Branislav Ivanovic

[iseah100 5,612]

We should play Willian/Cuadrado as Rb and Iva as winger to go completely against footballing logic and piss "football experts".

If Guardiola did that he would be hailed as a genius.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

If Guardiola did that he would be hailed as a genius.

Im sure Mou would be too if it worked.

[ZOS 580]

I know its never gonna happen but I wish Ivanovic starts blocking them crosses against PSG ... with Cavanni and Ibra, we'll be in a whole lot of trouble if he keeps on backing away into the box

[kellzfresh 7,226]

I know its never gonna happen but I wish Ivanovic starts blocking them crosses against PSG ... with Cavanni and Ibra, we'll be in a whole lot of trouble if he keeps on backing away into the box

What we need too is zouma playing and marking ibrahimovic in the box. He won every single header against terry and cahill, it was scary.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Chelsea Legend?

Yes.

300+ games. In his eighth season with the club.

Won the Prem, the League Cup, the FA Cup (three times), the Champions League, and the Europa League. You can add the Community Shield in there as well if you like. Legend doesn't do him justice.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

This motherfucker scored more crucial goals for Chelsea than Ronaldo did for Real. Absolutely no doubt Iva is Chelsea legend and a big one too!

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Chelsea offer Branislav Ivanovic new £90,000-a-week deal

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/562398/Chelsea-Branislav-Ivanovic-new-contract

We're dooooomed

[NiclasCFC 2,582]

Deserves more then 1 year, stupid age policy by the Club IMO.

[Blue Armour 4,188]

Deserves more then 1 year, stupid age policy by the Club IMO.

Yeah, having that kind of policy for over 30yr old players is ridiculous...Drogba had his best season ever when he was 33, and I remember at the time he had obtained a 2 yr extension..Plus age is not the only factor. They should look at how crucial he is to the lineup and the impact he has on matches. Its not as if he's coming off the bench to influence the odd game...

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Yeah, having that kind of policy for over 30yr old players is ridiculous...Drogba had his best season ever when he was 33, and I remember at the time he had obtained a 2 yr extension..Plus age is not the only factor. They should look at how crucial he is to the lineup and the impact he has on matches. Its not as if he's coming off the bench to influence the odd game...

I think it's a brilliant policy in all truth. Players have to earn their new contracts. What's to say a player signs a 3/4 year deal and undergoes some kind of Gerrard-like decline?

[NiclasCFC 2,582]

I think it's a brilliant policy in all truth. Players have to earn their new contracts. What's to say a player signs a 3/4 year deal and undergoes some kind of Gerrard-like decline?

I think the policy is great when players come to the age of 33,34 like we have done with Terry, Drogba and Lamps. But in this case we are talking about a player who is vital for this team and he has just turned 31, a 2 year deal with an option for a third year if he performs would be what he deserves IMO. Also by your theory if we sign a 28 year old player we can max give him a 2 year deal because maybe he declines after turning 30? If Fabregas undergoes your so called Gerrard-like decline when he turns 30, we still have him tied up for 2 years with a massive salary.

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

Yeah, having that kind of policy for over 30yr old players is ridiculous...Drogba had his best season ever when he was 33, and I remember at the time he had obtained a 2 yr extension..Plus age is not the only factor. They should look at how crucial he is to the lineup and the impact he has on matches. Its not as if he's coming off the bench to influence the odd game...

And then you have Malouda-type situation when you can't move the player on instead you pay him big wages to train with reserves for example. Many players have a contract signed with expiring date well after they're turning 30. The only time when that policy really disappointed was with Ballack in 2010. He should have been given an automatic extension, really. I think Chelsea should consider adding another year in contract after appearing in high % of games in the final year of player's deal, just like Barca do.

Anyway, this policy is build on trust that players after 30 and spending many years with the club are tied up enough with this institution to not flee somewhere when big offer arrives. It pays dividends more often than not. After some age career really can have a massive downhill in any moment. It's a matter of months when age is getting after someone and he's well off his usual self. Just look at Ashley Cole. He could sign long-term contract in 2012 because he still performed high, but at certain moment he lost all his pace and agility. Now look what has left from him.

On Ivanovic's matter I have to say the wage structure in this club is fantastic. This guy is nailed on starter yet his extenstion will earn him "only" 90 grands a week. A fuc*i** Sagna, a backup is earning 100k+. Matic, one of the best midfielder in the Premier League will earn circa 100k. The only player that is earning more than 200k is Hazard while you have 4 or 5 of those in United and City. Mourinho said that wage demand prevented Chelsea from signing Di Maria, that's about right. Thanks to fantastic work done here on economic side Chelsea are ready to splash the cash in the summer to finally complete the puzzle and rebuilding process.

[Blue Armour 4,188]

I think it's a brilliant policy in all truth. Players have to earn their new contracts. What's to say a player signs a 3/4 year deal and undergoes some kind of Gerrard-like decline?

Gerrard and Lampard really went over the hill only after 32/33. I don't think its that often that players have a rapid decline in form after age 30, especially if they have had a fantastic season. At least, it shouldn't be that case for defenders unless they are absent for long periods due to injury.

And I remember the Malouda case clearly. He did NOT lose form after signing the contract. In fact, for a while after he did, he was playing in his best form. He lost form right around when Lampard and Benayoun succumbed to injury and he was the only one available as a creative focal point for the team. Too much pressure, and he clearly wasn't the type of player to carry the entire team on his own. In fact, after these players returned, his own form was back and he finished the season as the team's top scorer.

I will concede that a 4yr extension at this stage may not be the best, but I don't see the harm in offering a 2yr extension.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

I think the policy is great when players come to the age of 33,34 like we have done with Terry, Drogba and Lamps. But in this case we are talking about a player who is vital for this team and he has just turned 31, a 2 year deal with an option for a third year if he performs would be what he deserves IMO. Also by your theory if we sign a 28 year old player we can max give him a 2 year deal because maybe he declines after turning 30? If Fabregas undergoes your so called Gerrard-like decline when he turns 30, we still have him tied up for 2 years with a massive salary.

What's wrong with offering a two year deal with the option of a third to a 28 year old?

You can throw names around like Terry, Lampard and Drogba who all continued to play well after the age of 30, but who is to say the next player we offer a big deal to well into their thirties doesn't do a Shevchenko.

The fact is there are cases on either side of the "went downhill/continued playing well" divide and we could argue until the sun rises in the west and sets in the east and the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves. In my opinion you shouldn't play percentages. I believe offering incremental contracts on a 12-month basis means players have to battle for their contracts. Are there are guarantees John Terry would be playing as well as he is at this stage if he already had his £120,000-a-week salary guaranteed for the next 12 months? I'm not so sure.

All I will say is this: does the one year policy damage us in any way?

No, it doesn't. If a player doesn't like it they have two options: either do what Terry has done and prove their worth; or go elsewhere and milk another club for their millions.

[lionsden 4,689]

this policy is good in theory but like every policy has its flaws.

It should only apply to certain types of players like those who rely heavily on pace and physical ability/conditioning see ramires and players whose ability and reliability doesn't justify it. JT is still one of the finest defenders around and his game doesn't rely on pace which he never had. Players of his ilk can play at a high level well into their late 30s.

[Spike 12,049]

I am a firm believe in the "Branislav Alves" moniker. Mainly because I coined it.

[Jase 43,479]

To be honest, not sure what's the big fuss about having Ivanovic on a one year contract anyway. If he plays well, then he will get a contract extension. If not, then the club would probably take a different route. It will ensure the player stays switched on and continues to improve rather than stagnate and fade into oblivion. It might be harsh for someone who has done well for the club but that's life in football isn't it? (funnily enough, that's a phrase some fans like to use when the situation suits them but don't when it's doesn't)

[OneMoSalah 8,663]

One year contract extensions for players over 30 is perfect, remember when Lampard got his extension when Rafa was in charge but everyone was sitting saying he should get a 2 year deal or a 3 year deal? Why? He was shite the season after and hardly played and was probably on huge wages, one year contracts means we can dispose of certain players if we need to with a bit more ease by being able to not offer them a contract instead of trying to offoad them when they have 2 years to go and huge wages.