If they were as comfortable as is made out they wouldn't need to break even on transfers. And De Bruyne pretty much covered Matic. Therefore, Mourinho was making a power play or Chelsea aren't as comfortable as is made out. Since we can access their accounts, and I'm fairly certain they could afford Salah without sales, I'll go for Jose being Jose. I don't know why Carl's being so defensive, it's pretty clever really. He's one of few managers who could sell a fan favourite he doesn't want for profit, and bring in a player he does actually want.
The Chelsea Thread
- Thread starter Ramires
- Start date
- Replies 35K
- Views 3M
If they were as comfortable as is made out they wouldn't need to break even on transfers. And De Bruyne pretty much covered Matic. Therefore, Mourinho was making a power play or Chelsea aren't as comfortable as is made out. Since we can access their accounts, and I'm fairly certain they could afford Salah without sales, I'll go for Jose being Jose. I don't know why Carl's being so defensive, it's pretty clever really. He's one of few managers who could sell a fan favourite he doesn't want for profit, and bring in a player he does actually want.
Exactly. I don't get fans who are "?25m, but no more!!". Obviously, whatever extra you're paying them you can pay someone else less. But I like to think the club officials have some clue what they're talking about and have factored that into what they're offering. Like, I don't think I've ever met a single person who's thought "Yeah his goals won us the title, but **** me we're idiots for paying what we did".
That's not really much of an accomplishment when you've been one of the best teams in the world over the past thirty or so years. ****, when have Madrid sold their key players to rivals? Barca? Bayern? Man City haven't since they've become big. Besides, it's just not common that clubs sell key players to rivals in general, so it's not saying too much.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with that concept.
The club has a budget, and if you're giving Rooney that kind of money there's a sizeable opportunity cost in players not signed with those extra funds. Just saying "it's not my money, they can spend it on who they like" works up until they point they give Tom Cleverley 500k p/w, at which point even the staunchest supporter of that viewpoint has to admit that's ridiculous and harming the club.
Now, that example is silly, but the reasoning behind it is sound. If you're giving Rooney 300k, you're not unable to sign anyone else, but you are hamstrung by the cost. It's not such a problem for clubs with unlimited money like PSG and City, but United, although rich, don't have an unlimited budget.
Agreed, but it counters the argument that you can just do what you like and we're gonna pay you what you like. Rooney is pretty unique that he's integral to the team, a bit of a *******, with an even more of a ******* agent, and the only club we could possibly sell to is Chelsea.
I agree with the opportunity cost, but I assume that the people who run the finances are pretty confident on what they can and can't offer him, what the deal for him does for our wage structure, how it affects what transfer fees and wages we can offer new signings etc. If I assume that they've done the above, it's needless me worrying about it, if he's playing well and scoring goals, I'm never going to sit there and think "God Wayne was good today, but ?300k good? Nah." It's not a thought that crosses a fan's mind. Ever.
You could also argue that we could assign some value to him just by virtue of not selling him or letting him go to Chelsea on a free. Frankly, Rooney in this Chelsea side under Mourinho is something I'm not overly keen on seeing, and I don't think there's a player in the world Mourinho could buy who would fit as well as him.
Madrid are something of a possibility, I guess. I'm sure City would love to have him too!
Maybe it should be. Besides, when he does well it's never an issue, it's when he does badly that you need to worry. And when he's 31, on a 300k contract and perhaps on the first steps of the final slope down, then everyone starts noticing his wages.
I'm sure United CAN offer him ******* ridiculous amounts. You CAN offer him 700k p/w and nothing would be amiss financially. The problem is whether he's worth it and whether that money could be put to better use.
I'm not sure it's needless that you should worry about your club overpaying for its talent. Like it or not, but Rooney's not 300k p/w good, not even in this market, and especially not for his age. He might, MIGHT just be worth it for the next year or so, but past that? I doubt it, particularly when players who have been regulars since a young age have historically often shown signs of burn out in their mid-late career.
Yeah, Rooney can go to Chelsea on a free, in the July of 2016. By then, he'll be nearly 31. It's not certain Mourinho will even be at Chelsea then, let alone Rooney still playing at his highest level.
I don't see why United should be bullied into raising Rooney's wages AGAIN after they folded so easily last time. He's got 16 months left on his contract. I think there's more options than either selling him to Chelsea or giving him ridiculous wages. He's a player, he should be able to get on with it.
Here is the lesson.
We signed Arsenal's best player and now signing Chelsea's best player. Whoever is your best player again, we will find him and sign him.
But a better idea? Why not make a massive profit in this window, sell a player who is currently surplus to requirements, improve areas of the squad we needed too and make a massive profit? Makes more sense to me.
Here is the lesson.
We signed Arsenal's best player and now signing Chelsea's best player. Whoever is your best player again, we will find him and sign him.
We still have our best player mate, he's the Belgian lad you tried to get remember but he chose Chelsea instead?
Signed was your player for the year twice.
Anyways as long as we have Jose working from Chelsea we are sure we will have a fair shot at getting Hazard too
Hopefully we won't be paying 7 Million to his agent.
Anyways media always exaggerates the wages. Last time Rooney signed contract all the papers guessed from 180K to 300K (which included his image rights and everything)
Rooney's new wage will be ludicrous. But any Chelsea fans who coveted him and thought they would get him without paying a ludicrous wage, clearly don't know Paul Stretford.
Yeah it has to be. Rooney hold all the cards with only 18 months on his contract. Anyways at least I will be a very happy ManUtd fan if Rooney signs contract, he has been a leader on the pitch and a fantastic player who will be one of our greats.
I'll be honest, I'll probably be furious with the wage, but keeping him and signing Mata sends out some very very strong statements.
Here is the lesson.
We signed Arsenal's best player and now signing Chelsea's best player. Whoever is your best player again, we will find him and sign him.
Mata is our best player? News to me ... WAS kiddo WAS. Eddie Hazard is the new man in town
Last edited:
Works both ways though ... Sends out the wrong message to the rest of the squad
By all reports, we were willing to match his wage and he was willing to move .... Now he managed to wrangle out another contact for 5 years without making himself public enemy No. 1 by forcing a move. Whatever happened to no one is bigger than the club?
Too **** right. Any Chelsea fan who thought he'd move for exactly the same wages he was already on is absolutely kidding themselves. Why would Rooney move between two clubs of a similar level for no wage gain at all, particularly when the club he'd be moving to he wouldn't have any history or connection with at all?
If Chelsea were to get Rooney, they'd be shelling out 350-400k p/w, I have little doubt about that. Say what you want about Stretford, but he's a ******* magician when it comes to getting the best wages for his clients.
You're right, but that sounds a little desperate.
Whereas this is just clutching at straws. How does a contract for one of the top players who's in excellent form and then adding a world-class player to the squad send the wrong message? If anything it sends the RIGHT message: both "play well and you get rewarded" and "we are not happy with this slump and are investing to challenge for trophies in the future" in one fell swoop.
It's not only a very powerful message, it's a timely one.
I'll tell you what happened to "no one is bigger than the club". It led to Chelsea selling Mata to United.
