Vesper

We have zero ruthless fox in the box finishers it's just so frustrating

I was just going to type that

DDF should have started

should have been a corner, ffs

damn, so close by Thiago

2022-23 English Premier League Chelsea Crystal Palace https://www.sportfacts.net/sports/2023/premier-league-Chelsea-vs-crystal-palace-s2/ https://www.vipleague.st/Chelsea-vs-crystal-palace-1-live-streaming

good analogy Timo pace with a far better shot

Yes, £53m release clause

https://www.football.london/Chelsea-fc/transfer-news/mudryk-Chelsea-squad-status-wage-25981358 On the face of any potential deal that sees Mudryk join Chelsea, the transfer looks to be another expensive acquisition under the Todd Boehly regime begging the question of Financial Fair Play regulations. However, it's not quite as it seems and the Blues are smart plan in place. First and foremost, Mudryk qualifies as an under-21 player in the Premier League this season meaning that Chelsea don't need to unregister a player upon his arrival. But, of course, next season he won't qualify as an under-21 so the club will need to make space. With Mudryk born on January 5 2001, the Premier League rules read: "Under-21 players are eligible over and above the limit of 25 players per squad. Each player is assigned a squad number, which they wear during Premier League matches. For the 2022/23 campaign Under-21 players will have been born on or after 1 January 2001." Then, with the regard to the payment to Shakhtar for the potential transfer of Mudryk, amortisation is protecting Chelsea from breaching FFP by spreading out the instalments. For example, according to FFP, by signing an under-21 on a six-and-a-half-year contract in January, only £40million will appear on this years records with the remaining balance paid over six-and-a-half-years. This is a far more cost efficient process for Chelsea than paying a lump sum release clause up front - for example, the Enzo Fernandez saga. However, while this protects the Blues in the next couple of years it could soon catch up with them. But, this clever planning very much so suggests that the club are planning well, identifying astute deals and pulling the right strings. With regard to Mudryk's prospective wage in west London, The Independent state that Chelsea were willing 'to least double' Arsenal’s offer.

RIGHT BACK Joakim Maehle Denzel Dumfries Pedro Porro Jeremie Frimpong Matty Cash Nahuel Molina Malo Gusto Iván Fresneda DMF or Hybrid Bruno Guimarães Moisés Caicedo Roméo Lavia Martín Zubimendi Kouadio Koné Amadou Onana Khéphren Thuram Manuel Ugarte

what about his gambling issues?

He is more of a CF than a winger but but Injured CFs are also a Chelsea specialty and injured fullbacks, injured CBs, injured MFers, injured GKers, etc 🤬

his cred took a big old boover boot to the jacobs yikes

you wanna buy a gently used Pulisic? well, not so gently used, but he is good for marketing to the yanks, lolol She won btw, is now Miss Universe

CuCu was worse in terms of overpay IMHO His total cost will be £62 (there was like £7m in addons to the £55m) which is exactly what we are paying in terms of transfer fee for Mudryk the £26.5m in addons for MM are likely (some at least) far less likely to be achieved that the small ones for CuCu I need to see full details the Guardian (I try to always document what I claim, as I am used to posting on hardcore political and academic boards where you get lit the fook up if you cannot back yer shite up with a source): https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/aug/05/Chelsea-confirm-marc-cucurella-signing-from-brighton-in-62m-deal

no, but you know who could can? besides Enzo (I am still crushed)

I think Arse was crazy to not go for Gapko over Mudryk, as Gapko can play CF as well. If I was them, I would make a move for Arnaut Danjuma (similar to Gapko in terms of flexibility, and even more comfortable as a CF) Also, surely a target must be Yéremy Pino, and I assume they still want Thuram perhaps. I was always puzzled why they wanted a pure LWer (Mudryk) when they have a potential superstar there already in Martinelli. Neither likes to play on the right, and they have Saka as RWer already (no clue why T-Markt lists Saka as RMF, as if you look at games where they play a 4 2 3 1, he is always at the same spot, but sometimes they call him a RMF, and others a RW, even though the formation and play are the exact same) He sure seems a RWer to me, BUT can play as a LWB too (maybe RWB as well) Mudryk is almost ambipedal, he has no issues with shooting with his left foot (his loog passing off his left is not, atm, as good as with his right, BUT his crosses are fine with his left), so he seems like he could play on the RW more so than Martinelli.

Kova is not finished, smdh he is a beast, but needs help, like he gets whilst playing on the Croatian national team

it does seem to be madness

How GOOD is Moises Caicedo ● Tactical Analysis | Skills (HD)

I want to see what the add-ons are, how hard they are to achieve the base transfer fee is £62m so if there are add-ons that require (like Hazard had) Win the Ballon d'Or or top EPL scorer etc than maybe not so bad

How GOOD is Mykhailo Mudryk ● Tactical Analysis | Skills (HD)

Graham Potter sack would be a disaster for Graham Potter not ‘English managers’ https://www.football365.com/news/graham-potter-sack-disaster-english-football-mediawatch ‘For the sake of English managers Potter has to succeed.’ Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. He has more in common with Thomas Frank than Sean Dyche. England for the English The bombastic Daily Telegraph headline caught Mediawatch’s attention: It would certainly be an inconvenience for Chelsea and Everton, and bordering on disastrous for Potter and Lampard themselves, but why would it be an ‘English disaster’? Mediawatch is English and frankly would not give a f*** if those two managers failed based purely on their nationality. ‘It is a pivotal time for English managers,’ begins the piece from Jason Burt. No, it’s a pivotal time for Potter and Lampard, who are the two Premier League managers currently under the most pressure. Why are we defining them by their nationality? What purpose does it serve? Yes. And? The Premier League is a global brand and attracts some of the best football managers in the world. Why does it matter if zero, three, seven or eight Premier League managers are English? First, we’re not yet at two out of 20; Graham Potter is in no danger of being sacked by Chelsea and should Frank Lampard be evicted by Everton, the two favourites to replace him are both also English. This seems important. But secondly, and we keep coming back to this point, why does it even matter? The elite Premier League clubs are rarely owned by Englishmen and Englishmen are the minority on the pitch, so why should we care how many are in the dug-out? The answer, increasingly, is that the only people who really care are old-school journalists. Sean Dyche is the current favourite for the Everton job if Lampard is sacked, while Scott Parker was absolutely right to believe he would not get another Premier League post after failing at Fulham and Bournemouth. And both Heckingbottom and Carrick could be English managers in the Premier League next season. So even if you believe that a lack of English managers is a crisis, where exactly is this crisis? This makes almost zero sense. If Potter does not succeed, Chelsea might decide not to appoint another manager from the middle reaches of the Premier League, but that’s about experience, not nationality. It’s absolutely true that his successor will not be English but only because there are no English candidates. Potter could turn things around, win the Champions League and walk out next summer and his successor would still not be English because there are no English candidates. The Blues’ US owners would probably look to replicate his success by bringing in Thomas Frank, not Sean Dyche. A whole two Chelsea managers ago. It’s almost like club owners appoint largely proven managers they think might be a good fit for their teams of multi-ethic, multi-national players. The idea that the success or failure of Potter at Chelsea will change this situation is absurd. Potter in particular – as the most un-English of English managers – is a test case for the over-achieving manager of a middling Premier League club, not a test case for Englishmen. And the failure of Lampard should put an end to the over-promotion of excellent footballers, not the promotion of Englishmen. He has far more in common with Ole Gunnar Solskjaer than Chris Wilder. So again, why should we care? Well, partly it seems because, well, ‘what would have happened had Gareth Southgate gone through with what he was considering and quit as England manager after the World Cup?’ Well, one thing that would not have happened is either Potter or Howe quitting their Premier League jobs for England. So quite what benefit comes to England from having English coaches among the Premier League elite is unclear. The irony is that England would have a far greater chance of appointing Potter if he failed at Chelsea or never took the job at all. What might have happened is the appointment of Steve Holland, an English coach who was an assistant at Chelsea as they won two Premier League titles and was Southgate’s right-hand man as England reached the latter stages of three major tournaments. He does not even merit a mention in this latest prediction of ‘English disaster’ which is actually no disaster at all. Whisper it, but Southgate was also a failed English Premier League manager. His Middlesbrough side was relegated back in the glory days of English managers in 2008/09 when seven of the bottom eight were managed by Englishmen. Funny how nobody called that an ‘English disaster’.