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

[redcucumber]

Yeah still a couple of positions we need to fill:

- a long term midfield partner for Enzo, preferably a defensive-minded one so Enzo can roam a little more. Enzo's probably already good as is, but we could get even more out of him if he doesn't have to sit so deep and can go forward at times without risking too much at the back. You mentioned Caicedo but personally I'd try for Rice as first choice instead. If there are some further outgoings from the group Kovacic/Kante/Mount maybe another signing will be needed as well?

- striker is a tricky position for us. Auba is definitely a dead man walking and won't be at the club next season, even through contract termination if absolutely needed. We also have Nkunku coming in so interesting to see where he fits, would assume a similar role for him as the one Felix will be playing from now till the end of the season. Even if Felix works out I'd still probably not look to make the loan permanent, and instead use Nkunku there and go for a real striker instead. Who that could be is out of my wisdom.

- a right sided forward would likely depend on how Madueke works out. He seems to have a lot of talent but is also a bit injury prone so that could potentially be a bit of a problem? If Ziyech goes in the summer, which looks almost certain, maybe another option could be useful to have?

- goalkeeper area needs some long term planning. Will probably continue with the current lot next season but both Kepa and Mendy's contracts are up in 2025 and aside from Mendy's great first season in 20/21 neither have looked particularly great. Maybe we'll dip into the market for a new keeper already next summer if we can sell one of those two but it's also possible this issue is postponed till 2024 or later, and we'll first see how the youngster Slonina develops before making any long term decisions.

So yeah a striker and a midfielder are a must and depending on outgoings maybe a RW, another midfielder and a GK?

So on top of the 17 signings you've already made, you need another 5 in the summer?! Why would you need potentially two new midfielders when you've got Kovacic, Enzo (new signing), Kante, Mount, Gallagher, RLC, Chukwumeka (new signing), and Andrey Santos (new signing). That's 8 players for the two central midfield positions (9 if you made Zakaria permanent). You're already talking about Madueke being a potential problem?! It's completely nuts.

 

[Rnd898]

So on top of the 17 signings you've already made, you need another 5 in the summer?! Why would you need potentially two new midfielders when you've got Kovacic, Enzo (new signing), Kante, Mount, Gallagher, RLC, Chukwumeka (new signing), and Andrey Santos (new signing). That's 8 players for the two central midfield positions (9 if you made Zakaria permanent). You're already talking about Madueke being a potential problem?! It's completely nuts.

I only said we need two, and maybe more if we sell some others?

All this 'potentially needing two new midfielders' talk was very much dependent on a bunch of the players you listed leaving. I fully expect the club to cash in on both RLC and Gallagher in the summer and Kante's deal is also expiring in less than six months and it's said to be 50/50 whether he'll be extended or not. Mount and Kovacic both have their contracts up in 2024 and it's uncertain if we'll extend either of them, but if they don't then it's quite likely at least one or both will get sold in the summer because we can't afford to lose quality players like that on a free. Was also assuming Zakaria's move won't be made permanent but if it does then obviously that changes things a little. I don't think the 18yo Andrey Santos is ready to be a first teamer immediately and chances are he'll play the next season or two out on loan somewhere.

There's so many players in our current midfield composition with uncertain futures. Obviously if we retain all of Kante, Kovacic and Mount for next season and also make Zakaria's move permanent then that kind of sorts out the issue already because on top of that bunch we'll also have Enzo and Chukwuemeka as the new players so there's enough players for the squad, but the flip side is if we don't buy Zakaria and lose even 1-2 out of Kante/Kovacic/Mount then we sure as feck are going to need more bodies to replace them. It's very simple.

As for Madueke, I already voiced my concerns about his injury record before he even signed. A 20yo lad who's already missed +50 games through injuries in the last three years doesn't exactly inspire confidence, especially considering our squad's continuing struggles with player injuries. He's a talent for sure but there are some huge red flags in there if you ask me. If we manage to sell at least two out of Ziyech/Pulisic/Havertz in the summer then obviously we're going to need one more to come in because relying on Madueke alone at RW won't cut it. If we struggle to find buyers for that lot then we'll just have to continue with what we got now and don't have room for another winger but again the idea of bringing in someone new was fully dependent on us selling some of the curent bunch to clear space in the squad. Whether these changes will happen in the coming summer or in 2024 is a bit of a question mark at the moment but Pulisic/Ziyech are both dead men walking as far as their future at the club goes, and time is quickly running out for Havertz too if he doesn't start improving.

 

[SirReginald]

Chelsea have gone very quiet. Hopefully Boehly, trying to cheat and find loopholes, may be sh!tting himself.

A loophole is not cheating.

A loophole is not changing the accounts.

Maybe your brain is in a loop.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

A loophole is not cheating.

A loophole is not changing the accounts.

Maybe your brain is in a loop.

Why does he need a loophole if he's not trying to cheat. We'll see a few years down the line. Hope he carries on - seems he's really bad at it.
If you want to get personal - you must know it's wrong. Touchy.

Lots of mediocre players on long term contracts and salaries they can't get rid off. Brilliant.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Dancfc]

Why does he need a loophole if he's not trying to cheat. We'll see a few years down the line. Hope he carries on - seems he's really bad at it.
If you want to get personal - you must know it's wrong. Touchy.

Lots of mediocre players on long term contracts and salaries they can't get rid off. Brilliant.

I'm assuming by long term you mean the ones in six years or more.

Out of those which ones in your opinion are mediocre? Asking out of genuine curiosity.

 

[Mb194dc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Did Utd even find one to replace Team Viewer yet..?

 

[mu4c_20le]

Chelsea have gone very quiet. Hopefully Boehly, trying to cheat and find loopholes, may be sh!tting himself.

He went too far and brought the game into disrepute this season. Unfortunately city got fecked

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'm assuming by long term you mean the ones in six years or more.

Out of those which ones in your opinion are mediocre? Asking out of genuine curiosity.

None of the players they've signed stand out as better than what Chelsea already had. If you were spending that much money ,at least one or two really stand-out names to improve them considerably.

Their star player now is Enzo , a Uk record signing, who only a few months before was bought for €10m by Benfica.

Some may prove to be good signings, who knows but which ones and the many that don't, what happens to them. This is not taking into account the ability of the/another manager to keep so many players happy. Although Chelsea had a lot of injuries, those players will be back at some point.

Looking at it from United's perspective I'd be furious if we did what Boehly has done.

 

[rimaldo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

i heard that new bod toehly company are thinking of sponsoring them for a billion dollars.

 

[SirReginald]

Why does he need a loophole if he's not trying to cheat. We'll see a few years down the line. Hope he carries on - seems he's really bad at it.
If you want to get personal - you must know it's wrong. Touchy.

Lots of mediocre players on long term contracts and salaries they can't get rid off. Brilliant.

Honestly if you think we are the only business out looking for loop holes then you are extremely thick or naïve, maybe both.

Secondly if a legal team finds a loophole how can you consider it cheating, by definition cheating is actively going against the rules and a loophole is pushing the boundaries of such rules yet stays within them. They are not the same.

Finally, if you think we can’t find homes for unwanted players then you’re sadly mistaken. We have been doing it for years. Even if it means loaning them out until their contract expires. This is not United we are talking about, experts at keeping deadwood.

 

[justsomebloke]

It's not that you can't become a good team by buying extensively in a short time. Of course you can.

The question marks for me are more; 1. Is there a clear idea guiding the purchases, and are the right players being bought? and 2. Are you likely to quickly improve an underperforming team by adding many new players to a group that is already struggling to absorb a large number of newcomers?

It looks to me like the most optimistic you could reasonably be on point 1 is that the change of managers between the summer and January windows worked to undercut the clarity and unity of vision, and that restructuring in effect began now. Clearly, a lot of bad calls were made in the summer window. The ones made in this window seem more confidence-inspiring. On point 2, I'd be surprised if the results are positive in the short run. It'll just make it harder for Potter to get the buy-in he clearly hasn't been fully getting, and it won't be easy for expensive young signings to come in and do well against this background.

What's for sure is that unless Chelsea want to lunge into next season with a lot of disaffected big name players dragging squad morale and buy-in down, there's going to be some fire-sale this summer. The overload among defenders maybe isn't that bad, but there are too many central midfielders, at least if they retain Zakaria - and when you look at the number of attacking midfielders and strikers who are in the picture, that's just....wow. If you include Felix and Nkunku as well as Lukaku and Hudson-Odoi, I'm counting 16 players for the three attacking slots. Which is probably around 10 too many. A couple of them (Mount, Gallagher) could fit into central midfield as well, but that would just further overcrowd that part of the squad. And any new incomings means another player that needs to be moved out.

We're basically witnessing the demolition of the squad that won the CL, less than two years later.

 

[Rnd898]

Finally, if you think we can’t find homes for unwanted players then you’re sadly mistaken. We have been doing it for years. Even if it means loaning them out until their contract expires. This is not United we are talking about, experts at keeping deadwood.

Steady on, mate. We still haven't permanently gotten rid of Bakayoko who hasn't been a part of the Chelsea squad since the spring of 2018.

That said, the current owners seem to be a bit more ruthless when it comes to clearing the unwanted players. Last summer alone we finally got rid of Miazga, JCS, Kenedy, Batshuayi and Barkley whereas Marina would probably have looked to extend at least a couple of them and ship them on another loan. And then there's also Werner who was quickly shipped out for a big net loss, and Lukaku our record signing going on loan after just a year back at the club when it was clear the relationship just wasn't working out.

Next summer is another chance for a clearout. Of the current loanees I'd be quite surprised if the likes of Bakayoko, Baba, Ampadu, Sarr and CHO were still on the club's books after the summer window, not to mention a big fire sale of unwanted first team players where I would wager the most important thing will be to get rid of the players from the wage bill and in cases like Pulisic/Ziyech heavily reduce squad amortisation costs.

Now what happens with the players signed since the club takeover only time will tell. There's no denying there's some potential problems in there if the signings don't work out and they're stuck on the books with long contracts and high remaining book value (due to lowering the yearly amortisation amount). New loan restrictions also mean we can't have an endless amount of flop signings shipped out on loan because we can't sell them. But that's a discussion for another day if it starts looking like some of the players on 7-8 year deals won't cut it but right now it's still way too early to tell.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Honestly if you think we are the only business out looking for loop holes then you are extremely thick or naïve, maybe both.

Secondly if a legal team finds a loophole how can you consider it cheating, by definition cheating is actively going against the rules and a loophole is pushing the boundaries of such rules yet stays within them. They are not the same.

Finally, if you think we can’t find homes for unwanted players then you’re sadly mistaken. We have been doing it for years. Even if it means loaning them out until their contract expires. This is not United we are talking about, experts at keeping deadwood.

If you want to continue with the personal insults carry on! Really sad and pathetic.

Of course businesses try to make the most of staying within the rules. Next season there'll definitely be no loopholes or CL and possibly no European football at all.
Rattled aren't we, you know he's going to get found out. You are limited to the number of players you can loan out and register. You expect loads of players are going to sit around being third or fourth choice. Recipe for absolute disaster with a mediocre manager who looks as if he's got no control or say of what happens.

We'll just sit back and wait for it all to unfold.

 

[terraloo]

Steady on, mate. We still haven't permanently gotten rid of Bakayoko who hasn't been a part of the Chelsea squad since the spring of 2018.

That said, the current owners seem to be a bit more ruthless when it comes to clearing the unwanted players. Last summer alone we finally got rid of Miazga, JCS, Kenedy, Batshuayi and Barkley whereas Marina would probably have looked to extend at least a couple of them and ship them on another loan. And then there's also Werner who was quickly shipped out for a big net loss, and Lukaku our record signing going on loan after just a year back at the club when it was clear the relationship just wasn't working out.

Next summer is another chance for a clearout. Of the current loanees I'd be quite surprised if the likes of Bakayoko, Baba, Ampadu, Sarr and CHO were still on the club's books after the summer window, not to mention a big fire sale of unwanted first team players where I would wager the most important thing will be to get rid of the players from the wage bill and in cases like Pulisic/Ziyech heavily reduce squad amortisation costs.

Now what happens with the players signed since the club takeover only time will tell. There's no denying there's some potential problems in there if the signings don't work out and they're stuck on the books with long contracts and high remaining book value (due to lowering the yearly amortisation amount). New loan restrictions also mean we can't have an endless amount of flop signings shipped out on loan because we can't sell them. But that's a discussion for another day if it starts looking like some of the players on 7-8 year deals won't cut it but right now it's still way too early to tell.

I read an article published yesterday re the transfer dealings and it made very interesting reading but he made particula reference to Werner and whilst there is no doubt we received far less than was paid for him The SR suggested in accounting terms the losss was £3.6 million which if he was paid say £200k a week will have taken less than 4 months to become accounting wise cost neutral

 

[terraloo]

If you want to continue with the personal insults carry on! Really sad and pathetic.

Of course businesses try to make the most of staying within the rules. Next season there'll definitely be no loopholes or CL and possibly no European football at all.
Rattled aren't we, you know he's going to get found out. You are limited to the number of players you can loan out and register. You expect loads of players are going to sit around being third or fourth choice. Recipe for absolute disaster with a mediocre manager who looks as if he's got no control or say of what happens.

We'll just sit back and wait for it all to unfold.

We are all doomed Mr Mainwaring

 

[Paul the Wolf]

We are all doomed Mr Mainwaring

You probably are. At least we have one less rival.

 

[Rnd898]

I read an article published yesterday re the transfer dealings and it made very interesting reading but he made particula reference to Werner and whilst there is no doubt we received far less than was paid for him The SR suggested in accounting terms the losss was £3.6 million which if he was paid say £200k a week will have taken less than 4 months to become accounting wise cost neutral

Yeah that's just the world of transfer fee amortisation for you. Even if it's a huge net loss compared to the original fee paid, on the books most of the loss will already have been accounted on the years the player has spent at the club. Because of this, the club will also be posting a 'profit' on the Jorginho sale this year even though he was bought for £50M and only sold for £12M.

This is also why it's significant that the likes of Pulisic and Ziyech, who the club are looking to offload in the summer, have little value left on the books. We just need to get £20-25M combined for the lot to cover the remaining amortisation, but more importantly after the sale they would be off the books completely which reduces squad costs by around £30M/y when counting fee amortisation + salary.

Most of the players we're looking to sell in the summer will either have only 1-2 years left on their contracts or they are academy graduates with 0 book value to begin with, which makes things a lot easier. The main problems will be Lukaku (huge book value left, huge salary) and Koulibaly (huge salary)

 

[WeePat]

I read an article published yesterday re the transfer dealings and it made very interesting reading but he made particula reference to Werner and whilst there is no doubt we received far less than was paid for him The SR suggested in accounting terms the losss was £3.6 million which if he was paid say £200k a week will have taken less than 4 months to become accounting wise cost neutral

Yeah that's just the world of transfer fee amortisation for you. Even if it's a huge net loss compared to the original fee paid, on the books most of the loss will already have been accounted on the years the player has spent at the club. Because of this, the club will also be posting a 'profit' on the Jorginho sale this year even though he was bought for £50M and only sold for £12M.

This is also why it's significant that the likes of Pulisic and Ziyech, who the club are looking to offload in the summer, have little value left on the books. We just need to get £20-25M combined for the lot to cover the remaining amortisation, but more importantly after the sale they would be off the books completely which reduces squad costs by around £30M/y when counting fee amortisation + salary.

Most of the players we're looking to sell in the summer will either have only 1-2 years left on their contracts or they are academy graduates with 0 book value to begin with, which makes things a lot easier. The main problems will be Lukaku (huge book value left, huge salary) and Koulibaly (huge salary)

I know it's the world we live in and in modern football stuff like this is important but I can't for the life of be bothered enough to care about book value, amortisations, net spend etc beyond a cursory glance every now and again to satisfy my curiosity. I love maths and statistics, but when I'm seeing fans online banter each other about this stuff, I just roll my eyes. I used to call Arsenal fans spreadsheet wankers (I was a kid, sorry ) because they were constantly going on about net spend, and how much their stadium cost and calculating every penny other teams spend and you couldn't have a conversation with one of them about football without it revolving around football finances.

Fast forward 15 years and we're here discussing the book value of a player we've sold to our crosstown rivals to potentially help them win the title and and I see fans bantering Arsenal fans about how much they have helped us pay for 1.786 years of Enzo Fernandez's book value.

 

[justsomebloke]

Why does he need a loophole if he's not trying to cheat. We'll see a few years down the line. Hope he carries on - seems he's really bad at it.
If you want to get personal - you must know it's wrong. Touchy.

Lots of mediocre players on long term contracts and salaries they can't get rid off. Brilliant.

He's right. A loophole isn't cheating. It's something that allows you to do what you want to do without breaking the rules.Usually in a way the rulemakers would probably have outlawed if they thought anyone was going to do that, but I'n not sure that really applies in this case.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

He's right. A loophole isn't cheating. It's something that allows you to do what you want to do without breaking the rules. Usually in a way the rulemakers would probably have outlawed if they thought anyone was going to do that, but I'n not sure that really applies in this case.

The loophole is being closed next season so he's trying to take advantage of it before it closes. The problem with that is that when the loophole is closed he's stuck with all these players and thereafter has to deal what he's done having an excessive number of players all on salaries that will be difficult to move on.

I don't mind, it's just stupid. Hope he carries on. The more players they have the better.

 

[Zaphod2319]

He's right. A loophole isn't cheating. It's something that allows you to do what you want to do without breaking the rules.Usually in a way the rulemakers would probably have outlawed if they thought anyone was going to do that, but I'n not sure that really applies in this case.

All clubs could have bought players on long contracts but it comes with risk. One the ways to mitigate this risk is to own other clubs in leagues outside of England. They can easily move players on to these clubs if they do not develop. Also a club to send, and control the development, of the young players Chelsea is buying. They are looking to buy clubs in the Portuguese, French, and Brazilian leagues. There is talk right now about talks between Girondins Bordeaux and Clearlake.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

The loophole is being closed next season so he's trying to take advantage of it before it closes. The problem with that is that when the loophole is closed he's stuck with all these players and thereafter has to deal what he's done having an excessive number of players all on salaries that will be difficult to move on.

I don't mind, it's just stupid. Hope he carries on. The more players they have the better.

Yes, you definitely seem like you don't mind

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yes, you definitely seem like you don't mind

Just pointing out the folly of doing so. Going from CL winners to Super Cup winners, double cup-finalists and 3rd in the PL to mid-table and no European football is brilliant.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Just pointing out the folly of doing so. Going from CL winners to Super Cup winners, double cup-finalists and 3rd in the PL to mid-table and no European football is brilliant.

Injuries do that. An aging squad does that. It is a rebuild because it was necessary.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Injuries do that. An aging squad does that. It is a rebuild because it was necessary.

Every club has injuries and suspensions, players that get older. Other clubs do it gradually, not buy 17 players in one go. And you're still having a player, who is still one of your best at 38/39 and giving a new contract to. Chances are the main base of your current team are still made up of the players you already have, because they're better.

It's not just the players, the manager too.

As I've said before, United have made numerous mistakes over the last 10 years but this looks like compounding 10 years worth of mistakes into one year.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Every club has injuries and suspensions, players that get older. Other clubs do it gradually, not buy 17 players in one go. And you're still having a player, who is still one of your best at 38/39 and giving a new contract to. Chances are the main base of your current team are still made up of the players you already have, because they're better.

It's not just the players, the manager too.

As I've said before, United have made numerous mistakes over the last 10 years but this looks like compounding 10 years worth of mistakes into one year.

That is one of many opinions. Like I said in a previous post, Clearlake is busy mitigating risks with how they are going about. Not concerned.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That is one of many opinions. Like I said in a previous post, Clearlake is busy mitigating risks with how they are going about. Not concerned.

The financial side of this is one matter. Clearlake seem like they know very little about football. Looks like they are creating a logjam of players. On the other side which is more to what I'm referring to are the players, team performances, changing room morale, managerial competence etc are something else. If you're only playing in one competition you'll have a large number of players getting no or very little playing time.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Joaowza what a price!

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rajiztar]

The financial side of this is one matter. Clearlake seem like they know very little about football. Looks like they are creating a logjam of players. On the other side which is more to what I'm referring to are the players, team performances, changing room morale, managerial competence etc are something else. If you're only playing in one competition you'll have a large number of players getting no or very little playing time.

Boehly and co now appointed professionals to do the job. Players we signed in this window young and improve the team immediately may be because of the new team we put behind the signings. Boehly and co just started,mistakes bound to happen especially coach decision. But have to wait and watch. But we will be there where we want to be at the end of the season i hope.

 

[GoonerBear]

All clubs could have bought players on long contracts but it comes with risk. One the ways to mitigate this risk is to own other clubs in leagues outside of England. They can easily move players on to these clubs if they do not develop. Also a club to send, and control the development, of the young players Chelsea is buying. They are looking to buy clubs in the Portuguese, French, and Brazilian leagues. There is talk right now about talks between Girondins Bordeaux and Clearlake.

Imagine being a Bordeaux fan. One of the most historic clubs in France with a good amount of success behind it, knowing you could be bought to be 1 of Chelsea's feeder club.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Just pointing out the folly of doing so. Going from CL winners to Super Cup winners, double cup-finalists and 3rd in the PL to mid-table and no European football is brilliant.

Putting aside the obvious folly of laying everything that's gone wrong this season at new ownership's doorstep given the chaotic nature of the takeover, if Boehly et al hadn't figured out an opportunity vis a vis contract lengths why would UEFA bother moving to ban it? It's obviously a smart approach - typically the bottleneck for player transfers is that they're on high wages and don't want to accept less, so by signing players to incentive-laden contracts with low base salaries it will be far easier to move them on should it come to that.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Putting aside the obvious folly of laying everything that's gone wrong this season at new ownership's doorstep given the chaotic nature of the takeover, if Boehly et al hadn't figured out an opportunity vis a vis contract lengths why would UEFA bother moving to ban it? It's obviously a smart approach - typically the bottleneck for player transfers is that they're on high wages and don't want to accept less, so by signing players to incentive-laden contracts with low base salaries it will be far easier to move them on should it come to that.

If they're not playing or playing badly who's going to take them , and after how many seasons? Presumably you're not going to stop buying players in two or three years so what happens to those not playing or are clearly not good enough and they've still got many years left on their contracts.

My opinion, but if United had acted like Boehly I'd be horrified. Don't see it working at all but we'll have to wait and see.

Boehly changed the manager. The players he bought them .The players already there were good. That they're where they are now is entirely down to Boehly. Don't see it improving much.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Imagine being a Bordeaux fan. One of the most historic clubs in France with a good amount of success behind it, knowing you could be bought to be 1 of Chelsea's feeder club.

One day you will all be Chelsea feeder clubs.....Buwahahahahahahaha!

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

If they're not playing or playing badly who's going to take them , and after how many seasons? Presumably you're not going to stop buying players in two or three years so what happens to those not playing or are clearly not good enough and they've still got many years left on their contracts.

My opinion, but if United had acted like Boehly I'd be horrified. Don't see it working at all but we'll have to wait and see.

Boehly changed the manager. The players he bought them .The players already there were good. That they're where they are now is entirely down to Boehly. Don't see it improving much.

Well, you're overlooking the fact that the previous regime failed to get Rudiger (arguably our best player) and Christensen to re-sign, so there was already a gaping hole in the squad. Then all of our good players who were relied on during the CL run got injured, so again not sure how that's the fault of ownership?

Also your assumption is that new signings will be playing so badly that they'll be untouchable even with a barge pole. That would seem to be an outlier scenario - if we are assuming they are failing it's more likely that they'll have shown flashes but not demonstrated the consistency or level required for a team with silverware aspirations. The whole point of signing them to deals with low base salaries is that it's feasible for lower PL teams and even teams on the continent to fit them into their existing wage structures.

Let's say for instance that Mudryk turns out to be mediocre - maybe he nets something like 40 G+A in his first four years at Chelsea. Say we decide to sell him aged 26 as a PL proven winger who isn't a world beater but would be a more than serviceable player for a mid-table side - the break-even point for a transfer fee in terms of turning a profit for that window is ~£25m (assuming the add-ons haven't been triggered, which seems a prerequisite for this scenario where we're trying to get rid of him). I don't know about you, but that seems a very low fee in today's market already, let alone what it might look like in four years' time.

Perhaps you're right and none of the players we're signing have re-sale value in four years - but again that seems very unlikely and as the above example shows, we don't actually have to sell them for that much to turn a significant accounting profit.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Well, you're overlooking the fact that the previous regime failed to get Rudiger (arguably our best player) and Christensen to re-sign, so there was already a gaping hole in the squad. Then all of our good players who were relied on during the CL run got injured, so again not sure how that's the fault of ownership?

Also your assumption is that new signings will be playing so badly that they'll be untouchable even with a barge pole. That would seem to be an outlier scenario - if we are assuming they are failing it's more likely that they'll have shown flashes but not demonstrated the consistency or level required for a team with silverware aspirations. The whole point of signing them to deals with low base salaries is that it's feasible for lower PL teams and even teams on the continent to fit them into their existing wage structures.

Let's say for instance that Mudryk turns out to be mediocre - maybe he nets something like 40 G+A in his first four years at Chelsea. Say we decide to sell him aged 26 as a PL proven winger who isn't a world beater but would be a more than serviceable player for a mid-table side - the break-even point for a transfer fee in terms of turning a profit for that window is ~£25m (assuming the add-ons haven't been triggered, which seems a prerequisite for this scenario where we're trying to get rid of him). I don't know about you, but that seems a very low fee in today's market already, let alone what it might look like in four years' time.

Perhaps you're right and none of the players we're signing have re-sale value in four years - but again that seems very unlikely and as the above example shows, we don't actually have to sell them for that much to turn a significant accounting profit.

They weren't injured in the summer and they're starting to come back now; how many injuries to other teams have. The players were bought when they weren't injured. You talk as if you lost the whole team and Rudiger and Christensen are two players not seventeen. Some like Mudryk may make it but you have so many players they can't all play and if they're not playing nobody is going to take them. Notwithstanding limited registrations and loans, you may have made loads of signings now but you could be hamstrung for years.

Normally a club would introduce them slowly; Some may be a success and some not,. The club would try to filter out the bad buys. it's a massive gamble.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

They weren't injured in the summer and they're starting to come back now; how many injuries to other teams have. The players were bought when they weren't injured. You talk as if you lost the whole team and Rudiger and Christensen are two players not seventeen. Some like Mudryk may make it but you have so many players they can't all play and if they're not playing nobody is going to take them. Notwithstanding limited registrations and loans, you may have made loads of signings now but you could be hamstrung for years.

Normally a club would introduce them slowly; Some may be a success and some not,. The club would try to filter out the bad buys. it's a massive gamble.

A lot fewer than Chelsea! James and Kante are our two best players and they have combined for about 850 minutes in the league this year.

Obviously not everyone can play, which is why there will be a clearout this summer! In the past you are correct that we have struggled to move players on, but the whole idea with this new approach to contracts is that the biggest obstacle to selling players (i.e. inflated wages) is removed. The way Chelsea have it set up now, if a player isn't playing then his wages are lower and therefore it's easier to move him on. And then on top of it for accounting purposes the required transfer fees to break even are far lower than what is currently on the market (e.g. Anthony fecking Gordon for £45m, good grief).

I appreciate what you're saying in terms of it being a gamble but I respectfully think you are overstating it. Yes, if the players we are signing turn into the likes of Bakayoko that would be problematic and cause us issues, but honestly it would be less of a problem than signing Bakayoko via traditional means was for us anyhow. Lukaku is far and away the biggest millstone around our neck in terms of player costs - a huge fecking problem that we will have to deal with sooner rather than later. Yet he costs about the same on an annualised basis as every player we signed in January combined bar Enzo - and somehow signing Badiashile, Mudryk, Santos, Fofana, Gusto, & Madueke is more of a gamble? Yes all 6 will almost certainly not work out as well as we might hope but they'll all have substantially more sell-on value and the club will retain far more flexibility going forward.

 

[Rnd898]

Boehly changed the manager. The players he bought them .The players already there were good. That they're where they are now is entirely down to Boehly. Don't see it improving much.

Chances are the main base of your current team are still made up of the players you already have, because they're better.

Please enlighten us, which players would those be that you rate so highly? At the very least you seem to hold these players in much higher regard than any of our fans or even the team's manager does so I'm intrigued to hear some names.

Tuchel already whined in pre-season that 'we still have the same problems because we have the same players'. This was a squad which had struggled to create regular clear-cut goalscoring chances, let alone putting those chances to bed, for many years and hadn't challenged for the league title since 2017.

For me, of the players currently in the squad who pre-date the Boehly-Clearlake takeover only James, Silva, Chilwell, Kante, Kovacic and Mount are good enough to still be key players. There's also a few who'd be decent enough as squad options but not really good enough for anything more than that so for this lot we'd do well to gauge some interest from other clubs and see how much we can get for some of them.

As for the new signings I very much doubt Badiashile, Enzo, Mudryk and Felix will perform worse than the players they're displacing. The rest of our January incomings are very much lottery tickets who may or may not come good.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

A lot fewer than Chelsea! James and Kante are our two best players and they have combined for about 850 minutes in the league this year.

Obviously not everyone can play, which is why there will be a clearout this summer! In the past you are correct that we have struggled to move players on, but the whole idea with this new approach to contracts is that the biggest obstacle to selling players (i.e. inflated wages) is removed. The way Chelsea have it set up now, if a player isn't playing then his wages are lower and therefore it's easier to move him on. And then on top of it for accounting purposes the required transfer fees to break even are far lower than what is currently on the market (e.g. Anthony fecking Gordon for £45m, good grief).

I appreciate what you're saying in terms of it being a gamble but I respectfully think you are overstating it. Yes, if the players we are signing turn into the likes of Bakayoko that would be problematic and cause us issues, but honestly it would be less of a problem than signing Bakayoko via traditional means was for us anyhow. Lukaku is far and away the biggest millstone around our neck in terms of player costs - a huge fecking problem that we will have to deal with sooner rather than later. Yet he costs about the same on an annualised basis as every player we signed in January combined bar Enzo - and somehow signing Badiashile, Mudryk, Santos, Fofana, Gusto, & Madueke is more of a gamble? Yes all 6 will almost certainly not work out as well as we might hope but they'll all have substantially more sell-on value and the club will retain far more flexibility going forward.

Lukaku has been a big problem for a few years - couldn't believe when Chelsea paid that much for him. You haven't bought cheap either. Enzo €120k bought by Benfica in June for €10k. Fofana and Cucurella for a fortune. Mudryk etc.But it's not so much the money. If Boehly can afford it and they lose money that's his problem .

I'm more focused on the football side of it. There is a huge possibility that Chelsea don't play in Europe next season and they've been knocked out early in the cups this season.

I don't see Potter being able to manage this. Thought he was out of his depth when he signed. Now even more convinced. Looks like he's been handed a load of new toys and been told to play with them.

We have 9 first team players out at the moment. Be mortified if the board went out and bought a load of unproven players for a fortune which we're stuck with. We've had enough bad buys but usually only one or two a season.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Please enlighten us, which players would those be that you rate so highly? At the very least you seem to hold these players in much higher regard than any of our fans or even the team's manager does so I'm intrigued to hear some names.

Tuchel already whined in pre-season that 'we still have the same problems because we have the same players'. This was a squad which had struggled to create regular clear-cut goalscoring chances, let alone putting those chances to bed, for many years and hadn't challenged for the league title since 2017.

For me, of the players currently in the squad who pre-date the Boehly-Clearlake takeover only James, Silva, Chilwell, Kante, Kovacic and Mount are good enough to still be key players. There's also a few who'd be decent enough as squad options but not really good enough for anything more than that so for this lot we'd do well to gauge some interest from other clubs and see how much we can get for some of them.

As for the new signings I very much doubt Badiashile, Enzo, Mudryk and Felix will perform worse than the players they're displacing. The rest of our January incomings are very much lottery tickets who may or may not come good.

You won the CL and reached two cup finals and finished 3rd in the last two years. You don't do that with bad players but if mid-table is your thing so be it.