horsechoker
The Caf's Roy Keane.
With Hazard confirmed to be leaving at the end of the season they will be in real trouble.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Huh? Did I miss something?With Hazard confirmed to be leaving at the end of the season they will be in real trouble.
I think they have an option to extend Giroud for a year which they'll take. Luiz they'll have to give him a new contract or go without that extra CB in the squad (dont forget Cahill is off as well). Caballero is also out of contract. Higuain and Kovacic will both be forced to return to their parent clubsGiroud and luiz out of contract I think as well
No right to recall morata in the loan agreement.
Genuinely not sure if they can extend the loan or purchase higuain as it was agreed before the ban?... Same with kovacic
CHO long term injury
Keppa, cabellero, green
Azpi, Alonso, zapacosta, emerson
Rudiger, Christiansen, zouma, Cahill
Kante, jorginiho, ampadu, drinkwater, bakayoko
Barkley, RLC, mount
Pulisic, CHO, Pedro, William
Abraham, batshuai,
Looks lacking in goals and CHO out for a while.
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/05/04/kylian-hazard-to-leave-chelseaHuh? Did I miss something?
apparently they can keep higuain... (I wasnt sure but if they pay 18m they can keep him on loan for a year or 36m to buy)I think they have an option to extend Giroud for a year which they'll take. Luiz they'll have to give him a new contract or go without that extra CB in the squad (dont forget Cahill is off as well). Caballero is also out of contract. Higuain and Kovacic will both be forced to return to their parent clubs
They could effectively be lining up like this next season
---------------Kepa---------------
Azpelicueta--Rudiger--Zouma--Alonso
--------------Jorginho--------------
-------Kante-----------Barkley-------
Willian--------Giroud--------Pulisic
Subs: Green?, Emerson, Christensen, Loftus-Cheek, Bakayoko, Hudson-Odoi, Pedro
I mean there's more potential in the Wolves and Leicester sides than there is in that and couple that with that those players still aren't 100% behind Sarri and yeah it doesn't look great for them. They'll need a huge summer in 2020
Sky say otherwiseapparently they can keep higuain... (I wasnt sure but if they pay 18m they can keep him on loan for a year or 36m to buy)
https://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/why-higuain-can-remain-to-chelsea-despite-transfer-ban-60546
i think they have to try and keep Hazard but then risk him signing a pre contract with madrid in Jan and going for nothing...
Prior to 1996. (i.e when Chelsea started to massively overspend)City got lucky because they had Manchester in their name. At least Chelsea had decent fan base and infrastructure.
Overspent since 1996? On who? Our biggest signing was Hasselbaink for £15m 2000, quality. Sutton 10m garbage 1999. The point some people make is when we got bought we were never lower than 6th in prem in the 8 or so yrs previous, CL, winning cups quite often. City were relegation fodder who were absolute shite. Their takeover was more of a lottery win, its not debatable. Roman took over a club who were already half decent and just added a few more layers on top. City literally came from nowhere and are now one of the giants.Prior to 1996. (i.e when Chelsea started to massively overspend)
Manchester City (last year won)
2 League Titles: (1968)
4 FA Cups: (1969)
2 League Cups: (1976)
3 FA Community Shields: (1972)
1 European Cup Winners Cup: (1970)
Average Attendance: 27,869
Chelsea:
1 League Titles: (1955)
1 FA Cups: (1970)
1 League Cups: (1965)
1 FA Community Shields: (1955)
1 European Cup Winners Cup: (1971)
Average Attendance: 21,062
Manchester City were the bigger club, with a higher average attendance through the decades. Chelsea's average attendance was as low as 18,755 when the EPL kicked off.
Chelsea massively overspent in the Premier League era and were lucky that they were bailed out of inevitable administration from Roman Abramovich who also paid off their debts, otherwise they'd have gone the way of Leeds United or Portsmouth.
The luck Man City had, was that they got a stadium built for them, which was originally for the Commonwealth games. As their owners originally had a strong interest in Everton, who struggled to get their stadium plans in place.
Chelsea were lucky that they are situated in the rich part of London. And had a rich Russian billionaire who was bored and had a second home there.
Historically Chelsea were a small club who constantly over-spent. Even Ken Bates bought them for 1 pound back in the 1980s and cleared off their debts back then too.
Chelsea had the fourth highest net-spend in the Premier League from 1992-98. Not to mention one of the highest wage bills. For a club whose average attendance was 12th in the Premier League.Overspent since 1996? On who? Our biggest signing was Hasselbaink for £15m 2000, quality. Sutton 10m garbage 1999. The point some people make is when we got bought we were never lower than 6th in prem in the 8 or so yrs previous, CL, winning cups quite often. City were relegation fodder who were absolute shite. Their takeover was more of a lottery win, its not debatable. Roman took over a club who were already half decent and just added a few more layers on top. City literally came from nowhere and are now one of the giants.
You should go and post on a Netball forum becuse you haven't a clue what you're talking about! Or maybe do better reseach before spouting off. Despite a huge slump in attendances from the mid 70's to mid 90's (many factors for why) they had the 6th highest average attendances over the last century, behind Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. 6 seasons Chelsea were the number 1 best supported club and that was without ever winning a trophy. Way back in the 60Prior to 1996. (i.e when Chelsea started to massively overspend)
Manchester City (last year won)
2 League Titles: (1968)
4 FA Cups: (1969)
2 League Cups: (1976)
3 FA Community Shields: (1972)
1 European Cup Winners Cup: (1970)
Average Attendance: 27,869
Chelsea:
1 League Titles: (1955)
1 FA Cups: (1970)
1 League Cups: (1965)
1 FA Community Shields: (1955)
1 European Cup Winners Cup: (1971)
Average Attendance: 21,062
Manchester City were the bigger club, with a higher average attendance through the decades. Chelsea's average attendance was as low as 18,755 when the EPL kicked off.
Chelsea massively overspent in the Premier League era and were lucky that they were bailed out of inevitable administration from Roman Abramovich who also paid off their debts, otherwise they'd have gone the way of Leeds United or Portsmouth.
The luck Man City had, was that they got a stadium built for them, which was originally for the Commonwealth games. As their owners originally had a strong interest in Everton, who struggled to get their stadium plans in place.
Chelsea were lucky that they are situated in the rich part of London. And had a rich Russian billionaire who was bored and had a second home there.
Historically Chelsea were a small club who constantly over-spent. Even Ken Bates bought them for 1 pound back in the 1980s and cleared off their debts back then too.
You need to do better research! Football attendances should be taken over a clubs history, not just when a club like Chelsea were in off field crisis for 20 years. There's many reasons why Chelsea's attendances collapsed from the late 70's to mid 90's. Not least a very large Neo Nazi political movement that was killing the image of a club that had previously been a popular, friendly, fun club. Even with the 15-20 year collapse, Chelsea had the 6th highest average attendance over the last century, only below Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. 6 seasons Chelsea were the number one best supported and that was without ever having won anything. Way back to the 60's it was said that Chelsea could be the 'Utd of the South 'if they got things right off the pitch. The debt was part of a longterm plan to build the club up on and off the pitch and then look for a buyer. They rebuilt the stadium, crowds flocked back, won Cups, qualified twice for CL, brought 2 world players of the year, plus the likes of Lampard, Gallas, Cudacini. A plan that worked and nothing like Leeds or Pompey. City had not won anything for years and had falling attendances but given a new stadium. Chelsea earned their luck and City did absolutelty nothing to deserve theirs!Prior to 1996. (i.e when Chelsea started to massively overspend)
Manchester City (last year won)
2 League Titles: (1968)
4 FA Cups: (1969)
2 League Cups: (1976)
3 FA Community Shields: (1972)
1 European Cup Winners Cup: (1970)
Average Attendance: 27,869
Chelsea:
1 League Titles: (1955)
1 FA Cups: (1970)
1 League Cups: (1965)
1 FA Community Shields: (1955)
1 European Cup Winners Cup: (1971)
Average Attendance: 21,062
Manchester City were the bigger club, with a higher average attendance through the decades. Chelsea's average attendance was as low as 18,755 when the EPL kicked off.
Chelsea massively overspent in the Premier League era and were lucky that they were bailed out of inevitable administration from Roman Abramovich who also paid off their debts, otherwise they'd have gone the way of Leeds United or Portsmouth.
The luck Man City had, was that they got a stadium built for them, which was originally for the Commonwealth games. As their owners originally had a strong interest in Everton, who struggled to get their stadium plans in place.
Chelsea were lucky that they are situated in the rich part of London. And had a rich Russian billionaire who was bored and had a second home there.
Historically Chelsea were a small club who constantly over-spent. Even Ken Bates bought them for 1 pound back in the 1980s and cleared off their debts back then too.
We 'should' get one more window as CAS wont be able to provide an answer until the window is closing/closed, going by past similar cases. Therefore it would be lifted under rule R37.They will get one more transfer window while they appeal. Same as other clubs. Hazard gone but the will spend a bit and they have 40 odd loanees to call on. They will be fine
I understand you're a Chelsea fan, so obviously not looking at this objectively. But what I said was true, prior to 1996 when Chelsea started to overspend, they had a lower average attendance than City. I wasn't talking about the 30's, I was talking about the 1994-95 season and the immediate seasons prior. City were also more successful.You should go and post on a Netball forum becuse you haven't a clue what you're talking about! Or maybe do better reseach before spouting off!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Reckon you'll sign Zaha, Sancho and Pulisic with 12 months?Press release from CAS says we did violate rules for minors but only a 3rd of the total claimed by FIFA were actually punishable. And the other violations were not as serious as FIFA claimed, also the fine has been halved
There will be deals done. My money is on Ake and Zaha (meh). Sancho in summer
Pedro will go. Willian possibly. I think the club will want Sancho more than Zaha of course.Reckon you'll sign Zaha, Sancho and Pulisic with 12 months?
You need a striker and a LB. Can't see you spending £150m plus on 2 more wingers.
punishment was too harsh to begin with according to CAS. FIFA went way overboardSo during the ban they actually got 2 players and now the ban is over. Harsh these punishments are
They wouldn’t. Chelsea fan just getting a bit excited.Why would they want Zaha and Sancho ?
They already have Mount,Pulisic and Odoi for the wings.
Mount isn't a winger he just covered there for a bit.Why would they want Zaha and Sancho ?
They already have Mount,Pulisic and Odoi for the wings.
Absolute joke. They have played the system, shouldn't even have been allowed Kovacic