TorontoChelsea

http://www.express.co.uk/football/view/332648/Chelsea-set-to-loan-Kevin-De-Bruyne-and-Romelu-Lukaku-to-Werder-Bremen They have KDB and Lukaku going on loan to Werder Bremen. Not sure if this is true, but it does seem very likely that both players will go out on loan. Bremen would be a good place for them if they get playing time although I don't really care much where they go as long as A) it's a decent quality They get to play regularly.

That would be absolutely insane and I doubt it's true.

Yeah, I assume that's what it is. On this side of the pond, people tend to use "Oreo" but the connotation is the same.

Yes, but Dortmund did win the Bundesliga the last two seasons which more than makes up for a lacklustre group stage. PSG finished second in a weaker league and couldn't make it out of their Europa league group stage which is much worse. Dortmund still have Hummels, Goetze, Reus, Lewandowski, other top notch players, and play very well as a unit. Until PSG actually show that they are a top club, they don't scare me in the least. Obviously, wouldn't want to get them as the #4 squad, but I don't see why you'd think they'd be better than Dortmund.

Voted for Hazard. Don't like any of the third options. Luiz has been mixed and Mata's kicks have looked pretty soft so far and is more of a finesse kicker than you'd like from a penalty-taker. Ideally, I'd like to see Sturridge learn how to take penalties. He has the confidence and heavy shot that can equal success. Obviously, if we sign another striker, they could be next in line. Really, you only need two players who can take them.

Dortmund will also be in pot 3 or 4 and would also be a very tough draw. There are always some tough groups out there. Last year Barca and AC Milan were in the same group and Napoli, Bayern, and City were all in one group. There are also easy groups but even these can be tricky. Chelsea had one of the easier groups last season and we only got through on the last match day.

I don't think pre-season means much and it's difficult to judge players based on a handful of meaningless games. Hell, it's difficult enough to judge a player on a handful of meaningful games. Marin has played over 100 games in the Bundesliga with some success. He's been capped 18 times for Germany at a very competitive position. Kakuta has played 17 poor matches in the Premier League and 12 mixed ones in France. That means a lot more to me than whether someone looks good in July against Seattle or not. I'd prefer to see him go on loan because he does have incredible potential if he could get over himself.

McEachran really impressed last season and keeping him around was a mistake because he couldn't get into enough games. There simply isn't enough room for Kakuta and he isn't ready anyway. He was benched for not being good enough for a team that is now in the second division in France. Seriously, think about it...a team now in the Second division in France thought "we have a better chance of winning without Kakuta playing on our team". Does that say "oh yeah, he'll be great for Chelsea" to you? That Kakuta doesn't want to go on loan only shows his immaturity. He doesn't want to put in the effort it takes to become a top player. He doesn't want to have to prove himself. You compare that to someone like De Bruyne (or Kalas or pretty much 99% of young players) who wants to go on loan so that he can play a lot of games and grow as a footballer.

He is clearly not ready. He got off to a good start with Dijon, scoring 5 goals and getting 2 assists in his first 9 matches, but then he had no goals or assists in his last 7 matches and was benched for the last 3 matches by a team that was fighting for its relegation life. So, I don't see how a player who was not good enough to play for a relegated Ligue 1 team deserves to be playing at Chelsea. In fact, it clearly shows the opposite. He's still only played 43 professional games. He needs to go back out on loan. I have absolutely no idea who is voting for the "keep him around, he's earned a crack" because it's pretty obvious that he hasn't.

I think they'd sell too, but he'd cost a lot and he's not a natural right-sided player. With Bayern he functions mostly as a second striker which is why he wasn't playing as much (Bayern was moving away from that formation). His ideal positions IMO is either as second striker or as an attacking midfielder. He is a terrific player and will do well anywhere, but if Chelsea are looking for a natural winger, he really isn't one. Personally, I'd love him with Chelsea because he's such an intelligent and talented player and has proven his quality at the highest levels. An attacking midfield 3 of Mueller, Hazard, and Mata would be fantastic (and all three are flexible enough where traditional roles needn't apply.) As for Schurrle, I think he'll be a very good player, but he took a step backwards last season. My big concern is what his arrival would mean for Sturridge. The idea of spending 20M on Schurrle and then selling Sturridge for 10M seems absurd to me.

This is just not true. Lampard struggled during November and December but was very good early in the season. Lampard's first 10 Premier League games last season, he had 6 goals and 4 assists. I hope he struggles that badly this season. Essien's days as a box to box midfielder are over. It is possible that he can re-make himself as a defensive midfielder where he doesn't need the explosiveness he once had, but I have my doubts. Keeping Benayoun will probably have a lot to do with if Chelsea feel De Bruyne is ready or not and whether he would get enough time at Chelsea. If you're going to have someone only start about 5-10 games all season, I'd probably it rather be someone like Benayoun who can be help out at a decent level but doesn't need to develop for the future.

It's almost like Dalglish was a double agent. Absolutely agree, don't see Liverpool being better than 6th no matter what.

That's not what I am saying and I notice a lot of people here not understanding the verdict. Not guilty is not the same thing as proven innocent. It just means that the burden of proof to establish guilt has not been met. Not every person who is found not guilty is innocent. In order to successfully sue Ferdinand, Terry would have to 1) Prove that he didn't say anything racist (absolutely impossible either way) 2 Prove that Ferdinand knew that Terry didn't say anything racist and that he was lying and maliciously set out to frame Terry (not possible to prove) 3) Prove that he was harmed by Ferdinand's "lie" (easier, but still not a slam dunk, losing a captaincy is a prestige thing, but Terry has not lost any money from this which is the easiest way to show harm.) The only course of action for Terry (also the best one) is to let it go, and get back to football.

Yes he would. You can sue someone for defamation only if what they are claiming is false. Since what Ferdinand claimed cannot be proven to be false, you cannot sue him and win. It's a he said/he said situation. The same lack of hard evidence that made it impossible to say one way or another what was said in a criminal case, would make it equally impossible in a civil case.

Because he'd lose. He'd have to prove conclusively that he didn't say anything racist which is impossible. The reason Terry won the case is that there was no conclusive evidence either way. He still could be in trouble with the FA because their burden of proof will be a lot lower. It might be hard for them now though once a court has already ruled in his favour. (I hope)

The correct verdict. This never should have gone to trial.

Congrats!

I'd like to see PSG do well. Good to gave top clubs from different countries and leagues, I just hate the way this stuff is done with massive spending over a very short period of time.

Yes, you have to be good to play in any decent national side, making that level means you have at least a certain quality, but it doesn't mean you are fantastic by any stretch of the imagination. There are a lot of factors. Depth of the position in the country, style of play of the coach, direction of the squad, etc... This is not the Brazilian team of a decade ago, filled with stars who played regularly for top European clubs (Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos, etc...). They are going full-on with youth which I think is probably good for them long-term and for the World Cup, but it means that players that are older like Ronaldinho, Ramires, and Kaka, don't really play. Do you think Sandro is a world-class talent because he plays regularly for Brazil? Giuliano? Do you think Meireles is a fantastic player because he starts for Portugal? Jordan Henderson must be amazing, he got called up for England. Is Mata crap because he almost never plays for Spain? Are you really trying to argue that Oscar's 6 caps are proof that he's a great player? Do you think everyone who has ever played for Brazil has gone on to be a world-class player? And Neymar is much sought-after because of his achievements in the league. He was named best forward in Brazil the last two seasons. He was named best player in Brazil last year. He was named South American player of the year last season, he scored more goals than anybody else in Brazil in the last two seasons. To be the best player in Brazil at 18 and 19 is incredible. It's like Hazard, someone very young who has dominated a decent league. Even he might not be great in Europe, but there is a real reason why he's so hyped. You simply cannot say the same thing about Oscar (or Lucas Moura or any of the other Brazilian wunderkind)

I'm not saying that all of our transfers are bad, we just make too many bad ones of the same type (we seem to be focussed on one player and then overspend to get them ). Marin is an example of what a solid transfer looks like. A young player who has had some success in a top league for 7M pounds. It may not work out, but it was a good buy for value at the time. And trying to get the next world-class player is like playing the lottery-it's just awful transfer policy for a big club because it means while your competitors are going out and spending money for top players, you're paying the same money for players who could be top-level players but probably won't be. How many 20 year old live up to the expectations? Very very few. This is an instructive link from 2007 on who this website thinks the best teenagers in football are -http://soccerlens.com/top-50-most-exciting-teen-footballers-2007/4258/. And these are players, many of whom have already had success. If you buy these types of players, yes, you might get a Sergio Aguero or a Kroos, but you also might get a Kerlon or a Franco Di Santo (Or even a Breno!). I guarantee that the same people who are drooling over 17 year olds with potential now would have been doing the same then. The best of the best of young players still fail a large percentage of the time.(And yes, I am aware that Oscar is not a teenager, but falls into the same "unproven, but has great potential" bracket). In fact, I have to quote a few

I've already said that letting Borini go, doesn't bother me. You can't keep every young player and one of every 50 that you let go will come good, but that wasn't my point (and how it was "very stupid" to mention him, is beyond me). I am mentioning Borini and others to show how cheap young players can be. If Chelsea wanted Borini again, we could get him for 10-12M. And why are comparisons to other teams stupid (a word you seem to like)? Don't we have to compete with other teams to win? What bothers me the most is how every single young player with any talent is automatically going to be some superstar.What bothers me is how people vastly overrate players they don't watch regularly and vastly overrate potential. If you see a player play regularly, even a very good player, you see their flaws. So, small leagues are filled with incredible talent that we need to buy while the Premier League is crap. Walcott is garbage, Nani is crap, Nasri is useless, Sturridge is not good enough, but that 17 year old who had a good season in the Mexican league? He's amazing. Just look at his youtube compilation video! We paid 70M pounds for him? So what? Who cares about money?

Jesus...where did I ever say that "they won't be world- class in the future"? I said they aren't right now and nobody can seriously argue that. In the future, they could all develop splendidly . The problem is, the less proven players are, the more likely they are to flop. You talk about Kagawa as not proven in the PL. It's true, but of the 4 Chelsea players, how many had good seasons in the PL last year? One. And what does "most competitive attack" mean? You think Chelsea have the best attack? I don't get this obsession with youth. Youth, in itself, is not a virtue. Clubs don't win because they're young. Players that are young don't necessarily become great. In fact, the vast majority of them won't. People have this absurd notion that if you buy all young players, they will all become amazing. I'm not worried about Oscar's size. I don't think players need to be big to succeed. I think he's a fine prospect and could very well have a great career (and I certainly hope he does). It's just that we are constantly overpaying for players. There are lots of promising young players. But you know what? Other teams buy these types of players for much much less. Seriously, go and look at any South American player and how much they were bought for to come to Europe, very few of them will be over 6-7M Euros. Hell, even players from other European leagues are cheaper. Liverpool are going after Borini who is a striker in Itali for around 8M pounds. City bought Balotelli, who was a regular striker for the top team in Italy at 19, for 22M Euros. Oscar is very different than Hazard. Hazard was the French player of the year in back to back years. The French League is not the greatest, but it's competitive and winning player of the year at 20 and 21 is incredibly impressive. You have to pay big for someone like Hazard because he is one of the brightest stars in world football. (Also, for those of you who want to replace Milner with Balotelli, the total for Man City goes gets cheaper and gets much more talented.)

First of all, the problem is that we spent 125M and it isn't a world-class forward line. Still, here goes... Chelsea-Torres, Hazard, Oscar, Mata-120-125M Bayern- Robben, Ribery, Gomez, Mueller-80-85M City- Silva, Nasri, Milner, Aguero-110M ManU- Rooney, Nani, Kagawa, Valencia-90M Juventus-Vidal, Pirlo, Marchisio, Pepe, Vucinic, Matri-40-45M (I made it the front 6) Real Madrid-Ronaldo, Ozil, Di Maria, Benzema-130-135M

Ozil was not nothing. He was a terrific player in Germany when Real Madrid bought him. Not only that, but he had a fantastic performance at the World Cup. He was the opposite of a prospect type of player. And even then, Real Madrid spent much less on him than we spent on Oscar.

Because that front four would have cost about 125 million pounds and for that price you should be getting world-class players not just excellent potential. I have no problem with signing young talent, but other teams seem to be able to do that for significantly less money.