January transfer window

  • 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!
Turns out Chelsea signed Fernandez on an EIGHT AND A HALF YEAR CONTRACT!!!!!

So, due to FFP being a ****ing joke, "only" another £15m spent. I don't get it at all. Sure, they may not part with £107m today (they might, I don't know), but Benfica sure as **** didn't agree to 8 years interest free ****ing credit. It makes absolutely zero sense. Even talk of 5 year deals, it still makes no sense. The only way it makes a lick of sense is if the word "amortisation" (which I'm almost certain was invented by these clubs and UEFA) is removed from FFP rules.
 
Roland Deschain said:
Turns out Chelsea signed Fernandez on an EIGHT AND A HALF YEAR CONTRACT!!!!!

So, due to FFP being a ****ing joke, "only" another £15m spent. I don't get it at all. Sure, they may not part with £107m today (they might, I don't know), but Benfica sure as **** didn't agree to 8 years interest free ****ing credit. It makes absolutely zero sense. Even talk of 5 year deals, it still makes no sense. The only way it makes a lick of sense is if the word "amortisation" (which I'm almost certain was invented by these clubs and UEFA) is removed from FFP rules.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree, however that's business finance... It'd **** us over too. I just think the maximum you should be able to offer should be 3 years, and if you want to tie your men down longer, and they improve, roll them a new contract for 3 years each year.
Player sales should also be reflective of the payment terms you agree to also. Chelsea benefit hugely from that as they're getting a big benefit by player sales being recognised in 1 hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obi Wan and Roland Deschain
Roland Deschain said:
Enzo Fernandez cost Benfica £10m about 5 months ago. Their president must be absolutely wetting himself. I read a few bits about him during and after the World Cup, nobody seemed to really rate him, not at those levels. Decent player, sure, but £107m?! I mean, Caicedo is proving himself in the league and isn't worth anywhere near that. What kind of valuation does that put on the likes of Joelinton, Bruno, etc.?

I just don't think Potter's been involved in any of it. They still have no striker. Squad:

GK - Kepa, Bettinelli, Mendy
Def - Cesar, Badisahiele, Chalobah, Chilwell, Cucurella, Fofana, James, Koulibaly, Silva.
Mid - Chukwuemeka, Fernandez, Gallagher, Kante, Kovacic, RLC, Mount, Mudryk, Zakaria
Fwd - Auba, Broja, Fofana, Havertz, Felix, Madueke, Pulisic, Sterling, Ziyech.

That's 30 players who want first team football. A few will be available on top of the 25 I think - Fofana (fwd version), Chucky and Madueke. By my count, they still have to squeeze 28 into 25, and tell a number of senior players they won't even be in a matchday squad. I guess Ziyech, Auba and Kante aren't playing again this season? But the likes of RLC, Pulisic, Gallagher, James, etc. are making huge mistakes.

I think they're a ****ing mess, personally. Typical yank ownership, all balls and no brain. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll all immediately gel, but I think a more likely scenario is this doesn't really work, they then knee-jerk and sack Potter, ending up in all kinds of trouble.
Click to expand...
Ultimately it will all fall down around them…..a manager needs to be involved in player recruitment, how else is he meant to implement a playing style, Potter clearly doesn’t have a day….What Chelsea are doing is stockpiling/flexing muscle, but there’s no clear plan, just throwing enough shiit at the wall in the hope some sticks. The yank who owns them will fail within 3 years and will be looking for some sucker to buy the club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Deschain
FadgeTinderR said:
I sort of agree, however that's business finance... It'd **** us over too. I just think the maximum you should be able to offer should be 3 years, and if you want to tie your men down longer, and they improve, roll them a new contract for 3 years each year.
Player sales should also be reflective of the payment terms you agree to also. Chelsea benefit hugely from that as they're getting a big benefit by player sales being recognised in 1 hit.
Click to expand...

For me, cashflow is cashflow, which is what these fabricated "rules" are supposed to be protecting. If Boehly leaves tomorrow, or is imprisoned, Chelsea owe Benfica £107m. End of. Not £14m now, and each year for 8 years. Similarly regardless of length of contract, Chelsea have to pay Fernandez each week/month.

So it stands that the net cost, right now, to Chelsea is one year of the players contract + fee + agents fees. All of which should be immediately accountable. The only "gimme" should be that you can balance your books with future TV payments, owner payments and success, so you can take out debt but need to ensure it's cleared. The middle point is why it's a monopoly - they have all worked to remove that rule, AFTER they all got to an insurmountable commercial level. We - and indeed any club - should be able to benefit from an owners generosity without punishment. As long as the balance sheet is in good nick, what diff does it make if, say, Tony Bloom wanted to spunk £200m on players?

Anything else is utter, utter madness. Yet that's what we have - madness, governed by ****ing idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR
cronemeister said:
I've come to the conclusion that our new owners are not interested in deadline day deal which I don't actually mind. The last deadline day i was super excited on was when we signed Almiron and I remember Chippy saying (and I quote), "If we sign him I will eat my pubes on a cracker". If we get our business done earlier in windows then great and i'd actually prefer that so we have them in the team early to either bed in during pre-season or play the early Jan games etc. I'm relatively happy with our business this month. I think ASM and Isak are gonna be very important players for us for the second half of the season and having Gordon in our squad as well will give us yet another option. If we can finish about Spurs and Chelsea I will be absolutely ****ing ecstatic and that should hopefully see us finishing top 4. Arsenal and City have way too much quality and points over us for us to catch realistically so I think (hope) it will be a hard fought battle between us and Man Yoo for 3rd/4th. I would happily take top 6 at the end of the season tho that's for sure, if we can throw an EFL trophy in there as well all the better.
Click to expand...

bit salt and they tasted nice
 
Roland Deschain said:
Turns out Chelsea signed Fernandez on an EIGHT AND A HALF YEAR CONTRACT!!!!!

So, due to FFP being a ****ing joke, "only" another £15m spent. I don't get it at all. Sure, they may not part with £107m today (they might, I don't know), but Benfica sure as **** didn't agree to 8 years interest free ****ing credit. It makes absolutely zero sense. Even talk of 5 year deals, it still makes no sense. The only way it makes a lick of sense is if the word "amortisation" (which I'm almost certain was invented by these clubs and UEFA) is removed from FFP rules.
Click to expand...

buy next season they can’t buy anyone probs. They are just spending future income. Big risk.
 
Lol he'll get a fine... upto 6 months jail is when do something serious in the event .
 
Sweet Baby Jesus said:
Also important to note it was on private property not a public road but funny seeing the burn Joelinton lot out in force again <laugh>
Click to expand...

If its on private property its not an issue is it? Not sure but I thought it was only public roads that counted.
 
Gordinho said:
It's **** all either way tbh...
Click to expand...

Don't agree. If he's been driving on public roads whilst banned then he deserves a bollocking, the bans there for a reason. It also, for me, sends alarm bells about his attitude. I have a genuine worry about the guy and whether he's actually a good fit for us at all, if he thinks some rules are unimportant and shouldn't apply to him then he should be called out.
 
haslam said:
Don't agree. If he's been driving on public roads whilst banned then he deserves a bollocking, the bans there for a reason. It also, for me, sends alarm bells about his attitude. I have a genuine worry about the guy and whether he's actually a good fit for us at all, if he thinks some rules are unimportant and shouldn't apply to him then he should be called out.
Click to expand...

But Joelinton drink driving is ok, because….??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back