Chelsea Transfers

[ZAPHOD2319 4,537]

 

[LAM09 6,824]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

some shady £140, 160K PW shit

Thought as much. No one should have a gall to question Rudiger's intentions when the club dug their own grave where he's concerned.

[Magic Lamps 11,677]

6 minutes ago, LAM09 said:

Thought as much. No one should have a gall to question Rudiger's intentions when the club dug their own grave where he's concerned.

Surely, the ppl in charge were insanely incompetent but nonetheless when Madrid came through the door with those crazy wages the ship had sailed. If Rüdiger really would have wanted to stay the final offer was still good enough. But he wanted that extra 100 pw which is legitimate albeit disappointing. He chose money over becoming a legend. Given how early Madrid went in for him and how long Rüdiger kept his options open, I doubt he would have signed any earlier extension anyway. as soon as TT took over Rüdiger's stock rose so rapidly, his brother and agent Sahr Senesi saw the opportunity to monetise the situation

The issue is not Rüdiger anyway but our overall contract strategy. Not extending Christensen and Rüdiger earlier, even under Lampard was stupid. The club should make an assessment somewhat independent of what the current manager thinks of players. You jsut can not afford to lose proven players for zilch. Even if Lampard had stayed as coach we could have easily prolonged those contracts and sold them at the next opportunity for more than with shorter contracts.

In the current market environment when players try to run down contracts when their stock is high you just can not afford to just sit there and let it happen. The board has to anticipate the squat situation in 1, 2 years and plan their contract management accordingly, not lose 2 players for one position during their best years for free.

 

[Superblue 6,372]

6 minutes ago, Magic Lamps said:

Surely, the ppl in charge were insanely incompetent but nonetheless when Madrid came through the door with those crazy wages the ship had sailed. If Rüdiger really would have wanted to stay the final offer was still good enough. But he wanted that extra 100 pw which is legitimate albeit disappointing. He chose money over becoming a legend. Given how early Madrid went in for him and how long Rüdiger kept his options open, I doubt he would have signed any earlier extension anyway. as soon as TT took over Rüdiger's stock rose so rapidly, his brother and agent Sahr Senesi saw the opportunity to monetise the situation

The issue is not Rüdiger anyway but our overall contract strategy. Not extending Christensen and Rüdiger earlier, even under Lampard was stupid. The club should make an assessment somewhat independent of what the current manager thinks of players. You jsut can not afford to lose proven players for zilch. Even if Lampard had stayed as coach we could have easily prolonged those contracts and sold them at the next opportunity for more than with shorter contracts.

In the current market environment when players try to run down contracts when their stock is high you just can not afford to just sit there and let it happen. The board has to anticipate the squat situation in 1, 2 years and plan their contract management accordingly, not lose 2 players for one position during their best years for free.

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Boehly was pretty dismayed and surprised how many of the squad only have a year or two left on their contracts so I assume this is something that they want to address moving forward.

We really need to make a decision on a number of the players with 2 years left on their contracts this summer and see if they will extend otherwise consider selling. This includes Mount, Pulisic, Hudson Odoi.

[Vesper 29,143]

8 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Liverpool also now have their foot in to bringing Bellingham in next summer. 

Liverpool are completing this summer and next summer's transfers before we even complete one. 😂

I can lay out a  'Chels truly in the mud by the start of the 2023/24 season' scenario

we have a shit window now:

no swap deal with Inter, just a straight Donkeykaku loan (which, IF it also includes NO obligation to buy, is a disasterclass move)

lose out on Dembele to PSG

fail on all of these (now or next summer): Nkunku, Raphinha, Lewa, Gnabry, Sterling, Jesus, de Ligt, Škriniar, Barella, Gavi, Lautaro, Bernardo Silva, Bremer, Demiral, Frenkie de Jong, Youri Tielemans, Carlos Soler, Koulibaly

We ram through the now injured for months and months dwarf buy (and who then is a bust when he finally recovers)

(and do little to fuckall in January)

 

next summer

we lose Reece to Real Madrid,

plus Thiago leaves (bound to happen)

we miss out on Rice, Bellingham, Gvardiol, Chiesa, Osimhen, Florian Wirtz,  Bowen, Rafael Leão, Theo Hernández, Hakimi, Ndidi

 

 

 

[DDA 9,698]

The glass is truly half empty in here at the moment 

[Pizy 18,500]

9 minutes ago, DDA said:

The glass is truly half empty in here at the moment 

Fully justified until the new ownership proves to us that they’re more than just talk. We’re currently still standing still on the starting grid whilst many of our competitors are halfway around the circuit.

[DDA 9,698]

6 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Fully justified until the new ownership proves to us that they’re more than just talk. We’re currently still standing still on the starting grid whilst many of our competitors are halfway around the circuit.

Let's see where we are at by the end of next week. If Jesus goes to Arsenal and Nkunku signs a new deal with RBL and we still haven't signed the likes of Dembele and Kounde  .. then maybe I'll start to worry. 

There is one slightly worrying article that keeps popping up today, that Bohely wants to keep Lukaku against Tuchels will  . I hope that is bullshit.

[Superblue 6,372]

19 minutes ago, DDA said:

Let's see where we are at by the end of next week. If Jesus goes to Arsenal and Nkunku signs a new deal with RBL and we still haven't signed the likes of Dembele and Kounde  .. then maybe I'll start to worry. 

There is one slightly worrying article that keeps popping up today, that Bohely wants to keep Lukaku against Tuchels will  . I hope that is bullshit.

Didn't Matt Law just yesterday though report that Boehly is in agreement that Lukaku should move on for the better of the team?

Ultimately I think it probably boils down more to frustration that we have a supposed £100m striker who has taken his ball and wants to go back to Italy the moment things have gotten too tough for him, leaving a gaping hole in both the club finances and squad.

I remember the second season when Drogba was being booed by the Stamford Bridge faithful for theatrics and perceived lack of effort. When Sheva joined that was supposed to be the writing on the wall for Drog. Instead it was part of the fuse which lit up his Chelsea career and took it to levels only the very top legends of the club belong.

I would have actually liked to have seen Lukaku come out at the end of the season or since and said that he was disappointed with how last season went but this Chelsea move isn't ending that way and he'll be clearing the air with Tuchel and coming back next season with renewed motivation. He's shown his true colours and I firmly believe there's no way back for him now even if Tuchel were to move on whilst he's away on loan. He's burnt his bridges with the fans as far as I'm concerned, now it's up to the club to do the best damage control of this deal possible.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,537]

After a meeting with Lukaku, Boehly did say if it made financial sense for Chelsea, it would be best to facilitate Lukaku back to Inter. It must benefit Chelsea first, no giving him away. I think this is why Inter are raising their bid significantly.  

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

8 hours ago, Mário César said:

the fact that our home fans are shit its no so important

remember that city stadium was called empty had and in old trafford are a lot of people that criticzes they fans 

It's just one ingredient but it sours the cake.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

9 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

After a meeting with Lukaku, Boehly did say if it made financial sense for Chelsea, it would be best to facilitate Lukaku back to Inter. It must benefit Chelsea first, no giving him away. I think this is why Inter are raising their bid significantly.  

I had not read about that. Thank you.

Edited June 17, 2022 by OhForAGreavsie

[ZAPHOD2319 4,537]

These were the people involved in the meeting. 

 

 

[LAM09 6,824]

1 hour ago, Magic Lamps said:

Surely, the ppl in charge were insanely incompetent but nonetheless when Madrid came through the door with those crazy wages the ship had sailed. If Rüdiger really would have wanted to stay the final offer was still good enough. But he wanted that extra 100 pw which is legitimate albeit disappointing. He chose money over becoming a legend. Given how early Madrid went in for him and how long Rüdiger kept his options open, I doubt he would have signed any earlier extension anyway. as soon as TT took over Rüdiger's stock rose so rapidly, his brother and agent Sahr Senesi saw the opportunity to monetise the situation

The issue is not Rüdiger anyway but our overall contract strategy. Not extending Christensen and Rüdiger earlier, even under Lampard was stupid. The club should make an assessment somewhat independent of what the current manager thinks of players. You jsut can not afford to lose proven players for zilch. Even if Lampard had stayed as coach we could have easily prolonged those contracts and sold them at the next opportunity for more than with shorter contracts.

In the current market environment when players try to run down contracts when their stock is high you just can not afford to just sit there and let it happen. The board has to anticipate the squat situation in 1, 2 years and plan their contract management accordingly, not lose 2 players for one position during their best years for free.

 

That might be the case, but we allowed this to happen by trying to lowball our best defender. 

I completely agree with the second part and I have commented on it previously; it wasn't something that greatly affected us previously whilst Arsenal were/are notorious for letting it happen. Saying that, this sort of thing is starting to become a trend allowing players more options to choose their own career path. We need to tie some of our key players down (James being the standout) instead of this becoming all too common within the club.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,898]

5 hours ago, Vesper said:

the only things we have over Citeh atm are that we have won multiple CL's (they have none) and a world club championship, we have a better academy, and we are in London (as opposed to the shithole Manchester)

London over Manchester no argument but there is a compensation. No problem with a stadium and training facilities. Quite the opposite, the city was begging them to take it. Plenty of room to expand if they should ever need to and even on site parking for fans.

In terms of PL capable graduates our academy has done better than City's in recent years but I don't agree that ours is better. The two are both excellent. The level of player emerging from an academy is dependent on their individual quality as much as it is on their education. As I put it, the only way for a Lionel Messi to come out of an academy is for a Lionel Messi to have walked in some years earlier. Supporting evidence for this point; despite the processes at Cobham being honed and mature the depth of quality there currently is as poor as it's been for a decade. Cobham and The CFA can give players everything but talent*.

I like Bellingham, Dembele, Gavridol, Gnarby, Koulibaly, and Nkunku. If we asked them all to choose Man City, with one European trophy, or Chelsea with eight plus a world championship on top, how many would vote for the nine over the one?

 

*Despite what I said above I think you are actually right about the academy being something in our favour.

The impact of an academy comes down to perception. You'll remember that Cobham was heavily criticised for years because it was not seen to be producing any first team ready players. This was a stupid and ill informed opinion. As I argued in those days it was far too early to judge Cobham since it was new, needed a few years to settle down, to get the right people in the right places and to form the right partnerships with local institutions. Most of all it takes time to turn eight-year olds into twenty-year olds with no shortcuts available.

For a time there was no shortage of know-nothing ex-footballers telling people; "I wouldn't send my son to Chelsea." The foolish perception that our academy was bad impacted our recruitment. Many of the better youngsters, those with a choice of more than one offer, were choosing to go elsewhere. The upshot of this undeserved reputation is in the fact I mentioned above. Our current crop is not good because, with a few exceptions of course, we didn't attract the best of their age group. There is every chance however that the lads we are recruiting now, when Cobham's reputation is very high, will be good. It will take many years until we know however.

Edited June 17, 2022 by OhForAGreavsie

[Strike 7,278]

10 hours ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

We are lucky there is a buyer in the market for him. 

[Pizy 18,500]

Really failing to understand all these links to Dumfries. For the prices that are being reported as well it seems ridiculous. We have the best RWB in the country and we’re interested in another right sided fullback for a reported €40m? One that’s Azpi levels of poor on the ball going forward?

Reading what Inter supporters think of him he sounds like someone you’d want in your squad but maybe for like 20m, not huge money. He’s apparently a big time workhorse but is very technically limited which is the last thing we need.

 

[milka 3,358]