OhForAGreavsie

Well, let's not forget that 61% voted in favour of selling their shares to the club in 2011 and did so in full expectation that this would eventually lead to the club relocating. Granted we're now talking about moving further away from SB than was imagined at the time, but the size of that vote suggests people could be open to persuasion if a good case is made.

I'd be in favour of that too. I'd love the club to have the room, and the planning permission, to build a prestige stadium which excites fans and players alike. I get the feeling that whatever we do at The Bridge would be no better than a serious compromise. Out in the Kingston area transport is already good with rail links, many bus routes and the A3 & A24 linking with each other as well as with the M25. There might also be the opportunity for the club to build a dedicated branch extension of the tram service which currently runs between Wimbledon and Croydon. Lot's of political support for the Greens in that area and they'd probably love stuff like that. One question in my mind though, is there really the room out there for building? I thought the restrictions were quite tight there too.

Willian is, in my opinion, an automatic first choice selection whenever Jose picks our strongest XI. Even so, he simply is not as effective, or as efficient, in possession as is required if we are to become the team we want to be. He is currently our best option but we could, and should, do better. As for your earlier question asking, "...where's the justification for getting the check book out", I'd rephrase it a bit and answer that the justification for needing to strengthen the squad is right there on the pitch and that to see it, all we need do is watch. Just an opinion of course.

Not to mention that Real's turnover is pretty much half a billion a year. That's half a billion pounds not euros.

I'd much prefer the club to put its faith in Ruben Loftus-Cheek, and work to build his future, rather than chase Tielmans. I'm the first to admit that RLC needs a lot of polishing but it can be done. Talent wise, Ruben is, in my opinion, the better of the two. We've just got to help him learn to express that talent more effectively and more consistently. I want to see every ounce of effort put into developing RLC before we consider signing an alternative. If we were talking about a first team ready option then that might be a tougher choice but Tielmans is not first team ready in my opinion, he's a project and I'd rather stick with the project we already have.

I'm sure it'll be full. I imagine they'll bring 6,000.

Don't remember ever having seen this lad play so I've no idea of his quality. Whenever I read about a player saying stuff like this however, I think it's agent penned code for nobody good wants me/rates me highly enough to pay a decent fee/decent wage so I'm pretending that where I am is exactly where I want to be anyway.

T Hazard played competitively for the 21s right at the start of the 2012/13 season. I watched the game and remember commenting on being impressed by him. He was gone shortly afterward.

Or even Falcao for that matter.

That piece contains a passage which is potentially misleading: - "Basically, any investment in a youth academy can be excluded from the FFP break-even calculation, while profits made from player sales are included in the analysis. Furthermore, if the players are loaned, then most of the wages are covered by the loanee clubs." Read carefully, the passage is accurate, as we'd expect, but read casually, it might be possible to infer that money spent on signing youth players does not count against FFP when in fact it does. Any transfer fees, agents' fees and scouting costs involved in recruiting young players are included in the FFP calculation.

Torres, thank goodness, is very much the past and I have no hopes that Falcao will be the future so maybe I don't have any business posting in this thread but... I maintain that Torres has always been technically limited. While you and I clearly disagree about that, we would probably agree that one, or even fifty, examples where some piece of skill or other is successfully executed does not disprove an opinion formed by watching a player over 90 minutes on many occasions. The question therefore is whether or not that clip gives an accurate impression of Torres the player. I say it does not. Danny Murphy tells a story of taking knowledgeable friends to watch Torres play for Liverpool. He says they would all comment on how much was lacking from the striker's game and that they found those limitations far more noticeable than the positive qualities he had. It is only opinion of course but I say Murphy's friends were right. I heard Murphy say that on the radio but here is another quotefrom him. "I remember when he was doing well at Liverpool talking to a couple of the lads there and they were a bit negative about his technical ability and what he didn’t have, rather than what he did have, which was pace and power. But the rest of his game has never been perfect, far from it, in fact. There was a spell at Liverpool when he was unplayable because of his power and his pace, but once he lost that and his confidence went he became reliant on his technical ability, which he’s not very good at – his hold up play, his passing, his decision making, which is terrible." For me, all this is true and was easy to spot. I was furious the morning I woke up and found that we had signed Torres. What followed was inevitable in my opinion.

I'd say compensated for Torres's lack of ability rather than hid it. The shortcomings were there to be seen, and some of us said so. Falcao is clearly more gifted than Torres but I wouldn't want us to sign him. Most of us would agree, wouldn't we, that our squad needs bolstering in other areas first and that the cost of acquiring Falcao is way out of sync with our need for him.

True enough.

Ancelotti quoted as saying Varane going nowhere. Of course that's what they usually say but all logic suggests this must be the truth.

These days of yore. Pure poetry, like your style!

Having spent 18 months or so screaming that we should sign this player, I'm suddenly developing cold feet. I did not see all of Reus's performances between his return and most recent injury setback but he was far from sharp in those I did see. If my assessment that he was off the pace is correct there could be many perfectly reasonable explanations for a lack of sharpness when a player returns after such a long lay off. Especially when he's coming into a struggling side. Still, I have to admit that what I saw was worrying enough to make me wonder if the injuries have cost him something.

Yep not a place of happy memories for a German Chelsea fan. Still, after Belo Horizonte, maybe the memories of Yokohama have been soothed just a little bit.

As has been said, Oscar has had many, many games which are below the required standard. It would not be correct for anyone to say that he is the worst ten in the business but I don't believe anyone is saying that. The opinion I and others are expressing is that he is not good enough for the level Chelsea hope to achieve. Finding a ten who is good enough will improve us in the same way we were improved by the upgrade from Mikel to Matic.

I hope they were late!

I thought there were a few errors Barbara. I don't remember any well enough to describe them but I do remember noticing as they happened. In fact at one point my summary would have been that Luis was not having a good game, but he picked up.

He certainly did enough to earn another start.

There is no doubt in my mind that Oscar is currently the best option we have for his position. That however is a problem we must solve.

Hello Robguima, Got to say I'm with didierforever on this. My view is that Oscar is not good enough for a club with our ambitions full stop, but he was especially horrible in the first half. During that period it seemed to me that virtually nothing he tried to do came off. I don't think however that today has much relevance to the debate about Oscar's future. Everybody has bad days. Today was Oscar's turn for a really bad one, that's all. The real discussion about Oscar reminds me of the Mikel conversations that used to go on. People argued back and forth about Mikel's worth and there were accusations that his doubters didn't notice all of his ugly but vital contributions. Those conversations more or less stopped when Matic returned and showed up Mikel's limitations for what they are. For me it is urgent that we upgrade Oscar. When we get a genuinely good 'ten' that fit's Jose's system, I think it will be even more clear that Oscar has not been contributing enough when he is in possession. I also don't see that he is bound to improve. In fact I'd say that he is bound not to improve but time will tell so no sense arguing it either way I guess. Lastly there are stats in this thread highlighting Oscar's defensive contribution but let's not forget that a significant portion of the defending we needed to do today flowed from Oscar's appalling play. Granted he was better in the second half but his overall grade would still be very, very low in my opinion. To be the player we need Oscar's grade should be consistently very high. It isn't.

Thank you for your good wishes.

If I was elsewhere and I found something with which I wanted to take issue I'd have done so but this is where I am and your post is what I read. Having done that, I took issue with what you seem either to find funny or a matter for levity. Meanwhile, how could I be responsible for what you do? I'm afraid you have to bear that burden yourself.