Koulibaly isn’t an improvement on Rudiger for me. He wasn’t even their number one target to replace him by all accounts. You could call it par perhaps.
Sterling should be a good signing.
Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) talk about the proposed new stadium, season ticket prices, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and all things INEOS after the first year of their co-ownership.
They also discuss back-to-back victories vs. Real Sociedad and Leicester City - was this the best week for Amorim so far?
- Status
Koulibaly isn’t an improvement on Rudiger for me. He wasn’t even their number one target to replace him by all accounts. You could call it par perhaps.
Sterling should be a good signing.
We agree to disagree. I think he is a better player than Rudigar (who had a good 18 months) first choice or not
Azpi signing a 2 year extension with Chelsea according to Romero. Won't be joining Barca.
I disagree, Rudi's stock seems to have grown since he left us. He improved under TT's coaching but K2 is in the Silva category that would have impressed even under Frank in a back 4 aswell ( which Rudi looked hopeless in).
I actually think we lowkey may miss Christensen more, until he had his headturned he was putting genuine world class displays in at both RCB and CCB and was the reason we never really missed Silva much when he didn't play.
Id say you could argue that Koulibaly is living off reputation somewhat when he was considered a £80-90m centre back and every club was rumoured to interested.
This season no one else gave him a look really and whilst I think he’s decent enough player it remains to be seen how he’ll adapt to the PL at 31 years of age.
To suggest he’s a clear upgrade on Rudiger is incorrect.
In my opinion it is not, and the PL is not the only league in the world
No one suggested it was the only league in the world but it’s more physically demanding and much quicker than Serie A.
He might make the transition comfortably or he might not.
Doesn't change the point I made, you can evaluate CBs from different leagues, and in my opinion, Koulibally has always been and still is better.
That's from his performance in Seria A , Europe, and internationally
Seems odd he wasn’t first choice for Chelsea then and there was no competition for his signature?
As I say the PL is a different animal so let’s see how he does and if there’s enough life left in the old dog to adapt
Why are you making things up?
By the way it is reported that one of the reasons Chelsea missed out on Kounde is because they prioritised Koulibally over him
Koulibaly turned 31 a few weeks ago. Why is he being talked about as if he's dodging coffins 
Koulibaly turned 31 a few weeks ago. Why is he being talked about as if he's dodging coffins
I saw someone refer to Ziyech (29) as "old" earlier.
Kids today!
Making what up?
Clearly you’re extremely knowledgeable about everything so feel free to enlighten us mere mortals!
You said there was no competition for his signature, that is a made up story.
It is ok if you don't know something but why make things up without doing adequate research just because it serves your point?
Juventus wanted him to replace De Ligt
Barcelona were interested in him but preferred Kounde
Chelsea wanted Kounde AND Koulibally
I’m just commenting on what was widely reported. I don’t recall a battle for the signature of Koulibaly if I’m honest.
You’re clearly an extremely knowledgeable poster who does superb research to back up each and every point made.
I shall aspire to be more in your image.
It was not widely reported there was no competition for his signature.
The Juve and Barca interest were in the tweets section of this very forum.
Juve came close to agreeing a few before Chelsea pulled the trigger (after missing out on De Ligt) who Koulibally has outperformed every single season in Seria A
Again I bow to your superior knowledge in European football affairs
@TheReligion is on one of his WUM days. He's normally alright but every so often becomes right mardy for a few hours.
A loan move is a very satisfactory outcome. A season playing under Potter in the PL will be amazing for him.
Does that make him the most expensive fullback of all time?
He’ll be your manager soon when Boehly sacks Tuchel
Might depend on whether you count Lucas Hernandez as a fullback?
Also I believe Cancelo still cost more and Hakimi might have, but if all the bonuses are hit I think Cucurella would surpass those two.
Given that Boehly has stuck with the generally quite incompetent Dave Roberts as manager of the Dodgers for years and years, I think it's extremely unlikely he'll sack Tuchel anytime soon. Ironically, Chelsea's manager position might have gone from one of the least stable to one of the most in the league with the change in ownership.
With the trust boehly have on tuchel to spend some 160 mn on defense alone (assuming fofana for 70 mn incoming) I don't think he will sack him any time soon.
That's my only serious worry with this ownership from reading Dodgers fans opinions. Not a problem for now with Tuchel hopefully remaining for a while but if/when Todd has his Scolari/AVB appointment we could be in for a relatively frustrating time.
If things go wrong he’s the most disposable person. Also not his manager
True - but Tuchel has been absolutely indispensable from a recruitment perspective this summer thus far. Again based on Boehly's history with the Dodgers, there's a real value placed on continuity. I'd have a hard time believing Tuchel might shit the bed to the extent Roberts did in a few playoff meltdowns as well...
It's not a perfect comparison that I've drawn to be fair - baseball has a ridiculous 162 game season, so having someone who can deliver a high base level of performance is more valuable there than it is in football.
I'd say it's premature to suggest Boehly is stubborn and might fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy - but almost certainly he's not going to be as impulsive as Roman.
Cucerella plus the fixed add ons is £62m 
Unbelievable amount. Surely he’s first choice?
Unbelievable amount. Surely he’s first choice?
This window and the fees being thrown about; and the talk of spending 300m surprises me little. Although a different sport, the American sports pundits and Dodgers fans all told us this is how Boehly operates. Spends whatever it takes.
The Sun [yeh i know...] reporting we are willing to meet Leicester's 85m Fofana valuation. As good as he is, that's steep.
The Sun [yeh i know...] reporting we are willing to meet Leicester's 85m Fofana valuation. As good as he is, that's steep.
85, 76, 65. Its all crazy money.
He's a young, Chelsea supporting cb with premier league experience. He could be at the club for a decade.
Ironically it is looking like a similar approach to the early Roman years, spend our way into parity with the big two then focus on the sustainablilty angle, which i imagine while we'd still make big signing's they'll be less and the likes of Colwill, Hutchinson, Slonina will be bleed in if all goes to plan.
Hopefully Todd does a lot better at the second bit than Roman as we really fecked up with squad building post 2007.
Chelsea’s transfer window reminds me of that mad transfer window back in 2003 when Abramovic arrived: signing random shit in a scattergun approach like Mutu, Crespo, Geremi, Makelele, Veron, Scott Parker, Joe Cole, Alexei Smertin, Duff and Toilet Seat Johnson.
Ye that window was nuts. Almost every few days we signed someone it felt like. Think we signed 13 players in his first summer owning us
Not that this will become the norm with these levels of spending. But the whinging and bitching from some opposition fans on various platforms at the amount we're spending, just months after gloating we're going out of business or will "fall away to mediocrity" is highly amusing. Our spending ability has gone up quite a lot with this new ownership group, due to a greater overall wealth than Roman.. So I never understood the notion we'd suddenly stop spending big money
The big difference is that the Dodgers have the highest revenues in MLB (or second to the Yankees, it’s not totally clear) and every baseball team is almost certainly insanely profitable.
It’s a lot easier to outspend your rivals when you have the most money to spend AND you’re making big profits anyway.
Chelsea have fourth highest revenues in PL and lose money. Maybe still worthwhile to invest big into the club in anticipation of driving future growth in asset value (I assume this is his current thinking). But it’s a very different scenario than the Dodgers, which are more like a very profitable Real Madrid in terms of their position within their league.
I think we announced 4 or 5 players on the same day one time. That was a mental summer.
- Status