OhForAGreavsie

Thanks I'll get to see that soon then.

Deleted. Comment already addressed.

But do we know that Chelsea were not after Sanchez two months ago? Not getting is not the same as not wanting.

I don't think your assessment of the player is right, but you sound like you know more about him than I do so it would be stupid of me to to challenge your opinion. Thing is, even if you are right, it's a reasonable guess that the club don't think so. Surely if they buy him it will be with the expectation that he will be able to contribute, and not just as a money saving option. If that was the case, if the aim is just to save money, why buy him at all? If the club shared your view that we have equally good players already, then they'd just lob the cash back into the bank wouldn't they? What better way to save money than that?

Very, very slim chance they'll get a ban in my opinion. FIFA & The FA signed off on the deal in the first place, so they clearly thought City's actions were in order. Then they turned down an appeal from the South American club. That means they heard the argument made by the club, presumably investigated, and then ruled in City's favour. After all of that it would seem a bit harsh for the world governing body to turn around and issue a ban and it would have to be FIFA who impose the ban, CAS has no power to do it. The transfer in question concerned a 16 year old kind. As we know players under 18 are not allowed to be transferred internationally unless their family move countries for non-footballing reasons. The only exception is within the EU where EU laws say European citizens are entitled to work in any EU country. And this is where the controversy comes in. The lads family moved to Europe shortly before his 16th birthday where he acquired an Italian passport a few days later so facilitating the move to City. FIFA should have been aware of all of this, so the fact that they waived the transfer through makes hard to see how they can do a u-turn now. Even if CAS find against City, I think the most likely outcome is a fine, not a ban, and financial compensation for the lad's original club. I think it'll be that way not least because I'm sure that's what the South Americans want.A ban for City, and a return of the player's registration is no good to them. They can't force the lad to sign a cntract with them, and if he doesn't he can just walk out of the club anyway. They would not be able to transfer him and profit in that way.

The have relatively new owners with deeper pockets than previous owner Bill Kenwright. They are also a Premier League club. There's a lot of money about in this league.

Gaz & Dave were signed in 2012. The transfer fee in each case was reported to be £7m. In 2012 CFC turnover was £227.3m. In 2016 it was £329.1m. That is roughly a 45% increase. Our turnover will be higher again in 2017. Let's be aggressively ambitious and estimate it at £400m. Roughly speaking that would represent a 76% increase over the 2012 figure. If we add together the two fees paid for Gaz & Dave, then inflate that figure by 76% it comes to much less than £25m. Football finances have changed drastically over the past 5 years, but not as drastically as transfer fees. To be fair you said 'economics', not 'finances' and that is a different thing but I suggest that economics has gone right out of the window and madness has set in.

Good. If Charly really wants to go on tour then I'm glad. In my opinion Charly showed nothing at Betis which suggests that he'll contribute for Chelsea but there's talent there so I want to see him get some tour minutes. If things fall into place, that's a big win for Charly and for the club. If not, little has been lost. Yes, he may have missed the chance to play a Champions League qualifier, but preferring to go on tour with The Blues makes perfect sense to me.

Duplicate

Have to say Marcos didn't surprise me. Rudi on the other hand I don't know anything about but I'm fully on board with everyone who says give that lad a go. I think we will too. After all, people gave Marcos time to win them over so I see no reason why that won't happen again.

He might mean it in the 'I don't know' sense.

Even if there's a story here surely it's an old one. There was stuff in the media a month or more ago about Antonio preferring Belotti, while the club wanted Rom. It was said that they had agreed to target the Everton man and that the manager was on board with that. 'On board' does not necessarily mean happy but at least it was settled. As for the boss preferring Belotti over Rom, it's hardly surprising. After all, Antonio has two eyes and he's heard of football before. I've felt all along that the push for Rom is more about someone trying to justify the original signing, than a cold, hard assessment of the team's needs now. That's assuming the chase is real; remember that after all the fuss last summer, Everton revealed our interest never got as far as actually making an offer. Sadly there is an air of inevitability about it this time. Oh well, at least this isn't going to be a Nandonian car crash. Rom can do stuff, but we should be more ambitious when spending this kind of money.

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.