X number of games is the usual one, right?It’s common sense though, isn’t it? What else could it be? Turning up to training in time?
X number of games is the usual one, right?It’s common sense though, isn’t it? What else could it be? Turning up to training in time?
When I read about this deal i didn't see any conditions, it was mentioned as good as done deal as it was obligation.Fair enough - didn't know that and shouldn't have used the word "any".
That said, this doesn't apply in Hall's case or just about any that I can think of given that there are specific requirements in the deal.
As duffer says it wasn't public but the rumours were a very low bar - something like 5-10 appearances in all competitionsThe man has 104 minutes played in the league, what requirements are there?
Surely they would have to sell some players first, literally everyone in the squad has a 10 year contract so it won’t be easy to do.Nothing that can’t be fixed with another £1 billion
Must be a massive concern, for us I always felt an ownership change would help (jury still out on that as early days) but for you guys it feels like a mess and its new ownership so that aspect isnt going to change.Burn everything thing down.
How is it even possible? Genuinely, with that amount of spending, surely any club has to go forwards? Even a little?Imagine being this bad after spending £1bn.
Perhaps the difference is the starting level. The Glazers have effectively run us terribly for a decade and a half, so INEOS can hardly do worse. Abramovich had Chelsea as a leading force, winning trophies and in the Champions League most years. They have much further to fall.Must be a massive concern, for us I always felt an ownership change would help (jury still out on that as early days) but for you guys it feels like a mess and its new ownership so that aspect isnt going to change.
l have mentally checked out. We’re 2 years in and all I’ve seen from this ownership is chaos, unprecedented chaotic spending with little to no plan on how to make it work. My expectations for the remainder of this season and the future in general is on the floor. Doesn’t matter if they throw £100m at Osimhen. I expect failure.Must be a massive concern, for us I always felt an ownership change would help (jury still out on that as early days) but for you guys it feels like a mess and its new ownership so that aspect isnt going to change.
Oh don’t worry, we understand that pain quite well.l have mentally checked out. We’re 2 years in and all I’ve seen from this ownership is chaos, unprecedented chaotic spending with little to no plan on how to make it work. My expectations for the remainder of this season and the future in general is on the floor. Doesn’t matter if they throw £100m at Osimhen. I expect failure.
I’d be surprised if Osimhen fancied the move if I’m honest.l have mentally checked out. We’re 2 years in and all I’ve seen from this ownership is chaos, unprecedented chaotic spending with little to no plan on how to make it work. My expectations for the remainder of this season and the future in general is on the floor. Doesn’t matter if they throw £100m at Osimhen. I expect failure.
And this is why the idea of solving problems by spending is such a fallacy. Chelsea have basically bought a new squad over the last 12-18 months; not a new team, a new squad. Basically, they actually took the "sell everyone, start from scratch" approach that you ovmdten see people begging for around here after a run of bad results. And what it's shown is that if you don't have a clear strategy and don't integrate these players gradually, it actually makes you worse, nit better.How is it even possible? Genuinely, with that amount of spending, surely any club has to go forwards? Even a little?
Premier league needs to become the soccer NFL...those investors he somehow convinced this was a great idea must be livid now
like where is the pay-off coming from here? It makes so little sense at the moment
If he's as big a mercenary as the rest of them have been, he'll be signing that 50 year contract.I’d be surprised if Osimhen fancied the move if I’m honest.
It's not bad to celebrate it but I'd have thought you'd celebrate it by having it as a theme in the match day programme or something.to be honest, I don’t think celebrating Chinese new year is bad I’ll just take any chance to laughTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think the problem is that they bought an entirely new team. So much spending so quickly is probably impossible to get right.How is it even possible? Genuinely, with that amount of spending, surely any club has to go forwards? Even a little?
Chelsea might have a good team in a year or two but I can't imagine any way Boehly makes a profit on all this. It's incredible they were so confident that they knew better that they spent that much money.those investors he somehow convinced this was a great idea must be livid now
like where is the pay-off coming from here? It makes so little sense at the moment
Other clubs are missing the trick here. Collectively, they could really do some damage on Chelsea by not giving them ridiculous fees for players like Gallagher.
In late May/early June I'd try lowballing them with an offer for Palmer that's well below his current valuation but a profit on the 42m they spent on him. He is a Wythenshawe lad after all and his family are Reds. Plus he'd be the perfect solution to our RW problem.let's give them a hand by taking Enzo Fernández out of their hands. American owners should do the right thing and help each other out in times of crisis. I'm sure we can get Enzo some sort of space in our stacked midfield
Let's go for it, they owe us one for Mount. Does he have an anti-United clause though, like that madrid dude.In late May/early June I'd try lowballing them with an offer for Palmer that's well below his current valuation but a profit on the 42m they spent on him. He is a Wythenshawe lad after all and his family are Reds. Plus he'd be the perfect solution to our RW problem.
Good question. The clause in Diaz's contract was so widely publicised, I'm not sure if that was just a one-off or if it's become the norm with most of City's sales since then.Let's go for it, they owe us one for Mount. Does he have an anti-United clause though, like that madrid dude.
I wouldn’t be.I’d be surprised if Osimhen fancied the move if I’m honest.
I don't think it's a norm I velieve Guardiola is on record stating City won't stop players from leaving to even to their rivals if they wish so because Big Clubs should be confident in their own ability or something to that effect .Good question. The clause in Diaz's contract was so widely publicised, I'm not sure if that was just a one-off or if it's become the norm with most of City's sales since then.
Ara you missing the irony or am I missing your sarcasm?How is it even possible? Genuinely, with that amount of spending, surely any club has to go forwards? Even a little?
What you’ve got to remember is some of these players they signed have false values. Caicedo, Enzo, Mudryk in particular are worth absolutely nowhere near the amount paid for them. Caicedo did have a strong year with Brighton in the prem but generally all three players have little/no experience playing at the highest level and all three have underwhelmed massively.How is it even possible? Genuinely, with that amount of spending, surely any club has to go forwards? Even a little?
Meh, no fun in keep wallowing in your own misery. I feel enough disappointment and negativity from us in the last 10 years. Always more fun to laugh at someone else’s expense.Ara you missing the irony or am I missing your sarcasm?
We've spent over 1.5 billion since SAF (almost 400m of that for EtH alone) and been terrible ourselves.
At least Chelsea will be paying less in wages and have a significant resale value.
https://www.theshedend.com/topic/32425-todd-boehly-chelsea-agree-sale/page/435/#commentsDo Chelsea fans have a particularly popular forum? Would love to see some meltdowns
Yeah, but at least our owners/top brass embrace their trust fund baby status and don't come in with pretensions of "disrupting the sport" "take a bit of a lesson of American sports".Ara you missing the irony or am I missing your sarcasm?
We've spent over 1.5 billion since SAF (almost 400m of that for EtH alone) and been terrible ourselves.
At least Chelsea will be paying less in wages and have a significant resale value.
Well said and hilarious when you think about it. The idea that spending £100m+ on players at 21 or 22 and they're going to turn into £150m players is laughable. There just isn't the market for that first of all, unless they go to select few other clubs like Chelsea. Secondly, spending £100 million on them is their peak value. If they're big hits, you're probably not going to sell them until they're 28 or 29, at which point they no longer have the same resale value. If they're perfectly average, then you probably get £50-60m max. If they're shite, then you get either nothing or miniscule return on your investment.What you’ve got to remember is some of these players they signed have false values. Caicedo, Enzo, Mudryk in particular are worth absolutely nowhere near the amount paid for them. Caicedo did have a strong year with Brighton in the prem but generally all three players have little/no experience playing at the highest level and all three have underwhelmed massively.
They basically ripped apart and sold a team of players who had won the CL, finished 3rd/4th and got to two cup finals and signed all these young and unproven players and given them all 6-8 year contracts. I know the poster above mentioned resale value but what resale value? A resale value of a quarter of the paid price.
I don’t think it’s said enough about how this whole thing they’ve done is possibly one of the most dumbest things ever seen/witnessed in football. There’ll be documentaries on this in 30 years time. It was an absolutely stupid method to take at rebuilding a club. A club that didn’t even need rebuilding.