5 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

More output than CHO that everyone is now moaning about

Not to be to particular. CHO has five goals three assists. Sancho two goals five assists. Four of his assists came in three games against brighton west london bell ends and bournmouth.

1 hour ago, bluetrooper said:

Not to be to particular. CHO has five goals three assists. Sancho two goals five assists. Four of his assists came in three games against brighton west london bell ends and bournmouth.

CHO has five goals and two assists. 7G/A. 1827 mins.

Sancho has two goals and four assists. 6G/A. 1357 mins.

Another awful performance tonight.

@Remodez

reported by daily mail - they commented that it was unusual for no player agreement yet, we just need to fail to agree terms which shouldnt be difficult

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by OneTommyLangley

27 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

@Remodez

reported by daily mail - they commented that it was unusual for no player agreement yet, we just need to fail to agree terms which shouldnt be difficult

So all we need to do is offer him £10 a week and we can get out of this deal?

6 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

So all we need to do is offer him £10 a week and we can get out of this deal?

I believe so we then just pay " a substantial penalty fee "

4 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

I believe so we then just pay " a substantial penalty fee "

I say take it. I would rather we pay a penalty fee than sign Sancho on one of our 7 year contracts.

extract from the Mirror and the Mail..........

However, a loophole is said to be present in the agreement that would allow Chelsea to renege on the deal. The Blues could choose to pay a 'significant penalty' if they did not want to move forward with a transfer for the 24-year-old, reports the Mail.

An additional complicating factor could be the terms of any contract agreed with the player. Sancho is yet to agree a deal at Stamford Bridge, despite his stay at the club having looked likely from the outset.

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by OneTommyLangley

Strange

“Significant”… one can imagine that will be around £5m at least. He’s going to wanna be close to his £250k+ pw he’s on at United, so negotiations are unlikely to go well anyway. Maybe this was the plan all along, either we get top 4 and Sancho is the ‘main man’ and we stump up the wages, or we finish 9th (current projection), and we take the penalty.

10 hours ago, Remodez said:

The eye test will tell you that our wingers have no one to cross to.

Noni has 9 successful crosses out of 49, Neto has 19 out of 71 and finally Sancho has 0 out of 15. If he whipped more in brainlessly he would be on par with our other wingers success rates.

Shooting is a valid critique, even the most stern Sancho fan will tell you he needs to shoot more.

That is a valid point. Having 0% is wild though, actually had to check to confirm that number.

1 hour ago, just said:

Another awful performance tonight.

Well said.. and outperformed by Tyrique George.

21 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

extract from the Mirror and the Mail..........

However, a loophole is said to be present in the agreement that would allow Chelsea to renege on the deal. The Blues could choose to pay a 'significant penalty' if they did not want to move forward with a transfer for the 24-year-old, reports the Mail.

An additional complicating factor could be the terms of any contract agreed with the player. Sancho is yet to agree a deal at Stamford Bridge, despite his stay at the club having looked likely from the outset.

Nice one Tom. Far to lazy, like our football, to look that up for anyone lol.

Needs a massive foot up his arse. He also needs a proper number 9. We all need a proper number 9 though.

I like him as a player but he’s shown nothing to suggest we should sign him permanently. If we wasn’t obligated, then we would be sending him back.

8 hours ago, OneTommyLangley said:

extract from the Mirror and the Mail..........

However, a loophole is said to be present in the agreement that would allow Chelsea to renege on the deal. The Blues could choose to pay a 'significant penalty' if they did not want to move forward with a transfer for the 24-year-old, reports the Mail.

An additional complicating factor could be the terms of any contract agreed with the player. Sancho is yet to agree a deal at Stamford Bridge, despite his stay at the club having looked likely from the outset.

Very unusual indeed but not the most reliable of sources.

1 hour ago, Remodez said:

Very unusual indeed but not the most reliable of sources.

Agree with you re reliability of most all sources but it's what is being indicated

No player agreement & penalty clause have the potential to send him back, maybe.

15 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

CHO has five goals and two assists. 7G/A. 1827 mins.

Sancho has two goals and four assists. 6G/A. 1357 mins.

I think with the CHO metrics, we kind of need to look at what else he contributes to the forest side... My mates a regular up at the city ground, say he puts in a shift up and down the park defensively and chasing.

I'd rather CHO given he's ex youth over a player who has flattered to deceive since arriving back in England. there's also the price comparison. CHO cost forest 3 Million... Sancho is going to cost us 25...

guess I need to start cheering on the CFC accountants as it is they who are my team now

1 hour ago, bluetrooper said:

I think with the CHO metrics, we kind of need to look at what else he contributes to the forest side... My mates a regular up at the city ground, say he puts in a shift up and down the park defensively and chasing.

I'd rather CHO given he's ex youth over a player who has flattered to deceive since arriving back in England. there's also the price comparison. CHO cost forest 3 Million... Sancho is going to cost us 25...

guess I need to start cheering on the CFC accountants as it is they who are my team now

If CHO wasn't a Chelsea youngster and we were linked to him now there's no way people would be happy about it. He's probably the best youngster to ever come from the academy, but he's half the player he should have been since his injury.

£25m is still ridiculously cheap in this market.

2 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

If CHO wasn't a Chelsea youngster and we were linked to him now there's no way people would be happy about it. He's probably the best youngster to ever come from the academy, but he's half the player he should have been since his injury.

£25m is still ridiculously cheap in this market.

Im not advocating he should be brought back or we sign him... My preference would have been to keep him and not bothered singing 150 million in replacement talent that isnt a drugs offender or the current dross we have on the wings. Im now not so sure if the players are dross or simply that Marescas "tactics" are sh*t and stop the players playing. Probably a mix of both tbh.

My point is once again what a horrendous piece of business the club has done here. In fact, since he's gone, has any of the replacements bettered him? Not so sure.

19 hours ago, bluetrooper said:

Im not advocating he should be brought back or we sign him... My preference would have been to keep him and not bothered singing 150 million in replacement talent that isnt a drugs offender or the current dross we have on the wings. Im now not so sure if the players are dross or simply that Marescas "tactics" are sh*t and stop the players playing. Probably a mix of both tbh.

My point is once again what a horrendous piece of business the club has done here. In fact, since he's gone, has any of the replacements bettered him? Not so sure.

Yes, but leaning towards Maresca's stifling tactics.

CHO was a perfectly reasonable sale under the circumstances albeit his price a bit too low. Pre-injury his talent was running at defenders and beating them. Post-injury he was barely a shadow of that player probably thanks to a loss of confidence both personally and in his achilles. It's not uncommon. His loan season at BL was a disaster, barely starting. Back he came, the disappointing player he was pre-loan. Two seasons later he's a bit lesser version of what he once was or promised to be.

1 hour ago, dermott said:

Yes, but leaning towards Maresca's stifling tactics.

CHO was a perfectly reasonable sale under the circumstances albeit his price a bit too low. Pre-injury his talent was running at defenders and beating them. Post-injury he was barely a shadow of that player probably thanks to a loss of confidence both personally and in his achilles. It's not uncommon. His loan season at BL was a disaster, barely starting. Back he came, the disappointing player he was pre-loan. Two seasons later he's a bit lesser version of what he once was or promised to be.

This.

CHO vs 2/3 defenders would’ve been awful.

I don’t think that anyone is advocating for CHO to come back, but just pointing out that we sold him for £3m and got someone not better (if not worse) for £20m. And that’s the trend with this board.

(Sancho is more of a framing device in the article, symptom rather than cause, but still):

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/16/chelsea-sancho-maresca-premier-league-analysis

32 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

(Sancho is more of a framing device in the article, symptom rather than cause, but still):

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/16/chelsea-sancho-maresca-premier-league-analysis

“Sancho created no chances, made no key passes and had no shots before being replaced in the 76th minute”

1 shot on target since Boxing Day, but some fans think he passes the eye test