Jump to content

Chelsea Transfers


J.F.
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, King Kante said:

Venture capitalists like Clearlake always spray and pray. It is the way they operate and will argue that the policy over the long term will pay dividends. For instance they will point to how they got Jackson, Gusto and Palmer out of it. The rest are just collateral damage. 

And that's something I have hard time to grasp (given football club isn't a startup you want to milk as much as possible and bankrupt in the end) - I understand Clearlake entered the football making overpaying their virtue, to show that they are no-nonsense partners for other clubs and to impress fans with effectiveness of getting high-profile signed without much fuss. But long term, this has to stop. 

We could easily do without like 60 or more % of players purchased in Clearlake reign and while I understand books is one thing and reality is other thing, isn't it easier to just not spend 100 million on trash in the frist place, than spending 100 million on a whim and then trying to balance the books with sales, despite our assets aren't worth anything near it, yet costed way more. Yeah, we are selling players, but it's hard for me to believe that wages included there is any profit on it. Income, yes, but the money is still burned. So like, in the end someone or something is losing the money and how long is it practically and legally possible to sustain the club, putting new 100 or more million into it?

5 minutes ago, YorkshireBlue said:

If that was true clearlake wouldn't have had to go to the premier league or FA and show them the dodgy books in the first place.

Do you believe any books on pro level are clear? Football, athletics, racing, everything comes to how much can you bend the rules on highest level. I wouldn't be surprised if they calculated that cooperation and blaming previous owners and general idea the club was punished by forceful sale in the first place will give them fresh start and will they will get free or cheap pass given the situation. Yet they were either very naive or didn't took upon consideration that any chance to crack down on Chelsea will be used to no end.
I won't believe russian oligarch did something, that Saudis or Chinese didn't on five times bigger scale. And I won't be surprised if it will come down to 1000 euro being given from Marina's pocket to 14 old from Vitesse B via his aunt, meanwhile City will be cleared of any wrongdoing, like they once were already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vegetable said:

And that's something I have hard time to grasp (given football club isn't a startup you want to milk as much as possible and bankrupt in the end) - I understand Clearlake entered the football making overpaying their virtue, to show that they are no-nonsense partners for other clubs and to impress fans with effectiveness of getting high-profile signed without much fuss. But long term, this has to stop. 

We could easily do without like 60 or more % of players purchased in Clearlake reign and while I understand books is one thing and reality is other thing, isn't it easier to just not spend 100 million on trash in the frist place, than spending 100 million on a whim and then trying to balance the books with sales, despite our assets aren't worth anything near it, yet costed way more. Yeah, we are selling players, but it's hard for me to believe that wages included there is any profit on it. Income, yes, but the money is still burned. So like, in the end someone or something is losing the money and how long is it practically and legally possible to sustain the club, putting new 100 or more million into it?

Do you believe any books on pro level are clear? Football, athletics, racing, everything comes to how much can you bend the rules on highest level. I wouldn't be surprised if they calculated that cooperation and blaming previous owners and general idea the club was punished by forceful sale in the first place will give them fresh start and will they will get free or cheap pass given the situation. Yet they were either very naive or didn't took upon consideration that any chance to crack down on Chelsea will be used to no end.
I won't believe russian oligarch did something, that Saudis or Chinese didn't on five times bigger scale. And I won't be surprised if it will come down to 1000 euro being given from Marina's pocket to 14 old from Vitesse B via his aunt, meanwhile City will be cleared of any wrongdoing, like they once were already.

I personally don't like it either. However, the logic is probably that if we wouldn't ever be able to attract a Palmer after his break out season and the cost involved with that (if possible) means your better off 'spraying and praying' as you might get a couple of solid players out of it as well. 

As for the numbers, I reckon part of the problem currently is they've not sorted the multi-club part out properly, so currently Chelsea are getting lumbered with everyone rather than just the top prospects of their 'spray and pray' approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm normally quite skeptical on transfer deals but I have got massive confidence this osimhen deal gets done, they have what we want and we have what they want. The desire of Lukaku to get out and our will to do the same, and on the flip side Osimhen's and Napoli's will to get him out is what will get this done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot and cold on VO.

He has something clearly - but it isn't that 100 mil type player something.

I think we've struck gold with Jackson, and now we're going to take away time on the field for him to grow some more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osimhen's current weekly salary is
£ 211,231 (basic)
£ 42,180 (bonus)

I don't think Chelsea will take him for less than 200k a week.

It looks better for Joao Felix, who signed a new contract with Atletico Madrid on 13 January 2023 with a salary reduction of:
 £240,230 (base)

To:
Weekly
98,860 £ (base)
0 £ (bonus)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thor said:

Hot and cold on VO.

He has something clearly - but it isn't that 100 mil type player something.

I think we've struck gold with Jackson, and now we're going to take away time on the field for him to grow some more. 

Yeah, VO seems like a slow moving car crash to me. I think he will come in and look ok, with people thinking he will develop/just needs to settle, but just get worse over time. 

Under absolutely no circumstances should this guy be on more than £120k a week under our current structure if that is what the guide for Fernandez and Caicedo is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thor said:

Hot and cold on VO.

He has something clearly - but it isn't that 100 mil type player something.

I think we've struck gold with Jackson, and now we're going to take away time on the field for him to grow some more. 

He's a player who's overall game isn't the greatest but get this man in the box and create a chance, he'll likely put it away. Almost complete opposites with he and Jackson. 

I think with Osimhen we know what we are getting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vegetable said:

Club is desperate to sell Gallagher and will do it for 10% of his worth and happily pay twice the asking price for player with no place in the team, that's what will happen I guess.  Who cares the whole "pRoFiT oN bOoKs" argument kinda falls down if he is gone for penauts.

Funny to think Marina had no real businness background yet managed to be way more effective, than business people of gigantic investment fund.

There is no bigger myth than Marina & that whole group being good, pretty awful actually and the criminality she oversaw is about to get us seriously punished too.

She oversaw us moving away from having perhaps the best squad in Europe to having a pretty mediocre one which could have some brief runs at trophies but never sustain us as a side challenging for PL every year in a serious way.

Sold two of the greatest footballers in modern times in Salah and De Bruyne.

Spent tonnes of money on utter wank too, but pre a lot of transfer inflation - she'd absolutely be doing the same stuff if she was still here.

Also handed out insane salaries to a bunch of terrible footballers that hindered us for years.

Total fraud and people remember her and the group that were running Chelsea in that period in a way that is very detached from reality.

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

×
×
  • Create New...