Enzo Fernandez

That’s a lot of money for a player that’s only been in Europe for six months. Chelsea are fucking mental. Can’t help but think they’re putting huge pressure on themselves buying players like Cucurella, Fofana and Fernandez for well over their asking prices. Potter must be shitting himself, gone from spending a small amount at Brighton to Chelsea who are spending like that fat chavvy whopper who blew his lottery winnings about 15 years ago.
 
Dribble said:
The new owner rule, meaning they can have a three year period of accelerated squad investment, as long as the owner can prove they've personally got the money to spend & it's not a loan leveraged against the club.

It's the same new owner consideration we asked for 12 years ago & were told to fuck off. )(
Click to expand...
This really pisses me off , double standard cunts, make rule as you go but as long city gets fucked.
 
richards30 said:
Thanks for the reply, so the chavs need to seriously shift some players off their books to balance them for all these new arrivals?
Click to expand...
Before takeover they were at roughly 75%

need to be at 90% for next season, then 80% then 70% for 2025. they'll prob be fine they've lost a fair few big earners.

Werner, Rudger, Alonso, Lukaku, and some decent ones Emerson, Chirstensen, Batshuayi, Drinkwater, Barkley CHO etc
 
SterlingSilvas said:
Before takeover they were at roughly 75%

need to be at 90% for next season, then 80% then 70% for 2025. they'll prob be fine they've lost a fair few big earners.

Werner, Rudger, Alonso, Lukaku, and some decent ones Emerson, Chirstensen, Batshuayi, Drinkwater, Barkley CHO etc
Click to expand...

Thanks mate
 
SterlingSilvas said:
Before takeover they were at roughly 75%

need to be at 90% for next season, then 80% then 70% for 2025. they'll prob be fine they've lost a fair few big earners.

Werner, Rudger, Alonso, Lukaku, and some decent ones Emerson, Chirstensen, Batshuayi, Drinkwater, Barkley CHO etc
Click to expand...
I stand to be corrected on this but as far as I was aware the 90,80 and then 70% figures also take into account the transfer amortisation and agents fees as well, so Chelsea simply getting some high earners off the books won’t in itself necessarily be enough.
 
Chi-town blues said:
This really pisses me off , double standard cunts, make rule as you go but as long city gets fucked.
Click to expand...
I still don’t see how the Chavs were allowed to wipe out 1.6b of loans from Abramovich without penalty. He was putting 900k per week into the club at zero % interest, we were charged with overstating Sponsorships and false accounting, we should have just put a billion in the bank as a soft loan and used that money, I still don’t get the difference.
 
hammocity said:
I still don’t see how the Chavs were allowed to wipe out 1.6b of loans from Abramovich without penalty. He was putting 900k per week into the club at zero % interest, we were charged with overstating Sponsorships and false accounting, we should have just put a billion in the bank as a soft loan and used that money, I still don’t get the difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah that defo doesn’t sit right mate!
 
waspish said:
They weee allowed to right of that 1.6b because is was going to a good cause the Ukrainian people…
Click to expand...
That’s not the point, they got away with throwing the money into a pot that’s was not earned, if they’d paid a commercial rate of interest on it (like the Rags do) that would be fair enough.
 
hammocity said:
That’s not the point, they got away with throwing the money into a pot that’s was not earned, if they’d paid a commercial rate of interest on it (like the Rags do) that would be fair enough.
Click to expand...

It was complicated because it was Abramovich money and it was the only way he would let them have that money.
 
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