39 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

If it's true, it could be another Mount situation where he doesn't believe in the project and is looking to get out quickly.

You’d have a point if Mount didn’t jump ship to a club that is in just a worse state as us. 
 

25 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Ah that is Clearlake PR bullsh*t imo.

Going to have to wait and see. The Athletic put a report last summer detailing Mount’s move to United and it wasn’t far off to what Clearlake is saying transpired. 
 

 

3 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

If it's true, it could be another Mount situation where he doesn't believe in the project and is looking to get out quickly.

Think he feels the owners are sneaky. There is no job security as a Chelsea player, especially one that can be flipped for easy profit. Didn’t they give Chalobah a 6yr contract and try selling him the summer after. Chilwell was also given a bumper contract last summer and he is back on the market now. Wouldn't trust our lot.

From a personal perspective I will miss Connor. The ties to chelsea, the feeling he has for the club are all well documented.

From a football perspective, we will miss his energy and perhaps versatility - but probably not much else. Yes I get the argument that he was "our 2nd best player" last season - but that isn't saying much. Sanchez was our 2nd best keeper - and I don't want him either. 
 

From a financial perspective it seems low - until we take a step back and remember he has 1 year left on his contract. To get £40m profit, for a player that is arguably not good enough (long term), is unlikely to sign a new contract (that we are willing to offer) and who has never won a thing - is not terrible. The fact we blow money on a bunch of youngsters isn't connected to the business viability of the deal to sell connor.

Edited August 1, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

We got 70m for Mount with one year left on his contract, why are we settling for 40m here?

 

I never thought Gallagher would be elite for a possession based side but he's always put a good shift in, he's a great utility player, I don't understand why we're getting rid of him so easily

 

If it's true he's turned down a massive contract then fair enough, though I never saw him stink the place out like Mount did in his last season

Edited August 1, 20241 yr by Drogba1

5 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

If it's true, it could be another Mount situation where he doesn't believe in the project and is looking to get out quickly.

Or maybe, he wants a more prominent and assertive role. If he goes Atletico, maybe he is more of a certain starter, whilst here, despite starting a lot more that most fans and himself would of imagined, with everyone fit, you don't imagine him being in our best team.

Wake up and smell the coffee lads. Clearlake have offered him a relatively short contract in order to increase his transfer value so they can get more money for him. 

Conor knows this and when he turns it down it's a good bit of PR spin to get the fans onside because it looks like the club have done all they can to keep him by offering wage parity with the top midfield earners.

7 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

 

 

That's a bullcrap deal. So you offer unproven sh*t players 7-8 year contracts but a proven perfomer only a 2+1 year. It's nothing more than a way to force him out without having to take the blame for his exit.

6 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Ah that is Clearlake PR bullsh*t imo.

2 year contract is bs. Clearlake basically doesn't want to lose Connor for  free. 

27 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

2 year contract is bs. Clearlake basically doesn't want to lose Connor for  free. 

You would prefer they lose him for free? 

Yeah they definitely only offered him a short deal to hold his value. We can all see that. I don’t blame Conor, they have been looking to flog him for 2 seasons now. 
 

It should be a good move to Ath Madrid playing under Simeone. Good luck to him, wil miss him. 

14 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

You would prefer they lose him for free? 

Yes

It says in the papers £34m ,price dropping soon we'll be paying them to take him ffs ...too low

9 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

So he was offered a deal with wages akin to Enzo and Caicedo, and he turned it down? 
 

 

2 year deal while the rest of the squad is getting 8 or 9 year deals lol.

IF true this is nothing more than to retain his value to get a higher transfer fee, this shows no intent they want to keep him.

8 hours ago, El regreso said:

If true and a big if then the club has done their bit to keep him. 
I saw a post saying Conor was more Chelsea and Reece odd that.

Shows the complete opposite and the offer is an insult.

double post

Edited August 1, 20241 yr by Ukraine Bolt

Conor turning down Chelsea's offer does speak of two things: he isn't willing to stay if his terms are not met and the club doesn't want to meet his terms. Atletico's offer does speed things up. Either we up the offer closer to his demands or he goes to Spain. 

 

3 hours ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Wake up and smell the coffee lads. Clearlake have offered him a relatively short contract in order to increase his transfer value so they can get more money for him. 

Conor knows this and when he turns it down it's a good bit of PR spin to get the fans onside because it looks like the club have done all they can to keep him by offering wage parity with the top midfield earners.

This is so clearly the case I don't know how anyone can think otherwise.

He's not rejecting an offer like this if it's a genuine attempt to actually keep him at the club. 

10 minutes ago, evissy said:

Conor turning down Chelsea's offer does speak of two things: he isn't willing to stay if his terms are not met and the club doesn't want to meet his terms. Atletico's offer does speed things up. Either we up the offer closer to his demands or he goes to Spain. 

 

There is no term. 2 years contract is bs. 

Are you sure the club is undervaluing him? Do you have detailed info of the conversations and both sides position on this? If not, you are merely speculating. 

34 minutes ago, Remodez said:

This is so clearly the case I don't know how anyone can think otherwise.

He's not rejecting an offer like this if it's a genuine attempt to actually keep him at the club. 

Completely agree, its definetly what is going on. 

BUT, and i know this is exactly what they wanted, if he is as desperate to stay as he suggests he is and IF the deal was going to allign him with out top earners (for an extra 2 years or not) then I do find it weird he hasn't taken it. The extra contract strengthens his hand with the club.

I get the whole pride thing, especially with the length of other contracts being thrown around, but if he wants to stay then this keeps him here. 

9 minutes ago, Niall1905 said:

Completely agree, its definetly what is going on. 

BUT, and i know this is exactly what they wanted, if he is as desperate to stay as he suggests he is and IF the deal was going to allign him with out top earners (for an extra 2 years or not) then I do find it weird he hasn't taken it. The extra contract strengthens his hand with the club.

I get the whole pride thing, especially with the length of other contracts being thrown around, but if he wants to stay then this keeps him here. 

By signing it weakens his hand with his prospective club on his inevitable departure. The agent will usually negotiate an increased player salary by virtue of the buying club saving on transfer cost.

2 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

By signing it weakens his hand with his prospective club on his inevitable departure. The agent will usually negotiate an increased player salary by virtue of the buying club saving on transfer cost.

Which is fine, but thats looking out for his own interests which is all the club are doing too. 

Again, I dont agree with it and I know they've done this to plant these exact ideas but it does take a chunk away from the 'proper chels' view on Conor.

As I said, if he was as desperate as we would be led to belive he is to stay, then a contract keeps him here longer. He can't be forced out before that contract ends and he'd be able to negotiate with a new club in a couple of years for his increased salary as you said if he still isnt in favour. 

9 minutes ago, Niall1905 said:

Which is fine, but thats looking out for his own interests which is all the club are doing too. 

Again, I dont agree with it and I know they've done this to plant these exact ideas but it does take a chunk away from the 'proper chels' view on Conor.

As I said, if he was as desperate as we would be led to belive he is to stay, then a contract keeps him here longer. He can't be forced out before that contract ends and he'd be able to negotiate with a new club in a couple of years for his increased salary as you said if he still isnt in favour. 

Not quite worked out like that for Chalobah. Signed the extension and then gets left at home for the pre-season tour.

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

Yeah they definitely only offered him a short deal to hold his value. We can all see that. I don’t blame Conor, they have been looking to flog him for 2 seasons now. 
 

It should be a good move to Ath Madrid playing under Simeone. Good luck to him, wil miss him. 

Of course they offered a deal to maintain his book value it would have been negligent to do otherwise. But what is his value ? 
 

You say they have been trying to sell him for 2 seasons if that is so and he is the player that so many seem to think he is then why no takers ? The vast majority of PL clubs supporters  that could / would pay circa €40 million with add ons ( which it is reported to be the AM offer ) dont see him as a starter . 
 

As I pointed out some weeks ago Arsenal had a player , Guendozi, who for all intents was very similar to CG . Both had incredible energy, got around the pitch but I personally don’t think that is close to enough. Guendozi was loved by the Arsenal supporters because of his energy but like Conor is in my opinion reckless due to  his enthusiasm 

I have no idea the terms of his offer, none of us do, for instance was he given a release clause? 
 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Not quite worked out like that for Chalobah. Signed the extension and then gets left at home for the pre-season tour.

Thats completely different though, he signed one of the long term contracts about 2 years ago?

But even if you force the comparison, he proves my point. He's been left home from the tour, but we can't force him to leave. Trev has a massive advantage in terms of negotiation, he has a huge contract and can stay as long as he wants. He is in a similar position to when he signed it, he's never been a nailed on starter. He chose to stay and fight for his place, which hes done so since signing the contract

Think we need to wait and see how this plays out. We don't know what Villa offered him nor do we know what Atletico will offer him. Gallagher clearly wants long term commitment here, or the biggest deal elsewhere. All power to him. 

Gallagher getting a 2+1 year extension whilst earning the same amount of money as Caicedo + Enzo has him among our top earners until he enters his prime years. I wouldn't necessarily consider that "forcing him out" which has been the notion this entire year. I'd go as far as saying the club are doing their part for a player the sporting directors don't even rate. Protecting his value whilst paying him what he deserves in terms of contribution.