Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PISKIE said:
They have got a shocking amount of expensive dross in that squad, and a striker who doesn't want to be there. It's a massive challenge even for Conte to get them challenging and he'll need a few windows to clear out the half arsed players and rebuild

That said Levy's already told him that he's got to promote players from the youth teams, improve the coaching and the fitness. So he ain't getting a big transfer budget to turn it around.
Click to expand...

Our recruitment has been shocking in the past 3 years or so.

Lo Celso, Ndombele, Doherty, Hart, Gollini, Clarke, Rodon, Sessegnon Vinicius, Bergwijn and Gedson have all failed big time.

To be honest I was genuinely shocked you finished below us last season and have no idea how we are only a point behind you this season.

Our recruitment seriously needs sorting out cos it has led to us having an unbalanced squad where we can only rely on 12-15 players.

We are completely unable to rotate...we've lost 3 games in Europe when we've rotated players <doh>

Conte must wonder what the **** he's done joining us tbh
 
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000, Tobes and brb
PISKIE said:
I'm surprised he's stayed there for as long as he has tbh. It's clear he ain't gonna win anything with them and he's no spring chicken himself.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, but you've covered it, Son is too old to move on now imho.
 
PISKIE said:
The whole transfer landscape is, and has been skewed out of all proportion ever since Roman started throwing his Rubles around. The days where you could pick up young emerging talent from the European leagues for a few £m are long gone. So teams have to take a punt on players now that are generally vastly overpriced and come with huge wage demands.

The very few players of actual proven quality, that can cut it at the top level are simply now out of the reach of all clubs bar a few mega rich ones.
Click to expand...
Nah it’s not right to blame one particular club for this nonsense. What happened when the TV money increased massively 6/7 years back is that players who were in the £3-5m bracket instantly became £15m and so on and so forth, as the game set about giving away its new found revenue in fees, wages and agents bills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solid Air, Toby, Libby and 3 others
Tobes said:
Nah it’s not right to blame one particular club for this nonsense. What happened when the TV money increased massively 6/7 years back is that players who were in the £3-5m bracket instantly became £15m and so on and so forth, as the game set about giving away its new found revenue in fees, wages and agents bills.
Click to expand...

That compounded the issue, but Chelsea's obscene amount of spending when Roman came along skewed the market out of all proportion. The extra TV money meant that more clubs could spend larger amounts of money, but the bar had already been set where the top players were out of the reach of most clubs due to the extortionate transfer fees and player wages.
 
PISKIE said:
That compounded the issue, but Chelsea's obscene amount of spending when Roman came along skewed the market out of all proportion. The extra TV money meant that more clubs could spend larger amounts of money, but the bar had already been set where the top players were out of the reach of most clubs due to the extortionate transfer fees and player wages.
Click to expand...
There’s a club every decade who’s accused of the same thing, going back to the 60’s. You’d maybe have a point if they’d set the highest fee World records, but they’ve not even come close, in fact, their biggest sale eclipses their biggest purchase by some distance. You’ve got Goonervision here because they nicked your place as the biggest challengers to United.
 
Tobes said:
There’s a club every decade who’s accused of the same thing, going back to the 60’s. You’d maybe have a point if they’d set the highest fee World records, but they’ve not even come close, in fact, their biggest sale eclipses their biggest purchase by some distance. You’ve got Goonervision here because they nicked your place as the biggest challengers to United.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure since the turn of the century Chelsea have spent the most on transfers in Europe. True they've managed to recoup a fair chunk of that through player sales. But the argument there is that they've been able to spend big in the first place in order to command top dollar when they sell.
 
PISKIE said:
Pretty sure since the turn of the century Chelsea have spent the most on transfers in Europe. True they've managed to recoup a fair chunk of that through player sales. But the argument there is that they've been able to spend big in the first place in order to command top dollar when they sell.
Click to expand...

Not really. You can only command top dollar if the player is good.

Tv money nowaday is by far the biggest factor on transfer fees
 
PISKIE said:
Pretty sure since the turn of the century Chelsea have spent the most on transfers in Europe. True they've managed to recoup a fair chunk of that through player sales. But the argument there is that they've been able to spend big in the first place in order to command top dollar when they sell.
Click to expand...
Net spend is the only figure that matters, as you can’t ignore sales to suit an argument. They’re the 3rd highest net spenders in the World in the last 20 years, behind City and United, they’re around £400m behind City. You’re 10th btw.

[HASHTAG]#value[/HASHTAG]
 
BobbyD said:
Not really. You can only command top dollar if the player is good.

Tv money nowaday is by far the biggest factor on transfer fees
Click to expand...

It is now, but it wasn't when Roman financially doped Chelsea.
 
PISKIE said:
It is now, but it wasn't when Roman financially doped Chelsea.
Click to expand...

Cool so we are clear then that apart from in 2004 and a few years after its now the rise in tv money.

So it was something that was going to happen and be ineivitable (like the first million pounds signing etc, rampant inflation)
 
BobbyD said:
Cool so we are clear then that apart from in 2004 and a few years after its now the rise in tv money.

So it was something that was going to happen and be ineivitable (like the first million pounds signing etc, rampant inflation)
Click to expand...

Pandora's box is well and truly open now. There's no going back. And the TV money now has inflated it all out of proportion.

But let's not forget that you were a £1 club destined for the scrapheap before Roman, who bought you the success that followed.
 
PISKIE said:
Pandora's box is well and truly open now. There's no going back. And the TV money now has inflated it all out of proportion.

But let's not forget that you were a £1 club destined for the scrapheap before Roman, who bought you the success that followed.
Click to expand...

Roman didn’t pay £1 did he?
 
Tobes said:
Net spend is the only figure that matters, as you can’t ignore sales to suit an argument. They’re the 3rd highest net spenders in the World in the last 20 years, behind City and United, they’re around £400m behind City. You’re 10th btw.

[HASHTAG]#value[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with the net spend argument.

If you inflate the market so that average players are worth £50m and good players £80m+ then really it's just a game of financial musical chairs amongst the elite/wealthy clubs.

Most of us don't even get a chair to play the game as we've been priced out of the market.

Fair play to Chelsea though, as they seem to have worked out an excellent strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and PINKIE
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back