Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

[Shadydan]

Willian
Batshuaiaiausiauaiai
Barkley
Cuadrado
Salah?

All of those were transfer targets of ours in the last few years that they came in, signed from under our noses and, other than Willian, discarded all of them once the job was done.

It may not be breaking rules but those rules need to be looked at. Maximum squad numbers were brought in to stop teams hoarding players, so Chelsea just reverted to loaning them out to get around it.

I'm talking from here on now fella...

Also Chelsea didn't beat us to Barkley.

 

[WorcesterTHFC]

Willian
Batshuaiaiausiauaiai
Barkley
Cuadrado
Salah?

All of those were transfer targets of ours in the last few years that they came in, signed from under our noses and, other than Willian, discarded all of them once the job was done.

It may not be breaking rules but those rules need to be looked at. Maximum squad numbers were brought in to stop teams hoarding players, so Chelsea just reverted to loaning them out to get around it.

There should also be a limit on the number of players a club brings in or sends out on loan, and that should include a limit on the number of players (two at the most, for instance) a club loans to any individual club.

 

[tiger666]

There are rule changes being brought in for squad sizes aren't there? Sure it was being talked about.

 

[midoNdefoe]

nothing against you @midoNdefoe but comments like this are no different to Pool/utd/Arse fans saying "When Poch goes to madrid" and "When Barce come for Eriksen".

Firstly, I don't really know what you're getting at?!

Secondly, I think its slightly different...

In one case, its spurious tabloid rumours about our players/manager moving on or being sold.

In the other case, Abramovic has lost his visa which means he can't operate in the country for more than a limited period of time - so i was genuinly asking the question: Where does this leave Chelsea? What state is the business side of things?
There have been mixed reports about them being either: a merchandising powerhouse or Roman's subsidy pit.

I was merely trying to gain greater understanding of their situation...

But here, "When's Hazard going to Madrid?!"....that's the same

 

['O Zio]

Speaking of Chelsea and Grealish - SSN reporting they're now interested in him, and, somewhat unsurprisingly, willing to loan him back to Villa.

Why are chelsea not being investigated? They clearly sign anyone their nearest rivals want, with no intention of ever using them, just to stop others getting them.

Investigate them for what? Signing a player that someone else is also interested in isn't against any rules, in fact it's completely normal. Almost every transfer that takes place there will have been more than one club interested.

Of all the dodgy shit Chelsea/Abramovic get up to, I don't understand why this completely ordinary thing would be top of the priority list for anyone doing any "investigating".

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

I'm talking from here on now fella...

Also Chelsea didn't beat us to Barkley.

We were all over Barkley and then he went to Chelsea. Forget "ITK" that's all you need to take account of. We wanted him, he went to Chelsea. And had hardly kicked a ball since. They will continue to try to buy players their nearest rivals want.

Investigate them for what? Signing a player that someone else is also interested in isn't against any rules, in fact it's completely normal. Almost every transfer that takes place there will have been more than one club interested.

Of all the dodgy shit Chelsea/Abramovic get up to, I don't understand why this completely ordinary thing would be top of the priority list for anyone doing any "investigating".

I already stated on a previous reply why they do it and why I think it needs to be looked into .

 

[Shadydan]

We were all over Barkley and then he went to Chelsea. Forget "ITK" that's all you need to take account of. We wanted him, he went to Chelsea. And had hardly kicked a ball since. They will continue to try to buy players their nearest rivals want.

Slightly wide off the mark, Chelsea were in for him in the Summer last year, we dropped our interest - very different from when they used to poach the players we had genuine interest in like Willian, Mata, Hazard, Bats, Oscar.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

Slightly wide off the mark, Chelsea were in for him in the Summer last year, we dropped our interest - very different from when they used to poach the players we had genuine interest in like Willian, Mata, Hazard, Bats, Oscar.

Surely us dropping our interest waas only heard through "ITK"

I chose not to take that as word of fact.
We wanted him, then they signed him.
We may have dropped interest, probably because he had his head turned with double the salary.

 

['O Zio]

I already stated on a previous reply why they do it and why I think it needs to be looked into .

But like I say I don't see what you'd be "looking into". The investigation would be "We think you signed Barkley just so he couldn't play for Spurs." to which Chelsea would say "No we didn't, it's because we wanted him." Where do you go from there? It's impossible to prove their motivations for signing him therefore impossible to prove they've broken any laws.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

But like I say I don't see what you'd be "looking into". The investigation would be "We think you signed Barkley just so he couldn't play for Spurs." to which Chelsea would say "No we didn't, it's because we wanted him." Where do you go from there? It's impossible to prove their motivations for signing him therefore impossible to prove they've broken any laws.

You don't investigate the latest one, you look at the prior ones and the sheer volume of players they have out on loan.

Forget it being about us being victims. It's about player development, it's about gaining an unfair advantage by stockpiling players and, most likely, doing so in contravention of FFP these days.

The best way to stop them is to introduce, in addition to the max squad size, a maximum number of players allowed out on loan. This can be left separate from players aged under 20 so it doesn't hinder the youth set ups, but you can have a situation where a wealthy club has 25 first team players and 40 out on loan. It's clearly a tactic to gain an advantage and they do so at the expense of a number of players careers.

 

['O Zio]

You don't investigate the latest one, you look at the prior ones and the sheer volume of players they have out on loan.

Forget it being about us being victims. It's about player development, it's about gaining an unfair advantage by stockpiling players and, most likely, doing so in contravention of FFP these days.

The best way to stop them is to introduce, in addition to the max squad size, a maximum number of players allowed out on loan. This can be left separate from players aged under 20 so it doesn't hinder the youth set ups, but you can have a situation where a wealthy club has 25 first team players and 40 out on loan. It's clearly a tactic to gain an advantage and they do so at the expense of a number of players careers.

I agree about stopping them from loaning so many players out. As you say, limit the squad size and limit the number of players out on loan. But I thought your point was about them swooping in to sign players their rivals want, which is a separate issue.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

I agree about stopping them from loaning so many players out. As you say, limit the squad size and limit the number of players out on loan. But I thought your point was about them swooping in to sign players their rivals want, which is a separate issue.

That is the point, but because it's hard to prove directly, they just need to have their hands tied.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

If they do us a favour and take Barkley and Grealish off us, I'll just about forgive them for the whole Willian arse fuck.

 

[rez9000]

That is the point, but because it's hard to prove directly, they just need to have their hands tied.

Let's assume that you're right and that Chelsea have purchased players in the past to prevent their rivals from signing them. There's no way of proving it, short of documents between executives specifically stating that intent. Although arguably unethical, doing so wouldn't be illegal, so authorities would have no grounds on which to base an investigation anyway.

True or not, there's little that can be done about it other than to make ourselves a better prospect for potential players. That we can offer a new state-of-the-art stadium, a top-notch training ground, CL football combined with the fact that Chelsea are growing an unwanted (for them) reputation of being a graveyard for young English footballer's careers (see Barkley and Drinkwater) will preclude the need to look into whatever shenanigans that Chelsea may or may not be getting up to. I wouldn't get too het up about it.

 

[allatsea]

You don't investigate the latest one, you look at the prior ones and the sheer volume of players they have out on loan.

Forget it being about us being victims. It's about player development, it's about gaining an unfair advantage by stockpiling players and, most likely, doing so in contravention of FFP these days.

The best way to stop them is to introduce, in addition to the max squad size, a maximum number of players allowed out on loan. This can be left separate from players aged under 20 so it doesn't hinder the youth set ups, but you can have a situation where a wealthy club has 25 first team players and 40 out on loan. It's clearly a tactic to gain an advantage and they do so at the expense of a number of players careers.

What’s wrong with gaining an advantage over others ? That is what business is all about no ?

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

What’s wrong with gaining an advantage over others ? That is what business is all about no ?

Fair competition.

There's a squad limit size to stop rich clubs hoarding all the players and letting them rot.
Chelsea are circumventing this.

 

[tiger666]

Fair competition.

There's a squad limit size to stop rich clubs hoarding all the players and letting them rot.
Chelsea are circumventing this.

They're breaking no rules. Though that may be changing:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ng-squad-sizes-imposing-luxury-taxes-richest/

 

[Gassin's finest]

don't get too hopeful on this point. he just turned down a bid from the UK's richest man:
https://www.independent.ie/sport/so...om-britains-richest-man-reports-36992947.html

Jim Ratcliffe is an absolute thunder****, a proper real life Mr Burns figure. He owns Lausanne purely so he can carry on basing Ineos in Switzerland so he can carry on avoiding tax... even though he's a staunch pro-Brexit fanatic. I would laugh my bollocks off if Chelsea were owned by him, it'd be like a petrochemical version of Newcastle.

 

[coys200]

Gonna hurt them when the see our stadium. Definitely the odd one out now in London. Still I guess they have thier PL and CL to console themselves. Still I’d much rather be us now than them. Funny how things change. Abramovich gave them the short term glory. But levy ultimately I feel with give us the long term glory.

 

[VegasII]

Jim Ratcliffe is an absolute thunder****, a proper real life Mr Burns figure. He owns Lausanne purely so he can carry on basing Ineos in Switzerland so he can carry on avoiding tax... even though he's a staunch pro-Brexit fanatic. I would laugh my bollocks off if Chelsea were owned by him, it'd be like a petrochemical version of Newcastle.

Petrochemical Jimmy