8 hours ago, venom2011 said:

So getting into FFP trouble, then bigger FFP trouble, and lowering our income potential would make us look professional? 

Like we already have by overspending, finishing 12th, and having to sell loads of players. We can afford to pay Ugarte's buy out clause over a load of installments, but we cant pay a £50m signing over 60k a week? 

9 hours ago, BordeauxBlue said:

Confucious say: if run by clowns, expect circus. 

Confucious also say:  Believe everything the media feeds you, look like idiot.

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Confucious also say:  Believe everything the media feeds you, look like idiot.

Do you seriously not see any issues with the owners? Pretty sure i've only seen you ferociously defend them despite everything.

1 hour ago, big blue said:

Like we already have by overspending, finishing 12th, and having to sell loads of players. We can afford to pay Ugarte's buy out clause over a load of installments, but we cant pay a £50m signing over 60k a week? 

That's if you believe the conjecture in some reports. We won't know the real reason until possibly much later, if at all. It doesn't seem likely we'd bow out over an increase on 60k when Mudryk and Badiashile earn +-90k/week. 

27 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Do you seriously not see any issues with the owners? Pretty sure i've only seen you ferociously defend them despite everything.

Not believing everything you read from journalists doesn't mean you're defending the owners, the two aren't mutually exclusive. 

Not too worried about missing out on Ugarte as was unsure he was stylistically the right fit for Enzo. More concerned how we go forward now though. We've needed a DM since Matic left and we're still here 6 years later pissing about. 

10 hours ago, axman2526 said:

French media are claiming Ugarte is actually going to be paid LESS at PSG (3mill euros net) than he would have with us (3.5mill euros net) and that them finding our illegal deal of trying to buy a stake in Sporting within the deal for Ugarte saw us drop the move like a hot potato...

Buying a stake in Sporting? The fan-owned club Sporting? If one could somehow mentally navigate past that, this would supposedly be a way of circumventing FFP regulations, right? Well, then these criminal mastermind owners of ours would also have to hard-boil the books to hide the fact that we now own a part of a Portuguese club. Also everyone involved would need to keep their mouth shut (I.E. all of Sporting's owner-fans). This would then lead to a cheaper Ugarte for Chelsea FC and considering his "market value" (release clause) is widely known, we'd also have to cook our books even harder to show us paying this value all the while we really didn't because much shadow money is now paid to Sporting's owners to buy a stake in the club instead of paying for the player, but now what's the point with regards to FFP. 

Conspiracies are often dumb, but this is top level stupid. 

Edited June 6, 20232 yr by Cfc91

21 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Not believing everything you read from journalists doesn't mean you're defending the owners, the two aren't mutually exclusive. 

Some seem to be sticking their heads deep in the sand though and simply ignore everything that's remotely negative.

3 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Some seem to be sticking their heads deep in the sand though and simply ignore everything that's remotely negative.

Or they're just looking at things with a more balanced view and realising not every news article triggers Armageddon. 

12 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Or they're just looking at things with a more balanced view and realising not every news article triggers Armageddon. 

Yeah, thats fair of course.

But one could perhaps also acknowledge we do have some real problems and our problems aren't all spun by the media. Some of them are very real indeed.

24 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

Yeah, thats fair of course.

But one could perhaps also acknowledge we do have some real problems and our problems aren't all spun by the media. Some of them are very real indeed.

Oh 100% there's some big issues, the rumours doing the rounds that it looks like we were trying to bribe Sporting for Ugarte with investment into their club for him and PSG being seconds away from informing EUFA until we dropped out of the deal seem the most concerning. If you're going to be dodgy, at least move in silence. 

6 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Oh 100% there's some big issues, the rumours doing the rounds that it looks like we were trying to bribe Sporting for Ugarte with investment into their club for him and PSG being seconds away from informing EUFA until we dropped out of the deal seem the most concerning. If you're going to be dodgy, at least move in silence. 

I'm not even thinking of that. That one may or may not be true but even just those we know about there's plenty of problems to go around.

 

1 hour ago, venom2011 said:

That's if you believe the conjecture in some reports. We won't know the real reason until possibly much later, if at all. It doesn't seem likely we'd bow out over an increase on 60k when Mudryk and Badiashile earn +-90k/week. 

Yeah we wont know for certain, but if this level of spend was achievable even without champions league football, why havent we seen other teams go the same route?

Personally I think they have gambled in January and it hasnt paid off. So we will force Mount out the door, and try get as much as we can from others in the hope what we have bought turns out to better than what we sell. 

17 minutes ago, big blue said:

Personally I think they have gambled in January and it hasnt paid off.

Think so too. They invested £15 million in Felix for five months for example, a whole lot of money for such a short period of time but had we achieved Top 4 it would obviously have been worth it.

53 minutes ago, big blue said:

Yeah we wont know for certain, but if this level of spend was achievable even without champions league football, why havent we seen other teams go the same route?

Personally I think they have gambled in January and it hasnt paid off. So we will force Mount out the door, and try get as much as we can from others in the hope what we have bought turns out to better than what we sell. 

It's a bit dramatic to say the January risk hasn't paid off, don't you think? They weren't signings in the prime of their careers. Most of them were good transfers as far as I'm concerned.

No one is forcing Mount out of the door and his transfer is unrelated to our previous spend. He is entirely in control - stay and extend, stay and run down, or leave. The other sales won't be driven by a need to sell or for book-balancing either. 

56 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

It's a bit dramatic to say the January risk hasn't paid off, don't you think? They weren't signings in the prime of their careers. Most of them were good transfers as far as I'm concerned.

No one is forcing Mount out of the door and his transfer is unrelated to our previous spend. He is entirely in control - stay and extend, stay and run down, or leave. The other sales won't be driven by a need to sell or for book-balancing either. 

Surely we spent what we did in January to secure champions league football? Otherwise what was the point? We ended up with a squad too big to manage. Wouldnt we have been better off leaving players like Madueke, and Fofana at their clubs until the summer? 

I'm not saying they wont become good players, but did we have to spend so big in January? 

Mounts camp are saying there is no offer on the table. They claim a deal was verbal agreed pre world cup, and then the board reneged on that agreement. (Not the 1st time I've read they have gone back on a verbal agreement). Since then all that has been offered is a 1 year extension in February which was rejected, since then nothing. 

So I guess it depends which side you want to believe on that. I dont see why Mounts side would be so keen to leave his boyhood club, especially to move to united, which is a sideways step. 

13 minutes ago, big blue said:

Surely we spent what we did in January to secure champions league football? Otherwise what was the point? We ended up with a squad too big to manage. Wouldnt we have been better off leaving players like Madueke, and Fofana at their clubs until the summer? 

I'm not saying they wont become good players, but did we have to spend so big in January? 

Mounts camp are saying there is no offer on the table. They claim a deal was verbal agreed pre world cup, and then the board reneged on that agreement. (Not the 1st time I've read they have gone back on a verbal agreement). Since then all that has been offered is a 1 year extension in February which was rejected, since then nothing. 

So I guess it depends which side you want to believe on that. I dont see why Mounts side would be so keen to leave his boyhood club, especially to move to united, which is a sideways step. 

Didn't we spend big in January to amortise the transfer fees. UEFA wanted to change the rules for this summer so it was spend big in January to avoid issues in Summer. Enzo's fee would only have been able to be amortised over 5 years of his deal, not the 8.5 years we have now if we waited until July.

I’ve just read he hasn’t signed for PSG of yet, just Portuguese journos sporting making a bigger story??

With Enrique going there this transfer might come to a screeching halt. 

Not sure if he fits in how Enrique likes to setup. 

And we're full steam ahead for Caicedo so...ooft, shouldn't have taken those big wages Manuel

1 hour ago, BordeauxBlue said:

With Enrique going there this transfer might come to a screeching halt. 

Not sure if he fits in how Enrique likes to setup. 

Sounded like everything was done bar the announcement. 

No doubt if it falls through we will be back imo.

On 17/06/2023 at 15:36, Ballack & Blu said:

I’ve just read he hasn’t signed for PSG of yet, just Portuguese journos sporting making a bigger story??

From what I've read it's just an accounting thing, sporting want it logged after the 1st July. 

It’s done now. £51 million.