27 minutes ago, charierre said:

have we had to make that saving, having spent over 1.5 Billion and still not expected to compete. 
 

This. 

Almost every single one of my problem with our transfer dealing comes down to this. 

You surely don't expect Chalobah as one of your best cb after spending 1b.

You surely don't expect Gallagher as one of your best midfielder after spending 1 b. 

I like Jackson as st, but after spending 1b, no way. 

I can go on and on. 

Our squad is fine to compete for 4, but after spending crazy money, surely we should be much better than this. 

 

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by Bob stark

37 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Be it QPR ( maybe not so much ) Liverpool and City it’s abundantly clear he is a marmite player and  character but if you speak to fans that attend Liverpool, that attend City as opposed to the majority of posters on forums they will tell you , having watched him game after game, that they were delighted to see the back of him.

BlueCo clearly have a hand in him going but I will put a narrative that is as likely in that Poch clearly didn’t rate him Southgate no longer rated him  , the new manager doesn’t rate him , the SDs don’t rate him and had he taken a squad place it would choke development of players that were already at the  club and or were targets to bring in .

if anyone truly believes he has been a good signing then sorry we are going to have to agree to disagree of course he like Lukaku in the day will cost us a bit while out on loan  but I have to say that save Mydryk all the wide options show more promise going forward  . In deed we saw George the other day and I suspect we might well see in more games however  had Sterling remained in the squad  almost certainly he, Sterling would be playing in games such as Servette and likely  and George would be nowhere to be seen
 

Back to cost I suspect the accounts for 23/24 will see a charge for impairment meaning they had already decided players had lost worth and I would imagine Sterlings residual value would already been reduced. It’s difficult to establish what % of his wage Arsenal are paying I have heard 50% also I have seen that we will be paying 25% and the player has agreed to a reduction of 25% add to the fact that his wage although stated to have been £300+ k a week a chunk of that will be individual bonuses such as loyalty, appearances, goals  meaning the fact he has gone on loan cannot be paid add to that the employers nic that would now be payable and the cost savings will be between £5&£10 million 

I am delighted he has gone he is a player that beyond doubt is in decline and as for consistency that’s a thing of the past as is his England career 

Marmite player….what he is, for good or bad, is a very unique player. No one has a running action like him. At his best he got acclaim during the 2021 Euros for scoring important goals. An Enigma but not the greatest by a long shot

3 hours ago, Malcolm9 said:

What have Arsenal won lately though? He's on loan so of course we'll be paying some of his wages.

If he does well they can buy him, if not I imagine a Saudi move would be good for him.

Regardless of what Arsenal have won, they are still challenging for titles and champions leagues. We are paying over half of his wages and it is customary for the loaning club to receive a loan fee. We're getting nothing.

They are never buying him on those wages at his age, they are not that stupid and would never do that for a rotational player. Why do you imagine Saudi would be good for him when he has already stated he doesn't want to go there. He can come back to Chelsea,  live in London, raise his family, on 325k pw guaranteed. 

3 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Fingers crossed that whoever plays instead of Sterling can put up better numbers than the club attributed to him for 23/24 (10 goals + 18 assists), because this won't age well if no-one out of Neto/Felix/Sancho/Mudryk(LOL)  steps up to the plate.

The cost argument for getting rid of him is quite amusing too seeing as we have effectively replaced him with THREE players, whose wages no doubt add up to a lot more than his.

All the usual lazy "media" tropes about Sterling being selfish and full of ego being trotted out again here I see.

This is what Kevin De Bruyne said : 

"Before I came to Manchester City, I didn't really know what to make of this Raheem Sterling guy. I had never met him, and from what I'd read about him in the English press, I thought he was going to be a very different character. I thought ... well ... I didn't think he'd be a bad guy, really.

"But the tabloids were always claiming that he was arrogant. So I guess I thought he'd be ... what do the English call it? A bit of a d***head, maybe? Then I got to City and I actually met Raheem, and we'd talk a bit after training, and I thought, 'wait, this guy seems really cool? What's the story here?'

"Truthfully, I don't have many close friends - inside or outside of football. It takes me a really long time to open up to people. But over time, I got closer to Raheem, because our sons were born around the same time, so they would always play together. I really got to know Raheem, and I recognised what a smart and genuine person he is. He couldn't be more different from what the tabloids were saying. This is the real truth: Raheem is one of the nicest, most humble guys I've met in football."

This tallies quite well with what Palmer and Madueke have said about him being a hugely positive role model in the dressing room as "Uncle Raheem". One of those intangibles in good squad building that the likes of BlueCo and their lacky SDs wouldn't have been able to put a dollar figure on ... and which is invisible to fans who have already decided they don't like him,

I think he'll do well at Arsenal. Great move for him, and his ambitions to get back in the fold with England.

The only losers in the deal appear to be us.

Great post. I wasn't aware of this from KDB. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  My hatred for these people continues to plumb new depths.

Martinelli seems to have plateaued, Arteta prefers Trossard as a super-sub. He'll get game time.

I'm not fussed about Sterling leaving. Aside from a couple of free kicks and that great goal against City he was quite a frustrating player and too selfish on the pitch.

How on Earth though we've let him go on loan without a fee and still paying ~£160k PW for the privilege is quite mind boggling.

Anyone want to chip in with me for an early Christmas present for the Chuckle Brothers?

 

I really don't like the the idea of giving Arsenal players.

I don't see what we get out of this, we are paying half his wages and the other half is probably going to Jadon Sancho.

If he has a good season they'll probably win the league and if he doesn't we have to take him back and have the same issue again next summer.

If we had enquired about Ramsdale they would of added an extra £10m onto what Southampton paid.

 

These owners really don't understand the mechanics of rivalry and look to trade players around like it's a game of monopoly with friends.

They can't really expect us to finish top 4 when we haven't even addressed the striker issue, our so called no1 goalkeeper literally dives before the player even shoots (watch the Wolves 1st goal again), and our back up defenders wouldn't start at Ipswich.

 

We'll win some and we'll lose some this season but I feel we will be far too inconsistent to get into the top 4 and haven't addressed our goalkeeper, centre back and striker issues.

That is literally the spine of the team.

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by 2211

33 minutes ago, 2211 said:

I really don't like the the idea of giving Arsenal players.

I don't see what we get out of this, we are paying half his wages and the other half is probably going to Jadon Sancho.

If he has a good season they'll probably win the league and if he doesn't we have to take him back and have the same issue again next summer.

If we had enquired about Ramsdale they would of added an extra £10m onto what Southampton paid.

 

These owners really don't understand the mechanics of rivalry and look to trade players around like it's a game of monopoly with friends.

They can't really expect us to finish top 4 when we haven't even addressed the striker issue, our so called no1 goalkeeper literally dives before the player even shoots (watch the Wolves 1st goal again), and our back up defenders wouldn't start at Ipswich.

 

We'll win some and we'll lose some this season but I feel we will be far too inconsistent to get into the top 4 and haven't addressed our goalkeeper, centre back and striker issues.

That is literally the spine of the team.

Tbh, I think they'd be really sh*t at monopoly. 🤣 

1 hour ago, 2211 said:

I really don't like the the idea of giving Arsenal players.

I don't see what we get out of this, we are paying half his wages and the other half is probably going to Jadon Sancho.

If he has a good season they'll probably win the league and if he doesn't we have to take him back and have the same issue again next summer.

If we had enquired about Ramsdale they would of added an extra £10m onto what Southampton paid.

 

These owners really don't understand the mechanics of rivalry and look to trade players around like it's a game of monopoly with friends.

They can't really expect us to finish top 4 when we haven't even addressed the striker issue, our so called no1 goalkeeper literally dives before the player even shoots (watch the Wolves 1st goal again), and our back up defenders wouldn't start at Ipswich.

 

We'll win some and we'll lose some this season but I feel we will be far too inconsistent to get into the top 4 and haven't addressed our goalkeeper, centre back and striker issues.

That is literally the spine of the team.

Some good points. In terms of the mechanics of rivalry; America and its sports is too large a continent for English style supporter conflicts. Is there any such thing as baseball hooligans?  The current owners are probably aware of tribalism amongst “ Soccer Fans” but they don’t give a f**k. It’s all nuts and bolts, pounds shillings and pence.

In terms of spines, at our peak we had PT behind the sticks, JT and maybe Carvallio next to him, Frankie Lampard in midfield, Drogba up front. What a backbone. They’re potential in the current crop, but in terms of manliness and backbone, looks like they’ve been carved from a banana in comparison 

5 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Fingers crossed that whoever plays instead of Sterling can put up better numbers than the club attributed to him for 23/24 (10 goals + 18 assists), because this won't age well if no-one out of Neto/Felix/Sancho/Mudryk(LOL)  steps up to the plate.

The cost argument for getting rid of him is quite amusing too seeing as we have effectively replaced him with THREE players, whose wages no doubt add up to a lot more than his.

All the usual lazy "media" tropes about Sterling being selfish and full of ego being trotted out again here I see.

This is what Kevin De Bruyne said : 

"Before I came to Manchester City, I didn't really know what to make of this Raheem Sterling guy. I had never met him, and from what I'd read about him in the English press, I thought he was going to be a very different character. I thought ... well ... I didn't think he'd be a bad guy, really.

"But the tabloids were always claiming that he was arrogant. So I guess I thought he'd be ... what do the English call it? A bit of a d***head, maybe? Then I got to City and I actually met Raheem, and we'd talk a bit after training, and I thought, 'wait, this guy seems really cool? What's the story here?'

"Truthfully, I don't have many close friends - inside or outside of football. It takes me a really long time to open up to people. But over time, I got closer to Raheem, because our sons were born around the same time, so they would always play together. I really got to know Raheem, and I recognised what a smart and genuine person he is. He couldn't be more different from what the tabloids were saying. This is the real truth: Raheem is one of the nicest, most humble guys I've met in football."

This tallies quite well with what Palmer and Madueke have said about him being a hugely positive role model in the dressing room as "Uncle Raheem". One of those intangibles in good squad building that the likes of BlueCo and their lacky SDs wouldn't have been able to put a dollar figure on ... and which is invisible to fans who have already decided they don't like him,

I think he'll do well at Arsenal. Great move for him, and his ambitions to get back in the fold with England.

The only losers in the deal appear to be us.

Sterling wasn't on "uncle sterling" wages. He was on big daddy boss the league wages. 

The fact is he's not a 300k per week player, so he has to go. 

It was a stupid decision to sign him and put him on those wages. He was never going to be the best player in the team as he's never been good enough. 

They don't and won't make that mistake again. That is why we sign younger players on lower wages. 

We haven't replaced him with 3 players. He was replaced by Neto. Who is better than him and cheaper. Signing Felix and Sancho is because we have moved to a 4-2-3-1 from a 4-3-3 and are playing in Europe so we need an additional 2 quality forward players. 

If he goes on and smashes it at arsenal I'll be shocked. I expect he will do alright, he will score a few goals and hopefully does enough to command a move away for money next summer. 

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by bisright1

Hopefully the next penalty Arse get he'll snatch the ball from Saka's hands and miss it.

It's amazing how when we signed him from city "experts" reckoned it was a mistake as he wasn't the player he was, waste of money, Pep knows when to get rid etc.

Yet after 3 years of erm..."mediocrity" (and that's being kind) arsenal get him and the "experts" believe it's genius, a masterstroke 😅

🍺 is half full , he’s gone out of Cobham and the media coverage painting club in poor light eventually relents , plus club only have to pay half his silly wages (a 6/year contract Clearfake / Todd Bully gave him)

🍺 is half empty, no loan fee ( 🤦🏻) and club have to pay half his silly wages, plus Gooners can send him back next May so the media coverage starts up all over again 

over 1 bill Pounds Sterling  spent by a California hedge fund on a huge pool of attacking forwards without a name striker at the spearhead, a huge pool of mostly useless defenders bar 2 who are injury prone, a huge pool of goalkeepers without one world class one. What a farkin saga ! 

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by General

52 minutes ago, dkw said:

It's amazing how when we signed him from city "experts" reckoned it was a mistake as he wasn't the player he was, waste of money, Pep knows when to get rid etc.

Yet after 3 years of erm..."mediocrity" (and that's being kind) arsenal get him and the "experts" believe it's genius, a masterstroke 😅

If I had a dollar for the amount of times I hear "Maybe manager x can get the best out of him" from commentators for all our sold flops I'd be a millionaire. 

Only took 5 minutes in the Arsenal v Brighton match. 

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by Sconnie Blue

Well that's one less player to frustrate me.

On 31/08/2024 at 08:40, terraloon said:

I don’t know if you have ever worked in a financial area of a business but sometimes you have to look to mitigate  a loss and that often means that whilst you can’t recover all costs if you can reduce your losses that is the approach you have to take in the short terms. In this instance let’s just wait and see how this plays out .

In fact they Arsenal will be paying a loan fee simply because Sterling will remain on Chelsea’s payroll with Arsenal getting an invoice each/ month / week or whatever period has been agreed. How that invoice is made up will be agreed 

As for players that we moved on to Arsenal let’s not just look at the likes of Havertz who w3 got top dollar for or Jorginho who isn’t a starter for them let’s also talk about Cech&  Willian who we equally mourned and we’re unmitigated disasters for them

I have not worked in a financial area, however I am not oblivious to know what poor business is. This is poor business. Like we did with Lukaku, we would get a loan fee for him. We are gifting an asset we don't want to another team and basically saying, "hey let's pay half and you pay half but you keep him". It is not as if he is deadwood. He definitely can contribute something to the team. Arsenal fans were crying our for another attacker for extra depth and they are the biggest winners from this.

Havertz has turned out to be a good signing for Arsenal, since Arteta played him in his actual position so again it is a win-win for both clubs, however seeing as people are still crying out for a striker, it would be seen as a bad deal on our behalf for some as well.

Jorginho and Cech deals are irrelevant. That is how proper business is conducted between two teams. Ousting your highest paid player from the squad with 2 weeks of the transfer window left and then realising it will be difficult to ship him off, then loan him to a rival without a loan fee is bonkers. I haven't seen anything like it before.

Just now, STATS said:

I have not worked in a financial area, however I am not oblivious to know what poor business is. This is poor business. Like we did with Lukaku, we would get a loan fee for him. We are gifting an asset we don't want to another team and basically saying, "hey let's pay half and you pay half but you keep him". It is not as if he is deadwood. He definitely can contribute something to the team. Arsenal fans were crying our for another attacker for extra depth and they are the biggest winners from this.

Havertz has turned out to be a good signing for Arsenal, since Arteta played him in his actual position so again it is a win-win for both clubs, however seeing as people are still crying out for a striker, it would be seen as a bad deal on our behalf for some as well.

Jorginho and Cech deals are irrelevant. That is how proper business is conducted between two teams. Ousting your highest paid player from the squad with 2 weeks of the transfer window left and then realising it will be difficult to ship him off, then loan him to a rival without a loan fee is bonkers. I haven't seen anything like it before.

Worse business would be paying him full whack and keeping him at Cobham. Where his value would deteriorate rapidly because he's our 5th or 6th best attacker and likely wouldn't play much. 

Arsenal loan isn't good business, but it's the least worst option. 

 

1 minute ago, bisright1 said:

Worse business would be paying him full whack and keeping him at Cobham. Where his value would deteriorate rapidly because he's our 5th or 6th best attacker and likely wouldn't play much. 

Arsenal loan isn't good business, but it's the least worst option. 

 

I just don't think we should be giving Arsenal any incentive to boost their title chance. He has proven PL experience and will work better under Arteta. I have no doubts about that. For me paying a player £160k p/w to play for another team is crazy. Yes, I get he wouldn't play much, however we are still paying him huge wages. If he wants to get back into England, we should have said you either reduce your wages or stay here. Lukaku took a hit in wages to go Roma last season and Napoli this season. Sterling, we should have played hard ball with. Arsenal are the biggest winners from this.

1 hour ago, STATS said:

I just don't think we should be giving Arsenal any incentive to boost their title chance. He has proven PL experience and will work better under Arteta. I have no doubts about that. For me paying a player £160k p/w to play for another team is crazy. Yes, I get he wouldn't play much, however we are still paying him huge wages. If he wants to get back into England, we should have said you either reduce your wages or stay here. Lukaku took a hit in wages to go Roma last season and Napoli this season. Sterling, we should have played hard ball with. Arsenal are the biggest winners from this.

Personally I rate sterling so poorly I think it harms their title chances. 

But who wins the title for me is irrelevant. We (almost certainly) aren't going to win it, so if he is good for them he's only going to take points off teams we are competing with for top 4. 

And he won't be playing us. 

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

Personally I rate sterling so poorly I think it harms their title chances. 

But who wins the title for me is irrelevant. We (almost certainly) aren't going to win it, so if he is good for them he's only going to take points off teams we are competing with for top 4. 

And he won't be playing us. 

Unfortunately I almost think the same of Felix, flatters to deceive.

 

On 31/08/2024 at 12:27, bisright1 said:

Sterling wasn't on "uncle sterling" wages. He was on big daddy boss the league wages. 

The fact is he's not a 300k per week player, so he has to go. 

It was a stupid decision to sign him and put him on those wages. He was never going to be the best player in the team as he's never been good enough. 

They don't and won't make that mistake again. That is why we sign younger players on lower wages. 

We haven't replaced him with 3 players. He was replaced by Neto. Who is better than him and cheaper. Signing Felix and Sancho is because we have moved to a 4-2-3-1 from a 4-3-3 and are playing in Europe so we need an additional 2 quality forward players. 

If he goes on and smashes it at arsenal I'll be shocked. I expect he will do alright, he will score a few goals and hopefully does enough to command a move away for money next summer. 

Currently, financially,  I am not sure that this is true. The most recent fee that I heard is that we are paying £225k and Arsenal are paying £100k pw for Sterling. I doubt that we are paying only £100k pw for Sancho. Therefore if these numbers are true we would have replaces Sterling with Sancho and actually increased our wage bill.

Why would they do this? Presumably,  in their warped minds they think if Sterling has a good year there, it'll prompt a sale. Bet that don't happen.

On 31/08/2024 at 12:33, dkw said:

It's amazing how when we signed him from city "experts" reckoned it was a mistake as he wasn't the player he was, waste of money, Pep knows when to get rid etc.

Yet after 3 years of erm..."mediocrity" (and that's being kind) arsenal get him and the "experts" believe it's genius, a masterstroke 😅

Financially it is, we're paying for their experimental back up.

43 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Currently, financially,  I am not sure that this is true. The most recent fee that I heard is that we are paying £225k and Arsenal are paying £100k pw for Sterling. I doubt that we are paying only £100k pw for Sancho. Therefore if these numbers are true we would have replaces Sterling with Sancho and actually increased our wage bill.

Why would they do this? Presumably,  in their warped minds they think if Sterling has a good year there, it'll prompt a sale. Bet that don't happen.

What I've read so far is that sterling and sancho actually took small paycuts before moving. They were both on 300k+ before.

We're paying 100k still for sterling (arse paying the rest) and 50k for sancho (man utd paying the rest). It really does get on my tits that we are paying anything for sterling but according to finance ppl this isn't a bad thing as its better than other options. Mehh but...

I also read we've managed to reduce the wages by 20+mil pa. And the net spend this transfer window was around 47mil (still some markets open to sell players so that number may change).

Unfortunately most media will only report one side of the narrative like how much we spent, but not how much we gained.

It's Chelsea, the media will never write anything positive about us. They never have. 

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

Currently, financially,  I am not sure that this is true. The most recent fee that I heard is that we are paying £225k and Arsenal are paying £100k pw for Sterling. I doubt that we are paying only £100k pw for Sancho. Therefore if these numbers are true we would have replaces Sterling with Sancho and actually increased our wage bill.

Why would they do this? Presumably,  in their warped minds they think if Sterling has a good year there, it'll prompt a sale. Bet that don't happen.

Well because they think signing a 24 year old Sancho for 20-25m is good financial sense. So it's irrelevant what is happening with Sterling. 

And yes in their "warped" minds they think that if sterling has a good year for arsenal he is more likely to be sold than if he has a good year playing for the U23 team. 

We can sh*t on the owners all day. The mistake was signing sterling. The mistake may have been not being faster to get him out the door. But the mistake definitely wasn't giving him to arsenal instead of letting him rot here.