Jump to content

Chelsea Transfers


J.F.
 Share

Recommended Posts

£4m offsetting £30m for KDH, £26m, I'm happy with that. At least KDH knows what it takes to go the distance, albeit in the championship, there are way more positives than negatives on this transfer - Very happy.

Edited by DH1988
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mário César said:

well I think was some of the both things

olise wanted ucl football and we cant afford his demanded wage

Someone from Olise's 'team' has apparently denied that money was the issue. Reportedly they say the player simply preferred Bayern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Someone from Olise's 'team' has apparently denied that money was the issue. Reportedly they say the player simply preferred Bayern.

That makes sense. I think people sometimes forget just how big Bayern are. Arguably only second to Madrid in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheHulk said:

Because he is an average over the road player, least Archie was an interesting talent, this guy? A complete meh player and by all means a stop gap, was hoping were done with this crap but nope.

When they sign a 18 year old - "Why aren't they signing a 25 year old for first team"

When they sign a 25 year old - "Why aren't they signing this 18 yo wonderkid"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Strike said:

When they sign a 18 year old - "Why aren't they signing a 25 year old for first team"

When they sign a 25 year old - "Why aren't they signing this 18 yo wonderkid"

Age is irrelevant as long as you have quality/potential. Archie has potential, Hall has none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

Age is irrelevant as long as you have quality/potential. Archie has potential, Hall has none.

It's absolutely NOT irrelevant.

Not in life and evidently not in football either. It affects athleticism, mentality, and to lesser degree, skill.

Never seen a team filled with 19-21 players win shit. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robsblubot said:

It's absolutely NOT irrelevant.

Not in life and evidently not in football either. It affects athleticism, mentality, and to lesser degree, skill.

Never seen a team filled with 19-21 players win shit. 🤷‍♂️

I think once you get passed the point of thinking we are going to win stuff in the here and now and realise this is for the future it becomes easier to watch and observe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robsblubot said:

It's absolutely NOT irrelevant.

Not in life and evidently not in football either. It affects athleticism, mentality, and to lesser degree, skill.

Never seen a team filled with 19-21 players win shit. 🤷‍♂️

I'm not using it as an argument because it was a) a completely different era and b) a freak set of footballers but I'm pretty sure the Busby Babes were almost exclusively teens/early 20s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tomo said:

I'm not using it as an argument because it was a) a completely different era and b) a freak set of footballers but I'm pretty sure the Busby Babes were almost exclusively teens/early 20s.

wow that's dug up from the 1950s. 😆 I'd suggest it's the opposite nowadays 

36 minutes ago, YorkshireBlue said:

I think once you get passed the point of thinking we are going to win stuff in the here and now and realise this is for the future it becomes easier to watch and observe 

I think the plan is pretty self-evident and it's really not the first time I've seen it done. I don't believe this approach for a big club because you lose too much during the process as you hinder the development of these players because they don't have the leadership and experience that provide the foundation necessary to fully develop the younger players. That's why I like getting a couple/few players who are at their peaks, like KDH, to help make the team more robust -- increases the chances of CL and in turn not losing talent (current and future) due to lacking CL football.

Edited by robsblubot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Vesper said:

would so rather have landed him than Dewsbury-Hall

Brentford close in on £40m Leeds midfielder Gray

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cd1enxgrkxeo

 

Tottenham favourites for Archie Gray after £40m move to Brentford collapses

Gray returns to Leeds but could soon return to London

Newcastle’s Elliot Anderson on his way to Forest for £35m

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/30/tottenham-favourites-for-archie-gray-after-40m-move-to-brentford-collapses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YorkshireBlue said:

I think you will be saying different soon, atleast give the lad a chance.

Hope you're right, but Leicester fans seem puzzled why a team wanting to fight for trophies would go for him since he has obvious limitations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

Hope you're right, but Leicester fans seem puzzled why a team wanting to fight for trophies would go for him since he has obvious limitations. 

Leicester fans are salty because he was probably there best player last season by a country mile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

Hope you're right, but Leicester fans seem puzzled why a team wanting to fight for trophies would go for him since he has obvious limitations. 

The manager does not think so, and he's the guy who has to convince the players "to suffer" for the better good (of the team).
If he's a player the manager trusts, and is attainable which appears to be the case, why not? we need options with different characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...