Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And the problem there is the inequity of FFP itself and its subjective application by the football authorities, not Chelsea as a club.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chelsea Thread - 2023/24
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Exactly. And the problem there is the inequity of FFP itself and its subjective application by the football authorities, not Chelsea as a club.
Exactly. But the Yankee side of things could also play a part.Exactly. And the problem there is the inequity of FFP itself and its subjective application by the football authorities, not Chelsea as a club.
FFP is a fundamentally flawed concept in its present guise imo, albeit it's a nice idea(l) to aspire to.
Realistically money has always been the primary reason a club is successful. City, Chelsea and every other club do all they can to work within/around current legislation in order to maximise their financial superiority.
As such I don't think there's much point in considering the ethics of the subject, as there are none.
The only thing that matters is whether or not you tread carefully enough to avoid leaving yourself open to sanction.
Some here might see a lack of 'fair play' in Chelsea selling players to the Saudi league, but there's nothing wrong being done unless somehow it was proved that PIF had a material interest in Chelsea, which I do not believe to be the case.
Realistically money has always been the primary reason a club is successful. City, Chelsea and every other club do all they can to work within/around current legislation in order to maximise their financial superiority.
As such I don't think there's much point in considering the ethics of the subject, as there are none.
The only thing that matters is whether or not you tread carefully enough to avoid leaving yourself open to sanction.
Some here might see a lack of 'fair play' in Chelsea selling players to the Saudi league, but there's nothing wrong being done unless somehow it was proved that PIF had a material interest in Chelsea, which I do not believe to be the case.
Mount's issue as I understand it is that he wanted wage parity with Reece James.
Mase has been superb for us overall and we love him, but that love is rapidly diminishing for me now as I don't see his position as reasonable.
Reece James is arguably one of the best RBs in Europe. Show me a top club who wouldn't take him if given the chance.
Mount is a good, reliable midfielder, but is he in anyone's 'one of the best' category? Probably not. I don't think he gets into the City side, for example.
Egos..
The issue at hand here is that Chelsea offered him a contract before the world cup and then pulled it away from him when he returned from Qatar. I read somewhere that Mount was negotiating directly with Boehly and the new deal was verbally agreed set to be signed after the world cup, but then Chelsea appointed 2 new sporting directors who were tasked with handling contacts and they supposedly took the offer away and offered him a different one more in line with the incentivised guys like Mudryk, Enzo and Badiashile signed. Mount rejected it and as has been reported in several places, there actually hasn't been another offer put on the table for him since then, except a silly 1 year deal (which I guess was a misguided attempt to give both sides more time to hash out of suitable agreement) that he also rejected.
If that's true it seems a fairly counterproductive way to work from the club. Sad for Chelsea fans.The issue at hand here is that Chelsea offered him a contract before the world cup and then pulled it away from him when he returned from Qatar. I read somewhere that Mount was negotiating directly with Boehly and the new deal was verbally agreed set to be signed after the world cup, but then Chelsea appointed 2 new sporting directors who were tasked with handling contacts and they supposedly took the offer away and offered him a different one more in line with the incentivised guys like Mudryk, Enzo and Badiashile signed. Mount rejected it and as has been reported in several places, there actually hasn't been another offer put on the table for him since then, except a silly 1 year deal (which I guess was a misguided attempt to give both sides more time to hash out of suitable agreement) that he also rejected.
I suspect there's probably a bit of both our narratives at play.
Regardless, it will be a sad day for our club (and a fairly terrible look) if we fail to retain the services of an academy player who has seemingly embodied the Chelsea spirit more than most.
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,527
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
that onana would be good, not seen much of him, maybe 3 games in the champions league, looks very capable with his feet as wellYeah Kepa definitely isn’t the man we need. The trouble with him is, unlike Mendy for example, he has proven impossible to shift. He has two years left on the 7 year deal we have so I suspect he’s going to see his contract out and move back to La Liga. We do need a new keeper though. I had hoped we would go for Onana but he looks United bound.
..looks very capable with his feet as well
That's key for us imo.
Saving shots on target would be a nice attribute too :)
If that's true it seems a fairly counterproductive way to work from the club. Sad for Chelsea fans.
I suspect there's probably a bit of both our narratives at play.
Regardless, it will be a sad day for our club (and a fairly terrible look) if we fail to retain the services of an academy player who has seemingly embodied the Chelsea spirit more than most.
Yeah I do think there is a bit of a PR warfare going on on both sides but ultimately letting Mount go to United is a terrible look for the club. I very much doubt the original deal (or his wage demands in general) are going to catapult him to the highest earner at the club. I suspect he wants parity with Reece James (which is fair enough, though I think James is several tiers better as a talent, it is actually Mount who has won back to back club POTYs). James signed his deal before the world cup if you remember, Mount was set to do the same and Boehly agreed to give both them similar wages. James signed his before the world cup, Mount decided to wait and then it's been an impasse ever since.
James signed his deal before the world cup if you remember, Mount was set to do the same and Boehly agreed to give both them similar wages. James signed his before the world cup, Mount decided to wait and then it's been an impasse ever since.
Which for me begs the question, why didn't he sign at the same time as Reece?
I'm probably being a little simplistic, but I can't help but think that 'similar' wasn't good enough for Mase.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
I hope the silly fuckers step up this season to keep the red tribe down where they deserve to be, but this Boehly doesn't fill me with any confidence at all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.