lchk

A victory? For whom? More like bitterness from the likes of you.

There were several posters who rejoiced when Sarri was hired and one of the reasons was that he wouldn't pick fights with Marina and the board regarding player transfers unlike those pesky types like Conte and Mourinho. Turns out Sarri cares even less about Chelsea than them. What a slap in the face for these posters LOL!

Don't know if this is popular or not but I think the club is not utilizing Conte's contacts in the Serie A well enough when it comes to snapping up youth and established quality players, the majority of whom can be bought at more reasonable prices than paying 35 million pounds or more for Drinkwater. There's more to the Serie A than just Sandro or Nainggolan. And Conte knows them like the back of his hand. Also, I don't believe Drinkwater will amount to much despite the overwhelming positive accolades given to him by the posters here. He can do a bit of everything but does nothing very well. Reminds me of Tom Cleverley of Man Utd. If you ask me, I would suggest Daniele Baselli in a central midfield role who is also from Torino like Zappacosta. Good shooting, reads the game and passes well and can also intercept and tackle consistently. Can play as a defensive midfielder, central midfielder or box-to-box. Don't think he's capped at senior level for Italy but that would only serve to lower his transfer fee.

I think Torino paid something like 5 million euros for him if I recall from looking up an old Serie A transfer site which is a bargain even in 2015. He definitely has a high ceiling as his ball control while running at speed is far better than Moses. The reason why he was bought pretty quickly was due to the fact that he was surplus to requirements as De Silvestri replaced him at right back in a flat back 4 and Zappacosta is really not suited to that role (at least that's what I think). The coaching staff at the Bridge will need to drill some tactical defensive discipline in him but I think he will improve on this as all Italian footballers have that defensive nous in them

The Board could have bought both Zappacosta and Oxlade-Chamberlain - it need not be a binary decision. The issue is trying to convince Oxlade-Chamberlain to join the club and if the suggested reason that he rejected Chelsea because he didn't want to play at right back then it is a major issue as the club left it so late and had no idea of such a prerequisite. Llorente was a preferred choice of Conte (I believe Zappacosta is too) and just with that, I support this signing although if it was me, I would prefer a younger option. Abraham is out on loan and Llorente is a short-term option and has bags of experience while offering a different option in being a target man so what's the problem? As Marina has been conducting transfer business in this way ever since she joined the club, I very much doubt any reviews, post mortems, whatever you want to call it are being done except for probably pounds and pence. I wouldn't call this a successful window as a marque player (Sandro), no backup striker of Conte's choice and the points you mentioned above. It's just a tad disappointing and could be far better.

Noted on your points. It's ironic and tragic that the club has the funds to buy Sandro and had made three bids for him yet Marina can't get the deal done. I maintain that her Low balling and drawn out negotiation tactics just pisses off selling clubs and this reputation of hers bode ill for major transfer business in the future.

Valencia is a right back so Sandro won't compete with him. There's still Real Madrid and Barcelona. Also, it depends on Conte staying and I am convinced he will leave Chelsea by next summer if not sooner. And never discount the Marina factor - she will low ball and penny pinch to the point that Juventus gets pissed off and the deal is off again. A leopard never changes its spots.

I would like to see the Board go for him again in January. Hopefully fit by then as well. Rare for an English footballer, he has a high level of technical ability and that makes him an attractive target. Tactical awareness can be drilled into him by the coaching staff of which he is rather weak in. You can coach tactics and awareness of space but you can't coach technical skills for established players and the squad has a shortage of players with good technical skills. Although he plays as a number 10, he has the physique and ability to play as a box to box midfielder.

I see you left out the main reason why people switch jobs and that is MONEY. Whatever the reasons are, Chelsea still lost out to Liverpool in a deadline day transfer bid. Absolutely comedic. Liverpool the ones that everyone else laughs at for their antics and theirs fans for living in the past. End of. I see no reason to prolong this debate as nobody is going to change their minds.

One size does not fit all is your claim. It is my suggestion that the club should re-look at how they conduct their transfers. Unless you think that's not important. And Liverpool promised him a central midfield position? If that is true, the Board is at fault here. Bidding on the final days for a player whom they knew would not want to play at the position offered beggars belief as to why they would do so in the first place. What is your source that there was no bid for Llorente? It's been reported that Conte has had a keen interest in him since January. I believe that Barkley has a sufficient level of technical skill and physique to play in midfield for the club. He does have a weakness in his hesitancy at the final end of the pitch but that can ironed out with guidance. I definitely hope the Board bids for him again in January.

Nobody will ever know why Oxlade-Chamberlain selected Liverpool instead of Chelsea but if he did so for personal and emotional reasons, that's not an unusual occurrence whether it's in Football or any other line of business for that matter. There are some folks who wish to work for a particular boss and would quit their jobs to work under him if he leaves the current establishment. Others would do so because they feel they can excel by being a big fish in a small pond. There are countless other reasons. However, the main factor that a player would want to play for a particular club and like most other jobs in the world as well is due to pay packets.

And in return, why did you accuse me of not behaving like a business owner due to the fact that I conduct post mortems for failed bids? You don't know my business either!! Conducting post mortems may or may not be what Chelsea does but I would certainly advocate it in light of transfer activities since Marina joined. How do you know those are the reasons Oxlade-Chamberlain rejected Chelsea? One post before this, you admitted you don't know the details. Llorente was already on Conte's radar since January of this year especially since Batshuayi isn't favoured by the manager. Losing deals to lesser rivals is laughable. Particularly to Liverpool and Tottenham. Those clubs you mentioned get rejections but certainly not for squad players to smaller rival clubs. I hope Barkley joins in January and if he does, you would probably change your tune.

I believe even if Marina had signed nobody on deadline day, there would be no professional nor personal repercussions for her and she would carry on her job with nary a worry. I definitely have an issue with that.

The club could definitely could have done better i.e. Oxlade-Chamberlain and Llorente. Barkley I am not too sure but we will see in January next year. Marina being an overly aggressive negotiator will only backfire on the club when it comes to acquiring top quality players that are also being sought after by other clubs. That's why we will never see the likes of Sandro and others of his calibre ever joining the club. Nobody likes to deal with hard asses and if she thinks all other clubs need to bow to her demands - tough luck for her and especially for Chelsea. Personally, if a potential low balls me and I have other better paying customers, I would rather not do business with the Low baller. Chances are the low baller client would also have other negative traits that would make the entire engagement a painful one.

A post mortem is not an unusual practise, particularly for a consulting firm like mine. It's my turn to be surprised that you don't do it as a business owner. For us, we evaluate each and every failed major bid or project to look for ways to improve and avoid mistakes being repeated in the future. One thing I do not tolerate is repeated mistakes. If you look at Marina's record, she has pulled the same transfer stunts every time since she joined the club. Chasing after big name players to failure and haggling over second choice players on the final day and even beyond the transfer dateline. She may not have any personal KPIs beyond keeping the net spend down but for my business, it's a highly competitive one and we cannot afford to have people running through the same failed scenarios which would lead to a tender loss of a competitor or a cancelled project. This would crimp our cash flow and affect the livelihoods of my employees and suppliers. Losing squad players to the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham is a big laugh. They aren't going to those clubs as automatic first choices either. There is no meltdown here. It calls for a review of how the club conducts its transfer business and to make final day bids for squad fillers while losing them to lesser rivals by rejecting the champions is definitely a worrying thing.