The Chelsea Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramires
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 35K
  • Views Views 3M
Yup, all we need is some comedy and nothing is more hilarious than Nando tripping himself.
 
Regarding Hazard/Ronaldo comparison, I think real life isn't FM where you can say he has 185PA, development of a player can be early or late. He is also much more of a team player than all the players being compared to (as they rack up goals stats), Hazard finished many matches without a single shot attempted. I don't care as long as he keeps performing like this in Chelsea blue and we keep winning under Jose Mourinho.
 
Anyone else think Luiz will be sold this summer to fund moves for Shaw and a striker? I have a sneaky feeling that's what Mourinho is planning to do after securing Zouma and the only reason Luiz didn't go in January was because the fans wouldn't have stood to see two fan-favourites leave in the same window
 
Anyone else think Luiz will be sold this summer to fund moves for Shaw and a striker? I have a sneaky feeling that's what Mourinho is planning to do after securing Zouma and the only reason Luiz didn't go in January was because the fans wouldn't have stood to see two fan-favourites leave in the same window

He's been pretty impressive in midfield so far and gives Matic a lot more freedom than if he were playing with Ramires. Personally, I wonder about Mikel's future.
 
He's been pretty impressive in midfield so far and gives Matic a lot more freedom than if he were playing with Ramires. Personally, I wonder about Mikel's future.

Good point. Although Luiz will fetch a larger transfer fee than Mikel for sure ... Surely something that will be on the back of Mourinho's mind. Anyways imo, Mikel is a good player who is underrated but that's just it, he is good. There are younger and better players out there who can fill his spot more than easily
 
Anyone else think Luiz will be sold this summer to fund moves for Shaw and a striker? I have a sneaky feeling that's what Mourinho is planning to do after securing Zouma and the only reason Luiz didn't go in January was because the fans wouldn't have stood to see two fan-favourites leave in the same window
This is last time I'm putting it out there.

WE DON'T NEED TO SELL IN SUMMER FOR STRIKER.

^Screaming as loud as possible, even in FFP we can buy 3 Cavanis ATM. Our board is working our finances very well, we will be fine in FFP without any shady business. People go overboard with our losses, which are better explained here > http://www.chelsea.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=540773

We just sold Mata, Luiz might as well be sold, but we don't need to sell him just for the money.
 
This is last time I'm putting it out there.

WE DON'T NEED TO SELL IN SUMMER FOR STRIKER.

^Screaming as loud as possible, even in FFP we can buy 3 Cavanis ATM. Our board is working our finances very well, we will be fine in FFP without any shady business. People go overboard with our losses, which are better explained here > Chelsea - How Much Money Can Chelsea Spend?

We just sold Mata, Luiz might as well be sold, but we don't need to sell him just for the money.

I won't even bother checking the article because you are basically saying we can safetly pay 150m in transfer fees and 600k p/w in wages and still comply with the FFP which sounds like total bs to me
 
If the above mentioned scenario is the case ... I think we can all safetly say that UEFA have failed horribly with FFP
 
FFP is meant not to stop clubs from spending,but to "ensure clubs spend in line with their revenue". That article has very little to do with what I said, it just explains our accounts in line with FFP.

RM can spend 200M on A player with ease because of their revenue and comply with FFP, simples. They don't want clubs like Malaga to get under burden of loan and not pay it properly.
 
FFP is meant not to stop clubs from spending,but to "ensure clubs spend in line with their revenue". That article has very little to do with what I said, it just explains our accounts in line with FFP.

RM can spend 200M on A player with ease because of their revenue and comply with FFP, simples. They don't want clubs like Malaga to get under burden of loan and not pay it properly.

So basically we supposedly generate comparable revenue with RM considering that we can splash 150m without batting an eyelid? I am clearly not well-versed with the FFP but that just seems funny to me ... It's like sugar daddy mania again
 
The truth about FFP is that no one knows yet. We don't know how UEFA will act until the moment of judgement comes; at moment clubs like City and PSG are blatantly cheating the system but seem confident that they'll be allowed to get away with it. Our approach so far is "better safe than sorry", so if Platini grows a pair and punishes those abusing the limitations via "sponsorship deals" we won't get ******. Until then, it's kind of pointless to speculate.

However, we do have the money to spend on a big striker in the summer without needing to sell anyone, even if we want to stick to our current plan of "don't flaunt your abuse in UEFA's face".
 
The truth about FFP is that no one knows yet. We don't know how UEFA will act until the moment of judgement comes; at moment clubs like City and PSG are blatantly cheating the system but seem confident that they'll be allowed to get away with it. Our approach so far is "better safe than sorry", so if Platini grows a pair and punishes those abusing the limitations via "sponsorship deals" we won't get ******. Until then, it's kind of pointless to speculate.

However, we do have the money to spend on a big striker in the summer without needing to sell anyone, even if we want to stick to our current plan of "don't flaunt your abuse in UEFA's face".

I definitely think we have the money although saying we can splash 150m without batting an eyelid is going too far ... Still I think with or without FFP, Chelsea are adopting a good approach. Roman has deep pockets but they are not bottomless, eventually the club will have to fend for itself and be self-sustainable. 20 years down the road, we will be thankful of the steps we are taking here and now
 
So basically we supposedly generate comparable revenue with RM considering that we can splash 150m without batting an eyelid? I am clearly not well-versed with the FFP but that just seems funny to me ... It's like sugar daddy mania again
No, we can not spend that much on a player but in last 2-3 seasons we have a net spend equal to the money RM spends on players they keep for 1 year. I'm not comparing, I'm just giving an example that FFP does not stop clubs from spending, it just ensures club spend in line with their revenue. RM's revenue is godly compared to ours, but our department has done some great job. We can spend without selling.
 
I definitely think we have the money although saying we can splash 150m without batting an eyelid is going too far ... Still I think with or without FFP, Chelsea are adopting a good approach. Roman has deep pockets but they are not bottomless, eventually the club will have to fend for itself and be self-sustainable. 20 years down the road, we will be thankful of the steps we are taking here and now
Roman hasn't injected money in a long time, we have "genuine" sponsorship deals and respectable revenue to buy players, just shut it already.
 
Roman hasn't injected money in a long time, we have "genuine" sponsorship deals and respectable revenue to buy players, just shut it already.

You need to shut it if you think Roman 'hasn't injected money in a long time' ... You are clearly living under a rock or on Mars for the past few years then
 
No, we can not spend that much on a player but in last 2-3 seasons we have a net spend equal to the money RM spends on players they keep for 1 year. I'm not comparing, I'm just giving an example that FFP does not stop clubs from spending, it just ensures club spend in line with their revenue. RM's revenue is godly compared to ours, but our department has done some great job. We can spend without selling.

Perhaps although it will be a big '**** you' to the face of UEFA if we start throwing that kind of money around ... Always better to grow and improve sustainably
 
Back
Top