Jump to content

Chelsea Transfers


J.F.
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Stats said:

Also, no matter how much people don't like Jackson, Maresca made it clear that it was not his decision. Although we got a nice loan fee, it shows it is always about getting money.

It’s painful knowing how we went from spending money without a care in The World in search of success at any means necessary under Roman to this… buy young, loan for a fee yearly or sell as soon as profit is made on that asset with success being a bonus if it happens but not really fussed as long as the players sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/09/2025 at 07:14, OhForAGreavsie said:

This is an important consideration. Not only was it possible to hide these payments from authorities at the time, they were not even discovered when the club came under heightened scrutiny because Russian owned assets were sanctioned. It's clear therefore that such payments can be hidden relatively easily.

This means there is no way to be sure that other clubs have not engaged in the same activity. Indeed, given the competitive nature of the football industry and the insatiable greed of agents, I'm guessing that many, many, clubs are guilty too. If authorities can't find these payments, but are determined to stop them, it would be counterproductive to impose heavy sporting penalties. Doing that would only make clubs all the more determined to keep their mouths shut about their own regulatory breaches.

There must be penalties but I'm guessing that these are much more likely to be financial than they are to be sporting.

In that case we should have just ignored those discretions. Assuming it was not possible for it to come to light .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the players i been saying for a long time regarding the players these sd's are bringing in. Half of them are simply not good enough. There's too much reliance on those top quality half a dozen or so players we have and in turn half of them are injured regularly. Its a no win situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should wait until the end of the season to decide what is good and what is not. 

I still think they did a good job this summer. 

Especially when they had to balance the books because of UEFA restrictions. 

Last season we started kind of slow, and I expected the same because of the insane summer we had. We might finish the season strong again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chelsea had a large delegation in the directors’ box on Saturday. There was Eghbali, Winstanley, Stewart, Joe Shields, Sam Jewell, Daniel Finkelstein. Among their travelling party was David Weir, less than 2 weeks after his surprise departure from Brighton as technical director.

(via @kierangill_DM)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mkh said:

Chelsea had a large delegation in the directors’ box on Saturday. There was Eghbali, Winstanley, Stewart, Joe Shields, Sam Jewell, Daniel Finkelstein. Among their travelling party was David Weir, less than 2 weeks after his surprise departure from Brighton as technical director.

(via @kierangill_DM)

Can anyone share the article published by kierangill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mário César said:

Can anyone share the article published by kierangill?

Before people starts to panic, from the same article:

Quote

 

Given how many of the Blues’ hirings have previously worked within the Seagulls’ setup, it might be tempting to put two and two together. However, it appears all is not what it seems.
 
Confidential has been told Weir was simply a guest of Chelsea’s for the game, having previously worked at Brighton with Winstanley, with whom he is friends. The former Everton and Rangers centre back also lives relatively close to Old Trafford.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bluepower777 said:

In that case we should have just ignored those discretions. Assuming it was not possible for it to come to light .

I'm guessing there were a cocktail of reasons for the club's decision. Among them might have been; bearing our track record in mind wanting to avoid the risk of extremely heavy punishments if these payments were to come to light, wanting to establish a new relationship with governing bodies, perhaps the purchase agreement included an agreement that sanctions relating to historical misdeeds could be charged against the reported two billion fund held for contingencies and management wanted to clear all liabilities while that fund is available, a desire to clean up our reputation, and other guesses too. 

Edited by OhForAGreavsie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 1 member are here!

×
×
  • Create New...