I don’t see Barcelona going for him or anyone else willing to spend that much, except maybe PSG, who are out of the running as a French club. I suppose Arsenal, United, and Bayern are all options, but, as I said, I just can’t see them being both willing and able to spend for him.
In the end, it’s going to come down to us and Real Madrid. City can’t keep buying forever, and I’m not sure they can offer him the sort of playing time he’ll be after. Real probably won’t either, but he’s said he’d prefer Madrid to anywhere else. I’d like to think we would stand a decent chance of being able to persuade him to join us.
Also, as you said, even if we miss on him, it takes a major player out of race for someone like Lucas Moura or Neymar. There are only so many clubs who can afford a big signing, so we’ll get[ at least] one eventually. I hope we do get Hazard, though, since we’d be building a Belgo-Ibero-Brazilian superteam the likes of which the world has never seen.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
I've ignored Italy because nobody in Italy has any money right now.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:08 PM GMT up reply actions
Moratti ran out of money?
Not that Inter would be interested in buying him, though, but “nobody” would include them, too :D
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
I'm pretty sure the big three are broke, and nobody else was ever rich enough.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:11 PM GMT up reply actions
According to Deloitte's list
Milan and Inter’s money fortune aren’t that far away from ours; however it’s difficult to say what they understand of “revenue”, since what I understand of revenue doesn’t include inherited debts (excluding losses from the current year). However it’s Deloitte – and I’m not exactly fond of Deloitte due to some of my experiences with them :D
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Milan can't afford Tevez, so I assume they have some cash problems.
I haven’t seen Inter in on much of anything, so I’m assuming they’re strapped for cash, since they don’t have a really remarkable team right now.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:17 PM GMT up reply actions
Maybe Inter need to find a proper manager first?
Anyway, this would hint Deloitte have the understanding of “revenue” I have … and that Milan and Inter have no proper financial backing although their revenue value is certainly not that weak, judging the numbers
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
I'm sure they have large revenues, but they also, presumably...
…have large expenses.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:26 PM GMT up reply actions
Or they have still debts inherited from past seasons
and have to liquidate them.
Hm and again, the word “revenue” is much more freely used in English than in German, I’m afraid, and I get it mixed up very often :(
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
I know.
There are like eight ways accountants and economists measure “revenue” and they’re slightly different.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:35 PM GMT up reply actions
This
and even more: here in German we have two separate words for what in English is all called revenue – “Erlös” and “Umsatz”, one meaning losses are already deducted (gain?), and one the income alone. But in every English report I’ve read up to date it’s always “revenue” – and not all used consistently in one meaning
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
I had the thought previously
but I rarely read “turnover” in reports – some don’t use it at all; I mean it’s clear when they have a table with “revenue” and another with “income” or “loss”
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
I always think of "revenue," "turnover," and "income" as...
…describing the same values. I’m sure there are technical differences, but I’ve always understood them to be largely the same.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:48 PM GMT up reply actions
I believe that's the common usage of the term
“revenue” so that’s the reason why there seems to be no difference between “revenue” and “turnover” to the English native speaker. So if they mean the same in common usage why put up a table with revenue and turnover? Linguistically there seems to be a difference …
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
It's one of those situations where they're...
…slightly different on a technical level, but to the average person, they’re the same.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 5:08 PM GMT up reply actions
Or possibly just gross vs. net revenue
Or revenue vs. profit.
But I guarantee you that there are proper English word for what you’re trying to describe. I just don’t know German, so I’m guessing.
I've looked up in legal dictionaries
and there are exact words; turnover would be my first guess too, however I find they are somewhat rarely used (especially in reports by people like the guys mentioned above, Deloitte). And “revenue” isn’t exactly always used in the same way, though mostly you understand out of the context what is meant so it’s not a problem but if you were to translate that passage you need the exact term
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
If Madrid sign Hazard
I dont see anyone(exept Bayern and maybe City)going after Gotze and if he doesnt want to go to Bayern then we are the clear leader..Yeah Baby
I certainly want him here pretty much
But € 40m are a serious amount of money and I’m not so sure if he’s worth that much amount, although he’s a very good player and a damn hot exiting prospect.Yes, totally agree with the article that this is how the market has been shaping currently, but can’t say I like it that much, either
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Value is subjective.
I’m sure Hazard is worth at least 40m to Lille right now, and any club who bought him would prefer him to that rather large pile of[ admittedly digital] cash.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:14 PM GMT up reply actions
Maybe I misunderstood the statement above in the article
but it seems when the guy references “easily worth XYZ amount of money” then I understand he means the selling value. Sure, to Lille right now he might be even invaluable
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
The only reason there's a price is that he wants to leave.
If he didn’t, he’d be invaluable, but they value 40m[ or the purchases it represents] more than a sulky, annoyed player forced to stay until his contract is out, when they get nothing.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:21 PM GMT up reply actions
So if you say his value from Lille's point of view would be 40m
and not at least one buyer shares this point of view it would be a pointless statement; so I do still think his comment is in regard to a potential buyer interested. So I still understand the guy basically saying Hazard is worth 40m in a future deal – and not the 40m represents any value he has for Lille
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Actually, I wouldn't say invaluable.
There would be a point where the players they could buy by cashing in on him would outstrip the value of keeping him. 40m is the equilibrium point between that price and pissing him off and losing him for nothing.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:28 PM GMT up reply actions
Ah OK for wantaways
sure. If a player is dead serious of leaving and already threatening with unleashing his wrath on the dressing room then sure; I wrote “might” in a sense that given an ideal scenario where a player is imminent for a club’s success and irreplaceable because there is no better or equal alternative on the market
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
In an ideal scenario, there is some amount of money, or players it represents...
…that Lille would prefer to Hazard. They would probably be a better team with four 15m players than one 60m player. In any transaction, the seller has a minimum amount of money or goods they value more than the asset they’re selling, and the buyer has a maximum amount of money or goods they value less than the object for sale. If both values are equal or overlap, the transaction is successful. If not, it fails. Need for the transaction to succeed will adjust buyer’s or seller’s value up or down accordingly.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:45 PM GMT up reply actions
Obviously I didn't specify the conditions for "my" ideal scenario
in your ideal scenario, assets are infinite, and are seemingly always replaceable; in my ideal scenario, it isn’t; assets are limited. So practically in your scenario no asset can be invaluable as it can always be replaced; in my scenario with limited availability there could be things (or in this regard – players, they’re not exactly things) for that there is no alternative on the market. E.g. movables vs. immovables
Or I didn’t get you. That could be true as well :P
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Well, it's not so much that they're replaceable, it assumes imperfection...
…in the seller’s life, or in this case, team. If it didn’t, there’d be no reason to sell. While the good or player might not itself be directly replaceable, there can be other things purchased with the cash that the asset would bring that would be more satisfying than the asset.
Take for example, a football squad with a star winger, like Hazard, but lacking overall quality in other areas. There would exist some combination of players who, individually, would be worse than the winger, but together would raise the total quality of the team compared to before by displacing lesser-quality players. The question is best thought of as involving the players the cash represents.
Would you rather have a good team with one superstar and a few crap players, or a good team with eleven good players? Obviously, I’m omitting a lot of variables, but it’s basically what I mean.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 5:07 PM GMT up reply actions
I don't know then
why you refer this to an “ideal scenario” because this is a simplified version of reality, and far from anything ideal ;)
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
That's true, but in any ideal scenario, the whole thing becomes moot.
I would define the ideal scenario in this case as having team comprised of the best players in the world at their positions. The scenario would still hold true, though. Since replacing the asset is impossible, and no realistically usable combination of other assets could be of equal or greater value to what you have, there could be no sale, since there would be nobody capable of paying the desired price, which would be infinite. In any other scenario where the seller and buyer both have wants, there can be a finite price, even if it isn’t feasible or realistic.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 5:32 PM GMT up reply actions
Even if we accept a world with a limited pool of available assets...
…a sale can only occur if both parties view the sale as better maximizing their assets. That is, unless you introduce an objective standard, and eliminate subjectivity. Without divergent subjective values, there would be no exchange at all.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 5:37 PM GMT up reply actions
If we imagine there was a team in no need of
improving other positions of the squad – of course outright impossible – and having a player at a certain position where no better or equal alternative is available, then this certain player would be invaluable to the club in my ideal scenario.
Of course value is relative to the estimation how one views their own needs, but if there were an objective parameter to measure this sort of “need”, then I can’t see why there would be no exchange at all. Because mainly subjectivity only affects how one party estimates/calculates the value of their asset, as does the other party how much money they want to offer for that certain asset. If there were an absolute value to measure this and both figures met, then there would be exchange
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
But why would anyone bother to trade their assets?
If there were no subjectivity, who would sell anything? Trade only works if both parties believe they’ve improved their lot, so it would only be lateral moves, since nobody would want to deliberately weaken their holdings. I’m being hyperbolic in suggesting a world where all value is defined objectively, but trade is almost exclusively subjective. After all, how could the direct sales industry exist without people who subjectively value a cheap piece of plastic junk more-highly than $19.95 + Shipping at 3am? : )
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 6:14 PM GMT up reply actions
Let's work this out as an example
because it’s difficult to play it through on a total abstract basis. Say there is an objective value for everything – a soap costs 3€. Mathilde has 3€, and she needs a soap. The amount of money matches the exact value of the soap; so no party would gain or lose something; if trade has the only objective to gain something monetarily, then it wouldn’t work if values are strictly objective; however my understanding of trade would be you get something in exchange you hadn’t before. Mathilde needs the soap to wash her hands, she can’t do this with her 3€ in the pocket. OK, Is see you could still say the need for the soap is highly subjective. In this case however, you could still abstract further on, saying if needs can be verifiable – say there is a scale for absolute need, e.g. the 3€ for Mathilde are absolutely useless, but there was an absolute measurable need for the soap – then there would be an exchange ;)
How come we discuss so much philosophically? :D
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
I think we're just philosophically-oriented people.
I guess my point is that value is always subjective. The other thing is that money isn’t really a thing in and of itself. Nobody really views money as a desirable good. Everyone wants it, of course, but what they really want is what the money can be traded for. In your example, Mathilde subjectively prefers the soap to the oranges, bread, and eggs she could also buy for the same 3 Euros, and Stefan prefers the book he could buy with the 3 Euros to the soap he has. If there is a limited supply, that supply perfectly satisfies need, and everything is valued the same by everyone, then everything will tend to make its way to where it’s needed, like solving a jigsaw puzzle. If any of those variables isn’t true, though, there will be subjective differences in value.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 13, 2012 8:07 AM GMT up reply actions
Guess it's true although it's funny because neither you nor me have a philosophy degree
I agree with you that value is always subjective since it depends on what I roughly called “need”. My point was merely that if you can objectify value trade could still go on as a form of distribution of goods, but not as a measure to increase wealth – since that wouldn’t be possible anymore.
I use money instead of a variable to define “value”, since that’s the basic function of money; say if we could objectify “value” of material goods, we would still need a unit. We can measure length objectively, and for doing so we need a unit, be it miles or kilometers. Of course money itself has no real importance, but even if we get rid of currencies, we would still be in need of a unit
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Agreed. Money is simply the medium of exchange.
The good people use to ease exchange. It solves the problem of the book seller not wanting soap. Weirdly, money doesn’t have to be actual currency. For example, cigarettes are widely used as currency in prison systems. It serves the same function, and I think it’s a beautiful thing. It happens spontaneously pretty much everywhere people need to trade.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 13, 2012 11:06 AM GMT up reply actions
Very true
Money can’t work as a medium of exchange if physically there is no money – your prison example, or after every war situation without a stable government. I was told after WWII soap was a currency, too. So basically any kind of unit could do – as a sort of scale. Even if we imagined value to be objectified, we can’t get rid of the fact it’s still relative
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
New report say's Hazard isn't available..
Eden Hazard, Europe’s most wanted man, is staying put
Follow me on twitter@PrixFixeOnline
Staff writer for Managing Madrid & Sounder At Heart
It's funny how the exact same interview can be taken two different ways
He pretty clearly states in his comments that he’s keeping Hazard until June but that a loanback would be on the table
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 12, 2012 5:09 PM GMT up reply actions
I had already given up on him....
Madrid can have him. I’m pretty sure he’ll end up there.
by Sabrina Dessipe on Jan 12, 2012 4:46 PM GMT reply actions
In other news, Rodgers has apparently confirmed Josh is joining Swansea on loan.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
Should be early next week.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 4:50 PM GMT up reply actions
Oh and last time I checked the BBC said
Swansea were losing out on Josh. Hm. Nice
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
He's said so in the last hour in, I believe, his press conference.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 5:09 PM GMT up reply actions
Is this guy worth the money it would take? Not seen much of the French Ligue, and
I don’t want to judge him purely on youtube highlights. According to whoscored, he can and has played all across the front line (except Striker).
Yes.
He would instantly make us a much better team.
Author and Official Fernando Torres Apologist for We Ain't Got No History!
by Kevin Kostka on Jan 12, 2012 6:15 PM GMT up reply actions
bollocks
How many games have you seen of him? Hazard is a talent, nothing more nothing less. He is still extremely inconsistent. All te cool YouTube videos of him don’t change that. He only has 1 good game out of 3 and is nowhere near a starter for Chelsea.
Götze is a much better player.
This might not be a real popular thought around these parts
But if I was forced to choose between Hazard and Mata I wouldn’t have chosen Mata
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 12, 2012 6:40 PM GMT up reply actions
I agree.
Hazard is a really special talent. Why he wants to go to Real Madrid, with ADM and Ronaldo, I’ll never understand.
Di Maria might be able to hold him out of the lineup for a week or two
I don’t really see him being a long term threat to playing time for Hazard though.
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 12, 2012 6:47 PM GMT up reply actions
I would not be shocked to see Wenger offer €40m
That money is in the bank from last summer, and he really likes Hazard.
Arteta, it's all about the right pass it goes left to the left foot of VAN PERSIE
Proud member of Fusillade and The Short Fuse
You wouldn't?
If Wenger’s gonna spend that kind of money he should just go ahead and buy Gotze.
by Sabrina Dessipe on Jan 12, 2012 11:41 PM GMT up reply actions
I don't mean this window
He wants us I know it! Clearly he’s keen on wearing our colors. ;cD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TmJt9S-lYU
by Sabrina Dessipe on Jan 13, 2012 12:36 AM GMT up reply actions
I reckon Gotze goes for far more than Hazard
Borussia have less of an incentive to sell. Long term, they’re better than Lille.
Arteta, it's all about the right pass it goes left to the left foot of VAN PERSIE
Proud member of Fusillade and The Short Fuse
by Aidan Gibson on Jan 13, 2012 2:20 AM GMT up reply actions
Pursuing players to leave their club
when they don’t have a real desire to leave because they’re happy where they are is always difficult and … on the long road – expensive, since money then would be the major leverage. Not that money isn’t important in other cases as well, but here in this scenario, money would be even more crucial
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
IMO
We’re just pushing players into our slowly evolved tactics that don’t really fit. Which is why right now we need revolution rather than evolution. Lampard, Terry and the rest of the Old Guard haven’t really jumped on board with this revolution and it’s slowed down.
Bright side is we could add a winger and play Torres in front of our shinny new left winger Mata and Sturridge with Ramires and Essien in a double pivot. This would mean we have all relatively new players in our attack and only Essien from days gone by in midfield. Not saying we should never play a 4-3-3 (it’s one of the best formations) or that we should never play Lampard again. I think we need to prove that our new football works, that we have the right players for it and that they can be involved.
All the talk of what’s going wrong i think our most creative player is distracted out wide, the man who wants to be a finisher is playing too deep and we’re relying on goals from midfield too much. I love that Chelsea get goals from players of every position but our Centre forwards have been weak this season. Not one for a rant obviously but I think adding Hazard to our squad would help solve most of our problems.
Ramires and Essien in a double pivot in front of our defense would virtually stop us conceding silly goals. Their energy and work rate would make up for the loss of a DM and having Mata play centrally would make up for the loss of a Lampard/Miereles type player. Having 4 attacking players would mean we would be more creative and having a left winger that’s actually on the left wing would mean Ashley Cole wouldn’t be heavily relied on for crosses. Also when he bombs forward there would be someone else there to help him out defensively. Sturridge as we’ve all seen can play provider as well now and he’ll only get better. Our problem is that when we go forward we look stuck. Man Utd as much as i hate them look threatening every time they’re on the attack. Mostly because they get the ball to their wingers and cross but there are always 3 or 4 players in the box to receive it. I think our players are less likely to get forward because we know we’ll just lose it once it’s crossed inwards. Playing Mata in the middle would allow us to attack centrally but having a player like Hazard out wide and obviously Danny on the right we could pass out wide when we get stuck in the middle.
Well that’s what i reckon would give us a nice balance in attack, help us concede less goals and it’d only cost €40m. I’d do it.
I can’t believe the amount of detentions i used to get for not handing in essays and I just wrote that XD
Teachers were asking me to write about the wrong things.
Well...The idea of us having Hazard is Terrific...
He is rare talent…great dribbling abilities…he is always a threat moving forwards…very similar to CR9
Cheers,
Rohi D
by Rohi D on Jan 13, 2012 3:59 AM GMT via mobile reply actions
I've heard a rumor-" Taxes in Spain for non-Spanish players is proposed to increase to 50% !! 50% Of their wages will go away in taxes soon"
Is this anywhere near truth?
I googled it and as far as I understand
no. The new government in Spain have increased the highest tax rate for highly paid persons – but seemingly it doesn’t affect international football players, for whom the tax rate is still app. 24%.
As a side fact of interest – Real Madrid may have the highest revenue of all clubs worldwide according to Deloitte, but they seemingly also carry a debt of € 600m. All Spanish football clubs combined have a debt of 4 billion.
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
On further investigation
the top income tax rate in Spain have been increased from 43 to 50% and everyone with a income of € 300.000 would have been affected. So basically all non-Spanish footballers would have been affected without the exception clause. However seemingly the government didn’t dare to touch the exception clause because there was fear Real Madrid would be insolvent if the top income tax rate would be applied to their non-Spanish stars.
I did some extended research on this topic since I found it interesting and it would have been good stuff for a FanPost; however it has zero to do with Chelsea so it’s too unrelated
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Correction
not “have been increased” but “shall be increased” – it’s not finally done yet
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
As the plans of Rajoy's cabinet
go so far they have no plans to abolish that exception rule for non-Spanish footballers so tax rate will stay at 24% … it is suggested otherwise Real would be bankrupt … if the estimation of € 600m debts on Real’s side and the illiquidity of their house bank are anywhere near accurate then indeed Real might fairly go insolvent immediately
Tor ilisar'thera'nal!
Actually the exception is only for 4 years.
After the 5th year of residency the foreign players’ tax rate jumps from 24% to 43% (50% soon).

by 

















