OhForAGreavsie

It was always clear that we'd need major reinforcements, but it's a heck of a challenge to achieve that number of additions in a single window. This is why l was frustrated that we were not able to make a start by getting one or two in January. Not only is there the difficulty of identifying and attracting the right players, but, with clubs now more ambitious than ever in the fees they demand, the cost is approaching unsustainable levels. I know people love to add up the income streams and announce that we can afford to spend zillions in the market, but those hopes don't take proper account of the club's costs. For example, our wage bill alone is way more than the record TV money and the new kit deal added together. And that's before we consider big impending pay rises for Eden, Thibaut and Antonio. Top up the wage bill with those amounts and bang goes the Yokohama money too. Signing seven big players is unlikely to be achieved at a net cost of less than £250m. Amortised over an average contract length of four years, that'll cost £62.5m a year. Can that be afforded on top of existing amortisations? Maybe, but it's very tight. Marina's got a tough summer ahead and all she's going to get from the know everythings is stick.

The question with such quotes always has to be, is this merely an opinion based on the same rumours we've all seen or is it passing on actual information the speaker has received.

Ah well, if Bayern want him, he'll run down his contract then join them on a free. That's what the better players in Germany seem to do.

That would depend on some things. To start with I'd have to believe that Juve have named a price, and I don't believe that for one minute. If this was the 29th August then maybe, but it's 29th June. Naming a price at this stage, and thereby putting a ceiling on any subsequent bids you might receive, would be amateur hour. Juve have shown themselves to be anything but amateurs. Deciding to accept an offer is one thing but turning it down, then limiting how big the next one will be, is foolish. Next. if the club is refusing to bid more than a given amount, I would have to know why before I could form an opinion. Since I am never going to know the real reason, I can only decide based on a general view of the club and its owner. I believe Roman continues to demonstrate his ambition for this club. If, that's if, he is adhering to strict budgets in the transfer market then there is a reason for it. A reason I suspect I would agree with, if I knew what it is. My feeling if Sandro settled as a solid contributor at City? That would depend on how well we do over the same period. I regret that Carlo decided against Aguero when the Argentine was offered to Chelsea, but we've won more than he has since. We can't know where the road not traveled might have taken us, but the one we did take turned out OK. In short I reckon we'll all get over losing Sandro if it comes to it.

I'm a huge Marcos Alonso fan. I was delighted when he was signed and believed he would help us. I believed that because I recognised that he had attributes we needed. The thing is, Sandro has those same attributes and more. Antonio is completely correct, we must assesses the needs of the squad in a level headed and honest way. If we can do this deal then we absolutely should. My dream is we get Sandro, or an alternative upgrade, and persuade Marcos to remain as a crucial member of the squad.

This is unfair and wrong. The bloke is no moron. The club seems to trust him enough to allow him more access than they would normally give to fans. ChelseaYouth uses that access to keep us updated with happenings in the academy. His output is must read as far as I'm concerned although it's true that he takes a certain outlook. It seems to me he plays the role of a sort of public champion for the young lads. An example of this happened when he and I had a disagreement while watching a youth team game at Stamford Bridge. It was the first, and last, time I saw a lad called Dean Furman play. I quickly commented that Dean had no future at Chelsea because, I said, "His mechanics were all wrong". ChelseaYouth bristled and, defending the player, pointed out that Dean was attracting interest from both Old Firm clubs. I predicted that he wouldn't make it there either. I was right, Dean subsequently failed at Rangers, but here's the thing; I don't really think ChelseaYouth disagreed with me. I think he just felt, and feels, a deep interest in the youngsters. He wishes them well and wants to be supportive of them at all times. It's an admirable outlook. I certainly admire him for it.

I have said before that I'd rather pay £80m for Belotti, than £60m for Lukaku but a possible scenario here is that this story has emerged for tactical reasons. Perhaps we've asked someone to leak this, or maybe we've really approached Torino, but only in an effort to keep Everton more realistic in their negotiations. I hope that's not what this is about, but it's possible.

Exactly.

Tammy's Just put England 2-1 up in the U21 Euros semi-final against Germany. Early second half.

He even looks terrible in his highlight videos.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631/saison_id/2017 You'll have to set the options according to what transfers from what seasons you want to see.

There was a story yesterday of Juve reviving their interest. That 'news' brought a mischievous idea to mind. What if the only truth here is United's denial that they had a agreed a deal with Nemanja? What if the real story is that Nemanja is planned to be a part of any business we do with the old lady? What if Juve are not valuing Nemanja as highly as we are? What if tales of United's interest are designed to get the Italian champions to be more realistic about the Serb's value in any deal? Lot's of questions; one pure guess.

Hello Iggy, You made a brilliant point. Players have been unhappy to be left out, naturally, but who has whinged? No one to my recollection. Don't agree with you about Winston Bogarde however. Bates & Hutchinson treated him badly. They shamefully vilified and scapegoated him for something that was entirely their own fault. Bogarde was lured to the club by the offer of a contract that clearly overpriced his value to the team. That contract employed him be a professional footballer, with all that entails; train right, eat right and play to the best of his ability whenever selected. Winston did all of that. He kept his side of the bargain. He was entitled to expect Chelsea to keep theirs. The problem, of course, is that Winston's abilities were not good enough. That, quite openly, was the opinion of Luca Vialli, yet our Chairman & CEO proceeded with the deal. I think the plan was to bring him in on a free, then sell him on at a profit. They could see choppy financial waters ahead so, tempted by the lure of a quick and easy profit, they gambled. Unfortunately they shot themselves in the foot by offering too big a pay packet to a player who simply wasn't worth it. Luca knew it, all the clubs to whom our leaders would later try to palm off Bogarde knew it, even you and I knew it. Ken did some things for which Chelsea fans should respect him, but his treatment of Winston Bogarde was dishonourable and he should apologise. It's by no means the only mea culpa he owes but he has form, so we know he won't be paying up any time soon.

That's why BT pay him by the lorry load.

OK well, assuming we're signing him, that can only be good news.

I deliberately excluded the winter window and focused only on 'new' money, but if we're including January then we have to add Patrick Bamford's fee to the pile.

Most people put Macello ahead of Sandro but I'd have Alaba right up there with the Madrid man.

We've already brought in around £33m from player sales this summer with, another £37 million reportedly lined up for the transfers of Traore & Ake. Then there will be the tribunal set fee for Dom Solanke, probably in the region of £5m-£8m, potential departures of Diego & Nemanja, plus more members of the loan army want moves. All of this should help meet the amortisation schedule of some heavy spending.

The claim he's better value.

Don't you love it when a transfer rumour makes you laugh?

I'm still hoping not, but that could be a good explanation of the drop off in stories about this deal. It is a drop off though, not a silence. There are a few bits around most days. I keep I hoping to read Chelsea end Rom chase in some headline.

Is it possible that they want to secure him to a longer term contract before they decide to install him as their starter and pass on Dalbert? It's reasonable for them to think that if he's not committed to the club they'd be better off going for someone else. Similar to the Petr Cech/Thibaut Courtois situation. I was always in favour of going with the younger man, and not just because of his age, but I also believed that we should only make that decision is the Belgian signed a new deal first.

The rule doesn't prevent managers doing that before completing the deal. It only prevents them doing it before they have the selling club's agreement.

Or they're perfectly happy to take the money but are trying to disguise that fact because they want to ensure that any negative fan reaction is aimed at the player, not them.

This question presupposes that the media know everything and publish everything they know. Not sure if that is true.