Chelsea Transfers

[mkh 732]

🗯💥Werder Bremen centre-back Karim Coulibaly has attracted concrete interest from Newcastle United, Chelsea, Napoli and Marseille, according to Bild.

Talks are already said to be taking place, but no offers have yet been submitted for the 18-year-old.

 

✅️💪🔥Moises Caicedo when asked about Real Madrid:

"I have a contract with my club and I want to become a legend there".

(@plazacasals via @elchiringuitotv)

Edited Tuesday at 16:13 by mkh

[Pizy 19,227]

Can already tell the Enzo transfer stuff is going to be a distraction from now until the summer.

I’m already over it. If somehow after all this talk he stays and is happy then I’m fine with it. But if he forces himself away I won’t mourn in the way I would with Caicedo or Palmer for example. 

In a vacuum, if we can recoup what we bought him for from Madrid then I’d do it without much thought. But with these guys doing the recruitment who knows where they’d turn to replace him. That’s the only scary part about letting Enzo go.

If Madrid do indeed sign Enzo I’m going to assume that means they decline to bring Nico Paz back as has been heavily rumored. He’d be a great Enzo replacement for us. Him + Barco would be awesome.

[Vesper 30,943]

Elliot Anderson and Bruno Fernandes’ stats are insane

[Vesper 30,943]

Everton (my add: and Nottingham Forest) exploring legal options over lack of sporting sanctions against Chelsea

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/25/everton-exploring-legal-options-over-lack-sporting-sanctions-against-Chelsea

Everton are exploring a possible legal challenge against the Premier League for its handling of Chelsea’s undisclosed payments sanction.

The club are understood to be preparing to write to the Premier League requesting a formal explanation for its failure to take any sporting sanctions against Chelsea, with their legal options also being considered.

Chelsea were fined £10.75m and given a suspended transfer ban by the ­Premier League last week after ­reporting £47.5m of hidden ­payments to agents and players made over a seven‑year period, a ­punishment the rest of the top-flight clubs regarded as lenient.

Executives from ­several clubs have contacted Richard ­Masters, the Premier League chief executive, and the chair, ­Alison ­Brittain, ­asking for ­clarity on the terms of their agreed settlement with Chelsea, with Everton con­sidering taking matters further.

Everton feel particularly aggrieved as they were docked eight points ­during the 2023-24 season for two separate profit and ­sustainability regula­tions breaches, whereas sporting sanctions do not appear to have been considered in the Premier League’s punishment of Chelsea.

Everton could also still receive a further punishment as a result of their PSR breaches as they are the subject of a compensation claim from Burnley, who demanded £50m at an arbitration hearing last autumn on the basis that they were relegated from the Premier League during the 2021-22 season, when Everton were found to have breached PSR.

Nottingham Forest are also unhappy with the Chelsea ­sanction as they were docked four points in 2023‑24 for a PSR breach.

­Forest ­officials are understood to have held talks with Everton this week about ­joining forces to challenge the ­Premier League, but have yet to come to a firm ­decision.

As a first step, the two clubs are likely to write to the Premier League ­requesting a formal ­explanation for Chelsea’s punishment and the process behind it, a move that would have some ­support from other clubs.

There are concerns throughout the top flight that the Chelsea ­decision could set a precedent before the verdict on Manchester City’s 115 charges of ­breaching financial fair play. City deny those charges.

Arsenal and Totten­ham, along with Manchester United and Liverpool, instructed lawyers to reserve their right to sue for compen­sation two years ago if City are found guilty in a case being heard by an indepen­dent tribunal, rather than the Premier League itself, as in the Chelsea case.

The Premier League is believed to have explained Chelsea’s punishment on the grounds that it felt it would have been unable to secure a conviction without their co-operation, so negotiated from the outset.

Chelsea’s current ownership of Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly reported the offences, 36 ­undisclosed payments between 2011 and 2018 which helped the club to buy ­players such as Eden Hazard, Nemanja Matic, David Luiz, Willian and ­Ramires, which they discovered during the negotiations to buy the club from Roman ­Abramovich four years ago. As a result the new ­owners received a £150m discount from the sale price agreed with ­Abramovich to cover any related future liabilities, and the ­Premier League will be paid from those funds.

Everton and Forest are both ­taking legal advice, with any challenge likely to be based on claims that the Premier League has been inconsistent in applying its own rulebook.

There is no mention of the concept of “sporting advantage” in the Chelsea ­judgment despite the fact that the club won eight trophies, ­including two Premier League titles, during the period when the payments were made. The Everton and Forest PSR judgments, in contrast, make repeated references to the ­sporting advantage accrued from their overspending. Everton and Nottingham Forest declined to comment.