With Hazard confirmed to be leaving at the end of the season they will be in real trouble.
Chelsea given two-window transfer ban | Free to sign players in January
- Thread starter Zebs
- Start date
The 1000 players they sent on loan will finally be of some use.
Giroud has a year option which Sarri has asked to use, I believe we're waiting for a final decision on the transfer situation, and then we will use it or not. CHO should be back by October / November and I don' think we'll sell if / when the ban holds, and take the risk of losing for free in 2020, when we can replace.
I don't want lose Luiz, but Christensen needs to play, Rudiger Christensen would be good first choice CB pairing.
I believe we can keep Higuain as well as, if the ban holds I think we will. Players just seem to be finding his movements, so he could improve his form next season. Not Kovacic though, if ban holds he's off. We have plenty of midfielders anyway though.
I don't want lose Luiz, but Christensen needs to play, Rudiger Christensen would be good first choice CB pairing.
I believe we can keep Higuain as well as, if the ban holds I think we will. Players just seem to be finding his movements, so he could improve his form next season. Not Kovacic though, if ban holds he's off. We have plenty of midfielders anyway though.
Huh? Did I miss something?
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
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)
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...
Huge loss
Sky say otherwise
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.
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.
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.
In 1999 Chelsea spent big again, plus money on stadium expansion.
The reason Abramovich was able to take over the club so quickly was because Chelsea was going to default on the debts that they couldn't pay back.
Doesn't matter who you bought, in Chelsea's case it was an accumulation of players and on big wages. Chelsea overspent.
Chelsea really came from nowhere imo.. They spent half the 80's in the Championship, the early Prem years weren't notable. The 97 FA Cup set them up for a run in the Cup Winners Cup and things clicked? For comparison, it was fortunate Roman bailed them out of £82m odd of debt.. Leeds had £100m of debt before they were blasted into football oblivion around the same time Roman came around
Chelsea history has been varied, as with Most clubs:
https://www.theshedend.com/topic/25287-attendances-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
We were lucky the property market crashed at the start of the 90s and Ken Bates was able to buy the freehold back for the bridge , if not would probably be apartment blocks now!
Most clubs have a varied history, even Utd got relegated in the 70s and went two decades without a top division title. Football generally went through a big decline in the 70s/80s.
Probably best dealing with the here and now.
https://www.theshedend.com/topic/25287-attendances-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
We were lucky the property market crashed at the start of the 90s and Ken Bates was able to buy the freehold back for the bridge , if not would probably be apartment blocks now!
Most clubs have a varied history, even Utd got relegated in the 70s and went two decades without a top division title. Football generally went through a big decline in the 70s/80s.
Probably best dealing with the here and now.
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 60
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!
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
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.
I was sure we'd go absolutely beserk and spend a feck tonne to cover ourselves for the bans in the following window(s), but im not so sure we will. Pulisic plus 2 or 3 i think
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.
If you think Chelsea being heavily in debt, about to default, because they overspent, and having a random Russian billionaire buying them out, paying off their debts, and bankrolling them for the next two decades is "earning your luck". Then you're obviously talking from a fan perspective. Objectively, Chelsea were lucky they didn't become the next Leeds United.
Sorry if this has been covered but what exactly are they appealing? Are they claiming they didn't breach the rules or that the punishment is too harsh?
I believe they are appealing that they should be able to make transfers when their appeal is ongoing like real Madrid and Barcelona were able to. This would allow them to make transfers in the upcoming window so they are in a better position when the ban goes into effect.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
the application to freeze the ban will be in next few weeks IMO. Maybe even next week. I think we have just got the appeal in first out of the way
Chelsea free to sign players in January
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Whooooooo war chest !
Happy for Frank. Can see them signing a few now in Jan. Think they need another striker
Imagine they go crazy in the January and end up disrupting the dressing room harmony.
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
There will be deals done. My money is on Ake and Zaha (meh). Sancho in summer
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.
So during the ban they actually got 2 players and now the ban is over. Harsh these punishments are 
Pedro will go. Willian possibly. I think the club will want Sancho more than Zaha of course.
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
Chillwell and sancho in the summer please !
Why would they want Zaha and Sancho ?
They already have Mount,Pulisic and Odoi for the wings.
They already have Mount,Pulisic and Odoi for the wings.
They wouldn’t. Chelsea fan just getting a bit excited.
Mount isn't a winger he just covered there for a bit.
Only want real quality in, don't need to spank the money up the wall. Keep the "kids" in the team.
Guess Giroud will go out, if we can get someone else to replace him?
Who though is available in January?
Guess Giroud will go out, if we can get someone else to replace him?
Who though is available in January?
There is absolutely ZERO chance that Leicester even consider any bids for Chilwell in January and doubt he'd even consider leaving himself. So we can put that out of our heads. He'll certainly be a priority target in the summer but there will likely be a huge bidding war for him and I can't see us paying the world record fee it would take.
I can 100% see us pushing hard for Sancho next month and then turning to Zaha if that is impossible. I'd be pleased with either.
And we also need another striker. Giroud will surely go.
I can 100% see us pushing hard for Sancho next month and then turning to Zaha if that is impossible. I'd be pleased with either.
And we also need another striker. Giroud will surely go.
Absolute joke. They have played the system, shouldn't even have been allowed Kovacic
Maybe we can go back to ruining football.