Hate to be the party pooper... but the 97 million is more than likely part of Abramovic's billions 'loan' that he has written off ... so mathematically the new regime has just made an 8 mill profit
nothing is written off in Inter’s world…which so happens to be the real one they bagged £89 mill off CFC in exchange for a season loan
Here's what I know... Chelsea fc paid 97m for a player they sold a few years before that for 30m A few years before that they also paid 13.5m for him Now gimmie a second here... please log in to view this image Thats 97m +13.5 spent on Lukaku, = 110.5m And.... 8m loan fee, 30m transfer fee (from before) 38m = 72.5m loss for Chelsea fc Im sure roman don't care cos he has nothing to do with them anymore but the numbers are what's important here let's not forget. The new running of boyband fc has started very well
We have such ****ty luck with strikers! Y'all all realise we havent sold him to Inter for £8m though right? Its a loan, so we still own the players contract. Inter, or anyone else for that matter, will still need to cough up if they want him permanently. All we have done is got his wages off our books for a season. But yeah, undeniably a flop signing to go along with our other flop striker signings, Chris Sutton, Shevchenko, Torres, Morata. Infact I was saying the other day, in my lifetime, Chelsea have only really ever had 3 prolific strikers in terms of goals, and thats Hasselbaink, Drogba and Costa. Shocking really, when you consider all the silverware we have won in the last 20 years!
Such ****ty luck indeed. You've only spent the £340m on attackers in recent years, so it's no wonder you're struggling. Anyone would with such pittance. Thoughts and prayers.
That just emphasizes my point, we have spent so much on so many players, yet only 3 have been prolific in 25 years!
*£405m now, possibly rising to £450m if Sterling signs. Maybe this time you'll strike gold, eh? Thoughts and prayers.