July 13, 20233 yr 9 hours ago, royce987 said: Conveniently ignoring the deal with Paramount plus the Chelsea was prohibited for carrying out. We were pursuing a deal with Paramount, it was never a done deal and as soon as the people in charge did some due dilligence it was scrapped. When our lovely owner manages to say this about six months it's highly embarrassing that they are now trying to secure a deal for what Samsung gave us about a decade ago. “We thought Chelsea [was] frankly an asset, a business that was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side Loudmouth jokers is what I call them.
July 13, 20233 yr 6 hours ago, OriginalS said: We were pursuing a deal with Paramount, it was never a done deal and as soon as the people in charge did some due dilligence it was scrapped. When our lovely owner manages to say this about six months it's highly embarrassing that they are now trying to secure a deal for what Samsung gave us about a decade ago. “We thought Chelsea [was] frankly an asset, a business that was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side Loudmouth jokers is what I call them. Forgot to edit my post but both Peacock and Amazon are contracted with the Premier League, both of which are competitors to Paramount. Inter had Paramount as a sponsor, but all Serie A matches were being shown on Paramount.
July 14, 20233 yr Quote Chelsea didn’t break any FFP/Break Even rules in UEFA’s published report today covering the financial years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
July 14, 20233 yr Quote Barcelona were also fined 500,000 euros (£428,000) by European football's governing body. Uefa said the Spanish club was guilty in 2022 of "wrongly reporting ... profits on disposal of intangible assets (other than player transfers) which are not a relevant income under the regulations". AC Milan, Besiktas, Inter Milan, Marseille, Monaco, Paris St-Germain and Roma were found to have complied with FFP rules in 2022 but Uefa said it "will continue monitoring their compliance with the settlement agreement during next season". Chelsea were singled out for an award for following the rules with no breaches. A Uefa spokesperson said "They are the exemplar and we need other clubs to follow suit" 😎
July 14, 20233 yr 2 hours ago, Andy2461 said: This isn’t on any news outlet yet ? Probably cause City showed Uefa can really do pi$$ all to enforce real punishment again true global powers.
July 15, 20233 yr Still no sponsor? This is all rather embarrassing. Spurs apparently get 40m per year, Liverpool 50m+, City 67m and we can’t get 25m
July 15, 20233 yr 23 minutes ago, Adamrb said: Still no sponsor? This is all rather embarrassing. Spurs apparently get 40m per year, Liverpool 50m+, City 67m and we can’t get 25m I read that a lot of the big brands are waiting to see if Lukaku returns to us. If he does there is likely to be a sponsorship bidding war to get their names on our shirts. McDonalds, KFC, Domino Pizza, Wagamama, Greggs the Bakers, all on stand by with their cheque books.
July 15, 20233 yr 39 minutes ago, just said: I read that a lot of the big brands are waiting to see if Lukaku returns to us. If he does there is likely to be a sponsorship bidding war to get their names on our shirts. McDonalds, KFC, Domino Pizza, Wagamama, Greggs the Bakers, all on stand by with their cheque books. Surely Burger King suits Lukaku best?
July 15, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Adamrb said: Still no sponsor? This is all rather embarrassing. Spurs apparently get 40m per year, Liverpool 50m+, City 67m and we can’t get 25m I keep going back to the ridiculous statement Eghbali made at a conference last Oct; “We thought Chelsea [was] frankly an asset, a business that was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side, so meaningful opportunity at the club and we’ll get to it for us, who needed the beachhead to then look at multi-clubs. "[We] looked at it and we think European sports is probably 20 years behind US sports in terms of sophistication on the commercial side, and sophistication on the data side. These are global assets, global audiences which we think we can certainly help grow." The commercial & sporting side of the club looks a real mess presently.
July 15, 20233 yr 22 minutes ago, ducavis said: We thought Chelsea [was] frankly an asset, a business that was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side And then with a slick arm movement, he casually passed his bottle to his co-investor and partner in crime Boehly, uttering the words hold my beer.
July 15, 20233 yr 8 hours ago, just said: I read that a lot of the big brands are waiting to see if Lukaku returns to us. If he does there is likely to be a sponsorship bidding war to get their names on our shirts. McDonalds, KFC, Domino Pizza, Wagamama, Greggs the Bakers, all on stand by with their cheque books. Extremely amusing
July 15, 20233 yr 8 hours ago, just said: I read that a lot of the big brands are waiting to see if Lukaku returns to us. If he does there is likely to be a sponsorship bidding war to get their names on our shirts. McDonalds, KFC, Domino Pizza, Wagamama, Greggs the Bakers, all on stand by with their cheque books. He used to make commercials for Kinder Bueno back in Belgium. Who knows...
July 15, 20233 yr 9 hours ago, just said: I read that a lot of the big brands are waiting to see if Lukaku returns to us. If he does there is likely to be a sponsorship bidding war to get their names on our shirts. McDonalds, KFC, Domino Pizza, Wagamama, Greggs the Bakers, all on stand by with their cheque books. Clear winner though. https://www.thedrinksbasket.com/wine/red-wine/fat-bastard-cabernet-sauvignon-2016-75cl.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwh8mlBhB_EiwAsztdBNWqX7inRf_f0U2ASJreDDH3mx_W208k_mhoEw-LCB1wrt3mD61yYRoCqhkQAvD_BwE
July 15, 20233 yr 9 hours ago, Munkworth said: Surely Burger King suits Lukaku best? There'll only ever be one Burger King 🥲
July 15, 20233 yr 9 hours ago, ducavis said: I keep going back to the ridiculous statement Eghbali made at a conference last Oct; “We thought Chelsea [was] frankly an asset, a business that was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side, so meaningful opportunity at the club and we’ll get to it for us, who needed the beachhead to then look at multi-clubs. "[We] looked at it and we think European sports is probably 20 years behind US sports in terms of sophistication on the commercial side, and sophistication on the data side. These are global assets, global audiences which we think we can certainly help grow." The commercial & sporting side of the club looks a real mess presently. You never really heard Roman Abramovich or the people he put in charge of operating things speak, it was good. This lot should just shut up because they keep making idiots of themselves. Edited July 15, 20233 yr by Scott Harris
July 15, 20233 yr How are Liverpool so good at transfer deals?!? 40mill pounds for Fabinho, who was rubbish and injured often last season, and is clearly past it. Yet we cannot get that combined for former keeper of the year mendy and Koulibaly combined? And we are the ones in need of investigation? Well we are, for making such cr@p prices on sales like these!
July 15, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, axman2526 said: How are Liverpool so good at transfer deals?!? 40mill pounds for Fabinho, who was rubbish and injured often last season, and is clearly past it. Yet we cannot get that combined for former keeper of the year mendy and Koulibaly combined? And we are the ones in need of investigation? Well we are, for making such cr@p prices on sales like these! We got 65 for Havertz who was dreadful for the most part. Near 60 for Mount who was in his last year of contract. Our transfer selling model is hardly crap..... Losing the plot because Liverpool received a bid from a Saudi club is a bit OTT
July 15, 20233 yr 3 minutes ago, Chelsbear said: We got 65 for Havertz who was dreadful for the most part. Near 60 for Mount who was in his last year of contract. Our transfer selling model is hardly crap..... Losing the plot because Liverpool received a bid from a Saudi club is a bit OTT I did not mention Mount of Havertz deals mate. They were fair prices for players who offer a lot of upside. A good deal for buyer and seller. I am comparing hasbeens to hasbeens, we're we did a lot poorer dealing with those who money is unimportant with.
July 15, 20233 yr £40m for Fabinho, if true, smacks either of money laundering or there are some additional "favours" that LFC will have to do for the buyers 🙂
July 17, 20233 yr On 15/07/2023 at 20:08, axman2526 said: How are Liverpool so good at transfer deals?!? 40mill pounds for Fabinho, who was rubbish and injured often last season, and is clearly past it. Yet we cannot get that combined for former keeper of the year mendy and Koulibaly combined? And we are the ones in need of investigation? Well we are, for making such cr@p prices on sales like these! Fabinho is 29 with a contract for another 3 years plus has proved himself in England. Mendy is 31 and hasn't played for the best part of a year and wasn't signing an extension. Also outside of a 6 month purple patch was pretty average at best. Koulibaly is 32 years old and awful. His huge wages were another issue, just getting anyone to take him was the best we could manage as wages would need to be factored into any such deal. As mentioed we managed to get 70M for a god awful Havertz and 65M for Mount in the last year of his contract. There's plenty to lambast the owners with, our transfers since Winstanley and Stewart came in certainly isn't one of them.
July 17, 20233 yr 2 hours ago, RIP Mourinho said: Fabinho is 29 with a contract for another 3 years plus has proved himself in England. Mendy is 31 and hasn't played for the best part of a year and wasn't signing an extension. Also outside of a 6 month purple patch was pretty average at best. Koulibaly is 32 years old and awful. His huge wages were another issue, just getting anyone to take him was the best we could manage as wages would need to be factored into any such deal. As mentioed we managed to get 70M for a god awful Havertz and 65M for Mount in the last year of his contract. There's plenty to lambast the owners with, our transfers since Winstanley and Stewart came in certainly isn't one of them. Mahrez price is apparently 30mill, how is he worth thar much less than Fabinho? Crazy.
July 17, 20233 yr 2 minutes ago, axman2526 said: Mahrez price is apparently 30mill, how is he worth thar much less than Fabinho? Crazy. 3 years older and a year less on his contract. Really not that surprising when you look at the players being mentioned.
Create an account or sign in to comment