So after all the wind ups, all the claims, all the interpretations our CL Squad has been handed in.

It seems all the newbies that are at the club are on the list save 1. The loanee from Brighton

It’s actually quite amazing because the journalist I have just read has passed comment on the squad and said the omission had to be due to cost. It could be but the most likely explanation is that we had used up all the spots available to non club trained players in the squad.

It showed lack of understanding even more because they suggested that Colwill who is listed could have been left out and replaced with another player and they suggest that player could be, yes the lad from Brighton.

Colwill could be replaced but it could only be by naming a HG and club trained players.

Edited September 3, 20251 yr by terraloon

14 minutes ago, terraloon said:

So after all the wind ups, all the claims, all the interpretations our CL Squad has been handed in.

It seems all the newbies that are at the club are on the list save 1. The loanee from Brighton

It’s actually quite amazing because the journalist I have just read has passed comment on the squad and said the omission had to be due to cost. It could be but the most likely explanation is that we had used up all the spots available to non club trained players in the squad.

It showed lack of understanding even more because they suggested that Colwill who is listed could have been left out and replaced with another player and they suggest that player could be, yes the lad from Brighton.

Colwill could be replaced but it could only be by naming a HG and club trained players.

14 minutes ago, terraloon said:

So after all the wind ups, all the claims, all the interpretations our CL Squad has been handed in.

It seems all the newbies that are at the club are on the list save 1. The loanee from Brighton

It’s actually quite amazing because the journalist I have just read has passed comment on the squad and said the omission had to be due to cost. It could be but the most likely explanation is that we had used up all the spots available to non club trained players in the squad.

It showed lack of understanding even more because they suggested that Colwill who is listed could have been left out and replaced with another player and they suggest that player could be, yes the lad from Brighton.

Colwill could be replaced but it could only be by naming a HG and club trained players.

You just have to laugh at our club. They signed Facundo to provide depth/cover because of European games but no one bothered to check the rules.

Sucks for Buonanotte. He said during his introduction interview that he was excited to play Champions league football

1 hour ago, The Don Antonio said:

Sucks for Buonanotte. He said during his introduction interview that he was excited to play Champions league football

it makes u wonder why they signed him for the amount of games he’s going to play and the fact we’re paying Sterling over 300k pw to hand the bibs out.

31 minutes ago, C3blue said:

it makes u wonder why they signed him for the amount of games he’s going to play and the fact we’re paying Sterling over 300k pw to hand the bibs out.

Had Sterling been included or Disassi come to that then one of the players on the A list would I believe have to been removed. Actually it’s quite possible that the cost of either of the two players I mention it possibly would mean to match costs then more than one would have to be removed

1 hour ago, The Don Antonio said:

Sucks for Buonanotte. He said during his introduction interview that he was excited to play Champions league football

Didn't the same thing happen with Paez and the CWC?

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

You just have to laugh at our club. They signed Facundo to provide depth/cover because of European games but no one bothered to check the rules.

I suspect when the loan was agreed the plan was for him to be in the squad and almost certainly he would have been but once Guiu was recalled he had to take one of the 17 non club trained or HG players.

Diaps injury changed a lot of things and I suspect the CL squad was another consequence

Edited September 3, 20251 yr by terraloon

He can still be swapped in after the initial league table stage I think.

19 hours ago, terraloon said:

I suspect when the loan was agreed the plan was for him to be in the squad and almost certainly he would have been but once Guiu was recalled he had to take one of the 17 non club trained or HG players.

Diaps injury changed a lot of things and I suspect the CL squad was another consequence

That makes sense - and a shame that there's a broken promise to a young player. At some point if not already players will smartly choose to go elsewhere.
But maybe some spots for the academy later in the competition.

Apparently we did leave one extra slot open in the 25 - besides Facundo, there is no third goalkeeper which is Slonina? That would seem to be not just homegrown amounts then but something around the List A balance needing to be positive? But even there the math doesn't really seem to add up. Slightly irritated and embarassed I am writing this out, but:

Amagou (wash?), KDH (28), Jackson (12 loan fee?), Madueke (48), Nkunku (36), Mudryk (62?), Sancho (73?) - 124 ish+ 125 (Mudryk+Sancho)... unclear how Mudryk and Sancho were valued/counted, and how to count add-ons and Jackson's fee.

Hato (38), Essugo (18), Santos (18), Delap (30), Garnacho (40), Gittens (48), Pedro (60), Estevao (28). 280. Unclear how Santos gets valued as it's not a new signing but even without him it still looks like we are over, and that's if you count Mudryk and Sancho at face value.

While I'd like to trust the owners checked the legal definitions of everything which is why they've left out Facundo/Slonina... they haven't really earned much trust.

Chelsea squad for Champions League league phase confirmed

15 minutes ago, VG said:

That makes sense - and a shame that there's a broken promise to a young player. At some point if not already players will smartly choose to go elsewhere.
But maybe some spots for the academy later in the competition.

Apparently we did leave one extra slot open in the 25 - besides Facundo, there is no third goalkeeper which is Slonina? That would seem to be not just homegrown amounts then but something around the List A balance needing to be positive? But even there the math doesn't really seem to add up. Slightly irritated and embarassed I am writing this out, but:

Amagou (wash?), KDH (28), Jackson (12 loan fee?), Madueke (48), Nkunku (36), Mudryk (62?), Sancho (73?) - 124 ish+ 125 (Mudryk+Sancho)... unclear how Mudryk and Sancho were valued/counted, and how to count add-ons and Jackson's fee.

Hato (38), Essugo (18), Santos (18), Delap (30), Garnacho (40), Gittens (48), Pedro (60), Estevao (28). 280. Unclear how Santos gets valued as it's not a new signing but even without him it still looks like we are over, and that's if you count Mudryk and Sancho at face value.

While I'd like to trust the owners checked the legal definitions of everything which is why they've left out Facundo/Slonina... they haven't really earned much trust.

Chelsea squad for Champions League league phase confirmed

They will also need a third keeper as per Article 31.13 of the regulations. Im sure they will be no stranger to Article 31.14a and Article 31.14b also.

its a fantastic read so i thought i would share it

https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regulations-of-the-UEFA-Champions-League-2025/26/Article-31-Player-lists-Online

Edited September 4, 20251 yr by OneTommyLangley

18 minutes ago, VG said:

That makes sense - and a shame that there's a broken promise to a young player. At some point if not already players will smartly choose to go elsewhere.
But maybe some spots for the academy later in the competition.

Apparently we did leave one extra slot open in the 25 - besides Facundo, there is no third goalkeeper which is Slonina? That would seem to be not just homegrown amounts then but something around the List A balance needing to be positive? But even there the math doesn't really seem to add up. Slightly irritated and embarassed I am writing this out, but:

Amagou (wash?), KDH (28), Jackson (12 loan fee?), Madueke (48), Nkunku (36), Mudryk (62?), Sancho (73?) - 124 ish+ 125 (Mudryk+Sancho)... unclear how Mudryk and Sancho were valued/counted, and how to count add-ons and Jackson's fee.

Hato (38), Essugo (18), Santos (18), Delap (30), Garnacho (40), Gittens (48), Pedro (60), Estevao (28). 280. Unclear how Santos gets valued as it's not a new signing but even without him it still looks like we are over, and that's if you count Mudryk and Sancho at face value.

While I'd like to trust the owners checked the legal definitions of everything which is why they've left out Facundo/Slonina... they haven't really earned much trust.

Chelsea squad for Champions League league phase confirmed

The squad requirements for the PL and CL are significant different. In terms of GKs technically for the PL you could get away with not naming any in your squad , that is over 21 year olds but when it comes to the CL you are required to have a minimum of 2 on the A list and you are afforded the option to include the 3rd on your B list.That is what is happening this season and to be fair it’s very very rare that the 3rd choice keeper ever gets to play.

UEFas requirements around our A list were the subject of much debate and what is now clear some , no most, journalists clearly interpreted the sanction incorrectly.

I was banging the drum saying that transferring a player onto the list didn’t mean that there had to be a positive transfer fee balance indeed as it has now been proven what was required was to ensure that the costs of the players being put on the new list ( amortisation + wages+ agents fees) added together didn’t exceed the players taken off.

As I pointed out in our debate how people were adamant that a player had to leave the club wasn’t what the sanction agreement said it just talked about “ new players” on the list for season 25/6&26/27

Edited September 4, 20251 yr by terraloon

12 minutes ago, terraloon said:

The squad requirements for the PL and CL are significant different. In terms of GKs technically for the PL you could get away with not naming any in your squad , that is over 21 year olds but when it comes to the CL you are required to have a minimum of 2 on the A list and you are afforded the option to include the 3rd on your B list.That is what is happening this season and to be fair it’s very very rare that the 3rd choice keeper ever gets to play.

UEFas requirements around our A list were the subject of much debate and what is now clear some , no most, journalists clearly interpreted the sanction incorrectly.

I was banging the drum saying that transferring a player onto the list didn’t mean that there had to be a positive transfer fee balance indeed as it has now been proven what was required was to ensure that the costs of the players being put on the new list ( amortisation + wages+ agents fees) added together didn’t exceed the players taken off.

As I pointed out in our debate how people were adamant that a player had to leave the club wasn’t what the sanction agreement said it just talked about “ new players” on the list for season 25/6&26/27

doesnt sound like its optional....

31.13

Each club must include at least two goalkeepers on List A and at least three in total (List A and List B combined).

16 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

doesnt sound like its optional....

31.13

Each club must include at least two goalkeepers on List A and at least three in total (List A and List B combined).

I think we are both saying the same thing. Yes you have to name 3 keepers the option is to name the third on your b list

4 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I think we are both saying the same thing. Yes you have to name 3 keepers the option is to name the third on your b list

and to confuse me more Newcastle also only have 2 Arsenal 3 Liverpool 3 Man City 4 as of today.

8 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I think we are both saying the same thing. Yes you have to name 3 keepers the option is to name the third on your b list

Personally, I think things are way too regulated in football. Premier League does their own thing, UEFA are the same and so are FIFA. Clubs need to jump through so many hoops to comply.

5 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

and to confuse me more Newcastle also only have 2 Arsenal 3 Liverpool 3 Man City 4 as of today.

I read the other day that technically it’s possible you could designate an outfield player as a GK to fulfil that numerical requirement

In the case of Man City putting 4 GKs on their A list is really quite odd but like us naming Colwill in one of the club trained home grown slots they probably didn’t have anyone else to take advantage of.

Why are they making this so f**king difficult?

You should be able to pick any player on your books.

They try and promote home grown and youth on one hand but their ffp/PSR rules only encourage the pure profit sales of those players.

Over complicated over regulated nonsense that achieves nothing other than sneaky accounting, back handers, dodgy deals with sister clubs and loopholes.

10 hours ago, C3blue said:

Why are they making this so f**king difficult?

You should be able to pick any player on your books.

They try and promote home grown and youth on one hand but their ffp/PSR rules only encourage the pure profit sales of those players.

Over complicated over regulated nonsense that achieves nothing other than sneaky accounting, back handers, dodgy deals with sister clubs and loopholes.

This is the big problem in European football. We know where heavy and most of all badly designed regualtion leads to. Clubs are not having a say here on how they'd want things to work. One club finds a loophole and then they plug it, another appears and another plug. This goes on until the horrible big picture reveals itself. I have zero complaints on the clubs that try to find a hole or an edge. It is competition.

12 hours ago, C3blue said:

Why are they making this so f**king difficult?

You should be able to pick any player on your books.

They try and promote home grown and youth on one hand but their ffp/PSR rules only encourage the pure profit sales of those players.

Over complicated over regulated nonsense that achieves nothing other than sneaky accounting, back handers, dodgy deals with sister clubs and loopholes.

As ever its pandering to several "legacy" clubs whims. When we started building our squads under Roman where we basically had 2 top class players in every single position they sh*t themselves, then when English clubs started dominated in Europe they started bringing in regulations to stop all this, get the "legacy" clubs back to the top and pull up the drawbridge.

Thats what all these regulations are, self serving nonsense designed to keep the big boys big and uncatchable.

Its all about control

All of these federations are trying to maintain control, over complication is their friend, they fear an alternative super league, they fear it so much that they are re engineering their own competitions to be more like a super league. There are penalties for not complying with them, there are even penalties for considering an alternative !

Nice work if you can get it ! Make it an offence to consider a competitor haha. They fear an alternative Super league will surface again - but with all the fixes that these clowns have identified as weaknesses.

I doubt they fully understand the logic in the fine detail of all their regulations, i certainly dont.

Edited September 5, 2025Sep 5 by OneTommyLangley

3 hours ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Its all about control

All of these federations are trying to maintain control, over complication is their friend, they fear an alternative super league, they fear it so much that they are re engineering their own competitions to be more like a super league. There are penalties for not complying with them, there are even penalties for considering an alternative !

Nice work if you can get it ! Make it an offence to consider a competitor haha. They fear an alternative Super league will surface again - but with all the fixes that these clowns have identified as weaknesses.

I doubt they fully understand the logic in the fine detail of all their regulations, i certainly dont.

Theyve manipulated the CL to be almost exactly what the clubs wanted, next step is "Legacy" clubs being exempt from qualification, the big teams will be in it every season no matter what.

48 minutes ago, dkw said:

Theyve manipulated the CL to be almost exactly what the clubs wanted, next step is "Legacy" clubs being exempt from qualification, the big teams will be in it every season no matter what.

Im gonna go out on a limb here....I dont mind if certain clubs are exempt .....As Long As We Are One Of Them.

Maybe qualification should be weighted with historical performance or other criteria that we meet.😉

Id rather play top european teams week in week out than bloody Burnley and the like.

Edited September 5, 2025Sep 5 by OneTommyLangley

2 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Im gonna go out on a limb here....I dont mind if certain clubs are exempt .....As Long As We Are One Of Them.

Maybe qualification should be weighted with historical performance or other criteria that we meet.😉

This is what most fans had a problem with when it came to the super league. They wanted a closed shop.

Sport should be a meritocracy, you should always earn it otherwise it detracts from the achievement.

Also you lose a lot from the competition without jeopardy. How many times has the premier league relegation battle been more exciting than the title race?

Oh and screw the ‘legacy clubs’ and their entitlement even if we are included.

9 minutes ago, OneTommyLangley said:

Im gonna go out on a limb here....I dont mind if certain clubs are exempt .....As Long As We Are One Of Them.

Maybe qualification should be weighted with historical performance or other criteria that we meet.😉

Id rather play top european teams week in week out than bloody Burnley and the like.

Couldnt disagree more, theres no way any competition should be closed shop, not club has a right to be in the CL ahead of any other.

1 minute ago, C3blue said:

This is what most fans had a problem with when it came to the super league. They wanted a closed shop.

Sport should be a meritocracy, you should always earn it otherwise it detracts from the achievement.

Also you lose a lot from the competition without jeopardy. How many times has the premier league relegation battle been more exciting than the title race?

Oh and screw the ‘legacy clubs’ and their entitlement even if we are included.

You are of course correct and i know my view is unfair but i cant help myself 😂