Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

Mr Pigeon said:
I don't know how many players end up in that situation because very few players get eight year deals with pay at around £10 million a year, but saying that you can't see any issues with Chelsea's strategy due to a bunch of what-ifs and maybes isn't really selling it for me.
Click to expand...
It's the same issue with a player being shit in their first year and having a 4-5 year contract. Clubs won't be thinking well yeah I'll stick around with him the next year's until he contract expires.

They move them on, it's the same with 8 year contracts. Of course if the player turns out to be a total crook and doesn't want to move then you're forced to keep him for 8 years but that's a really slim chance.
 
duffer said:
I think Wes Fofana is on big dosh but Mudryk, Badiashile and Gusto (the other 8 year club members) are not on £5 mil per year, let alone £10.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise Fofana was in fairness, I was away over the summer so i was basically watching the games and checking updates once a day if that.

So basically only two long contract players have "problematic" wages and are the two where there's next to no chance of flopping. I'm more worried about how we will keep hold of those two long term despite their deals not how we'll ever shift them.
 
Dancfc said:
I didn't realise Fofana was in fairness, I was away over the summer so i was basically watching the games and checking updates once a day if that.

So basically only two long contract players have "problematic" wages and are the two where there's next to no chance of flopping. I'm more worried about how we will keep hold of those two long term despite their deals not how we'll ever shift them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Barring injury those two seem pretty nailed on to be long term top players.
 
duffer said:
I think Wes Fofana is on big dosh but Mudryk, Badiashile and Gusto (the other 8 year club members) are not on £5 mil per year, let alone £10.
Click to expand...
Yeah, apologies. I was stupidly looking at how Chelsea are going to amortize the fee over the contract length at £10 mil a year and mistook that for his salary because I'm a incredibly lazy reader.
 
How well off are they now with their new owners compared to before with Roman?
 
Last edited:
SAFMUTD said:
How have they royally screwed themselves?

Unless those players on 8 year contracts end up being totally unsellable which is highly unlikely they can always just sell the player and that's it. So whats the huge downside to this that I'm not seeing?
Click to expand...

Have you by any chance had a look at the league table and state Chelsea are in?

I'm still not sure you're quite getting that football players aren't trading cards or collectibles you can just keep or discard yourself of. You definitely don't want an unhappy, unwanted or underperforming player on an 8 year contract. You can sell them IF you can find somewhere they actually want to go and who will pay a fee you can afford to accept, which given the whole 8 year contract strategy relates to Chelsea complying with ffp (which no individual player or buying club is going to give a single feck about) will be very tricky if its even possible at all.

And from a pure common sense point of view and as I already said, signing players to 8 year contracts kind of makes it important you have a long term plan for them and the team,and haven't just signed a load of them in one go on some kind of panic induced random shopping spree.
 
zertz said:
How well off are they now with their new owners compared to before with Roman?
Click to expand...

Individually not more wealthy than Abrahamovich. They do manage a private equity firm with ~ $75b assets under management. This means (at least theoretically) they have far more cash to splurge to rebuild the team. However, I doubt if any significant portion more of this will make it's way into Chelsea since they are also accountable to their investors who will simply pull money out if they see poor return on their investment (Chelsea revenues will fall 20-30% next year and profit will take a huge blow due to lack of Europe). There is a ceiling to how much a football club can generate revenue, unlike tech companies. I think they pledged something like 1.3b additional investment into the club over the 10 year period and about 600-700m of that looks to be already spent.
 
I like the way they had to include a massive graphic, as if the concept of "failed to score in four consecutive matches" was somehow difficult to understand :lol:
 
miked99 said:
I like the way they had to include a massive graphic, as if the concept of "failed to score in four consecutive matches" was somehow difficult to understand :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah I got confused as I read it first as Chelsea winning some match 4-0.
 
SuperiorXI said:
This is why you don't buy shit loads of players in one or two windows
Click to expand...
I mean Forest and Chelsea have been testament to that certainly, but surely there comes a point where a couple of signings stick. Its essentially what City did in their earlier sportwashing days until they signed the likes of Silva, Kompany and Aguero.
 
GlasgowCeltic said:
I’m with Keysie on this


Click to expand...


Of course, Lampard “knows more about Chelsea” than Nagelmann, but that really has feck all to do with anything. The kit man also probably ”knows more about Chelsea” than Nagelsmann, so why not put him in charge? I’m not sure Nagelsmann is all that yet, but he’d be better off steering clear of Chelsea because I can see other problems coming down the line other than how to move on their shite players. Chilwell, James, Kovacic are coming to the end of their contracts and two of those are wanted by City…
 
Rocksy said:
Of course, Lampard “knows more about Chelsea” than Nagelmann, but that really has feck all to do with anything. The kit man also probably ”knows more about Chelsea” than Nagelsmann, so why not put him in charge? I’m not sure Nagelsmann is all that yet, but he’d be better off steering clear of Chelsea because I can see other problems coming down the line other than how to move on their shite players. Chilwell, James, Kovacic are coming to the end of their contracts and two of those are wanted by City…
Click to expand...
Shh, shh, let's agree with Dick Keys
 
Kaos said:
I mean Forest and Chelsea have been testament to that certainly, but surely there comes a point where a couple of signings stick. Its essentially what City did in their earlier sportwashing days until they signed the likes of Silva, Kompany and Aguero.
Click to expand...
Not at all. City always had a clear plan, whereas what Chelsea did was pretty much the exact opposite of a fire sale, they panicked and tried to sign players just for the sake of signing them in order to beat the new rules that would restrict their spending. Then they hoped the manager can somehow make a team out of them.
 
Rocksy said:
Of course, Lampard “knows more about Chelsea” than Nagelmann, but that really has feck all to do with anything. The kit man also probably ”knows more about Chelsea” than Nagelsmann, so why not put him in charge? I’m not sure Nagelsmann is all that yet, but he’d be better off steering clear of Chelsea because I can see other problems coming down the line other than how to move on their shite players. Chilwell, James, Kovacic are coming to the end of their contracts and two of those are wanted by City…
Click to expand...

Say what now? James is under contract till 2028 and Chilwell just signed an extension earlier this week till 2027. :lol:

Kovacic could leave though. A very good player but I don't see a functional midfield with both him and Enzo in it. Ideally to complement Enzo we'd have one DM specialist alongside him and then someone above them in the number 10 role who can contribute to the attacking play a lot. Kovacic fits neither of those roles as he's not all that great defensively and does feck all in attack. If the club do their homework and succeed in the other midfield recruitments then Kovacic's role in the squad will diminish by a lot even if he stays, not because he's not good enough but because of the type of player he is. Building the midfield around Enzo is a must and therefore Kovacic will/should become expendable.

Could definitely see Kovacic flourishing at United if they go for him. Casemiro as the defensive specialist and Bruno as the attacking midfielder means Kovacic would IMO be a perfect fit to complement them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.