Chelsea Transfers

[Mário César 1,284]

 

[TheHulk 2,482]

7 minutes ago, Mário César said:

 

What was the point of even buying them.

[Mário César 1,284]

Just now, TheHulk said:

What was the point of even buying them.

Really pathetic

[YorkshireBlue 3,279]

15 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

What we paid for them is no longer important esp once we put them on high wages. Would be the same as City asking 100m for Grealish right now. It was already overpaid back then. 

We can ask whatever value we want for players, the question is about demand: who is going to pay that AND then take on the player's wages (in full).

They were all big losses... shit happens. Player can pick up a bad injury and his value would plummet.

Shit does happen, imagine if the mortgage companies said that when you ring up complaining your house has dropped 30k in valuation, shit happens sir 🤣

[NikkiCFC 8,337]

5 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

What was the point of even buying them.

 

4 minutes ago, Mário César said:

Really pathetic

I like how club is proactive and already willing to sell players we purchased recently that didn't turned out good. Madueke, Mudryk, Sterling, Disasi, Badiashile, Washington, Angelo, Moreira and some others... Apparently all available on the market. 

[robsblubot 3,595]

Just now, YorkshireBlue said:

Shit does happen, imagine if the mortgage companies said that when you ring up complaining your house has dropped 30k in valuation, shit happens sir 🤣

That's actually a good example and exactly my point--2002 housing crash.

People took on those crazy loans betting on a future increase of asset price: so, the mortgage would be our player wages, and the house value the player asking fee.

As soon as the value of the houses (player's value) dropped like a rock, it made no sense to pay mortgage anymore and they couldn't sell the houses for a value anywhere high enough to cover the mortgage incurred, so people just stopped paying which caused the cascading effect in the financial & housing markets.

That's me talking about finance... sure we have better people around to do that. 😅

[TheHulk 2,482]

10 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

 

I like how club is proactive and already willing to sell players we purchased recently that didn't turned out good. Madueke, Mudryk, Sterling, Disasi, Badiashile, Washington, Angelo, Moreira and some others... Apparently all available on the market. 

Most of us knew a lot of them we're busts from the get go, selling them after a season only confirms the scouting is completely clueless. Also most of them will be sold for cheaper than they were bought, so what a waste of time and money.

Edited August 15, 2024 by TheHulk

[Stats 7,147]

12 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

 

I like how club is proactive and already willing to sell players we purchased recently that didn't turned out good. Madueke, Mudryk, Sterling, Disasi, Badiashile, Washington, Angelo, Moreira and some others... Apparently all available on the market. 

I disagree. Why buy players like Angelo if you are going to sell him after one season. He is defo more talented than Moreira and is still a potential very good player. It is quite silly to say Madueke didn't turn out good when he got himself in the team last season and had a good spell and is young enough to improve. It is about whether the club give him a chance to do that. I am in a minority here but don't think Badiashile is as bad as people make out. He is not world clas but decent defender imo. 

Washington was a pointless buy from the beginning. Had very little first team experience and we overspent on a player who majority of fans did not understand from the off. Defo will not be able to sell for even half the fee we bought him for.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

 

[LAM09 7,062]

7 hours ago, JFKvsNixon said:

The investigation has not got anything to do with the FA, it's the Premier League.

This is where it gets interesting. The Premier League is owned by the clubs who are currently in it, and I'm not so sure that Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal et al would be open to allowing Man City get off with a soft punishment, especially after they refused to cooperate with the investigation. Let's not forget that many clubs have made big sacrifices to ensure they stayed within the regulations, so they'll also want their pound of flesh.

The only question for me is whether or not the Premier League managed to get their regulations watertight enough to survive the legal challenge that Man City will bring. It's worth noting that the Premier league does have the resources to ensure that they had all their ducks in a row, so there's every chance that Man City will get the book thrown at them.

If I had to choose a punishment, I'd given them a 200 to 400 point deduction that would carry over through the following seasons, on top of a long transfer ban. It would be interesting to see them struggle to hold on to their players, whilst they drop down through the leagues.

The FA/PL, I was putting them under the same bracket, but thank you for correcting me.

Either way, the PL could try to save face rather than let it be known that City managed to get away with all of this for over a decade. I'm sure by the time whatever punishment comes their way, most of their key players will be long gone, including the manager (there's more to his timely desire to move on in the next year or so).

[Vesper 30,226]

6 hours ago, Vegetable said:

Marina had no real businness background

She was a financial director at Roman's Millhouse Capital (AUM there included Sibneft (now Gazprom Neft), Russian Aluminium (aka Rusal, now the world's largest aluminium producer), Aeroflot, RusPromAvto, the Prodo agricultural group, as well as investments in electricity, pulp and paper processing, insurance and banking.[

[TheHulk 2,482]

Looks like another Clownlake possible masterclass.

[Pizy 18,953]

5 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

Looks like another Clownlake possible masterclass.

wtf does one have to do with the other? Neres and Lukaku don’t play the same position and aren’t similar even a little bit.

[OhForAGreavsie 6,078]

2 hours ago, King Kante said:

Not really, where I stand on her role is that if you're in that position you either have to take ultimate responsibility for the sign-off (as supposedly you're the one who has oversight of all aspects and you should have enough industry knowledge to know whatever is being signed off is correct or not) or you're there for other purposes (to act as a patsy, for good PR etc.) 

For me, you cannot be a Head/Director of something and then blame it on your underlings when things go pear shaped. As the day-to-day of any such role is to ensure that you're underlings do what is required and you have enough knowledge of whatever sector/industry etc, that you can tell if something is off/not right. If you can't do that, then you're there for other purposes. 

 

If you run a large company some of your internal staff will be responsible for facilities maintenance. They will quite often be supplemented by external staff too. All of these people will have task specific expertise and their work will frequently require large capital expenditure. Such expenditure will have to be signed off by a senior executive. That executive will rely on the expertise of their technical staff as to whether the work being carried out is necessary and performed to the required standards and codes. That senior executive won't be required to make the technical decisions, but instead be tasked with ensuring suitably qualified people are in place.

Sorry for spelling all of this out. I'm well aware that you know all of this. The reason for labouring this point is that Marina was in an even more removed situation than this. She was effectively an Avatar for Roman at the club. If she advised that a particular transfer could not be afforded, but Roman insisted that it must go through, it would go through. Marina's performance would be judged not only on her independent judgments, but also on her ability to be a fixer for the boss.

Until, and unless, someone shows me irrefutable evidence that Marina was picking the players to be signed I will not believe it. I'm firmly fixed in this position because, if I had Roman's money, picking the players would be the fun part. I certainly would not delegate that away while forking out large chunks of my fortune for someone else to enjoy.

Very early in Roman's ownership of the club Bruce Buck revealed that the oligarch used Football Manager to assess players. The CEO we brought in from Man United, whose name escapes me for a minute, confirmed that the manager did not make all of the transfer decisions. To me it is blindingly obvious that Roman was making them. He is, in my opinion, certainly the person who signed Lukaku the second time. I even believe that it was his son who signed Marco Marin; a player with eye catching attributes but zero effective contribution to team play.

Let's blame Marina for things which were her fault but the players signed are not among them.

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2024 by OhForAGreavsie

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

 

[Mário César 1,284]

7 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

felix?

yeah well lets see if more sources tell the same 

Edited August 15, 2024 by Mário César

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

10 minutes ago, Mário César said:

felix?

I think it will be both Felix and Conor.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,819]

 

[mkh 601]

JUST IN: Atletico Madrid want Gallagher but on NEW terms, Chelsea want to discuss Joao, but gap on price tag.. it is a very tricky situation, but working on it. @FabrizioRomano

 

Fuck you Atletico

 

[Pizy 18,953]

Jesus. How can it take a fucking week to agree on a player we obviously want to sell badly and a player they want rid of badly?

It’s just like Lukaku/Osimhen/Napoli. We know Lukaku badly wants Napoli, Napoli badly wants Lukaku, and Napoli have already said multiple times that they’ve agreed Osimhen can go. So wtf is going on? Are we making insulting offers that will never be accepted or are the other clubs making insulting demands?

Whatever it is, it’s fucking annoying.