SwedishEntity

Worried about the US economy affecting Clearlakes ability to run Chelsea? No. I don't think that's a threat. We also lived through Roman having the club forcibly taken off him. We aren't Brighton. If our owners f**k off, some other billionaire will want us as their plaything.
In terms of costs, I think the general fan is just too attached to transfer spending numbers.
Wages have been brought down, longer contracts and lower wages mean poor performing players will be easier to exit. 
Longer contracts also mean greater control on the asset. Let's say Caicedo becomes a global star, as important as Kante. In 3 years time, he is still completely locked in to Chelsea. We can demand a 150m+ fee for him. With a 5 year contract, then we're at the beck and call of Madrid. It goes both ways. 
Important to note that we've essentially exited every single transfer pre Boehly bar Chilwell. So that means what is for many clubs a 5-8 year cycle for buying players, has been crammed into 18 months. That means it's going to seem like we've spent a tonne of money, but when that gets spread over a 5 year window, it'll balance out. 
I expect that over the next 3-4 years Chelsea will have very balanced transfer windows,  where we make an FFP profit every year. We're making a significant FFP profit this summer and we now have our defence and midfield sorted for the next 3+ seasons. 
 

Probably the most loved one as well.

When Abramovich started to spend a sh*t load of money on Chelsea, I remember that the Swedish Chelsea forum exploded with new people. Same when City started to spend unreal money and more recently Newcastle. When it comes to City fans, I remember how they saw Chelsea (and United, when the Glazers came in): "oh, happy it is not us, would not like to sell our soul like that and all these money shouldn't be in football" and whatnot, then it took about three days of UAE ownership before they considered everyone elses disgust "jealousy".

A lot of people are fascinated about money and get starstruck when someone has a lot of it. Big money, big names, big attention - all a bit glossy. surreal Hollywood-stuff, and people do watch Hollywood movies.

Then of course there will be a sentiment of people who feels that "I can't relate to this sh*t" or "as someone making £25k a year, my eyes bleed when we spend hundreds of millions on more or less w**k footballers", and they go watch non-league football or something instead. I'm sure there was a fair bit of old-timers that dropped out once Abramovich/UAE/Saudis (and Glazers, though they are in another category of owners) bought their respective clubs. But the majority of people in the world has been conditioned into believing that the concept of wealth, luxuary and obscene spending are beautiful things - and I imagine all these clubs got at least two new fans for each one who felt alienated and f**ked off.

So yeah, you're probably the most hated but also the most loved one.

Even if there is no loan fee, Real Madrid will be paying his wages of course. Probably a fair bit of money saved there if you get a cheap goalie for free.

Pochettino might think he's not someone you want part of the group and then you might want to get rid of that player, even if its a financially poor deal.

Personally, if a player refused to be subbed off in a game, I'd never play him again. Can't have players with that attitude if you want to build a good team or a dynasty.

Even if there is no loan fee, Real Madrid will be paying his wages of course. Probably a fair bit of money saved there if you get a cheap goalie for free.

Pochettino might think he's not someone you want part of the group and then you might want to get rid of that player, even if its a financially poor deal.

Personally, if a player refused to be subbed off in a game, I'd never play him again. Can't have players with that attitude if you want to build a good team or a dynasty.

1. Caicedo was bought in January 2021 because the club knew that Bissouma would soon leave. Same as why we bought Mitoma in the summer of 2021, because we knew Trossard would eventually leave. Both were great and none of them wanted to sign new contracts, so it wasn't a surprise. The succession planning we often talk about publically means that if any of the 30 most important people at the club leaves, there's a couple of names ready to replace them.

2. Doesn't matter that it is a big club. There's massive pressure in Real Madrid and Barcelona, more so than in any English club - doesn't prevent them from usually having a lot of young players from the academy in their teams. Players don't pick clubs because the expectations are lower or (usually not at least) because of more game time. If Chelsea or Manchester United (who were interested but didn't want to bother resolving all the issues of buying this player) had competed with Brighton for this player, he would have gone to either of them. But big clubs in England, City aside, does not really have plans. They get very limited value. With the money in English football, English teams should win all three European competitions pretty much every year and that doesn't happen.

Its not easier. Its just a matter of competence.

Even if there is no loan fee, Real Madrid will be paying his wages of course. Probably a fair bit of money saved there if you get a cheap goalie for free.

Pochettino might think he's not someone you want part of the group and then you might want to get rid of that player, even if its a financially poor deal.

Personally, if a player refused to be subbed off in a game, I'd never play him again. Can't have players with that attitude if you want to build a good team or a dynasty.

They might not talk about winning 3-0 against Real Madrid in the CL but they're quite likely to do it, which is a statement of ambition in itself, a statement heavier than words.

They might not talk about winning 3-0 against Real Madrid in the CL but they're quite likely to do it, which is a statement of ambition in itself, a statement heavier than words.

Well, that is certainly one completely detached-from-reality view of what they're doing in Newcastle.

No. Good potential but City being unwilling to use their £40m buy-back clause, despite having no backup for Rodri, says a lot I think.

The interest in Lavia from bigger clubs imho mainly shows that there's very few great defensive midfielders on the market.

No. Good potential but City being unwilling to use their £40m buy-back clause, despite having no backup for Rodri, says a lot I think.

The interest in Lavia from bigger clubs imho mainly shows that there's very few great defensive midfielders on the market.

He made a few mistakes, most noticable against Palace, and also looked quite uncomfortable playing some sort of short passing game within his own penalty area. He has pretty good feet and distribution, but this "playing tiki taka in your own box" is not something that suits him.

I also don't think Rob Sanchez personality was a good match with De Zerbis. Sanchez want to mr Cool and Collected and RDZ wants players to be mr Fierce and Intense. Shouldn't be a problem with Pochettino who personality wise seems more Potter than Zerbi.

Pretty sure it was reported City's buy-back clause is effective in 2024 not now so think that point isn't in contention. 

If you sell him, you're not very clever.

Class player imho. Like a couple of his teammates, it really is uphill for him because he kind of likes your club and feel that pressure. Easier for mercenaries to deal with failure and poor results. Bloke probably barely slept all last season.

He showed in Palace that he is a good PL player and then some. Probably best as a box-to-box midfielder next to a destroyer and a playmaker, but his broad set of skills should make him decent in most positions.

Really wouldn't mind him as part of the Caicedo deal...

Was a strange game let me tell you... it was obvious five minutes into the game that Luton - currently at least - are a midtable Championship team. Our midfield looked miles from last season and gave the ball away frequently and sometimes provided limited options for our defenders, but there was just no way Luton could punish it. They had some fantastic counter-attack opportunities and got the ball up quickly but there was zero end product in terms of passing and finishing. Their right back was good but other than that their defense looked very wonky and end result could have been 8-2 or something.

Most shrugable 4-1 win... feeling afterwards was just "ok, but how would we do against a PL team?"

I'm confident your boys could score two goals against this lot. Says it all really.

You've followed Chelsea for 35 years but now you're quitting because Kepa might be replaced by David De Gea?

You've followed Chelsea for 35 years but now you're quitting because Kepa might be replaced by David De Gea?

Oh. I'm used to that when a player wants away, we send them to you and get the GDP of a small African country in return, whereas Lukaku was sent on one year holiday in Italy instead.

Struggling to tell if we're as good as last season or if Luton are just utterly horsesh*t.

Thick move if there ever was one. Taking your best goal scorer and loaning him to a club that wouldn't be able to afford him.

Are there Chelsea fans who genuinely think you wouldn't have scored more goals with Lukaku last season?

Oh. I'm used to that when a player wants away, we send them to you and get the GDP of a small African country in return, whereas Lukaku was sent on one year holiday in Italy instead.

This is a good point.

Ornstein and some others said, early, that "Brighton wants £100m". But that was just assumptions. From previous negotiations, such as the Ben White to Arsenal-one, we know Brighton's modus operandi in transfer sales: there is no fee. You put a bid in, Tony Bloom nods or shakes his head. You put another bid in... same thing.

If you had started on £100m, he would have smiled and shook his head. It was sensible to start at a lower fee despite knowing you'd never get him for £65m or whatever the first bid was.

I do think, however, that you could probably have gotten him a little bit cheaper than you'll get him now if you had hurried up a bit and tried the £100m bid a couple of weeks ago.

Partially because of this, I think a "Chelsea-Brighton conspiracy" is more likely than the "Liverpool-Brighton conspiracy" some are speculating about. Not only because Paul Barber and Todd Boehly are really close, but also because Chelsea get to beat a big 6 rival to a signing while being able to pay up above £100m without looking completely mugged. The whole thing is a great PR success for Chelsea and Brighton, and utterly sh*t for Liverpool. Most likely there's no conspiracy at all, but to me there is no f**king way Klopp (and his club) secretly agreed with Brighton to look like idiots just to make Chelsea spend another £15-20m.

 

Marc was good but not fantastic for most of that season. His effort and funny hair etc. covered up that he couldn't really cross the ball, shot or use his right foot. He'd also quite frequently get caught out in attack.

For the last 8 games, GP made a tactical swap (and introducing Caicedo) which made Cucurella play as a roaming LCB rather than a LB or LWB. Caicedo providing additional cover (before that it had only been Bissouma) made Cucurellas role as a "free-roaming LCB" easier: less thinking, more go-get-the-f**king-ball.

A lot of those last eight games were wins or draws - but most also had another thing in common: they were against top teams. Just like his best games for Getafe, such as him single-handedly destroying A**x, were against far stronger teams, because his strengths are really in his ability to tackle and intercept rather than as a "playing LB/LWB".

But I think the biggest reason for his fall from grace was the tonsilitis infection that hospitalised him not long after signing for Chelsea. When elite athletes lose 10% of their body weight due to some very nasty infection, it is difficult to recover. Its a rapid body change that could lead to temporary or permanent (like in the case with my fellow Swede John Guidetti, whose body never quite recovered from getting some infection at the end of his Feyenoord loan) change in physical capacity. Regardless of severity, it definitely has some impact if you're a fairly lightweight player and you lose 5 kilos in a week or two.

I hope he can recover and I could see him being a decent squad player for Chelsea, but his main skills just aren't made for a top team. He only looks "fun", in reality he is more of a destroyer than a modern wing-back. 

Why though?

Rob Sanchez was a top 10 PL goalie in his first two seasons. Arguably a top 5 in the second one.

Does that match your ambition? Perhaps not in the long run. Is it much of a downgrade from Kepa? Not much, if any. I think in his best moments, Kepa is a bit better but Sanchez is less prone to f**k up (though that has happened on occasion, as with any keeper).

If you can get a good bid for Kepa, take it and run because the opportunity to sell him won't come around often.

This is a good point.

Ornstein and some others said, early, that "Brighton wants £100m". But that was just assumptions. From previous negotiations, such as the Ben White to Arsenal-one, we know Brighton's modus operandi in transfer sales: there is no fee. You put a bid in, Tony Bloom nods or shakes his head. You put another bid in... same thing.

If you had started on £100m, he would have smiled and shook his head. It was sensible to start at a lower fee despite knowing you'd never get him for £65m or whatever the first bid was.

I do think, however, that you could probably have gotten him a little bit cheaper than you'll get him now if you had hurried up a bit and tried the £100m bid a couple of weeks ago.

Partially because of this, I think a "Chelsea-Brighton conspiracy" is more likely than the "Liverpool-Brighton conspiracy" some are speculating about. Not only because Paul Barber and Todd Boehly are really close, but also because Chelsea get to beat a big 6 rival to a signing while being able to pay up above £100m without looking completely mugged. The whole thing is a great PR success for Chelsea and Brighton, and utterly sh*t for Liverpool. Most likely there's no conspiracy at all, but to me there is no f**king way Klopp (and his club) secretly agreed with Brighton to look like idiots just to make Chelsea spend another £15-20m.