This New Chelsea Owner

[Harry Squatter]

Mudryk cost almost £90m and he's useless. Half their players I've barely heard of. Had no idea who the fuck half of their players are. 

[Megadrive Man]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I am all for them heading to their ancestral home,Division 2,aka The Championship.

 

In a normal season they wouldn't be far off. If they were to get a massive points deduction next season, it could happen!

[El Rojo]

Let's buy half Brighton's team for the price of a small country and have no idea what to do with it. 

[VladimirIlyich]

15 hours ago, El Rojo said:

Let's buy half Brighton's team for the price of a small country and have no idea what to do with it. 

We nearly did.

[Jairzinho]

I kind of understand the spreading contracts over eight years stuff, the backed by Saudis sportwashing stuff, etc, etc. What I don't get is why it was entirely necessary to only buy shit players.

[Scott_M]

2 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

I kind of understand the spreading contracts over eight years stuff, the backed by Saudis sportwashing stuff, etc, etc. What I don't get is why it was entirely necessary to only buy shit players.

Talk they need to raise money in January to sign new players but can only make a profit off the home grown players and that despite being one of their best players this season & captaining the side, Connor Gallagher is the one likely to go as he’s only got 18 months on his contract. 
 

It’s a complete bizarre situation. Of all the academy players they’ve sold - Tomori, Abraham, Guehi, Zouma, Mount etc - are the ones they’ve signed any better? Incredibly dubious.

[Megadrive Man]

18 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Talk they need to raise money in January to sign new players but can only make a profit off the home grown players and that despite being one of their best players this season & captaining the side, Connor Gallagher is the one likely to go as he’s only got 18 months on his contract. 
 

It’s a complete bizarre situation. Of all the academy players they’ve sold - Tomori, Abraham, Guehi, Zouma, Mount etc - are the ones they’ve signed any better? Incredibly dubious.

 

Mount is the only sale that looks like good business. 

 

They sold Tomori and Guehi for a combined total of 43 million!

 

[Megadrive Man]

Jon Obi Mikel was saying that Osimhen wants to sign for Chelsea. He would be a major improvement on their striking options. 

[Scott_M]

5 minutes ago, Megadrive Man said:

 

Mount is the only sale that looks like good business. 

 

They sold Tomori and Guehi for a combined total of 43 million!

 

Yeah, given how things are working out, Mount looks a reasonable sale. 
 

Tomori and Guehi are better than either of the bozo’s they’ve signed to replace them. 
 

I don’t think Abraham is particularly good, he’s better than (Miss) Jackson. 

[Scott_M]

Talk of the rule being backdated, it would be hilarious…

 

[Lee909]

24 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Talk of the rule being backdated, it would be hilarious…

 

 

After the way they oil states got away with the loan shit I wouldn't hold my breath. Everton will probably be the batch that votes in their favour again

[johnsusername]

On 11/12/2023 at 03:28, Barrington Womble said:

 

 

 

To be fair to abramovic, he seemed to understand he had those types of ego's at the club when he ran things, but he got managers who could take that in their stride, if only for a couple of years at a time. This fella now seems to think he's hit on some new magic formula. He's not signing the same players abramovic would have. Yet, he seems to be creating a similar dressing room of overpaid egos. Which is more glorious as they have them all on 8 year contracts. 

 

I think even the players knew Abramovich was a world class gangster - he was definitely in charge of the club.

 

They're probably laughing at the Yank behind his back. Not sure they would have laughed at Abramovich. 

[dave u]

51 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Talk of the rule being backdated, it would be hilarious…

 

 

I don't think that could be legal, surely? Backdating rules does not sound like something that is enforceable.

[Moctezuma]

I think I may have said previously on this thread or elsewhere that contract length is a huge driver in football, the number of players who up their standard of performance in the last year of a contract or when they want a new deal is countless. This seems to have been missed amongst the 'we're disrupting football via elongated amortisation' crew at that rancid club. Hopefully the mercenaries will continue to underperform and it'll wreck them over the long term.

 

Of course adding to this in shipping out the home grown players the numbers of individuals with an actual attachment to them will decline in the dressing room.

[Pidge]

In terms of breaches it wouldn't make sense, but is it maybe more to do with ensuring that depreciation on contracts in situ is based on the new method and that no loophole remains for the spending they've already done?

 

Not actually read it yet, so completely guessing.

[CrownPaints]

4 minutes ago, Moctezuma said:

I think I may have said previously on this thread or elsewhere that contract length is a huge driver in football, the number of players who up their standard of performance in the last year of a contract or when they want a new deal is countless. This seems to have been missed amongst the 'we're disrupting football via elongated amortisation' crew at that rancid club. Hopefully the mercenaries will continue to underperform and it'll wreck them over the long term.

 

Of course adding to this in shipping out the home grown players the numbers of individuals with an actual attachment to them will decline in the dressing room.

It can't be good to give a contract to a young player that basically covers him for the majority of his career. Of course there will be individuals who will be driven to succeed no matter what they receive as financial reward, but not sure how many are currently sitting in the Chelsea dressing room.

[Megadrive Man]

Along the same lines,

In Baseball Boehly offered this guy a 10 year contract worth 700 million but has now changed it in to a 19 year contract as below.

 

[sh#t waffle]

Absolutely no way they can backdate it, as funny as it would be.

[Scott_M]

26 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

I don't think that could be legal, surely? Backdating rules does not sound like something that is enforceable.

Be hilarious if Brighton went “You know that £225m we originally said you could fully pay us back in 2031, well we want it in 2028 now. Soz”.

[Scott_M]

FWIW, I’d still take Enzo Fernandez. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

Talk of the rule being backdated, it would be hilarious…

 

 

It hasn't even been applied yet in the PL has it? I thought only uefa had outlawed it. 

 

46 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

I don't think that could be legal, surely? Backdating rules does not sound like something that is enforceable.

They'd probably find a way to stagger it in over a number of years I reckon. A little like these new UEFA PSRs, where it's now got a cap on wages & amortisation  in relation to turnover at 70%, but that percentage is staggered in over I think 3 seasons, I think something.lime.90, 80, 70

[TD_LFC]

PL have voted in favour of it.

 

Contracts can exceed 5 years, the ability to amortise the value of that contract has been capped to 5.

 

Not being backdated.

[Scott_M]

20 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

PL have voted in favour of it.

 

Contracts can exceed 5 years, the ability to amortise the value of that contract has been capped to 5.

 

Not being backdated.

Gutted. 

[El Rojo]

Chelsea are doing a perfectly good job of being an absolute shambles without the requirement for any sanctions. Leave them to their own devices. 

[Megadrive Man]

24 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

PL have voted in favour of it.

 

Contracts can exceed 5 years, the ability to amortise the value of that contract has been capped to 5.

 

Not being backdated.

 

Chelsea voted for it according to David Ornstein!