All Activity

i know i know… still…

Found some reports from 1-2 years ago that it was £43m/50m euros but not from good sources. Feel like if it was £43m someone would have triggered it before his injuries

Him and the Uzbek lad. Absolute shitbags using the purchase and park approach. Them and Chelsea are football AIDS.

The very same! Tbf though we probably would have sent him on loan too. Still annoying as fuck

I’d assume it’s ridiculously high otherwise we’d not bother sounding out offers etc.

Aye, Atalanta also have a consistent record of selling their best players. Although I don't think they're explicitly a selling club like the Portuguese clubs are they've let Hojlund, Koopmeiners, Romero, Kulisevski, Bastoni, Gosens, etc. go for the right price

Risk comes when something happens like what has happened with Mudryk. They are stuck with a player on a long term contract now who will be suspended for a while and even when playing was useless so they won't be able to shift him for any money even when he does return.

Now on to Man City… Is this one of the two young CH’s we wanted that they bought (both) and now just farming them out keeping them out of our grasp?

As i thought really. Will be interesting to see how it pays off further down the line.

Fees can only be split over 5 years the loophole was closed a couple of seasons ago. To answer Lfe question, Chelsea are betting everyone is stupid in essence. They are basically saying we don't want players to ever leave on a free. People mock it but as long as you can afford it, it'd really smart. Think of it like this, if they buy a player for say 100m and give him a 8 year contract. Once 5 years is up (saying they don't renew them) they basically become an academy player as they are fully paid off. The other side of this coin is obviously if a player decides to chuck it in and not bother but it seems a market exists for all kinds of dross these days.

IRC we gave them the gate receipts for the game which has always been allowed

Hopefully we're about to find out.

I’m never sure. Maybe helps with actual payments however the PSR bit still maximum of 5yrs spread I believe on the books so nothing gained on that front.

Thought Scalvini had a release clause?

Club possibly making a statement with using Isak to advertise the new home friendly on the socials

There's a reason he might go to Turkey and that is because he is on the decline, they love a signing of a player on the decline. 12 league goals over the last three seasons.

Much prefer a derisory bid.

Who you raised it with?

I thought it was just to spread the cost of the signing over a longer period. But I don't actually know.

Was just thinking last night and have a feeling you’d know the answer… Do you reckon the Chelsea’s idea with these 7 + year deals for young players the plan is if they work out and stay at the club for 5 years they are still at a good age to then sell in the 6th year at pure profit whilst having 2yrs minimum left on contract and therefore still hopefully get a decent chunk of money back due to fees always slowly rising with inflation? I dare it would it apply if they just loan them out for 5 years for fees to various club also. The only risk is demotivation or career ending injury early into contract. The upside is less power for the agent to renegotiate and what I stated above.

This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking we need.

If we really want him, just put in a 50m bid.

Tonali was untouchable and never going to happen until it did. Serie A sides don’t have much of a choice once the offer gets to a certain size.

City hoard via Multi-club ownership but it's not to the degree Chelsea do. This Chelsea stuff is unparalleled. They've always done it uner Roman but not to this extent.

Aye. I guess its similar to us with Isak, he isn't for sale, but if an insane offer came in we'd have to look at it.