Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Pretty crazy that if they do purchase Enzo, they will have spent over €600m in 6 months. How is anyone meant to match that? They haven't even sold €80m of players either.

​

Players In	Club	Transfer Amount
Wesley Fofana	Leicester	€80.40m
Mykhaylo Mudryk	Shakhtar D.	€70.00m
Marc Cucurella	Brighton	€65.30m
Raheem Sterling	Man City	€56.20m
Benoît Badiashile	Monaco	€38.00m
Kalidou Koulibaly	SSC Napoli	€38.00m
Noni Madueke	PSV Eindhoven	€35.00m
Malo Gusto	Olympique Lyon	€30.00m
Carney Chukwuemeka	Aston Villa	€18.00m
Andrey Santos	Vasco da Gama	€12.50m
David Datro Fofana	Molde	€12.00m
Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang	Barcelona	€12.00m
João Félix	Atlético Madrid	Loan fee: €11.00m
Gabriel Slonina	Chicago	€9.09m
Denis Zakaria	Juventus	Loan fee: €3.00m
		€490.49m

This should also put to bed the argument that making transfers in the winter transfer window is difficult.

Add Nkunku too

 

[Beachryan]

So if FFP is an agreed upon law, that all.clubs sign up to in order to play in the competitions, and CFCs approach is to deliberately break that rule, then pay a fine...why do we not call this cheating?

Is it just cause we've all been trained to bow to the astute genius of obscene wealth?

Chelsea are going to spend in one year more than most clubs have ever spent. Ever. It's disgusting. Calling it a project or investment (ha) doesn't change it.

 

[WeePat]

Source? I thought they matched each others fixed fees but Chelsea had more realistic conditions. I'm not sure the Mudryk deal qualifies as a bid that no other club would match as clearly Arsenal were right there alongside Chelsea. We'll see about Enzo, it's an awful lot of money to pay for him but then who could really argue given he's a world cup winner and was attracting the interest of the biggest clubs in Europe. But yeah, i'd say they're overpaying for him, if it gets completed.

I don't think there's a single player on that list that another club couldn't afford to sign in isolation. After Mudryk and potentially Enzo, the next most expensive players on that list are Cucurella and Sterling at £54m and £49m. It's the accumulation of all those players together that makes this level of spending so unprecedented.

EDIT: Forgot about Wesley Fofana again. That's the second time I've forgotten him when listing players signed.

 

[Vapor trail]

Did we buy Robin Van Persie at his peak? He was 29.

I fail to understand this fixation with age: Karim Benzema is 34, Lewandoski the same I believe.... how old was Ibra' when he arrived and easily the best player, let alone forward that we had, smashing in goals for fun.

And where are all these great young No 9's??? I don't see them, and the boy at Napoli seems great, but I am not sure we play the same way as they do, and I think he may need some time. So a bit of a gamble.

Seems some fans are seeking the perfect player, age, talent etc... where a squad has to be responsive to who is available, and balance age, talent, experience... I can't believe some on here do not think Conor Gallagher would be a decent signing for example. Why not?

There are v good players who cannot hold down a place in a starting XI and some of us seem to overlook them, even though we have the craziest of game schedules coming, and Ericksen is currently injured!

The situation with RVP is not even remotely the same. The club at the time we're at the end of an era with the most successful manager in the league's history. RVP was a signing which was viable for the conditions and climate the team, club and manager was in.

A new manager who needs to refresh a squad after years of underperformance and failure should not be signing players with the profile of being 30 year olds with the idea of long term success. This is a Mourinho approach which is ideal for him given he's previously shown to be at clubs for an average of 3 seasons to then move on. When Ferguson came in he built the foundation of success from a core of younger talent which served the club for years to come.

I'm not suggesting extremism and only signing younger players but a midfield of Casemiro, Kovacic and Eriksen would be a huge concern for what the perceived direction of the club would evoke. Madrid for example coming off a successful 10 years of competitiveness rebuild from Tchoumeni, Camavinga, Valverde and potentially Bellingham. Just those players alone signify the intent from the president. Why in the world would United sign Kovacic with the conditions of the current midfield.

It's also very easy for us to shout about Lewandowski, Benzema but these are world class players who's club obtained them during their younger years. United should not be looking at the likes of Kane and Kovacic.

 

[cyberman]

I don't think there's a single player on that list that another club couldn't afford to sign in isolation. After Mudryk and potentially Enzo, the next most expensive players on that list are Cucurella and Sterling at £54m and £49m. It's the accumulation of all those players together that makes this level of spending so unprecedented.

It a a downside of your long contracts and smart on their behalf.
Say he’s a flop, there’s a chance you can’t get rid of him so he’s simply at the club if you won the CL within the next 8(!) years. Even if he is sent out on loan it should still count?

 

[tenpoless]

Pretty crazy that if they do purchase Enzo, they will have spent over €600m in 6 months. How is anyone meant to match that? They haven't even sold €80m of players either.

​

Players In	Club	Transfer Amount
Wesley Fofana	Leicester	€80.40m
Mykhaylo Mudryk	Shakhtar D.	€70.00m
Marc Cucurella	Brighton	€65.30m
Raheem Sterling	Man City	€56.20m
Benoît Badiashile	Monaco	€38.00m
Kalidou Koulibaly	SSC Napoli	€38.00m
Noni Madueke	PSV Eindhoven	€35.00m
Malo Gusto	Olympique Lyon	€30.00m
Carney Chukwuemeka	Aston Villa	€18.00m
Andrey Santos	Vasco da Gama	€12.50m
David Datro Fofana	Molde	€12.00m
Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang	Barcelona	€12.00m
João Félix	Atlético Madrid	Loan fee: €11.00m
Gabriel Slonina	Chicago	€9.09m
Denis Zakaria	Juventus	Loan fee: €3.00m
		€490.49m

This should also put to bed the argument that making transfers in the winter transfer window is difficult.

It's impressive how they managed to build such a shite list for €500mil.

 

[Devil_forever]

It's impressive how they managed to build such a shite list for €500mil.

There are a lot of talented young players in there, its way too early to be making those predictions!

 

[WeePat]

It a a downside of your long contracts and smart on their behalf.
Say he’s a flop, there’s a chance you can’t get rid of him so he’s simply at the club if you won the CL within the next 8(!) years. Even if he is sent out on loan it should still count?

Yep that's the downside. There's also an upside and that's the risk you take. Obviously as a fan of Chelsea, I'm trying to see things in a positive light despite not really having a single clue about how all of this is going to come together. The downsides are clear and obvious, so are the upsides. All we can do is wait and see where the chips fall in the next 12-18 months.

 

[Leg-End]

It’s alright lads, they sold Jorginho for double his book value.

 

[bringbackbebe]

Source? I thought they matched each others fixed fees but Chelsea had more realistic conditions. I'm not sure the Mudryk deal qualifies as a bid that no other club would match as clearly Arsenal were right there alongside Chelsea. We'll see about Enzo, it's an awful lot of money to pay for him but then who could really argue given he's a world cup winner and was attracting the interest of the biggest clubs in Europe. But yeah, i'd say they're overpaying for him, if it gets completed.

Don't think anyone here is privy to the exact details of Mudryk's contract, but this is what Shaktar chairman had to say:
"Yes, we can talk about bonuses, but these bonuses should be somehow achievable and realistic, let’s say. Therefore, in this case, Chelsea was much more serious and fair in some points."

It does seem, from their point, that the expected revenue from sale to Chelsea exceeds Arsenal. That's of course why they sold him to Chelsea over Arsenal.

 

[Jim Beam]

I'm not suggesting extremism and only signing younger players but a midfield of Casemiro, Kovacic and Eriksen would be a huge concern for what the perceived direction of the club would evoke. Madrid for example coming off a successful 10 years of competitiveness rebuild from Tchoumeni, Camavinga, Bellingham and potentially Bellingham. Just those players alone signify the intent from the president. Why in the world would United sign Kovacic with the conditions of the current midfield.

Because we are in the market for that type of midfielder and his contract is up in 2024. If we can't get de Jong maybe we can get Kovacic on the cheap (look Jorginho to Arsenal now).

Midfield of Casemiro (31) - Kovacic (29 in May) - Bruno (29 in September) for the next 2 seasons is not that old. The worst thing would be if we don't properly use Casemiro while he is at his peak. Am all for getting de Jong, but if we can't get him, we need to have alternatives this time around. Especially because we have a good set of young players and talents already to go with - Martinez, Rashford, Dalot, Antony, Malacia, Garnacho, Sancho, possibly even Diallo...
Casemiro had Modric and Kroos in their 30's around him and I wouldn't call their current rebuilding work with Tchouameni and Camavinga all that successful. Yeah, they are lovely talents, but in Madrid it's all about winning now. Quite certain they would love to have Casemiro back if given the choice.

We can always add more talent and younger players to our core, but we also need a highly competitive team now.

 

[MUFC OK]

Chukwumeaka is in £100,000 a week at 19.

 

[Rasendori]

In the summer, I think Chelsea (if possible) should go for Osimhen and Caicedo.

Mudryk's playstyle is reminiscent of Napoli's Kvaratskhelia. Given the Georgian has a symbiotic relationship with Osimhen, I think the acquisition of the Nigerian would be a great way of unleashing Chelsea's attack. Furthermore, Nkunku seems to operate best when he's playing with another forward whether that's a front two partnership where he has freedom to operate in the channels, half spaces, and offensive forays around the box, or whether that's as a shadow striker behind the #9. In this sense, I feel he would benefit from the arrival of Osimhen.

Caicedo primarily because they've already expressed interest, but also because a midfield consisting of Endo Fernandez, and Nkunku needs one more player to tie it all together. I think a high energy and/or counter attack system is the way Chelsea need to go, as domestically you'll have the likes of Pep's City and Arteta's dominating possession, and you'd imagine Ten Hag's Man Utd will gradually become a side that look to dominate possession, and on the European stage you got the Bayern Munich and Barcelona's of this world. This set up would be a great way of being built to undermine such sides.

 

[MayosNoun]

For a football forum there sure is a lot of accountants on here.

 

[brian017]

Crazy as it sounds, if they start clicking I think I'd make them favourites for Top 4 with Eriksen pretty much out for the season

 

[cyberman]

Crazy as it sounds, if they start clicking I think I'd make them favourites for Top 4 with Eriksen pretty much out for the season

Do you think Chelsea’s midfield is better than ours?!

 

[duffer]

For Mudryk, who is also clearly talented, Arsenal matched their fixed fee (62m) but had tighter conditions on the variable. Chelsea effectively paid an additional 25m on top of that. If Chelsea hadn't come in, he'd have cost effective 60m and been playing for Arsenal.

Chelsea haven't paid and additional 25 million or even an extra 1 million.

If we do win the league or champions League then good stuff but as it stands, we've paid 62.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Chelsea selling Jorginho for 10 million while Arsenal are in the middle of a title race is so bad. Imagine us selling to city or liverpool. Football clubs shouldn’t be run like business corporations, you have to maintain a local identity to it. It’s hardly like Chelsea have been desperate for money this season

 

[MayosNoun]

Chelsea selling Jorginho for 10 million while Arsenal are in the middle of a title race is so bad. Imagine us selling to city or liverpool. Football clubs shouldn’t be run like business corporations, you have to maintain a local identity to it. It’s hardly like Chelsea have been desperate for money this season

So we should keep a guy for 6 months on the bench and let him leave for free and paying his high wages?

Or

We could get 12m for him now and get him off the wage bill.

Yeah I can see how silly we have been there.

 

[duffer]

So if FFP is an agreed upon law, that all.clubs sign up to in order to play in the competitions, and CFCs approach is to deliberately break that rule, then pay a fine...why do we not call this cheating?

Chelsea haven't broken any rules, deliberately or by accident.

Happy to be corrected if you can let me know specifically what "law" we've broken.

 

[GoonerBear]

Just read that Chelsea are looking to hijack Jorghino's move to Arsenal!

Can just imagine the conversation.

"Todd, Arsenal have placed a bid for Jorginho."

"Who does he play for, is it too late for us to Gazump them?"

 

[MayosNoun]

Chelsea haven't broken any rules, deliberately or by accident.

Happy to be corrected if you can let me know specifically what "law" we've broken.

You’ll be waiting a long time.

The word cheating has been thrown about a few times with zero substance nor reply.

 

[GoonerBear]

Chelsea selling Jorginho for 10 million while Arsenal are in the middle of a title race is so bad. Imagine us selling to city or liverpool. Football clubs shouldn’t be run like business corporations, you have to maintain a local identity to it. It’s hardly like Chelsea have been desperate for money this season

If both clubs were closer in the table, vying for top 4 or the league, I doubt they'd have sold him to us.

We aren't rivals for them in that sense for the next 6 months, and for once it's nice to say that's because we are so far in front rather than behind.

 

[Beachryan]

Chelsea haven't broken any rules, deliberately or by accident.

Happy to be corrected if you can let me know specifically what "law" we've broken.

I'm more than happy to admit I'm not in the weeds on the Premier League's interpretation of FFP, but I was under the impression that it wasn't: spend whatever you like.

I know you guys are Chelsea fans - but surely you can see why (if it happens) spending >$650m in a SINGLE YEAR is batsh*t insane? That's more profit than CFC has made since it's inception, all added together and time-adjusted for inflation.

I get the PL just bends over backwards to let anyone with cash slipping out of their greasy back pockets into league ownership, but did they just create a Chelsea clause or something?

 

[Beachryan]

You’ll be waiting a long time.

The word cheating has been thrown about a few times with zero substance nor reply.

Ok, how would you describe what Chelsea is doing right now? Here's a list of clubs, in the Premier League, that could potentially spend that much without blowing up: City. Newcastle.

That's it. That kind of spend would put Manchester United, Arsenal and Spurs out of business. It would easily put the entire bottom-half of the table out of business.

So if it's not 'cheating' how would you describe it?

 

[duffer]

I'm more than happy to admit I'm not in the weeds on the Premier League's interpretation of FFP, but I was under the impression that it wasn't: spend whatever you like.

That's the thing, it seems most people on this thread don't really understand what FFP actually is but are happy to say Chelsea are "breaking the law".

Of course spending 100s of millions is ridiculous. The sport has been ridiculous in my opinion since the 90s.

 

[Beachryan]

That's the thing, it seems most people on this thread don't really understand what FFP actually is but are happy to say Chelsea are "breaking the law".

Of course spending 100s of millions is ridiculous. The sport has been ridiculous in my opinion since the 90s.

That's not a sincere answer. That's dismissing it as within the bounds of normal premier league inflation.

This is categorically different no? The sheer magnitude and number of players? I've never seen anything like it. Barely a match goes by without commentators reminding the world of our $200m spend in the summer, and how that kind of spend requires results. That was our - Manchester United's - largest spend in a year by a huge margin.

You're looking to more than treble that. With a club that historically could only exist because the owner ponied up c. $100m a year to subsidise losses.

If FFP is designed to stop clubs spending outside their means...

 

[MayosNoun]

Ok, how would you describe what Chelsea is doing right now? Here's a list of clubs, in the Premier League, that could potentially spend that much without blowing up: City. Newcastle.

That's it. That kind of spend would put Manchester United, Arsenal and Spurs out of business. It would easily put the entire bottom-half of the table out of business.

So if it's not 'cheating' how would you describe it?

Yet again you failed to answer.

Explain what ‘law’ has been broken.

I’ll await your response patiently.

 

[MayosNoun]

It’s baffling, risky and somewhat eccentric.

It it works, we have a team for the next 6-8 years. The players we are signing are young but also experienced. Enzo for example has just won the World Cup. Mudryk and Badiashile have good experience for their age.

Nkunku is another with plenty of experience and playing well.

It’s bonkers, not a single person will deny it but it’s absolutely within the laws.

 

[Rnd898]

With a club that historically could only exist because the owner ponied up c. $100m a year to subsidise losses.

If FFP is designed to stop clubs spending outside their means...

"Ponying up $100m a year to subsidise losses" is simply not true. Sure if you divide the total amount by the 19 years Abramovich owned the club you'll come up with a figure something around that ballpark but if you look at it any deeper than that you'd notice that the absolute majority of that overall figure was injected into the club before FFP was even a thing. Ever since the rules were implemented the club made sure Abramovich subsiding any losses would always be within the boundaries of the FFP rules and the club never broke them, and in fact were never even close to breaking them.

Now whether we'll have more problems in the future with the Boehly era spending and the 'new and improved FFP' rules remains to be seen and will depend on a multitude of things like for example how the new signings work out for us, how succsesful the team will be in the coming years and also whether or not the owners find new way to increase the club's financial revenues (sponsorships, stadium renovation etc.). Right now they're probably banking on the fact the revenues will increase and that we'll get back to at the very least consistent CL qualification places sooner rather than later. If that 'plan' were to fail it's possible we'll need to do some adjustments to be within the new FFP caps.

 

[duffer]

If FFP is designed to stop clubs spending outside their means...

It's not.

It's designed to keep the big teams big and the small teams small.

There's a reason Chelsea were very vocal advocates of FFP, because we'd done all the investing and didn't want anyone else to be able to do the same.

 

[Beachryan]

Yet again you failed to answer.

Explain what ‘law’ has been broken.

I’ll await your response patiently.

You're absolutely correct, there is no way to tell, today, if a law has been broken. Mazeltov on the semantics win. Internet award of the day goes to you.

So how would you describe Chelsea's spending then? How would you feel if you were a fan of any of the other 19 teams in the league, who are now supposed to compete with Chelsea. Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, United - these teams cannot spend like Chelsea are. Simply can't, they don't generate enough revenues.

Given your tone, I realise you don't care, but a more mature response would be to consider at what stage this is even a competition. This year it's Chelsea. Then next year Pep leaves and City spend 1 clean billion. Buy 20 new, world-class players. Then Newcastle get uppity, and do the same. None of those clubs can 'afford' to spend that much. They're entirely dependent on subsidies from their rich owners. In my naivety, I had thought FFP was designed to prevent clubs spending like this, because if Boehly gets bored, got too hard into crypto or whatever the real risk now is the end of CFC. That's what FFP should be trying to stop.

In my opinion far larger steps should be taken to make this a 'league' again like proper sports, but that's for another day.

 

[MayosNoun]

You're absolutely correct, there is no way to tell, today, if a law has been broken. Mazeltov on the semantics win. Internet award of the day goes to you.

So how would you describe Chelsea's spending then? How would you feel if you were a fan of any of the other 19 teams in the league, who are now supposed to compete with Chelsea. Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, United - these teams cannot spend like Chelsea are. Simply can't, they don't generate enough revenues.

Given your tone, I realise you don't care, but a more mature response would be to consider at what stage this is even a competition. This year it's Chelsea. Then next year Pep leaves and City spend 1 clean billion. Buy 20 new, world-class players. Then Newcastle get uppity, and do the same. None of those clubs can 'afford' to spend that much. They're entirely dependent on subsidies from their rich owners. In my naivety, I had thought FFP was designed to prevent clubs spending like this, because if Boehly gets bored, got too hard into crypto or whatever the real risk now is the end of CFC. That's what FFP should be trying to stop.

In my opinion far larger steps should be taken to make this a 'league' again like proper sports, but that's for another day.

I had already explained that it’s risky and somewhat eccentric. It could work out wonders and have a really strong team long term. It could fall apart and the players may fail. The players are very young but also have good experience. Spending this level of money now will limit having to spend as much over the next 2/3 years and it will balance out of the current signings are successful which is likely what Boehly and Co are hoping for.

This however, has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I was pointing out that it’s simply not cheating and not breaking any laws.

 

[Nickholas]

Ok, how would you describe what Chelsea is doing right now? Here's a list of clubs, in the Premier League, that could potentially spend that much without blowing up: City. Newcastle.

That's it. That kind of spend would put Manchester United, Arsenal and Spurs out of business. It would easily put the entire bottom-half of the table out of business.

So if it's not 'cheating' how would you describe it?

Manchester United will most likely get new owners that want to spend really big soon..I hope you complain when they start buying lots of expensive players

 

[Solius]

Manchester United will most likely get new owners that want to spend really big soon..I hope you complain when they start buying lots of expensive players

At least we'd be spending our own money we generate for the most part. We've had over £1bn taken out of the club so the least we deserve is having that balanced back out.

 

[romufc]

Manchester United will most likely get new owners that want to spend really big soon..I hope you complain when they start buying lots of expensive players

Do you not find it hilarious that a United fan is having a go at Chelsea to replace average players with quality?

When in another thread they will cry that United are not spending money and how weak the squad is, saying things like oh.. Chelsea, Arsenal, liverpool all backing the manager whilst Ten Hag has one hand tied behind his back.

Make it sense for me.

 

[Trophy Room]

Bought some good players to be fair. They should give Potter time. They’ll become a very good team.

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[UsualSuspect]

Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, United - these teams cannot spend like Chelsea are. Simply can't, they don't generate enough revenues.

They're entirely dependent on subsidies from their rich owners. In my naivety, I had thought FFP was designed to prevent clubs spending like this, because if Boehly gets bored, got too hard into crypto or whatever the real risk now is the end of CFC. That's what FFP should be trying to stop.

I mean, that's quite a number of ridiculous takes in one post. All of the clubs you mentioned can spend that way, they simply choose not to take the risk. If you don't have a clear understanding of how football finances and ffp works, that's fine - but just know that those clubs can do it. Chelsea aren't dumping bundles of cash upfront in excess of their current and expected revenues.

I seem to remember the same argument being made for when Abramovich 'leaves out of boredom'. Chelsea were supposed to crumble...but strange how it all worked out. It's almost like people don't run multi-billion pound assets like actual play things.

 

[duffer]

I can't believe we haven't gone for a centre forward. fecking skinflint owners.