The Board

[Costa19 846]

1 hour ago, Vybzkartel said:

This scatter gun approach to our transfer business is the reason we need a DoF. There is no long term planning at all. Club is getting rid of all the Deadwood players and Marina replacing them with foreign players which only creates a potential problem. Marina is how we ended up with 40 million Drinkwater after fucking off Chalobah

Now i think you got it right! 

[Magic Lamps 11,449]

i think we now are at a point were we have to see the ugly truth in the eye. We have an incompetent board, an average manager, an average squad and we are surely not gonna win a CL or PL title in the next few years with or without transfer ban. We previously had a worldclass squad or later manager who could paper over the cracks by winning big titles but that blinded us for the absolute cluelessness of the board and allowed econcimically inferior clubs like Spurs and Liverpool to surpass us. I don't wanna be kneejerk but this club is heading into mediocrity and i dont think we have anybody who can stop that. there are still a few great players who will ensure we win the odd FA Cup /EL title every once in a while and  a great fanbase but the most important pillars of this great club are now corrupted with weakness and incompetence so until there is a change of ownership I don't think there will be a change. 

[Laylabelle 9,296]

They can't think this is fine and dandy. Still so many games to go and we've going backwards. If they don't see what we see it's all screwed. 

[Vesper 27,310]

The board appears to have lost a vast amount of control of the club.

I will add in the Pulisic deal to the CHO and Eden disasters, and the possible crack-up of the Barella deal.

The OFFICIAL story on Pulisic is that Marina has been working on this for well over a YEAR to a YEAR AND A HALF. If it takes them well over a year or a year and half to sign a bloody 19 year old (now 20) for 60 MILLION QUID, a 20 year old who has but 15 goals in 115 senior games (only TEN in the league) and who has been benched BY AN 18 YEAR OLD, then they obviously are not functional in any of the remotest meaning of that term. The only thing that bint cares about is his yank marketing potential, insomuch that he can sell a shit tonne of shirts across the pond.

Our owner cant even come to games due to his cocked up visa disapproval by a fucking government who is on the verge of crashing the county into the abyss of a No Deal Brexit. The same owner who is now target number one of a Western led global effort to shut him down over ties to Putin.

The club needs to be sold.

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

Do something...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Vybzkartel 284]

People often criticize the board but fail to praise the excellent work they are doing on the business side of things. Look at Arsenal right now they can barely make a signing and have a high wage bill with aging players on big contracts who will be hard to move. For all the criticisms of the board for introducing the 1 year contract for over 30 year olds I am happy they did. You don't want to be stuck with an aging player on a big contract that is hard to shift. I can see why Marina has said no to some of the older players we have targeted. Imagine if we had given Giroud a 5 year contract when we signed him. Its only a year in and we all know his not good enough for us. Now imagine if we spend the fees Higuain commands and he becomes a flop. No team will even take him. At least taking a punt on a younger player like Morata works because there is always resale value even at a loss. Look at how many teams are interested in Morata at the moment even after he has been terrible for over a year. 

[kc_blue 265]

There is something to be said for the 1 year contracts for players over 30 but there's also downsides as well.  I tend to think it should be more of a guideline rather then a hard and fast rule.  You most certainly don't want to get stuck with someone over the hill on a huge contract and unable to move them but that just takes a bit of common sense in the contract you offered them in the first place.  I don't think people are clamoring to sign Cesc or Luiz, as examples,  to 5 year first team pay packets.  Or even 3 year deals.  Without getting into specific players it's hard to address though.  Maybe 1 year deals with a mutual option for a second year or something along those lines would work better.

 

It doesn't make sense to sign any 30+ year old on a big transfer fee because of FFP and amortization.  It's just to costly on the bottom line.  

 

As far as Morata having teams interested as opposed to what happens if Higuaín flops, at the right price plenty of teams will be interested.  It's just that the prices they are interested at probably don't interest our board.  The prices being talked about for Morata aren't anywhere near what we paid for him.  Still better then nothing.

[Vybzkartel 284]

3 minutes ago, kc_blue said:

There is something to be said for the 1 year contracts for players over 30 but there's also downsides as well.  I tend to think it should be more of a guideline rather then a hard and fast rule.  You most certainly don't want to get stuck with someone over the hill on a huge contract and unable to move them but that just takes a bit of common sense in the contract you offered them in the first place.  I don't think people are clamoring to sign Cesc or Luiz, as examples,  to 5 year first team pay packets.  Or even 3 year deals.  Without getting into specific players it's hard to address though.  Maybe 1 year deals with a mutual option for a second year or something along those lines would work better.

 

It doesn't make sense to sign any 30+ year old on a big transfer fee because of FFP and amortization.  It's just to costly on the bottom line.  

 

As far as Morata having teams interested as opposed to what happens if Higuaín flops, at the right price plenty of teams will be interested.  It's just that the prices they are interested at probably don't interest our board.  The prices being talked about for Morata aren't anywhere near what we paid for him.  Still better then nothing.

Its easier to just put a hard line over it otherwise agents will always look to manipulate it. If  an existing player is good enough at 28 then offer him a 5 year contract to protect him for 3 years into his 30s then from there on 1 year deals. Thats what the board has been doing

[kc_blue 265]

You are probably right overall.  Think a smart player or agent could abuse that just as well though.  Hell if I was Hazard and I signed this new contract don't think I'd sign for any thing less then 6 years.  

[Unionjack 7,531]

3 minutes ago, kc_blue said:

You are probably right overall.  Think a smart player or agent could abuse that just as well though.  Hell if I was Hazard and I signed this new contract don't think I'd sign for any thing less then 6 years.  

IF he had any sense he would sign it.

He would get a higher salary for the time he was here but still leave when he wanted.

Contracts with players aren't worth the paper they are written on now.

[kc_blue 265]

5 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Contracts with players aren't worth the paper they are written on now.

Sometimes it feels like the only thing they are worth is to push up transfer fees.

[mccg 1,528]

Chelsea boss Maurizio Sarri ‘made to look a fool’ by transfer guru Marina Granovskaia

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1070336/Chelsea-transfer-news-Maurizio-Sarri-fool-Marina-Granovskaia

[Unionjack 7,531]

6 minutes ago, mccg said:

Chelsea boss Maurizio Sarri ‘made to look a fool’ by transfer guru Marina Granovskaia

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1070336/Chelsea-transfer-news-Maurizio-Sarri-fool-Marina-Granovskaia

She really does need to go.

Right now if she bought Icardi for £20mill I'd still want her out.

[Unionjack 7,531]

15 hours ago, kc_blue said:

You are probably right overall.  Think a smart player or agent could abuse that just as well though.  Hell if I was Hazard and I signed this new contract don't think I'd sign for any thing less then 6 years.  

I dont mind the 1 year contract. It does keep a player on his toes and keep fit. IF the player was confident in himself he would accept the challenge IMO.

But its when we are keeping the Emoji king instead of selling his arse AND taking a player then I call that plain stupidity and bad business. And she calls herself a business woman. Shes a pain in the clubs arse!

[mccg 1,528]

2 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

She really does need to go.

Right now if she bought Icardi for £20mill I'd still want her out.

I think this role at the club would suit....

she did specialise in music and dance as a student afterall. True.

 

[Unionjack 7,531]

Just now, mccg said:

I think this role at the club would suit....

she did specialise in music and dance as a student afterall. True.

 

Sorry but I wouldn't keep her as  Brdget even!

[mccg 1,528]

Just now, Unionjack said:

Sorry but I wouldn't keep her as  Brdget even!

Wow harsh man harsh 

[Unionjack 7,531]

6 minutes ago, mccg said:

Wow harsh man harsh 

Not harsh enough bud.

All this time shes been thinking shes saved us money. With all her yes men surrounding her kissing her arse telling her what a great job shes doing so they can keep in with Roman.

She just sees the bottom line when she buys a cheaper player optionl but all it does is make us weaker. Which loses us much more in the long run.

I love Roman for what he did for us I truly do but she is Romans mouth,ears,head and balls and needs to sod off.