Chelsea Transfers

[chelsea_4_eva 1,162]

It seems like Kounde is not top of TTs preferred choice as a CB, the way we are dealing with it atm gives me the vibe of us feeling the price tag is too high (we have not even started negotiating) and if he ends up else where then so be it.. seeing as we have an agreement in place with the player but not pulling the trigger just yet for the buy.. We could also be keeping an eye on the status of TTs preferred targets

Edited June 22, 2022 by chelsea_4_eva

[Strike 7,277]

Signing both Sterling and Raphinha would cost over 100m. Don't see the club bidding for both with 2 CBs to be signed as well. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Tomo 21,733]

19 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

 

On another note the fact that teams that haven't won or even challenged for anything in yonks are getting so financially rewarded to the point they can reject £60m (In Leeds/Raphina's case) or over £100m (in WHU/Rice case) to pluck two examples is all ends of wrong for me.

Back in 2004 Everton had to sell Wayne Rooney to even get by.

[YorkshireBlue 3,126]

34 minutes ago, Tomo said:

On another note the fact that teams that haven't won or even challenged for anything in yonks are getting so financially rewarded to the point they can reject £60m (In Leeds/Raphina's case) or over £100m (in WHU/Rice case) to pluck two examples is all ends of wrong for me.

Back in 2004 Everton had to sell Wayne Rooney to even get by.

A player is worth what a club values them at why sell for 35 if u can get 65? These clubs know how much money teams have nowadays, as my Leeds fans pals would say pay big or fuck off lol.

[Tomo 21,733]

10 minutes ago, Kong said:

A player is worth what a club values them at why sell for 35 if u can get 65? These clubs know how much money teams have nowadays, as my Leeds fans pals would say pay big or fuck off lol.

Don't get me wrong I don't blame the club, I blame the system that heavily rewards such underachieving.

Leeds shouldn't be in a position where they can turn down £60m for a player and West Ham defiently shouldn't be in a position to demand £150m for one.

[YorkshireBlue 3,126]

17 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Don't get me wrong I don't blame the club, I blame the system that heavily rewards such underachieving.

Leeds shouldn't be in a position where they can turn down £60m for a player and West Ham defiently shouldn't be in a position to demand £150m for one.

Your not wrong. But I think it will get worse before it gets better. 60 mill is the new 30 100 mill is the new 50 etc etc, I heard now I don't know if this is facts but this haaland transfer will total 250m in the end.

[Clockwork 1,794]

19 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Don't get me wrong I don't blame the club, I blame the system that heavily rewards such underachieving.

Leeds shouldn't be in a position where they can turn down £60m for a player and West Ham defiently shouldn't be in a position to demand £150m for one.

EPL tv rights and money distribution is primary responsible, equal distribution of money is terrible and it gives lower club a lot of power.

[YorkshireBlue 3,126]

13 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

EPL tv rights and money distribution is primary responsible, equal distribution of money is terrible and it gives lower club a lot of power.

Lower clubs? I don't agree that clubs with owners not as rich as some should receive less money from the EPL. You simply can't say because we are Chelsea we are entitled more then say Brighton, don't u ever forget that we once was a lower club, so have some respect and don't turn your nose up at clubs like we used to be.

[Magic Lamps 11,677]

38 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

EPL tv rights and money distribution is primary responsible, equal distribution of money is terrible and it gives lower club a lot of power.

Obviously, distributional justice is hard to understand for an American lol... nah jk. the reason is simpler...

29 minutes ago, Kong said:

Lower clubs? I don't agree that clubs with owners not as rich as some should receive less money from the EPL. You simply can't say because we are Chelsea we are entitled more then say Brighton, don't u ever forget that we once was a lower club, so have some respect and don't turn your nose up at clubs like we used to be.

It is the PLs business modell splitting the money more evenly, giving the smaller clubs power to make the competition more interesting and thus create the better product overall. As a consequence the PL attracts more viewers from everywhere and the money overall increases for everyone. In spain and germany the leagues only get a fraction of the TV money overall but most of it gets into the pockets of the big clubs, so they can still somewhat compete with the English sides.

So, to some exent it is in line with the economic and social models of those countries. In america a select few franchises (or corporations, or ppl) get all the money while the rest not only gets nothing but also gets fucked over by the rich for fun. In Germany and Spain we try to do it the same way but just are not as ruthless with it so a shallow egalitarian veneer is preserved.  Britain retains some form of multi-layered aristocracy spiced up with that typcial British habit to shoot oneself in the foot with that bloated calender and subs rule.

[Clockwork 1,794]

27 minutes ago, Kong said:

Lower clubs? I don't agree that clubs with owners not as rich as some should receive less money from the EPL. You simply can't say because we are Chelsea we are entitled more then say Brighton, don't u ever forget that we once was a lower club, so have some respect and don't turn your nose up at clubs like we used to be.

The revenue and viewership Chelsea brings to the league is astonishing higher, no one cares for Brighton football club outside of the city of Brighton. No it doesn’t make sense for both clubs to be paid equally. My viewpoint is based on principle, not looking down on them it just how I feel. I think the clubs that are global brands should not be treated equally with Leeds, Brighton, etc. 
 

The small clubs in the PL is the biggest reason why transfer market is so messed up. The revenue and tv rights of the PL has skyrocketed and it has made a lot of lower clubs very fat. The have the financial to compete with some of the biggest club in the world.

 

[Tomo 21,733]

57 minutes ago, Kong said:

Lower clubs? I don't agree that clubs with owners not as rich as some should receive less money from the EPL. You simply can't say because we are Chelsea we are entitled more then say Brighton, don't u ever forget that we once was a lower club, so have some respect and don't turn your nose up at clubs like we used to be.

But then the likes of Fulham and Norwich getting "reward" money for finishing bottom and yo yoing between the two divisions has shut down the route to the PL for another dreamer club like Blackpool in 2010.

Where's the line? 

[milka 3,359]

[Superblue 6,372]

36 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

The revenue and viewership Chelsea brings to the league is astonishing higher, no one cares for Brighton football club outside of the city of Brighton. No it doesn’t make sense for both clubs to be paid equally. My viewpoint is based on principle, not looking down on them it just how I feel. I think the clubs that are global brands should not be treated equally with Leeds, Brighton, etc. 
 

The small clubs in the PL is the biggest reason why transfer market is so messed up. The revenue and tv rights of the PL has skyrocketed and it has made a lot of lower clubs very fat. The have the financial to compete with some of the biggest club in the world.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Tomo said:

But then the likes of Fulham and Norwich getting "reward" money for finishing bottom and yo yoing between the two divisions has shut down the route to the PL for another dreamer club like Blackpool in 2010.

Where's the line? 

The TV revenue distribution is correct in my opinion. Yes the top 4 - 6 teams are what drive the revenues but you still need the other 14 teams to make the league and its competitive nature is definitely a selling point in the marketability and brand.

It is also vitally important for the whole football pyramid that these revenues trickle down.

There is certainly an argument on possibly a greater share or greater disparity in payments for league finish, but the overall TV distribution should remain equal.

The parachute payments however I don't agree with as it does create yo-yo teams and disproportionate quality in the Championship. In my opinion it should be a mandatory requirement for clubs to have written into player contracts both wage cuts as a result of relegation (25-50%) and reasonable relegation release clauses. If a club has failed in the Premier League it should be their responsibility to restructure their club in the Championship, not be given a chance to retain the bulk of their team to have a crack at getting straight back up.

[Clockwork 1,794]

40 minutes ago, Magic Lamps said:

Obviously, distributional justice is hard to understand for an American lol... nah jk. the reason is simpler...

It is the PLs business modell splitting the money more evenly, giving the smaller clubs power to make the competition more interesting and thus create the better product overall. As a consequence the PL attracts more viewers from everywhere and the money overall increases for everyone. In spain and germany the leagues only get a fraction of the TV money overall but most of it gets into the pockets of the big clubs, so they can still somewhat compete with the English sides.

So, to some exent it is in line with the economic and social models of those countries. In america a select few franchises (or corporations, or ppl) get all the money while the rest not only gets nothing but also gets fucked over by the rich for fun. In Germany and Spain we try to do it the same way but just are not as ruthless with it so a shallow egalitarian veneer is preserved.  Britain retains some form of multi-layered aristocracy spiced up with that typcial British habit to shoot oneself in the foot with that bloated calender and subs rule.

EPL has become what it has primary due to the money poured in by foreign investors. Roman Abrahomvich has played the biggest role, the league became much more competitive when he arrived; domestically and Europe. It raised everyone level, look at English club success in the CL before Roman and after. The bottom side of the league have played very little In the success of the league. 

English being pretty much the universal language has also helped the world wide success with viewership.

A merit based approach would be my preference, and it is not like they will be starving. It is also not like their chances to compete against the big boys changes.

[Special Juan 27,493]

Jesus to Arsenal progressing, on both sides, Raphina the same, but with more clubs pushing Leeds

[Tomo 21,733]

4 minutes ago, Special Juan said:

Jesus to Arsenal progressing, on both sides, Raphina the same, but with more clubs pushing Leeds

It's going to be hilarious when Arsenal once again finish outside the top 4 and there's still excuses being made for Arteta.

[YorkshireBlue 3,126]

2 hours ago, Tomo said:

But then the likes of Fulham and Norwich getting "reward" money for finishing bottom and yo yoing between the two divisions has shut down the route to the PL for another dreamer club like Blackpool in 2010.

Where's the line? 

Blackpool got the money, Sunderland Huddersfield etc they all got the money Notts forest got up leeds got up Huddersfield Brentford clubs make it up without that money. To say it's blocked isn't true at all