Chelsea Transfers

[Kong 1,568]

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 1,480]

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.

[Kong 1,568]

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 10,445]

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 1,480]

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 21,026]

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 2,816]

[Superblue_1986 5,330]

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 1,480]

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 26,201]

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

[Tomo 21,026]

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.

[Kong 1,568]

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 

[Kong 1,568]

2 hours 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.

 

Am sorry what? So all these "lower teams" should simply be in the league to accommodate Chelsea man utd Liverpool etc earn more money from TV rights while they get the bottom of the barrel? Same league same money its as simple as that. And ypur right Roman put so much into the team and league we are lucky very lucky. What happens for instance if Newcastle go crazy man city keep getting stronger other rich owners come buy these "lower teams" which btw will happen and we find our self's in 10th to 13th every season will you still have the same shitty attitude then? Or is your opinion on the matter simply biased?

[milka 2,816]

 

Chelsea stars make their point (Mirror) 

Chelsea players have made it clear that Richarlison is the player they should be signing this summer.

Romelu Lukaku’s Stamford Bridge exit is expected to be announced imminently, with a number of attackers touted as potential replacements.

They include Man City’s Raheem Sterling and Barcelona forward Ousmane Dembele, but reports suggest it’s the Everton forward that the dressing room want to play with most.

[Vesper 23,958]

11 hours ago, whats happening said:

i dont think this is true.

main issue with him is his injuries. otherwise i would take him no question. would become our best player instantly.

go back and look at Barca

also, good luck getting him to take a £70m + pay cut

[Vesper 23,958]

19 hours ago, JDY said:

Is it really that much?? Christ. 

Would you take him for 500k p/w if given the choice?

No. He already is very fragile and the EPL would beat the hell out of him. £500K PW is still £104m over four years, and the bloke turns 3yo in the middle of this coming season. No way is a 33, 34yo (the last 2 years of a 4 year deal) worth that much. Winger, fullback, and trad DMF are the 3 positions where once players are over 30yo, most drop off a cliff, especially the last two, but often wingers as well.

GKs, CBs (only WC ones as they have the positional nous to overcome loss of physical prowess), Registas, and CFs often age well. CMFs to a lesser degree.

[JDY 1,247]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

No. He already is very fragile and the EPL would beat the hell out of him. £500K PW is still £104m over four years, and the bloke turns 3yo in the middle of this coming season. No way is a 33, 34yo (the last 2 years of a 4 year deal) worth that much. Winger, fullback, and trad DMF are the 3 positions where once players are over 30yo, most drop off a cliff, especially the last two, but often wingers as well.

GKs, CBs (only WC ones as they have the positional nous to overcome loss of physical prowess), Registas, and CFs often age well. CMFs to a lesser degree.

To be honest I think the only way PSG are getting rid of him is by loaning him out, no one will be able to buy him. I wouldn't be opposed to getting him on a 1 year loan with an option granted PSG are heavily subsidizing his wage, so we'd be paying 400-450 max. He's still absolutely world class when he's playing, and idk I feel since Hazard left, the saying you don't know what you've got till its gone very much applies. We were spoilt by his talent, and watching our current forwards can be absolute pain a lot of the time in comparison.

I feel our team is very stale in attack and lacks individual magic/brilliance. It's the reason I'd much prefer Dembele over Raphinha/Richarlison, despite the obvious risks with that. Anyway I doubt Neymar is going anywhere to be honest, perhaps Juve will sell a few Fiats and suddenly have a £1m p/w contract ready for him. 

Edited Thursday at 01:29 by JDY

[Blues Forever 1,010]

 

[Blues Forever 1,010]

 

[DDA 8,029]

Wasn't keen on Dembele anyway. Have a feeling he would go missing for large parts of the season playing in the Prem. I'm open to him proving me wrong but Im certainly not a fan of his behavioural patterns.