Callum Hudson-Odoi and Jorginho: The risk and reward in selling early

Chelsea's new owners are certainly buying freely, but need to learn when is the right point to sell

There were two consecutive summers when both Callum Hudson-Odoi and Jorginho could have left Stamford Bridge.

For Hudson-Odoi, it was September of 2020 when Bayern Munich came in with a huge £70m offer for the winger after failing to sign him in the January window of 2019. Chelsea reportedly rejected this proposal.

Jorginho, although never having that public an offer submitted, was at the peak of his powers in the summer of 2021. He had just won the UEFA Champions League, starring alongside N’Golo Kante in a superb midfield duo for Thomas Tuchel before ending the summer by winning the European Championships with Italy. In August, he would be voted UEFA’s Player of the Year, three months later, he would be in the Ballon d’Or top three behind Robert Lewandowski and Lionel Messi.

Although he was viewed in this manner, there was a fair argument that Jorginho was unlikely to reach this status again. His agent Joao Santos had never publicly hid the potential of a return to Serie A, with murmurs that Juventus would be the most likely destination.

Bought for £60m from Napoli in 2018 in conjunction with Maurzio Sarri becoming head coach, the chance to rival that original fee or get a majority of it back was potentially there in 2021, with 2 years still left on his contract.

Both cases feel like pretty good examples of Chelsea’s recent inability to judge when their players values are at their highest, and deciding when is best to sell and revamp the squad.

The word revamp feels more applicable to Jorginho, a player firmly in his prime years and beyond the age of 30. With two years left on his deal, the club needed to make a decision in 2021. The option they took was to keep him, even with the clear interest in Monaco’s admired midfielder Aurélien Tchouaméni prompting talks with Petr Cech, as reported by CarefreeYouth at the time.

But it was suggested by highly respected reporters like Matt Law that Chelsea felt the young Frenchman was not ready to make that jump yet, instead a deadline day loan for Saul Niguez was sanctioned from Atletico Madrid. Niguez is back at Madrid now, Tchouameni bought for £84m by Real Madrid.

(Photo by John Berry/Getty Images

Credit: Photo by John Berry/Getty Images

Even with that chance to invest in a younger talent, there is no denying that Jorginho’s reputation around the club had also never been more positive, a complete contrast from his challenging first season under Sarri. And it would be flippant to dismiss some of his good displays in the 2021/22 season that followed and gained plaudits.

The Italian, for all his critics might malign his safe range of passing and physical limitations, suits a team who wants control of possession, which Tuchel desires.

However, the cost of keeping Jorginho means the club’s new ownership, Todd Boehly and Clearlake, inherit a contractual conundrum in midfield, with both Jorginho and N’Golo Kante into their final year.

As happened with defenders Antonio Rudiger and Andreas Christensen last season, the lack of long-term squad planning has eventually caught up with Chelsea, meaning that they again risk losing senior players for nothing at the end of the 2022/23 campaign.

Jorginho and Kante offer different problems if you decide to offer them a new contract. The Jorginho you see today is the finished article. His strengths and flaws are well known. There is no third-act twist coming, nor is there likely another level to reach.

The risk in keeping him is that his value will naturally depreciate in the coming years, even if he fulfils a respectable role in the squad, you are accepting a loss when he does leave or get sold.

For Kante, injuries, injuries and more injuries. The fitness of the Frenchman since the Europa League final in Baku over three years ago have been as defining to his reputation as the spellbinding run of performances in the spring of 2021 that helped Chelsea win the European Cup.

Neither feel like players who will offer enough value to build around in a key area, but there is still an argument you could have accrued maybe £70-80m in the past couple of windows, probably boosted by Tuchel’s very public comments labelling Kante Chelsea’s “Kylian Mbappe” back in May of this year.

Boehly and Co. are now left in an awkward spot, not one of their own making, but one they will have to conclude.

Hudson-Odoi is a different oversight in squad planning from the previous regime. One that feels applicable to several of the young talent bought in attacking areas since 2019.

Chelsea rejected Bayern’s first approach in 2019, eight months later he signed a new five-year-contract, worth around £100,000 a week for an 18-year-old with the intent his future firmly remained in west London. The problem was that Chelsea had also just spent £58m on Christian Pulisic from Borussia Dortmund, another young prodigy who played in a similar area.

A year later, Chelsea spent another £47m to sign Timo Werner from RB Leipzig, another left-sided attacking player.

In terms of squad planning, that is a bit mad. Effectively investing in three players between the ages of 18-24 might look exciting on paper, but have all probably halted the progression of just one of those talents. Whilst also balancing that desire to sign young talent who are a bit raw, with the expectation to win now at Chelsea.

It feels symbolic that all three of Hudson-Odoi, Pulisic and Werner have now been usurped by Raheem Sterling, the finished article of what Chelsea hoped any of that trio could have become. Likely reflecting the overriding culture at Chelsea for instant results.

There are also variables within the Hudson-Odoi story that make it complex to judge and hard to simplify. Injuries, confidence, coaching decisions, the players own performances, turbulence at the club, bad luck.

These are all factors in football I, like any other onlooker, are far too guilty of overlooking when judging situations. As much as I lean towards sympathising with Hudson-Odoi and believing he could have been given more trust, you also can find similar scenarios across the club in recent years where players get chewed up and spat out by the unrelenting short-termism.

Hudson-Odoi was an electric prodigy in the club’s elite academy, an irresistible talent who looked destined to rise to stardom somewhere in European football if not at Chelsea.

It is curious to track the timing of his breakthrough, arguably coming six months too early under Sarri before Frank Lampard arrived and gave a crop of young talent their chances. Both he, and Ruben Loftus-Cheek, cruelly suffering devastating achilles injuries in the space of weeks in April and May of 2019 when both were offering fresh expression to a team that had previously lacked it.

Both players trajectories were undeniably altered by those injuries. Although Hudson-Odoi returned quicker than his older Cobham peer, the player himself admitted in late 2020 how it was still affecting his confidence.

The explosive speed and burst of pace with the ball had lessened, his lack of respect for opposing defenders that defined his steep rise through the youth ranks gone. You also factor in subsequent injury setbacks suffered, in addition to spells out of the first-team, we now are left in a place where Hudson-Odoi is desperately seeking a fresh start, with hopes of a loan is finalised before Thursday night’s transfer deadline.

It is understandable why Boehly is cautious over a loan. Hudson-Odoi is another player with a shortening contract, next summer it will be down to 12 months. Although he has been through a lot, the winger is still only 21. Two years younger than Mason Mount for comparison.

There is still a scenario where Hudson-Odoi fulfils his potential somewhere else and Chelsea are left to ponder what might have been. But there also comes a point where you have to make definitive decisions as a club.

Boehly is not responsible for decisions of the past, but allowing Hudson-Odoi to get out of the Chelsea bubble is the best solution. If he does well in the Bundesliga with Bayer Leverkusen (his most likely destination) it will then be the club’s job to convince the winger to re-sign in 2023, if not, you then try and accrue the highest fee.

Due to Chelsea’s wealth under Roman Abramovich, the risk of stockpiling players was not that high, the failure of a £60m signing was felt more harshly in the columns of tabloids and broadsheets than the financial restrictions to correct that error in subsequent transfer windows.

Although the outside perception of the club’s new owners might look like little has changed, there will inevitably come a point where sales will need to be more calculated and shrewd. Quicker decisions made on players that may not always be received positively but in the long-term, offer the club a more coherent strategy in how key positions in the squad are replenished.

Thanks for reading. Check out my videos on Chelsea on my YouTube channel, and read more of my work at football.london