Chelsea Thread | 2025/26

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
I'm With Stupid said:
10 goals last season, 14 the season before. In what world is that £70m? Maybe they've seen something the rest of us haven't. But honestly, in the world of PSR and dodgy accounting, I'm becoming more and more suspicious of teams' ability to get massive money for bit part players. It wouldn't surprise me if Chelsea paid massively over the odds for a Bayern player next summer too.

Also what is with these 'loan with an obligation to buy' deals? I get it it the obligation to buy involves the player meeting certain conditions, but when it's just a straight obligation to buy, why are they not just buying him now?
Click to expand...
The first bit already happens. Go look at villas signings in the last few windows, they've signed players for hugely inflated fee's and sold academy players for hugely inflated fees to the same clubs, forest did it too. If Chelsea wanted to do it, they could be a lot more blatant about it than what you're suggesting, it doesnt need to be under the radar.


Loans with obligations is mostly just another way of spreading the cost how they want to. The loan fee gets written off this year then the transfer fee is amortised over the contract length afterwards. And for the selling club, they also have more control of how much is coming in and when. Chelsea are already in profit for this year so having the bulk of the fee next season instead helps them next year.

In Jackson's case, bayern will record the loan fee this season then next season they'll start to write off his transfer cost over his contract length, so roughly £14m this season then assuming a 5 year contract, around 11m a season afterwards, if that was a straight £70m transfer, its £14m every season.

Can be manipulated to suit the needs of the clubs. In that instance its used to lower future annual cost but it can also be used in a way to front load the bulk of payments if a side has the capacity to write off a big fee that year and want to free up money later down the line.
 
TinFoilHat said:
What is Palmers injury?

I don't think he's doing himself any favours dressing like a roadman and posting being at various parties.
Click to expand...

I don't think this has been reported yet, but my guess is he'll be back after the international break.
 
Tbilisi said:
Chelsea selling hotels and the women's team is less believable than getting 70m for Jackson, he's a complete wanker who cant even stay on the pitch.

Chelsea don't give a fcuk do they, you have to admire them.
Click to expand...

He's gotten 2 red cards in the 2 years he's been at Chelsea, and both of them have been in his last 5 games at the club. He's a petulant player, he's gotten an unbelievable amount of yellow cards for arguing with refs, but he isn't really a player that get constant suspensions. At least he hasn't been at Chelsea.

Anyway people are going way overboard with this £70m fee. Woltemade just went to Newcastle for that fee and he has proven even less than Jackson. Sesko went to United for around £70m. Wolves rejected £60m bids for Strand Larsen. If that is the current landscape, then £70m for Jackson is fair value.
 
Last edited:
King Jay said:
Now make it in euros for Munich and it’s 80 million. Finessed. Chelsea are incredibly skilled. Munich needed another offensive player though
Click to expand...
There are plenty of offensive players at the swamp, though im not sure they’d be any good at the Kremlin.
 
Vialli98 said:
He's gotten 2 red cards in the 2 years he's been at Chelsea, and both of them have been in his last 5 games at the club. He's a petulant player, he's gotten an unbelievable amount of yellow cards for arguing with refs, but he isn't really a player that get constant suspensions. At least he hasn't been at Chelsea.

Anyway people are going way overboard with this £70m fee. Woltemade just went to Newcastle for that fee and he has proven even less than Jackson. Sesko went to United for around £70m. Wolves rejected £60m bids for Strand Larsen. If that is the current landscape, then £70m for Jackson is fair value.
Click to expand...
There certainly are a lot of shite CF going for big money it seems.
 
Just seen Maresca's comments about Sterling, comparing him to his father, who is a fisherman. Now; of course, professional footballers (certainly at that sort of level), do lead pampered, cosseted lives. They're paid an absolute fortune for what, four or five hours work a day on average. And their agent pretty much look after their daily lives (handling utility bills, the mortgage, pension, their kids' school fees, daily shopping etc etc). They barely have to lift a finger. But does that make them immune, from mental health issues (if that is what the problem is with Raheem, and Disasi)?
 
jimharri said:
Just seen Maresca's comments about Sterling, comparing him to his father, who is a fisherman. Now; of course, professional footballers (certainly at that sort of level), do lead pampered, cosseted lives. They're paid an absolute fortune for what, four or five hours work a day on average. And their agent pretty much look after their daily lives (handling utility bills, the mortgage, pension, their kids' school fees, daily shopping etc etc). They barely have to lift a finger. But does that make them immune, from mental health issues (if that is what the problem is with Raheem, and Disasi)?
Click to expand...
I thought it was unnecessary. The fuck does his dad have to do with the situation? It’s just him getting spiky being asked about what appears like an undesirable situation he has created.
 
BlueTG said:
I thought it was unnecessary. The fuck does his dad have to do with the situation? It’s just him getting spiky being asked about what appears like an undesirable situation he has created.
Click to expand...
Yeah; it doesn't reflect well on him at all. I'm guessing the media people at Chelsea rolled their eyes when he came out with that guff.
 
jimharri said:
Just seen Maresca's comments about Sterling, comparing him to his father, who is a fisherman. Now; of course, professional footballers (certainly at that sort of level), do lead pampered, cosseted lives. They're paid an absolute fortune for what, four or five hours work a day on average. And their agent pretty much look after their daily lives (handling utility bills, the mortgage, pension, their kids' school fees, daily shopping etc etc). They barely have to lift a finger. But does that make them immune, from mental health issues (if that is what the problem is with Raheem, and Disasi)?
Click to expand...
Kaveh the bell end trying his best to justify the treatment of Sterling at Disasi by Chelsea. At no point does he say Sterling is gonna cost them £17m in wages for training with academy players. I’m sure he’s told what to say by Chelsea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top