1964 Posted Friday at 12:17 Share Posted Friday at 12:17 25 minutes ago, madras said: Elvis Costello had it right. Tremendous Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted Friday at 12:21 Share Posted Friday at 12:21 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 More sharing options...
Deuce Posted Friday at 12:27 Share Posted Friday at 12:27 (edited) 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 Friday at 12:29 by Deuce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInfiniteOdyssey Posted Friday at 13:08 Share Posted Friday at 13:08 Dewsbury-Hall is a decent player. Potentially a good deal for Chelsea if they can send players like Broja the other way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibierski Posted Friday at 14:01 Share Posted Friday at 14:01 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 More sharing options...
The Butcher Posted Friday at 17:43 Share Posted Friday at 17:43 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 More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Friday at 17:45 Share Posted Friday at 17:45 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 More sharing options...
duo Posted Friday at 17:47 Share Posted Friday at 17:47 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 More sharing options...
KaKa Posted Friday at 17:51 Share Posted Friday at 17:51 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 More sharing options...
Menace Posted Friday at 18:02 Share Posted Friday at 18:02 Speaks volumes of their academy tbf. Cobham is essentially UK's version of La Masia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted Friday at 18:07 Share Posted Friday at 18:07 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 More sharing options...
Sibierski Posted Friday at 18:08 Share Posted Friday at 18:08 £22m is an absolute fucking bargain for Hutchinson. Only hope is Ipswich go down so he can be picked up at same price at worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted Friday at 18:21 Share Posted Friday at 18:21 Chelsea have about 300 million per year more revenue as well according to Deliotte. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted Friday at 18:23 Share Posted Friday at 18:23 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 More sharing options...
duo Posted Friday at 18:24 Share Posted Friday at 18:24 1 minute ago, Fezzle said: Not without Europe surely? Plus their wages bill will be double ours this^ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Friday at 18:29 Share Posted Friday at 18:29 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted Friday at 18:32 Share Posted Friday at 18:32 Not sure I'd buy any CB from a team that needed Erik dier to steady the ship from leaking goals Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Friday at 18:40 Share Posted Friday at 18:40 Ornstein seems to be getting more and more click baity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted Friday at 18:46 Share Posted Friday at 18:46 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 More sharing options...
Checko Posted Friday at 18:52 Share Posted Friday at 18:52 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 More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted Friday at 18:54 Share Posted Friday at 18:54 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 More sharing options...
Checko Posted Friday at 18:56 Share Posted Friday at 18:56 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 More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted Friday at 18:59 Share Posted Friday at 18:59 1 minute ago, Checko said: Sounds like we'd need more accountants and it would annoy Jim Ratcliffe. I'm in. Even better added bonus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted Friday at 18:59 Share Posted Friday at 18:59 Thank fuck Chelsea binned Poch. They’d have been tough competition for top four if he’d stayed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Butcher Posted Friday at 20:13 Share Posted Friday at 20:13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now