Chelsea Transfers

[Nero 1,874]

Edited April 5, 2022 by Nero

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

55 minutes ago, Nero said:

Klopp wanted a player who fits the system like a glove.

Tuchel wanted Lukaku. 

[Clockwork 1,794]

1 hour ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Klopp wanted a player who fits the system like a glove.

Tuchel wanted Lukaku. 

Some people are not being honest with themselves, Lukaku himself said he was intent to stay at Inter, but Tuchel convinced him to come back to Chelsea.

 

[Clockwork 1,794]

On 02/04/2022 at 08:01, Pizy said:

Lukaku is almost certainly unmovable this summer unless it’s a loan back to Inter. Werner can go, though. Think there will always be a market for a youngish forward with pace. Be sad to see him go but it’s surely best for both parties that he does.

Hope we go for Dybala. Be perfect for a 2 striker system playing with either Kai or Lukaku.

Can’t imagine Lukaku being here next season seeing how apparent it is and how much he is playing recently. 

[Vesper 30,206]

13 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Klopp wanted a player who fits the system like a glove.

Tuchel wanted Lukaku. 

Tuchel wanted Håland, Hakimi. and Tchouameni (not sure about Theo and Chiesa)

absolutely not convinced he actively pushed for Lukaku

[Blues Forever 1,232]

15 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Klopp wanted a player who fits the system like a glove.

Tuchel wanted Lukaku. 

The board was the one who wanted Lukaku in the first place according to Liam Twomey. Tuchel didn't suggest Lukaku and just went along with the board. 

[Vesper 30,206]

15 hours ago, Clockwork said:

Some people are not being honest with themselves, Lukaku himself said he was intent to stay at Inter, but Tuchel convinced him to come back to Chelsea.

 

Assuming it did happen (the source for it was his agent), that was post Håland deal collapsing, and I am sure the board pushed Tuchel to do it.

The board flat out said NO to Tuchel on Tchouameni, that he was too unproven to spend £40-45m or so on.

I rate them fuckall in terms of deals lately, with a handful of exceptions.

Our scouting department has been overall shit for years, we have been incredibly lucky to have signed a few world class players and have some youth break through.

The busts and fucked up deals, non deals, botched sales and buys,(plus bollocksed up contract management) have been legion.

[laura90 556]

Lukaku was board signing. The same board that was happy to sell three talented youngsters in Tomori, Guehi, Livramento  even though our entire backline was aging and running out of contracts. Yes they wanted to go, but they could have sold them for less money and buyback clause instead of getting big money without buyback clause. We sold promising  youngsters to get Lukaku, who was past it  talentless player that was never good enough in this league. 

The same board has so many not good enough players on their books they can't afford to fit young players or change left wingback when they hopelessly need one. The same board has 40 players on their books but when we suffer injury we do not have steady replacement for the most of our  first eleven. Or they are abysmal. 

When Tuchel stayed without left wingback, crucial player for our system, he got freaking Kenedy. And you are claiming he was backed by the board.

If Marina for the next transfer kitty sells Connor and Broja ( youngsters are the best  sellable assets in this club) you will  assume Tuchel wanted it? Obviously if he stayed he would have approved such diversity but that's only because he can't afford fallouts with the board.

As soon as sanctions took place Tuchel fixated LUkaku on the bench.  That is not coincidence. Pressure from the board was gone.

Again we were linked with Lukaku 2017 onwards. Lukaku was our fix it all comercial signing, albeit second alternative to Halland.

Lukaku was meant to  enable us to win trophies without heavily  investing in defence, midfield and attack. That besides commercial revenue was main objective of the worst signing in recent history.  

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

Here's hoping that one positive of not having Roman's injection of cash is having an effective transfer strategy. 

Wait for the right signing vs going for the wrong one. 

[Vesper 30,206]

18 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Here's hoping that one positive of not having Roman's injection of cash is having an effective transfer strategy. 

Wait for the right signing vs going for the wrong one. 

how about not passing up great young players as well 

[LAM09 7,059]

21 minutes ago, Vesper said:

how about not passing up great young players as well 

At least you've covered ourselves where most are concerned in recent seasons (Tomori being an exception).

[chelsea_4_eva 1,182]

I dont think Tuchel convinced him to come back, the money did. I remember something like, if Inter had offered him a new, improved contract, he wouldnt be here.

[Vesper 30,206]

another good CB off the board

 

[chelsea_4_eva 1,182]

Please let future signings be players with adequate technical ability, no more Lukakus and Timos please.

[Clockwork 1,794]

18 hours ago, laura90 said:

Lukaku was board signing. The same board that was happy to sell three talented youngsters in Tomori, Guehi, Livramento  even though our entire backline was aging and running out of contracts. Yes they wanted to go, but they could have sold them for less money and buyback clause instead of getting big money without buyback clause. We sold promising  youngsters to get Lukaku, who was past it  talentless player that was never good enough in this league. 

The same board has so many not good enough players on their books they can't afford to fit young players or change left wingback when they hopelessly need one. The same board has 40 players on their books but when we suffer injury we do not have steady replacement for the most of our  first eleven. Or they are abysmal. 

When Tuchel stayed without left wingback, crucial player for our system, he got freaking Kenedy. And you are claiming he was backed by the board.

If Marina for the next transfer kitty sells Connor and Broja ( youngsters are the best  sellable assets in this club) you will  assume Tuchel wanted it? Obviously if he stayed he would have approved such diversity but that's only because he can't afford fallouts with the board.

As soon as sanctions took place Tuchel fixated LUkaku on the bench.  That is not coincidence. Pressure from the board was gone.

Again we were linked with Lukaku 2017 onwards. Lukaku was our fix it all comercial signing, albeit second alternative to Halland.

Lukaku was meant to  enable us to win trophies without heavily  investing in defence, midfield and attack. That besides commercial revenue was main objective of the worst signing in recent history.  

 

On one hand you are arguing that the board is cheap and doesn’t back the manager. On the other hand you are also arguing that the board spent a club record transfer fee on a player the manager didn't want.

Lukaku also doesn’t fit the typical board signing , too expensive and not young enough.

Here is what I believe what happened, the target were Harland and Lukaku. It became clear Haaland was a no go, so the attention turned to Lukaku. There is no doubt Lukaku wouldn’t be a Chelsea player if Tuchel didn’t want him and expressed that to the board.

Tuchel probably thought we struggled to score last season, and Lukaku is one of the best goal scorer in the world.

so tell me what makes more sense; Chelsea board are irrational beings who are hell bent on sabotaging the manager or that Tuchel simply miscalculated Lukaku fit? 

 

 

 

 

[Vesper 30,206]

Christopher Nkunku starts

 

[Vesper 30,206]

Josko Gvardiol too

 

https://techoreels.com/clip/s1.html

Edited April 7, 2022 by Vesper

[laura90 556]

5 hours ago, Clockwork said:

On one hand you are arguing that the board is cheap and doesn’t back the manager. On the other hand you are also arguing that the board spent a club record transfer fee on a player the manager didn't want.

Lukaku also doesn’t fit the typical board signing , too expensive and not young enough.

Here is what I believe what happened, the target were Harland and Lukaku. It became clear Haaland was a no go, so the attention turned to Lukaku. There is no doubt Lukaku wouldn’t be a Chelsea player if Tuchel didn’t want him and expressed that to the board.

Tuchel probably thought we struggled to score last season, and Lukaku is one of the best goal scorer in the world.

so tell me what makes more sense; Chelsea board are irrational beings who are hell bent on sabotaging the manager or that Tuchel simply miscalculated Lukaku fit? 

 

 

 

 

Chelsea board are irrational beings who are hell bent on sabotaging the manager. You put it nicely. It happened after 2012. It happened after 2015 (kind of Mou sabotaged as more).  It happened again after 2017 and it happened after 2021. After each of our biggest achievements we were left with weaker teams and worse players. Seasons after we underachieved heavily due to disastrous squad managing and transfer decisions. Why was last year supposed to be any different?

Kante was getting older and his injuries were catching up with him. We needed defensive midfielder badly . 

Defenders were running out of contracts. Extensions weren't agreed. We needed central defender.

We really needed wingback because they were crucial for our system and we only had two decent wingbacks and the least reasonable thing to do was to provide backup. We needed one badly as time has shown. Alonso and Azpi aren't good enough backups.

We needed one attacker, striker or winger who can score and has good work rate to fit in our pressing game plan.

We needed all that and we got Lukaku. You think board was generous when they spent 100 mil on ONE player while we needed THREE/FOUR players?  They were cheap and didn't support manager.

Why they spent 100 mil on Lukaku? In their anti football minds it was cheaper to spend 100 mil on  one of the best goal scorer in the world, as you called him than spend150 - 200 mill on THREE/ FOUR players. They didn't consider him old but in prime .

They expected him to score goals needed for CL places and occasional cup. They maybe imagined winning the league only with him. They also expected him to have positive effect on our commercial revenue that was decreasing.  That is why they spared no expense.

Something tells me we will be better off without them.

PS. Tuchel wanted hard working striker. No way Lukaku was his choice.

 

[Clockwork 1,794]

21 hours ago, laura90 said:

Chelsea board are irrational beings who are hell bent on sabotaging the manager. You put it nicely. It happened after 2012. It happened after 2015 (kind of Mou sabotaged as more).  It happened again after 2017 and it happened after 2021. After each of our biggest achievements we were left with weaker teams and worse players. Seasons after we underachieved heavily due to disastrous squad managing and transfer decisions. Why was last year supposed to be any different?

Kante was getting older and his injuries were catching up with him. We needed defensive midfielder badly . 

Defenders were running out of contracts. Extensions weren't agreed. We needed central defender.

We really needed wingback because they were crucial for our system and we only had two decent wingbacks and the least reasonable thing to do was to provide backup. We needed one badly as time has shown. Alonso and Azpi aren't good enough backups.

We needed one attacker, striker or winger who can score and has good work rate to fit in our pressing game plan.

We needed all that and we got Lukaku. You think board was generous when they spent 100 mil on ONE player while we needed THREE/FOUR players?  They were cheap and didn't support manager.

Why they spent 100 mil on Lukaku? In their anti football minds it was cheaper to spend 100 mil on  one of the best goal scorer in the world, as you called him than spend150 - 200 mill on THREE/ FOUR players. They didn't consider him old but in prime .

They expected him to score goals needed for CL places and occasional cup. They maybe imagined winning the league only with him. They also expected him to have positive effect on our commercial revenue that was decreasing.  That is why they spared no expense.

Something tells me we will be better off without them.

PS. Tuchel wanted hard working striker. No way Lukaku was his choice.

 

What top midfielder would want to join Chelsea playing behind Jorginho, Kante, and Kovacic? Especially when we play a 2 man midfield?

you are forgetting that Tuchel started Alonso at the beginning of the season and had shown confidence in him. His opinion has changed in recent months. 
 

2017? lol Conte got a lot he just sucks at identifying them. We are still paying for his crap transfers like Bakayoko. I honestly think 2014 was when the board really let down a manager. After we won the PL, it was clear by the end of the season this team was running out of steam and we needed transfers to stay at the top.

Back to Tuchel, he probably doesn’t think long term and knows the history of Chelsea managers. Regardless of fit, there are many managers think they could work around them, I have never liked Lukaku but he is considered a top striker. 
 

Tuchel is not in the same level as Klopp simply put, on some matchdays absolutely, but Klopp has a much better vision and able to get the best out of his players. How good were Salah, Mane, Robertson, etc? He has built a machine and can identify players that can match his team like a glove. 
 

I really don’t know how much clearer I can be regarding the Lukaku situation, there is no doubt if Tuchel gave the Chelsea board a warning that he is not a fit for his style then Lukaku would not be a Chelea player, and they would have looked for cheaper option and according to you they are cheap so that would have made happy right?

 

[LAM09 7,059]

6 hours ago, Clockwork said:

I really don’t know how much clearer I can be regarding the Lukaku situation, there is no doubt if Tuchel gave the Chelsea board a warning that he is not a fit for his style then Lukaku would not be a Chelea player, and they would have looked for cheaper option and according to you they are cheap so that would have made happy right?

No doubt? I'd be grateful if you could enlighten everyone with information proving that, which most haven't been privy to.