Chelsea Thread - 2023/24

[dhruvblue]

That Enzo would be immense for us imho

We were linked / offered the player but passed on apparently

 

[handsofstone]

That Enzo would be immense for us imho

Enzo is the one where I think the fee looks like it makes sense

Think he's phenomenal, he'll have a very good career and is clearly their best player at present

 

[Father Paul]

Ash, stop mithering and just make sure you lot put those dippers to the sword today, don't be wasting your energy on other shit it isn't important mate ;)

Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and strong around these parts it appears.

 

[Akira]

Chelsea looked good. Looked the better side than Liverpool after their team settled into their shape.

Thought Sterling look miles better than he was last season, was one of their more dangerous threats going forward.

 

[willipp]

Chelsea looked good. Looked the better side than Liverpool after their team settled into their shape.

Thought Sterling look miles better than he was last season, was one of their more dangerous threats going forward.

I thought Chelsea looked better than Liverpool after the first 25 minutes but we’re far from good. Both sides looked so disjointed and just gave the ball away over and over again. Chelsea look like a side who’ve just been thrown together and put on a pitch. Huge job for poch.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Chelsea looked terrible in the first half hour but ended up the better team.

Fernandez looks a superb player. I know he played in the World Cup for the winners and won Young POTT, but international football is a very poor barometer when judging how good a player is.

Thought he looked average for Chelsea last season but he was very good yesterday.

 

[Fordyboy46]

I'm sure some Chelsea fans were like who's that who scored then, when did we sign him. Lol, what a set up they have there

 

[hammocity]

The Chelsea lads on here are good lads, I loved that Chelsea were taken over and that split the top four cartel :)

They were part of the Sky top 4 cartel!

 

[hammocity]

Actually surprised with how well Chelsea did after the Liverpool goal was disallowed. Enjoyed the game as both teams struggled in defence at times and except for a few moments where Liverpool pressed they both found it pretty easy to run through each others midfields.

Always happy to see Sterling have a decent game. Could have had a couple of assists if Chilwell had made more of the positions he took up. Will need to wait and see how Chelsea do against teams who will sit back as I'd be amazed if Jackson gets the kind of spaces to run into like he did today but there was definitely positive signs for the Chelsea lads.

Sterling is a ****, never has a good word for our club or the fans who backed him. Racially abused by Chav fans though, fuck him, he’ll be shit again this season running down blind alley’s and losing the ball, I wish him all the worst.

 

[mancboy]

enzo looked decent yesterday, but it was very easy to look decent against liverpools midfield, last season he looked woeful , so would like to see a few more games before we say hes worth 106m

 

[Semper aggressus]

Dark horses for the title?

 

[KentBlue]

never has a good word for our club or the fans who backed him.

Didn't know this. I don't care either way, he's gone and he's no longer a player whose progress I shall watch with any interest, but if he really has slagged us off then fuck him.

 

[hammocity]

Didn't know this. I don't care either way, he's gone and he's no longer a player whose progress I shall watch with any interest, but if he really has slagged us off then fuck him.

Not slagged us off but never had a good word and missed two trophy parades, disrespectful in my opinion and his body language when he picked up his Premier League medal after the Villa game was shocking. I posted on BM and the Sterling fan boys came out in force dismissing my opinion that he didn’t give a fuck about the club and he was off, I was glad to see him go.

 

[Asa's left peg]

So I understand the amortisation thingy, 80m player transfer spread over 8 years = 10m per year spend. What I don't understand is not getting your finger out and signing a shirt sponsor, in time for the season, that would give you 70 m a year therefore giving you 7/8 players?

Am I missing something or do companies do not want to associate themselves with Chelsea?

 

[JASR]

So I understand the amortisation thingy, 80m player transfer spread over 8 years = 10m per year spend. What I don't understand is not getting your finger out and signing a shirt sponsor, in time for the season, that would give you 70 m a year therefore giving you 7/8 players?

Am I missing something or do companies do not want to associate themselves with Chelsea?

I think You’re missing, along with many Chelsea fans, the ongoing cost of ‘other’ years amortisation of previous buys.

With regard to shirt sponsor, I think they’ve had 2 ready to go, before they were rejected (not by them)

 

[halfcenturyup]

So I understand the amortisation thingy, 80m player transfer spread over 8 years = 10m per year spend. What I don't understand is not getting your finger out and signing a shirt sponsor, in time for the season, that would give you 70 m a year therefore giving you 7/8 players?

Am I missing something or do companies do not want to associate themselves with Chelsea?

Not completely sure of the situation but the commentator yesterday said they had had two sponsors turned down? Paramount because of broadcasting integrity concerns, and another because of some associated thingy with Silverlake?

 

[Asa's left peg]

Not completely sure of the situation but the commentator yesterday said they had had two sponsors turned down? Paramount because of broadcasting integrity concerns, and another because of some associated thingy with Silverlake?

I suppose their money guys are so busy finding funds for transfers they can't even find time to do a deal the newsagent across the road! The Paramount thing and, to a lesser event, Silverlake should have been clear were going to be difficult. Bohely must know some American companies to do a deal with!
It just feels very unproffessional and rushed - a bit like their transfer business

 

[Semper aggressus]

I still don’t understand why they didn’t try to sign Kane and Neymar.

 

[hammocity]

So I understand the amortisation thingy, 80m player transfer spread over 8 years = 10m per year spend. What I don't understand is not getting your finger out and signing a shirt sponsor, in time for the season, that would give you 70 m a year therefore giving you 7/8 players?

Am I missing something or do companies do not want to associate themselves with Chelsea?

Last year’s signings have been amortised over 6/7/8 year contracts but that loop hole is now closed and 5 years is now the maximum. Plus as pointed out they’ve still got amortised contracts of players bought in the previous 5 years or so, they’ll be fucked in future years with no wiggle room for signings unless they sell players who are willing to give up lucrative contracts. Basket case of a club.

 

[waspish]

Last year’s signings have been amortised over 6/7/8 year contracts but that loop hole is now closed and 5 years is now the maximum. Plus as pointed out they’ve still got amortised contracts of players bought in the previous 5 years or so, they’ll be fucked in future years with no wiggle room for signings unless they sell players who are willing to give up lucrative contracts. Basket case of a club.

Keep correcting people who post 5 years is the limit now it is in uefa in the premier it isn't you could have a 10 years contract there is NO premier ffp rule on how long a contract can be..