If we don't need to sell him, then it must be a contract issue. He wants more than the owners are willing to give him. 

On 07/06/2024 at 13:28, nonotnowjim said:

I like connor - but the likes of Real Madrid, Man City, Bayern, PSG are not after him....and that tells a story.

Happy for him to hang around as a utility player - one to come in when needed and plug a gap. But he is not a player that I think we should be building a team around. 

Levels.

none of the above are interested in Lavia, Ugochukwu, santos, Casadei, Chukwuemeka etc. either, who would be taking his role in the squad if he leaves. 

25 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

none of the above are interested in Lavia, Ugochukwu, santos, Casadei, Chukwuemeka etc. either, who would be taking his role in the squad if he leaves. 

Santos was attracting interest from many - including Real Madrid.

Arsenal and Liverpool were very interested in Lavia.

The remainder of those players don’t seem to have been in many people’s radar - Which tells you something about our recruitment. Need to aim higher.

 

 

On 07/06/2024 at 22:18, Scott Harris said:

If we don't need to sell him, then it must be a contract issue. He wants more than the owners are willing to give him. 

It can be a mix of many issues.

A bit of “pure profit” being attractive.

A bit of Connor wanting a higher salary than we are prepared to pay.

A bit of Connor not being good enough.

A bit of Connor not fitting the new managers system. 

A bit of Connor wanting more of a guaranteed role.

All speculation - but I guess the truth is a mix of a few of these….

31 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Santos was attracting interest from many - including Real Madrid.

Arsenal and Liverpool were very interested in Lavia.

The remainder of those players don’t seem to have been in many people’s radar - Which tells you something about our recruitment. Need to aim higher.

 

 

If we put any of those up for sale now, who do you think would be interested? Gallagher is better than all of them and should stay with Chelsea if we want to compete. 

On 07/06/2024 at 19:18, Scott Harris said:

If we don't need to sell him, then it must be a contract issue. He wants more than the owners are willing to give him. 

Conor's on £2.6m a year 

Sarr is on £6.2m a year.

Just as an example 

No one knows anything about his contract .

If the owners are determined to use him as a " pure profit" asset, then his contract,  , his football ability, and everything else doesn't matter .

We keep players like Sarr and Mudryk, big earners, long contracts, useless players, because nonsense PSR forces the sale of Academy players instead.

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

because nonsense PSR forces the sale of Academy players instead.

That's just how we decided to interpret and comply with the rule, not the rule itself.  Actual profit/loss and PSR rules are two very seperate and different things. 

Academy players (especially those on first team wages) are no more 'pure profit' than any other player. When players are treated as amortized assets, all that matters in PSR terms is that they are sold for more than what their yearly book value is.

Romelu Lukaku is estimated to have a book value of 37m per year. If we sell for our asking price of 38m, he will be a profit in PSR terms even though we make a 60m loss in real terms. The real loss is actually immaterial to whether teams are complying with the rules - teams can appear to comply with PSR and still go bust, lol. 

The 'pure profit' idea doesn't quite hold up when you realise you also have to factor in the cost of a replacement, it only works if you don't buy anyone. Mason Mount's transfer worked as pure profit because academy product Gallagher was around to replace him in the squad, meaning the money could be re-invested in Cole Palmer and Nicolas Jackson and Gallagher is a cheap backup in midfield. 

If Gallagher is sold, we likely don't need to replace him due to how many midfielders we have, but that still means that Lavia or Ugochukwu are his de facto replacement, which is not PSR-efficient. It makes just as much sense, if not more, to offload non-Academy players from a PSR perspective.

Conor case imo pretty straightforward, Clearlake want to implement salary structure so we have

Enzo and Caicedo on starter salary. Lavia on backup salary and ugo/santos on youngster salary. 

Conor want starter salary because he has outplayed both Caicedo n Enzo this season. It is that simple. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Conor case imo pretty straightforward, Clearlake want to implement salary structure so we have

Enzo and Caicedo on starter salary. Lavia on backup salary and ugo/santos on youngster salary. 

Conor want starter salary because he has outplayed both Caicedo n Enzo this season. It is that simple. 

Not that you are wrong, we do have to consider ownership have been trying to sell Gallagher since Jan of 2023. 

10 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

That's just how we decided to interpret and comply with the rule, not the rule itself.  Actual profit/loss and PSR rules are two very seperate and different things. 

Academy players (especially those on first team wages) are no more 'pure profit' than any other player. When players are treated as amortized assets, all that matters in PSR terms is that they are sold for more than what their yearly book value is.

Romelu Lukaku is estimated to have a book value of 37m per year. If we sell for our asking price of 38m, he will be a profit in PSR terms even though we make a 60m loss in real terms. The real loss is actually immaterial to whether teams are complying with the rules - teams can appear to comply with PSR and still go bust, lol. 

The 'pure profit' idea doesn't quite hold up when you realise you also have to factor in the cost of a replacement, it only works if you don't buy anyone. Mason Mount's transfer worked as pure profit because academy product Gallagher was around to replace him in the squad, meaning the money could be re-invested in Cole Palmer and Nicolas Jackson and Gallagher is a cheap backup in midfield. 

If Gallagher is sold, we likely don't need to replace him due to how many midfielders we have, but that still means that Lavia or Ugochukwu are his de facto replacement, which is not PSR-efficient. It makes just as much sense, if not more, to offload non-Academy players from a PSR perspective.

Cheers mate.👍

13 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Not that you are wrong, we do have to consider ownership have been trying to sell Gallagher since Jan of 2023. 

Yes in summer 2024 and jan 2023, other than unicorn like Reece everyone is up for sale. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Yes in summer 2024 and jan 2023, other than unicorn like Reece everyone is up for sale. 

 

 

Reece James will be sold to Real Madrid for Carvajal when he can prove his fitness. He is the biggest asset in the Pure Profit fire sale.

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

Reece James will be sold to Real Madrid for Carvajal when he can prove his fitness. He is the biggest asset in the Pure Profit fire sale.

You may be right  based on what we have seen would he be a massive loss bearing in mind we seem to have unearthed a gem in Gusto who almost certainly ,had Reece had not been injured again , wouldn’t have been close to a starter and many would be saying what a waste of money he was.

On 07/06/2024 at 19:18, Scott Harris said:

If we don't need to sell him, then it must be a contract issue. He wants more than the owners are willing to give him. 

I tend  to agree with you. 
 

We won’t get to know what numbers were or are on the table but akin to the Mount situation the club hierarchy have no choice, despite what some want to make out. Connor simply can’t be allowed to run down his contract it would be scandalous to allow a £30-£50 million pound asset walk 

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Reece James will be sold to Real Madrid for Carvajal when he can prove his fitness. He is the biggest asset in the Pure Profit fire sale.

He won't, it's pretty clear at this point him and Colwill are immune, as any elite prospect will be.

1 hour ago, Argo said:

He won't, it's pretty clear at this point him and Colwill are immune, as any elite prospect will be.

Strange it's still being fearmongered amongst the fanbase.  The club have already refuted any notion of Colwill being sold to Bayern, and Liverpool the summer prior. 

Technically, every player in the world is for sale for the right price. You put ridiculous price tags on them for the sole purpose of not wanting to sell them. 

3 hours ago, terraloon said:

I tend  to agree with you. 
 

We won’t get to know what numbers were or are on the table but akin to the Mount situation the club hierarchy have no choice, despite what some want to make out. Connor simply can’t be allowed to run down his contract it would be scandalous to allow a £30-£50 million pound asset walk 

Can be viewed the other way around. Gallagher helps CFC into Europe with his performances (bar Palmer's goals - was the outstanding performer all through last season), and the club make up the shortfall in fees through competition money, replacing Gallagher is going to cost us how much considering we spent 300 million oPay him what the other top stars in the squad are on or make him the best paid player at the club and this isnt an issue. 

I do find it strange fans put all their hopes in players who signed 12 months ago and have yet to make an appearance or any meaningful impact because of injuries. I like the faith but is misplaced until we see consistent performances. Gallagher will fill sandbags, dig trenches, bleed blue and fans consistently post about how they want him gone, isnt good enough, and the rest to satisfy financial fair play rules, this guy made some very, very expensive signings look like chumps last year just from his dedication to the club and game. 

We spent quarter of a billion pounds on three players to play in midfield and Gallagher has run rings around them all and cost CFC nothing but development fees, we've even made money off his back loaning him out. the mind boggles

 

 

5 minutes ago, bluetrooper said:

Can be viewed the other way around. Gallagher helps CFC into Europe with his performances (bar Palmer's goals - was the outstanding performer all through last season), and the club make up the shortfall in fees through competition money, replacing Gallagher is going to cost us how much considering we spent 300 million oPay him what the other top stars in the squad are on or make him the best paid player at the club and this isnt an issue. 

I do find it strange fans put all their hopes in players who signed 12 months ago and have yet to make an appearance or any meaningful impact because of injuries. I like the faith but is misplaced until we see consistent performances. Gallagher will fill sandbags, dig trenches, bleed blue and fans consistently post about how they want him gone, isnt good enough, and the rest to satisfy financial fair play rules, this guy made some very, very expensive signings look like chumps last year just from his dedication to the club and game. 

We spent quarter of a billion pounds on three players to play in midfield and Gallagher has run rings around them all and cost CFC nothing but development fees, we've even made money off his back loaning him out. the mind boggles

 

 

The ownersh*te would've stumped 60 mill if Conor Gallagher had been a South American teenager named Conevaô Gillianz.

3 hours ago, bluetrooper said:

this guy made some very, very expensive signings look like chumps last year just from his dedication to the club and game. 

I'm sorry but to imply Enzo and Caicedo aren't committed to the cause is extremely disingenuous at best, both forced their way here at our worst moment for decades when they had the world at their feet and the former even played through injury all season.

3 hours ago, Nick05 said:

The ownersh*te would've stumped 60 mill if Conor Gallagher had been a South American teenager named Conevaô Gillianz.

Utter nonsense.

23 minutes ago, Argo said:

I'm sorry but to imply Enzo and Caicedo aren't committed to the cause is extremely disingenuous at best, both forced their way here at our worst moment for decades when they had the world at their feet and the former even played through injury all season.

Utter nonsense.

No, thats not what im implying, you are inferring that. (ive pasted it below for you to re-read)  

"this guy made some very, very expensive signings look like chumps last year just from his dedication to the club and game... We spent quarter of a billion pounds on three players to play in midfield and Gallagher has run rings around them all and cost CFC nothing but development fees, we've even made money off his back by loaning him out."

You're also suggesting Enzo has been injured through the season which sounds like an excuse. 

Let me put it to you this way. https://www.premierleague.com/news/3850801

Gallagher is in the top 10 premiership players for distance covered in the league with 206 KM run. He grabbed 5 goals 8 assists. James ward Prowse ran the most this season, 220 KM with a return of 7 goals and 7 assists. Dejan Kulusevski was the leagues second best marathon runner and 8 goals three assists. Bruno Fernandes was the most effective central midfielder running 216 KM with 19 goals or assists. 105 million pound man Declan Rice ran 221 KM and got 7 goals 9 assists. 

Someone outside of that top ten I like watching is Gibbs white, ran 205 KM last season, would be a direct replacement for Gallagher, Forrest are looking for bids higher than 75 million for him if they sell him this month. Forrest's Brazilian defender murillo will also fetch that sort of fee. 

 

You wont agree with me, but Gallagher is a premiership midfield boss already... 

 

2 hours ago, Argo said:

 

Utter nonsense.

Nonsense is the way we're grossly overpaying for anyone who can kick a ball. If we had Real Madrid's scouting and coaching system then we could say that probably most of these players would turn out good. But the setup being headed by the current SDs inspires zero confidence in these unproven signings. Add to that at present we require proven performers and leaders in the team and we go on signing the likes of Tosin, Duran and some Brazilian wonderkinds. Much appreciate if you could add anything more enlightening than "utter nonsense".

3 minutes ago, Nick05 said:

Much appreciate if you could add anything more enlightening than "utter nonsense".

We spent a combined £46m on who many regard as the two biggest talents in the entire of South America, the idea we'd spend more for whoever the Brazilian Gallagher is than we did for Paez and Estevao combined is fanciful at best.

Gallagher should be sold, he's a 10, we have Palmer for that position. A few more should be sold as well. Kepa, A Broja, T Chalobah, M Sarr, B Chilwell and R Sterling. 

I don't want us to sign anyone apart from a really good winger, I don't think we're going to sign Vinicius Jr; of course V Osimhen is a v good player, but I didn't want to sign R Lukaku again, yes Osimhen is a better player than Lukaku, but IMO he's still a risk as he hasn't played for a British club. 

We have enough strikers.

CHELSEA - THE PRIDE OF BRITAIN, THE PRIDE OF THE M4 CORRIDOR  

Conner is a 8

Enzo is a 10

Palmer is a 7

 

This has been confirmed by sources.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Conner is a 8

Enzo is a 10

Palmer is a 7

 

This has been confirmed by sources.

I'd like you to show me a heat map of Gallagher spending more time in advanced positions than Enzo Fernandez. 

Palmer as we know plays a little wider quite a bit, he probably could be top quality in every outfield position, but obviously does his most effective work in and around the oppositions box. 

I don't mean to be cheeky, but I'm glad Fernandez didn't play as a 10 in the WC Final otherwise Mbappe might have scored 5.  Gallagher wouldn't be in my Chelsea XI, he's too good to sit on the bench. 

Edited June 12, 20242 yr by Llangennech