Chelsea: Pros and cons of the rumored Jan Oblak swap deal

What are the implications of the rumored transfer of Atletico Madrid’s world class keep Jan Oblak to Chelsea in a possible swap deal?

The Mirror reports of a possible move by the Chelsea Football Club for Jan Oblak, Atletico Madrid’s superb goalkeeper. The rumor involves a possible player plus cash offer of Kepa Arrizabalaga and cash for Atletico Madrid’s keeper. There are a number of reasons why this move makes sense for Chelsea and others that don’t. It is also noted that Oblak’s release clause on his contract is a whopping €120 million.

Chelsea would likely be open to discussing any deal that would move Arrizabalaga to another club and not be ruinous to their financial health. Arrizabalaga has under performed after becoming the most expensive keeper in football history with his mammoth transfer in 2018. He has not come close to living up to that massive transfer fee and has fallen into disfavor at times with Chelsea’s head coach Frank Lampard who benched him for six games earlier this season.

For Chelsea, a swap deal would solve a whole host of problems. First, it would secure the services of one of the world’s top keepers who has been a stalwart for Atletico. Any such move would have to be sanctioned not only by Lampard but also Chelsea’s goalkeeper oversight chief, Petr Cech. There seems little doubt that a keeper of Oblak’s stature and excellence would have any issues there. Yet Cech and Lampard would still have to sanction the decision as well as the senior management of the club.

A second reason would be that the stigma of Arrizabalaga’s lack of success at Chelsea would be permanently removed in the event of a sale. This would be somewhat less so in the case of a loan scenario unless it would involve a mandatory sale at the end of the loan. Interestingly, Chelsea has a history with Atletico in such a deal. The loan/sale of Alvaro Morata which culminated in a sale this summer, is an obvious precedent between the two clubs. It could be related to any Oblak deal, as well.

Another positive for Chelsea is that sending Arrizabalaga out on loan or on an outright sale would likely ameliorate at least part of his 7.8M pounds per year salary. At that level, however, Chelsea would almost certainly be required to pay a healthy portion on any loan deal. His contract runs for four more years through 2024/25.

The objective for the club would be damage limitation. It is almost certain that Chelsea will have to pay heavily for their miscalculation on Arrizabalaga no matter how they might send him out of the club, both in salary and in lost value. Yet, limiting the anguish going forward is a positive development that should not be minimized.

A similar move to the Morata loan/sale deal would allow Chelsea to put an unfortunate decision behind them and move on. It signals closure and it would usher in a new beginning for Frank Lampard in that position. There would also certainly be cover there since Lampard should be afforded the opportunity to put his full imprint on the team, especially in a signature position like a keeper. This is especially poignant since Lampard has had his obvious misgivings with Arrizabalaga’s performance. In addition, the stigma of having a player on the club who was openly defiant of the manager at the time, Maurizio Sarri, would also be put in the past.

But there are some negative aspects of any such deal. First, the move clearly acknowledges the mistake of signing Arrizabalaga in the first place. Having missed out on Alisson, who has gone to Liverpool and helped them rise to the top of the Premier League table, Chelsea made a desperation move and paid a heavy price. Sending Arrizabalaga out on what will certainly be a hefty loss would be a clear statement of acknowledgment. No organization likes to have to do that but any organization makes decisions that they would like to have back. It is best to minimize your losses and move forward.

Second, Chelsea will pay a huge financial penalty if they move Arrizabalaga on. They will not recover anywhere near the huge fee they paid. Half might be considered a good outcome. In addition, they may be saddled with a portion of Arrizabalaga’s salary. Both the losses in valuation and the salary scenarios are difficult financial outcomes to bear. But again, it is better to just move on and not let an unfortunate decision continue to harrow the club.

A third negative would be as Chelsea would make Oblak the highest cost keeper in history. In adding a devalued Arrizabalaga, plus adding the fee due from Atletico that completed the mandatory purchase of Morata into the deal, plus cash, Chelsea would certainly substantially exceed in valuation even the deal for Arrizabalaga. Maybe substantially. The Morata fee inclusion would certainly diminish the cash outlay somewhat.

Yet, applying that substantial fee plus Arrizabalaga’s valuation of perhaps 30-35 million euro would still leave Chelsea a hefty fee required to meet Oblak’s 120 million pound release clause if Atletico so insists. These numbers don’t add up in the least for Chelsea Football Club. Whether Chelsea or any club would want to step right back into a similar situation, while trying to extricate themselves from a previous one, is highly doubtful. The risk is considerable at best. An early major injury to Oblak would be catastrophic to say the least.

Considering the pluses and minutes in the equation, however wondrous his addition would be to bolster the club on the pitch, it seems highly unlikely that Chelsea will venture into the almost unfathomable potential risks of a deal to secure Jan Oblak. It’s just not going to happen. A more reasonable and sensible strategy would be to loan or sell Arrizabalaga outright and just absorb the losses, both in transfer fees and whatever portion of his salary it is necessary to pay. It’s a “cut-one’s-losses” scenario.

Then, Chelsea can proceed to obtain another talented and more reasonably priced alternative, although perhaps not quite at the level of Oblak. A keeper like either Andre Onana of Ajax or Dean Henderson on loan at Sheffield from Manchester United would certainly be a fine alternative for Chelsea.