Jump to content

Other clubs' transfers


Greg

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

The manager brought him on massively last season? Even if you ignore the fact Chelsea are bigger than Brighton and will offer more wages, it's obvious why he'd go there.

 

Of course, Chelsea is as appealing as it gets for any player. Despite this I stand by my initial statement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Glad players are pushing back against this BS. 

 

In American sports players go wherever they are told right ?


Generally speaking yes. Certain players will negotiate “no trade” clauses into their contracts.

 

 

Edited by Deuce

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caicedo / Enzo / Palmer their set up.

 

So which one do they drop? Or do they move Palmer RW, in which case, why the fuck are they targeting RWs?

 

It’s not a good deal for Chelsea. Still got likes of Lavia who won’t get minutes. Sterling high costs on LW. It’s a very bloated squad that’s just kicking the can down the road. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People love to bitch and moan about Chelsea's spending, but there's a reason to why they can spend as much as they do. They've sold homegrown talent worth hundreds of billions over the last few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Butcher said:

People love to bitch and moan about Chelsea's spending, but there's a reason to why they can spend as much as they do. They've sold homegrown talent worth hundreds of billions over the last few years.

Don't forget hotels sales...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Butcher said:

People love to bitch and moan about Chelsea's spending, but there's a reason to why they can spend as much as they do. They've sold homegrown talent worth hundreds of billions over the last few years.

Chelsea Money Spent since Todd  landed: £966.9m

Money Received – £274.4m

Net Spend – £692.4m

 

Newcastle United Money Spent – £296.7m

Money Received – £42.2m

Net Spend – £254.5m

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Butcher said:

People love to bitch and moan about Chelsea's spending, but there's a reason to why they can spend as much as they do. They've sold homegrown talent worth hundreds of billions over the last few years.

 

Yup.

 

Can you even imagine the reaction if we sold a talent like Lewis Hall? Or Maatsen who just played in the Champions League final?

 

But yet, such annoyance when Chelsea reap the benefits of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, duo said:

Chelsea Money Spent since Todd  landed: £966.9m

Money Received – £274.4m

Net Spend – £692.4m

 

Newcastle United Money Spent – £296.7m

Money Received – £42.2m

Net Spend – £254.5m

 

Basically shows how they're able to spend so much.

 

The 274m they've taken in will all have counted immediately as incoming funds, whereas the 966m will have been amortized over five years (or more with some of the earlier deals). It's not quite as simple as dividing that figure by 5 and getting just under 200m spent, but it's a useful rough guide.

 

Of course, they have to keep selling players in future years to keep balancing out their spending, but with the number of young players they have there that will be a piece of piss for them.

 

Meanwhile, we've only spent 300m but even dividing that by 5 and getting 60m it's still spending more than the 42 we've brought in.

 

As much as from a purely footballing perspective it absolutely sucks, selling Minteh on for 40m (and having loads more Minteh types on the books for future deals) is a bit of no-brainer if it's at all possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Checko said:

Chelsea have about 300 million per year more revenue as well according to Deliotte.

Not without Europe surely? Plus their wages bill will be double ours

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Of course, Chelsea is as appealing as it gets for any player. Despite this I stand by my initial statement. 

If I could get paid enough in a month to set me for life I'd be signing for Chelsea too

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

Not without Europe surely? Plus their wages bill will be double ours

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html

 

Yeah looking at the figures in detail at the bottom they go up to the end of 22/23 to be fair, so presumably this years accounts haven't been finalised.

 

I imagine a bit less commercial and matchday revenue this year. They did however sell 200 million euros worth of players this season which will more than make up for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Checko said:

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html

 

Yeah looking at the figures in detail at the bottom they go up to the end of 22/23 to be fair, so presumably this years accounts haven't been finalised.

 

I imagine a bit less commercial and matchday revenue this year. They did however sell 200 million euros worth of players this season which will more than make up for it.

They should change the rule so the length of contract they had left when you sell is also spread like signings. Maybe an extra chunk for sell on clauses for these cunts

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fezzle said:

They should change the rule so the length of contract they had left when you sell is also spread like signings. Maybe an extra chunk for sell on clauses for these cunts

Sounds like we'd need more accountants and it would annoy Jim Ratcliffe. I'm in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...