The Conte Thread

[Chelsea? 892]

I mean Conte can't think he can run the club but we do need to pay the 90m for Lukaku, it's fair enough. 

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

7 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

The thing is, I know you know most of these stories are put out there by agents acting for player or selling club, yet you let yourself react to them. Hold it together man, we've got to get you through the summer in one piece. Somehow.

I'm cool. Win or lose i'm always cool. You have to admit though with the rise in transfer fees and the amount of money being generated it is a bit alarming that the most Chelsea have spent on any one transfer was Torres in 2011.

[yipo 56]

is the cost of new stadium make us not spent?

[Peace. 4,352]

2 hours ago, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

Am I the only one who thinks the club have some sort of mandate in place on transfer fees? We haven't gone over 33m since the Torres move in january 2011.

I do not think it is the case. Actually, the problem would not be that we have a "mandat" which would prevent us to exceed a certain amount of money — but would be in reality a problem of strategy/tactic, both in how we are conducting negotiotions and the players we aim.

Evidences lead me to believe that this state of affair is due to a series of reasons such as :

1. Trying to be smart arse — which leads the negotiations to be dragged on forever. We start with very low bids and only increase it by a few pounds each time. At the end, when we finally make a sensible bid, it is simply too late because : (i) the mercato has ended ; (ii) it is too late in the window for the "selling" club to find any replacement ; (iii) or because they have already sold too many "key" players ; (iv) the "selling" club, and more importantly, the aimed player, are getting bored and frustrated (when you do not know whether the club that wants to buy you will one day make a suitable bid for you, it is hard as a player to put pressure on your board to be sold). We have examples such as Modric and Coulibaly. Had we bid, in 2011 (?), £40m at the start of the window, Tottenham would have had time to find a good replacement for him and maybe Modric, seeing our heavy interest, would have been more vocal about his desire to leave (and thus "forcing" the hand of Levy). Instead, we waited the last days to make this offer while it was very clear it was not happening.... The same goes for Coulibaly. Had we bid £50m at the start of the transfert window and before they sold Higuain to the Juventus, we would have likely had more chance to sign him.
2. Another consequence of this is that we can absolutely not participate to a bidding war... which make us unable to sign a great number of players.
3. Aiming at the wrong player at the wrong time — for instance, Pogba. We made an offer to the Juve quite similar to the one made by United the following year, yet it did not work, simply because they would not sell him as they had already lost too many key players. Quite generally, we seem obstinate to aim at players who are not available, yet when they are, we are no longer interested. We have spent summer(s) — and more — to pursue players such as Modric, Coulibaly, Pogba, Aguero etc... when it was pretty clear they were unavailable — and when they were, we were nowhere to be seen.

So yeah, I do not think the problem is the amount of money we can spend but how we inted to spend it. At the end of the day, we have to revisit radically our transfer policies. They have never been good, but back in the days, 25 million pounds could buy you great players — not today. We need coherence and continuity (i.e. not courting Aguero for five years only to buy Torres when he was finally available) ; and most importantly. we need to understand that buying three average players for £30m does not equal to buying a great player for £90m...

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

20 minutes ago, Peace. said:

I do not think it is the case. Actually, the problem would not be that we have a "mandat" which would prevent us to exceed a certain amount of money — but in reality would be a problem of strategy/tactic, both in how we are conducting negotiotions and the players we aim.

Evidences lead me to believe that this state of affair is due to a series of reasons such as :

1. Trying to be smart arse — which leads the negotiations to be dragged on forever. We start with very low bids and only increase it by a few pounds each time. At the end, when we finally make a sensible bid, it is simply too late because : (i) the mercato has ended ; (ii) it is too late in the window for the "selling" club to find any replacement ; (iii) or because they have already sold too many "key" players ; (iv) the "selling" club, and more importantly, the aimed player, are getting bored and frustrated (when you do not know whether the club that wants to buy you will one day make a suitable bid for you, it is hard as a player to put pressure on your board to be sold). We have examples such as Modric and Coulibaly. Had we bid, in 2011 (?), £40m at the start of the window, Tottenham would have had time to find a good replacement for him and maybe Modric, seeing our heavy interest, would have been more vocal about is desire to leave (and thus "forcing" the hand of Levy). Instead, we waited the last days to make this offer while it was very clear it was not happening.... The same goes for Coulibaly. Had we bid £50m at the start of the transfert window and before they sold Higuain to the Juventus, we would have likely had more chance to sign him.
2. Another consequence of this is that we can absolutely not participate to a bidding war... which make us unable to sign a great number of players.
3. Aiming at the wrong player at the wrong time — for instance, Pogba. We made an offer to the Juve quite similar to the one made by United the following year, yet it did not work, simply because they would not sell him as they had already lost too many key players. Quite generally, we seem obstinate to aim at players who are not available, yet when they are, we are no longer interested. We have spent summer(s) — and more — to pursue players such as Modric, Coulibaly, Pogba, Aguero etc... when it was pretty clear they were unavailable — and when they were, we were nowhere to be seen.

So yeah, I do not think the problem is the amount of money we can spend but how we inted to spend it that is the problem. At the end of the day, we have to revisit radically our transfer policies. They have never been good, but back in the days, 25 million pounds could buy you great players — not today. We need coherence and continuity (i.e. courting Aguero for five years only to buy Torres when he was finally available) ; and most importantly. we need to understand that buying three average players for £30m does not equal buying a great player at £90m...

I'm sure that plays some role though I doubt its all down to it. I mean why is it that whenever a bid goes north of 35m we never complete it? I get it, larger deals take longer to complete but this is strange, we're not the only team to stall on big deals but strangely we're the only one not to complete one.

 

[FabHazard 655]

I think there is a clear disagreement between Conte and the Board regarding transfer targets...IMO Conte wants Lukaku and Bakayoko.... and whoever is incharge of transfers i.e. Marina or Emenalo disagrees with him on pursuing wrong player or player at ridiculous price(see lukaku at 100 Million)

[Rapkun 668]

There is one certain thing at this club, is that managers don't get backed up no matter what they do. The reason we haven't been able to build a strong squad since the first core of Abramovic's era is lack of planification and signings at key moments.

After Ancelotti won the league in 2010 and some serious signs of decline among the squad were visible. Rather than invest in fresh blood to slowly replace the old core, the board probably judged that the team was good enough. The following season the team is struggling and we're obliged to make huge signings in January (Torres, Luiz) to try and catch our rivals. Panic buys, not planified.

Mourinho wins the league in 2015 with a decent squad and a very old backline,  already at the time we could see the limits of that team both domestically and in europe. In the summer, the board probably judges the team is good enough to compete again and we face the inevitable as we finish 10th in the league next season. Pedro was signed very late in the window after poor results. Top 4 was gone by January and so was the manager thus no further acquisition was made.

Now Conte wins the league and history is repeating itself as he is facing the same fate as those before him.

[zekinjo 449]

[Chelsea_firstlove 178]

Do a Djilobodj and see what happens, hahaha

[Polo7 3,496]

Pathetic by the board of true. If we let Conte walk then I lose complete faith in us.

[Strike 7,217]

A report on Gazetta della sporto started it and then di Marzio's website posted it (Note: without taking credit of a by-line). 

All reports have few things in common. 

Club is unwilling to spend this summer when there is Nike deal, Oscar sale, Cuadrado sale, small squad with European competition coming up?

Conte is unhappy over lack of transfers two weeks into the transfer window, with two and a half months left?

Wants control over coaching appointments? Didn't he bring a sizable number of staff over when he joined? 

No reason to believe any of this, I think, But what do I know? I am not a journo with a Twitter following. That would be Duncan Castles and di Marzio who are stirring this up today

[Tautvix 1,321]

Board got so lucky this season with Conte winning the title... They didn't get any 1st choice players Conte wanted. Even Kante was because we couldn't get Nainggolan. And these fuckers can't even thank Conte now and buy him some players he wants. This will end in tears once again.

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

A report on Gazetta della sporto started it and then di Marzio's website posted it (Note: without taking credit of a by-line). 

All reports have few things in common. 

Club is unwilling to spend this summer when there is Nike deal, Oscar sale, Cuadrado sale, small squad with European competition coming up?

Conte is unhappy over lack of transfers two weeks into the transfer window, with two and a half months left?

Wants control over coaching appointments? Didn't he bring a sizable number of staff over when he joined? 

No reason to believe any of this, I think, But what do I know? I am not a journo with a Twitter following. That would be Duncan Castles and di Marzio who are stirring this up today

On one hand, it feels like there are some truth but on the other, it feels the journalists are feeding off on the paranoia of fans to get more clicks. I mean, aren't those the general concerns that we have had for years?

[manpe 10,861]

It's been widely reported that Chelsea has a ~£200 million transfer budget this summer, and it also has been widely reported that Conte wants ~5 new players. Divide 200 by 5 and we may understand why the board doesn't want to splash too much on one player, considering the average price for those 5 players must be 40 million. Put 90 mill on Lukaku alone and the rest must come at 27,5 million average, for which you can't even get decent squad players anymore. Add in our stadium expansion plans and this could very well be the reason why we have been penny pinching despite all the money being thrown at us. Either that, or we have incredibly shit negotiators.

I hope this situation will be resolved quickly. If not and Conte walks, then Marina Emenalo (widely reported to be the main people behind transfers) must be fired ASAP. They are replaceable, King 'Tonio isn't.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

Antonio Conte unhappy with Chelsea over transfer strategy

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10917096/antonio-conte-unhappy-with-chelsea-over-transfer-strategy

[Strike 7,217]

33 minutes ago, Jason said:

On one hand, it feels like there are some truth but on the other, it feels the journalists are feeding off on the paranoia of fans to get more clicks. I mean, aren't those the general concerns that we have had for years?

Yes but I think this particular story is fake. The source Duncan Castles has made similar claims about Conte and Chelsea in the past but the reasons mentioned for leaving doesn't quite add up.

[It's too big 625]

I think we got more than 200 million to spend if we want. 200 million doesn't include the Costa, Begovic, Atsu, Solanke and other sales we make. The media don't know their ass from their elbow, and Sky Sports "sources" only ever recycle the same shit someone like The Sun, Mirror, Metro, Gazetta or some unreliable twitter "journo" says. The majority of Italian media are unreliable, and I certainly wouldn't listen to anything they say because they are bias. All this has started because the text exchange between Conte and Costa, and also because we've not announced signings in this transfer window (likely due to kit deal with Nike) yet and they put two and two together and come up with 5. 

[El P. 1,354]

It's too early for Conte to think like this, if that really is true. But, one thing is certain - we need to present one new quality signing, sooner rather than later to cool down the situation, it could only get worse. Being it Bakayoko or Lukaku.