36 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

Incredibly harsh on him. He’s one of a very few who always gave 100% and loved playing for the badge. I’d keep him as a squad player.

Being a squad player doesn't suit his ambition. He's not going to get in the England squad/team if he's sat on the bench.

Fair play to him for that.

On 19/07/2023 at 09:18, RIP Mourinho said:

We don't need anymore FFP profit, we'd be daft to sell him imo

I haven't heard this anywhere else. We spent £600m on players recently and may have recouped £220m. That's still a massive outlay. I'd like to see him stay though. 

2 minutes ago, Andy North said:

I haven't heard this anywhere else. We spent £600m on players recently and may have recouped £220m. That's still a massive outlay. I'd like to see him stay though. 

The FFP problem arose due to accumulated losses over the last 3 financial years. Sales have generated the income to more than balance the books. The 600m outgoing on new players had a relatively minor effect on the profit/loss because the contracts have been amortised over 8 years, meaning only 1/8th of the outgoing is counted each year.

9 minutes ago, Andy North said:

I haven't heard this anywhere else. We spent £600m on players recently and may have recouped £220m. That's still a massive outlay. I'd like to see him stay though. 

We needed to make £92m 'profit' to be clear with FFP in last years financial reporting, the sales of Mount and Havertz alone pretty much covered that. 

27 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

We needed to make £92m 'profit' to be clear with FFP in last years financial reporting, the sales of Mount and Havertz alone pretty much covered that. 

What will be interesting is to see where we end up with this year (23/24) included ... the 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24 three year rolling data.

The hit in 23/24 from lack of Euro TV/prize money will be significant, and we've still got to cover £100m or so of amortised player signings.

Clearlake have probably done wonders in reducing the wage bill ... which had risen to £340m a year for 21/22 (not seen any data for 22/23). 

Our last available turnover number was £481m, so with say £80m hit from no CL, plus no shirt sponsor yet in place, and a likely £20m a year hit on that vs what "3" were paying, I think we may well need good profits from player sales in 23/24 to manage to the FFP targets. Hence why I suspect a Gallagher sale is necessary. 

Had a hunch Carney would be the one preferred over Gallagher.

When you see Santos, Casadei, Enzo, Nkunku and Carney play one-two intricate passes in midfield whilst Gallagher needs to control the ball, look up, and then find a pass it gives clear indication he isn't on that technical level you need from midfield. It's been my biggest criticism of him and why I've been adamant in thinking that it is too late for Gallagher to develop this technical ability. He can only refine it. 

It's a shame because unlike some players this bloke has a genuine desire to be here and never puts in a effortless shift. 

18 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Had a hunch Carney would be the one preferred over Gallagher.

When you see Santos, Casadei, Enzo, Nkunku and Carney play one-two intricate passes in midfield whilst Gallagher needs to control the ball, look up, and then find a pass it gives clear indication he isn't on that technical level you need from midfield. It's been my biggest criticism of him and why I've been adamant in thinking that it is too late for Gallagher to develop this technical ability. He can only refine it. 

It's a shame because unlike some players this bloke has a genuine desire to be here and never puts in a effortless shift. 

He is not a player for the pivot. That is probably why we are looking to get rid of him. He is a goal scoring 10 or an 8 for a high pressing team.

 

42 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

What will be interesting is to see where we end up with this year (23/24) included ... the 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24 three year rolling data.

The hit in 23/24 from lack of Euro TV/prize money will be significant, and we've still got to cover £100m or so of amortised player signings.

Clearlake have probably done wonders in reducing the wage bill ... which had risen to £340m a year for 21/22 (not seen any data for 22/23). 

Our last available turnover number was £481m, so with say £80m hit from no CL, plus no shirt sponsor yet in place, and a likely £20m a year hit on that vs what "3" were paying, I think we may well need good profits from player sales in 23/24 to manage to the FFP targets. Hence why I suspect a Gallagher sale is necessary. 

Saw a thread on line looking into how Chelsea could afford Mbappe (hopefully we aren't that stupid).

Apparently with all the sales we've reduced the wage bill from around £4m per week to nearly half of that at around £2.2m per week.

2 hours ago, Mod said:

Really not happy with this! Absolutely no need! Can clearly see what he’s capable of!

I thought giving him the full 90 mins the other night was a sure sign he stays, but was probably just showing his value to the ‘rival’ (again) that we sell him to!

I don’t understand why!

https://apple.news/ATQmapgnKTmGreQXemoow9g

Take it with a pinch of salt. Same bloke is saying our Caicedo alternative is an attacking midfielder....

22 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Saw a thread on line looking into how Chelsea could afford Mbappe (hopefully we aren't that stupid).

Apparently with all the sales we've reduced the wage bill from around £4m per week to nearly half of that at around £2.2m per week.

Given Al Hilal have apparently offered PSG a transfer fee of £259 million, I think even if we are that stupid, the numbers couldn't possibly work !

Very impressive on the wage front. I think the 20/21 wage bill was skewed by some hefty Champions League bonus pay outs, but no doubt they've got rid of many players that were at the top end of the scale. 

Edited July 24, 20232 yr by Sexyfootball

1 minute ago, axman2526 said:

Take it with a pinch of salt. Same bloke is saying our Caicedo alternative is an attacking midfielder....

Not to mention f**king up the main title in the article....

Quote

London rivals West Ham and Tottenham are vying to sign Gallagher

Pivot, Rivot, Divot, I don't give a f**k, we shouldn't be selling him!

28 minutes ago, evissy said:

He is not a player for the pivot. That is probably why we are looking to get rid of him. He is a goal scoring 10 or an 8 for a high pressing team.

 

I've always considered him a player tailored for scrappy back and forth football. 

Given the young players we have brought in by our recruitment team look the real deal, maybe we need to trust them on their analysis of our current squad as well; deeming who is/isn't good enough. If they consider Gallagher surplus, then so be it. 

16 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Saw a thread on line looking into how Chelsea could afford Mbappe (hopefully we aren't that stupid).

Apparently with all the sales we've reduced the wage bill from around £4m per week to nearly half of that at around £2.2m per week.

No chance, he's 24.

I may be looking too far into the words but this tweet suggests the decision has been taken by people above Pochettino.

 

2 minutes ago, charierre said:

I may be looking too far into the words but this tweet suggests the decision has been taken by people above Pochettino.

I had actually thought this by the fact Pochettino gave him a lot of game time so far. Surely he wouldn't have featured to protect the asset of a sale.

Trigger happy Todd!

5 minutes ago, Mod said:

I had actually thought this by the fact Pochettino gave him a lot of game time so far. Surely he wouldn't have featured to protect the asset of a sale.

Trigger happy Todd!

This goes well beyond Todd. I'd wager this is likely the decision of the directors (Winstanley/Stewart). 

26 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Given the young players we have brought in by our recruitment team look the real deal, maybe we need to trust them on their analysis of our current squad as well; deeming who is/isn't good enough. If they consider Gallagher surplus, then so be it. 

 

We are hear about how the club are very focused on not allowing Rudiger and Christensen like free moves anymore. 

Mount was a player we intend to keep but that broke down at the end of last year.

Kai was sold with 2 years left on his deal, maybe Conor will be as well. Looking to maximize their value.

Sad to see him leaving really especially as he always gave it 100%. However if you remove his effort (which is amazing), I wonder if he is slightly below elite and falls short. 
 

I don’t like us continually selling academy players though. It sends the wrong message. 

Just now, JM7 said:

Sad to see him leaving really especially as he always gave it 100%. However if you remove his effort (which is amazing), I wonder if he is slightly below elite and falls short. 
 

I don’t like us continually selling academy players though. It sends the wrong message. 

But at the same time, if they really are good enough the club will bend over backwards to keep them (Colwill/James). 

Just now, Sconnie Blue said:

But at the same time, if they really are good enough the club will bend over backwards to keep them (Colwill/James). 

That’s true. However, I thought Mount, Trev and Gallagher are all good enough starters/squad players. 
 

Its difficult for us as amateurs though because we don’t know the technical requirements of elite football players. Maybe the club have analysed Conor feel we can make an improvement while also cashing in. 

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/totally-committed-40m-chelsea-player-has-now-decided-he-definitely-doesnt-want-to-leave-journalist/

4 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Sad to see him leaving really especially as he always gave it 100%. However if you remove his effort (which is amazing), I wonder if he is slightly below elite and falls short. 
 

I don’t like us continually selling academy players though. It sends the wrong message. 

Same. Would've loved to see him stay for the effort and commitment alone. But I had a feeling the recruitment team + Pochettino would come to this decision after the Brighton game. Because he falls a little short with his level, he is competing with backup players for game time but taking a senior slot that unfortunately needs to go to another cm after Caicedo.

26 minutes ago, JM7 said:

That’s true. However, I thought Mount, Trev and Gallagher are all good enough starters/squad players. 
 

Its difficult for us as amateurs though because we don’t know the technical requirements of elite football players. Maybe the club have analysed Conor feel we can make an improvement while also cashing in. 

Did himself no favours, glad he's gone.

Whilst not being as technically proficient, personally I find Conor’s attitude on the pitch exemplary. Always gives 100% on the pitch and I’ve yet to see anything that he has said that has intimated he wants to move. Every squad needs this type of player within its group, prepared to play in a variety of positions, happy to be here. He’s one of the players who truly ‘gets’ the club, knows the rivals, which opposing grounds can be hostile and which ones freeze the tits off a witch on a cold winters night. Personally I would offer him a contract and not sell unless he really pushed for it, definitely not to the Cocks unless Kane was part of the deal. 

I like Conor a lot not necessarily for his technical abilities but his share desire to run for the badge however crazy it looks at least it gives 110%. We need players like that who want to be here.