Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

About Panic

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/14/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Favourite Chelsea Player Eden Hazard

Recent Profile Visitors

1,687 profile views
  1. Kai Havertz

    Bayer Leverkusen aren't in a position where they can tell Chelsea to pay 100m or fuck off. The player has 2 years left on his deal, and he will not be signing an extension. We can use the same logic the opposite way. If Leverkusen will sell him for 100m, why woudn't they accept a bid of 90m? The player is going to leave anyways, it's just a matter of when not if. The reality is that this transfer is more complex than you are making it out to be. We don't know how Leverkusen are evaluating the situation they are in and the same applies to Chelsea.
  2. Chelsea Transfer Pub

    I have read a few of your posts outside of the ones I replied to. I can somewhat understand why you believe I was just repeating points you already made. Allow me to try to clarify my points in a more concise and comprehensible way. 1. I believe that a "US style budget cap" requires revenue sharing. We both agree that revenue sharing is not very likely or possible, hence I do believe you should not refer to a budget cap as "US style" if you're not proposing revenue sharing. 2. A salary/budget cap that allows clubs to " spend up to the cap figure, as long as it can do so without falling into unsustainable debt." Is substantively no different from current FFP rules. This is because current FFP rules are more strict than a salary/budget cap and will prevent the vast majority of clubs from spending more money before a salary/budget cap does.(Unless you are advocating for creating a cap well below what the top clubs are currently spending.) In other words, a salary cap only prevents the top clubs from spending more. FFP prevents clubs from unsustainable debt. 3. The conclusion then is that you can't fairly bridge the gap between the less successful and more successful clubs without revenue sharing. Clubs will either never be able to compete, or we will regularly see clubs ruined when an ambitious owner comes in and spends beyond the clubs means.
  3. Chelsea Transfer Pub

    I should probably clarify my point. I consider revenue sharing to be an integral part of the US style salary cap. So a salary cap is just FFP imo. I don't think FFP is the only thing that is stopping a club like Walsall from competing. With a salary cap, Jeff Bezos could buy Walsall and spend multiple billions to improve the club. But he never would. Why? He would never see a return on his investment as Walsall isn't a big enough market. Look at Chelsea, P.S.G, and Man City. All are worth well over a billion dollars. If Abramovich were to sell Chelsea today, he would probably make over double on what he invested. Walsall would never provide such a return. Walsall is such an obvious example that almost no one with any business sense would ever try to create a footballing powerhouse out of that club. So what about the less obvious clubs? What happens to Newcastle if they have an owner who comes in and invests £500million, doesn't see results, and decides to give up? The club would be financially ruined. This is who FFP is supposed to protect. A salary cap without revenue sharing doesn't make sense imo. I do agree that full revenue sharing doesn't make sense for football. But even within a division there are too many complications. Clubs have a huge incentive to push back against truly fair FFP because of relegation, for example.
  4. Chelsea Transfer Pub

    What sports are you referring to? If you are referring to the NFL or NBA then all teams would have an equal amount of money to spend on salary. For example, each NFL team had $198.2 million to spend in the 19/20 season. They don't have to spend this, but they don't get to keep the unspent cash(This is because of revenue sharing). There are some more details, but the NFL cap allows the "poor" teams to match the spending of the rich teams. Under an NFL style salary cap, Walsall FC could financially match Barcelona.
  5. Chelsea 1-2 Man Utd

  6. Ajax 0-1 Chelsea

    The problem with your suggestion is that what is "obvious" can vary. Two people can look at the same real-time footage and come to a different conclusion. As a result, frame by frame analysis is needed to bring precision, which results in less variation in calls. I would also like you to consider two scenarios. In the first, a player is standing 20cm offside; we can determine this to be offside without using a frame by frame analysis. Perfect. Now let's consider a scenario where a player is sprinting to make a run behind the defense.It is reasonable for a sprinting player run 20cm offside, the same distance as the static attacker, yet you would need to look frame by frame to determine whether he is offside. In both scenarios we have players offside by the same margin yet different calls would be made. Is this a desirable outcome? I don't think so, maybe you do? In my opinion, the most compelling argument against VAR is that the margin of error can by quite high because of how quickly players move. If a player is running at full sprint they can cover ~40cm in between frames. There are various factors that can decrease or increase this margin of error, such as a having a moving attacker vs a static defender, or a moving attacker and moving defender, etc. If you change the way VAR works, it needs to be done by including margin of errors, if we can accurately determine them.
  7. Ajax 0-1 Chelsea

    What exactly is a clear and obvious offside call, though? How many centimeters can the attacker stray away from the last defender? If you don't come up with a concrete limit, then you leave offside decisions open to interpretation which would see a huge variation in what is allowed or disallowed. That would not be good for the game.
  8. The English Football Thread

    If we're being fair, Mou brought in a lot of the garbage they have. United spent €466million on players under Mou and he got almost everything he wanted, outside of a CB during his disastrous last season(they already purchased 2 CBs for Mou). In fact, Mou was so confident in his squad that he stated they could compete for the title his first year there, something he didn't believe we could do during his first season in his second spell with us.
  9. 19. Mason Mount

    Would you say that he doesn't trust Pedro had he gone with Pulisic instead? We can't come to that conclusion based on the single statement he made. His statement only implies that Pedro's massive experience in the CL gave him the edge. We cannot say Lampard didn't trust Pulisic to put in a satisfactory performance.
  10. 19. Mason Mount

    This is why I said best team possible. Factors such as form and and managing match fitness are somewhat implied. This was to keep the post brief.
  11. 19. Mason Mount

    But it's not. Lampard's job is to play the best team possible for any given match. Who plays will be influenced by a variety of factors, but it's pretty safe to assume that individual skill plays a huge role in Lampard's decision making. In the case of Mount, it appears that Lampard believes that Mount is the best player available. The result? Mount plays. Now let's consider the case of Pedro or Pulisic replacing an injured Mount. If Lampard believes that Pulsic and Pedro are equal in ability, he has to use another factor to make his decision. In this scenario, it was experience.
  12. 19. Mason Mount

    Lampard's reasoning in this scenario isn't necessarily contradictory. In the case of Mount and Abraham, he clearly believes they are better players than the alternatives. With Tomori, there isn't another fit CB to play in his position. If Lampard believes Pulisic and Pedro are both equally good, then it would make sense to go with the more experienced player.
  13. 17. Mateo Kovacic

    Football is growing quite a bit in the states. Any day that I wear a Chelsea shirt, there will be 4-5 random people who acknowledge it. If the sport continues to grow here, the Premier League is going to see even more money go into the league!
  14. Jan Oblak

    Absolute nonsense. 1. Buying a keeper based on their ability to save penalties is absolute nonsense. 2. Jan Oblak has a better penalty save percentage than David de Gea, Manuel Neuer, Thibaut Courtois,Keylor Navas, Gianluigi Buffon, ter-Stegen and Alison. Here is the data(from transfermarkt.co.uk) on how many penalties each goalkeeper has saved and how many they have faced. Jan Oblak 12/33=36% Manuel Neuer 18/52=34% Keylor Navas 14/42=33% Gianluigi Buffon 31/101=30% Alisson 4/14=28% David de Gea 11/44=25% ter-Stegen 9/37=24% Thibaut Courtois 5/31=16% So I guess none of those keepers would be good enough, eh?
  15. Michy Batshuayi

    If the club evaluate him at a higher level, then either Morata or Giroud should go, as one of them is not going to get game time. This is the main reason why I find the striker position so puzzling. From a business perspective, the club is going to suffer from keeping all 3 at the club. I'm not convinced by Morata either, but in his time here, he has shown glimpses of talent. With Batshuayi, he has demonstrated an inability to contribute to the team in any meaningful way. Batshuayi has a very weak hold up game, poor movement, and is extremely selfish. He does have talent, but he is a very raw player and needs games to put it together. This part of your post is extremely confusing. From what I have seen from Higuain and Mertens, neither can be accurately described as poachers in their time with Sarri. In addition, every analysis video that I have watched indicates that Sarri's strikers are much more than poachers. If you have any videos, or something else that supports this statement, please feel free set me straight. I can agree with most of this statement. I'm hoping Morata finds confidence and adapts to the physicality of the league, because if he does, he can be a good striker for us.