What's new

Eden Hazard

JUSTINSIGNAL

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2008
15,980
48,499
I will see your -



and raise you a "Lampard, Terry, Torres, Cech"

Roman has gone back to assembling 'The ChelseaGlobetrotters'. Doesn't mean shit if they can't play together, for each other, as a team.

Ha.

Clutching.At.Straws.

Chelsea are going to be back in the top four next season. I think deep down we all know that.
 
Apr 25, 2012
372
150
So chavski have have signed Marin,Hazard with Lukaku and De Bruyne i think his name is both likely to be coming into the first team picture and possibly a striker to replace Drogba.

We better get a move on with Vertonghen and some other players as the worrying thing is all the other teams look like they will strengthen massively with the scum being linked with Llorente & Mvilla in the last few weeks
 

StartingPrice

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
Feb 13, 2004
32,568
10,280
Ha.

Clutching.At.Straws.

Chelsea are going to be back in the top four next season. I think deep down we all know that.

I disagree.
They will be back to the top four if all of their players gel, along with their new coach.
Alternatively, they may not gel immediately, and they may have another year of transition.
 

edson

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2005
3,945
12,117
images.jpg
 

hybridsoldier

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2004
5,892
1,185
Wasn't aware of the changes. However, they paid 50 for Torres, Luis was expensive, avb compo to his old club was about 10 million, plus his compo for being sacked. Looking at near 100 million at a guess there. Plus ramaires, Marin, lukaka (sp) and this twat. They don't fit the new, watered down version either.

I think Chelsea are smart enough to gauge the risk, I think they will fit into it...whether transfer fees figure are judged on the fee paid or the amortized amount in that year (eg signing someone on a 5 year deal for £50m constitutes £10m amortization per year,so would not get hit with the full whack).

Also I thought Torres and Luiz were signed outside the monitoring period?
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
You both are talking about the original intentions of FFP, as it was interpreted. I have seen reports to the contrary most recently as UEFA tries to mould FFP to fit the big sides. In particular the rule that you can (if you show improving finances) exclude wages from players signed before June 2010 up to the end of 2014-15 (and they want to extend this rule)
I'm sure that you're right, as the only reason that FFP was endorsed by the clubs was to protect the staus quo from future billionaire-owned clubs. Hence the 2010 deadline, giving existing clubs time to spunk as much as they wanted without being penalised. This led directly to Citeh's extravagent purchases in order to try to buy a squad in the shortest possible time without worrying about the rules.

UEFA makes so much money from the CL and from the big brans of Barca, Madrid, Man U, Chelsea, Milan, Bayern etc...that it will want to protect those brands to maximise its global appeal so FFP is not in any of its own interests except ensuring these sides are in the CL every year
Agreed, which is why there is so much doubt regarding UEFA's enforcement of them. The interesting part will be when the pre-existing hierarchy can't afford to spend as lavishly as the nouveau riche and start campaigning for implementation.

I think Chelsea are smart enough to gauge the risk, I think they will fit into it...whether transfer fees figure are judged on the fee paid or the amortized amount in that year (eg signing someone on a 5 year deal for £50m constitutes £10m amortization per year,so would not get hit with the full whack).
I think Chelski are smart enough to realise that the ultimate sanction of exclusion from competition won't be applied for a while - if ever - and couldn't care less about any fines that UEFA might impose.
 

Spurrific

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2011
13,501
57,356
What do agents actually do to deserve that much money? Do clubs pay them that much to make them convince the player to join? Never really understood it.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
Can you expand?
May 28 (Reuters) - Champions League winner Chelsea Football Club will almost certainly fail in its bid to move its stadium to London landmark Battersea Power Station, a source close to the sale process told Reuters.
About 15 bidders including Chelsea, which is owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, submitted plans earlier this month to buy the protected 15-hectare site on the south bank of the River Thames, the subject of repeated failed redevelopment attempts in the three decades since it shut.
FREE GUIDES AND REPORTS FROM DIANOMI
ADVERTISEMENT

Mining Stocks
3 Top Mining Stocks Set to Soar
Download FREE Report

Malaysian real estate company SP Setia and veteran British developer Godfrey Bradman are leading the chase to buy the site with one other bidder also in the frame, the source said, describing the Chelsea bid as "way off the pace".
A final decision could come as early as this week, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
A report in UK trade magazine Property Week suggested Bradman's bid may in difficulty after funding from its backers, the reclusive billionaires David and Simon Reuben, had been withdrawn.
Bradman was behind the Broadgate Circle development in London's main financial district in the 1980s.
A sale to SP Setia would mark its first foray into Europe and add to its residential schemes in Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia.
Chelsea was not immediately available for comment. SP Setia and a spokeswoman for selling agent Knight Frank declined to comment. Bradman could not immediately be reached for comment.
The crumbling riverside edifice, which is Europe's largest brick structure, and its quartet of art-deco white chimneys have been a recognisable silhouette on the London skyline for 80 years.
The site came on to the market after a 5.5 billion pound plan by Irish developer Treasury Holdings for homes, shops and offices collapsed in December and had a price tag of about 300 to 400 million pounds ($469-$625 million).
It was placed into administration by Lloyds Banking Group and Ireland's National Asset Management Agency, or "bad bank", which are reportedly owed about 400 million pounds between them.
Chelsea said earlier this month the power station had "the potential to become one of the most iconic football stadiums in the world".
The football club has looked for alternative London homes after running into difficulties extending its 42,000 capacity Stamford Bridge stadium and recently failing in an attempt to move to Earls Court in west London.
The size of the ground puts the club at a financial disadvantage to rivals like Arsenal, whose stadium holds 60,000.
Abramovich has been unable to persuade a supporter-led group called Chelsea Pitch Owners to sell him the freehold of the stadium due to its fear the club will relocate and sell the site to property developers.
Battersea Power Station would be worth an extra 470 million pounds to a developer that could demolish the building and replace it with 1,200 apartments, according to calculations done for Reuters by property consultancy EC Harris.
The details of what Setia and Bradman are planning for the power station site are not known. ($1 = 0.6396 British pounds) (Reporting by Tom Bill; Additional reporting by Keith Weir; Editing by David Cowell)
 

andyp8080

SC Supporter
Jan 30, 2011
2,098
4,203
hopefully he will complete his transfer ASAP so that we end this thread and i can collect my winnings from sky bet!!
 
Top