OF ALL THE deals during the Premier League’s €4 billion window, Morgan Rogers’ move from Aston Villa to Chelsea illustrates more than any other the divergence in thinking when it comes to transfers among certain clubs.

Or, rather, “trading” as that is the phrase increasingly doing the rounds in the transfer war rooms on deadline day filled with sporting directors, technical directors, analysts, recruitment teams, lawyers, administration staff, and more often than not a billionaire owner who will just overrule everyone anyway.

It’s not just because the €136 million deal for Rogers set a British record one day after Manchester City splurged €135m on Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest.

No, Rogers’ arrival at Stamford Bridge gets to the core of how Chelsea do business, sourcing talent they hope can become stars but are also aware can be stockpiled to supply the increasingly wealthy tier of clubs adjacent, below, or even above them.

An increasing number of clubs are now following suit in what one source described as “a Wall Street model” like disciples to a holy cause.

For Villa, they will get the full amount for Rogers on their books as income for this year. Chelsea’s outlay on the fee and wages can be spread over across their books over the next five years.

Not everyone is on board this gleeful merry-go-round approach. Chelsea visit Arsenal today and the Premier League champions aren’t quite embracing the trading market in the same way that the likes of City, Villa, Tottenham Hotspur and Nottingham Forest have done so.

Both London rivals wanted to sign Rogers this summer. Mikel Arteta’s side didn’t want to budge much from a value in the region of €75m and then Chelsea, driven by co-owner Behdad Eghbali, simply chose to take their bid stratospheric to make the trade happen and blow the Gunners out of the water.

But how can two clubs in the same division have such a wild gulf in valuation, not to mention a willingness on one side to wilfully overpay? As well as the financial side, at the heart of it, new Chelsea boss Xabi Alonso feels Rogers will make his team better, stronger and more robust.

So far it has been their thrilling attacking player that has caught the eye with seven goals scored in two wins from two games.

Conceding twice against Fulham and three at home to Brighton did not go down well with Alonso, and it didn’t take long for word to filter out of the dressing room at Stamford Bridge that the Spaniard made it crystal clear that winning in such a manner was unsustainable if they are to deliver the kind of success that is expected.

Even without Europe challenging for the Premier League title feels beyond this team.

There will be no greater test of the traits Alonso wants to see in his players than at the home of Arsenal today, and Rogers’ performance is only one curious subplot to a game that says so much about the different ways of doing business in the Premier League.

More than €2bn of the summer transfer spending remained inside the division.

See Enzo Fernandez joining City for almost €135m, the highest fee received by Chelsea among their staggering 39 exits – sorry, trades – this summer.

Once it became apparent that Real Madrid didn’t want Fernandez, Atlético Madrid liked him but couldn’t afford him, and that Barcelona, Bayern Munich and European champions Paris Saint-Germain simply weren’t interested, it was effectively City left at the table.

One view of this willingness to trade among each other is that clubs want tried and trusted performers to minimise as much risk as possible. Another far more compelling explanation was put forward by sources both in England and in Europe. “English clubs have the money,” one said. “And they will pay more than anyone else.”

Sometimes the most obvious reason for a bubble to appear is the simplest. The Independent in London reported earlier this week about growing concerns among executives regarding the use of private credit to fund much of this spending.

“It can feel like Monopoly,” one source added. “Some of these owners now, it’s not their money,” another said. “In Europe you deal with clubs, and they have to be smarter to make money, in England they don’t, it’s the goose with the golden egg.

“They’re so rich and they’re using football for their own fun, to enjoy themselves and get a thrill out of something.”

Another major difference between the Chelsea and Arsenal approaches to trading can be summed up by the fact that the latter’s club record sale took place when Gabriel Martinelli left for Saudi Arabia in a deal worth around €65m.

Not a bad fee, yet consider how Liam Delap was offloaded by Chelsea to Forest after one underwhelming season for around €55m. Granted they had the Anderson money, but that wasn’t the only reason Forest were prepared to blow the likes of Everton, Newcastle and Leeds out of the water to get the striker.

“The perception of that fee is different to the [Forest] owner than to other people,” a source said.

Delap was bought by Chelsea in 2025 because of a €30m release clause that also enticed Liverpool to meet him. Manchester United were also in the mix but Chelsea won the race. In September of that season England boss Thomas Tuchel was also ready to bring him into the next international squad with the World Cup coming over the horizon.

Then Delap tore his hamstring and his season unravelled. His value, though, didn’t plummet, not just because of the length of the contract at Stamford Bridge but because of the willingness of Forest to get involved in the trading market and assume the risk and reward that comes with it.

These are the trades that are now the norm. Delap will be offloaded in a year if he flops again and the hit on the books will have to be offset. Or he finds scoring form and Forest can go back to the market looking like some of the smartest guys in the room.