Their shirt looks so weird without a sponsor. What’s the deal with that? Even a small amount would be better than nothing?
Chelsea 2024/25
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
Not sure if lost in translation but he’s not coming across well here nor does it reflect well on Chelsea.
Its clear and straightforward. Cant blame him for not pretending he's going to use a 7th (?) choice winger.
I'd aim criticism at the board.
Let's be honest, there won't be much.One day I’d love to see you pop in here and spread some Chelsea positivity
Gusto and Palmer look like good players.One day I’d love to see you pop in here and spread some Chelsea positivity
Whoa whoa whoa try to contain yourself mate, this is a bit OTT
I’m a mad bastard I know!
Just Palmer
There’s loads, if you ignore loads.
Servette with the banter
Servette with the banter
Jonathan Tunik with the banter.
What I don't understand is that the manager has said these 22 players need to find a new club because they are going to get zero game time if they leave.
From the little labour law that I know I would like somebody to tell me why this is not constructive dismissal.
Under my very limited understanding if, at work, you tell somebody to go and stand in the corner because you have nothing for them to do, this is constructive dismissal and they are then entitled to compensation for dismissal in line with the law or their contract which ever is the greater.
So I keep thinking that these 22 players could claim, constructive dismissal, get their contracts paid out, and be free agents as they have been dismissed.
Clearly I can't be correct as nobody is claiming this.
What am I missing ?
Last edited:
That is an extremely interesting point.
You could argue that a manager openly criticising a player damages their personal rights and market value. Vice versa also! You can also argue that the inability to train with the first team can damage the level they are at and it could affect their future earnings etc..
However, football is not like a regular job.
God knows what are stated in contracts when a player signs. The club could argue ''we signed him for 30m, we pay him 120k a week, he is not upholding his contract as his bad attitude is affecting our teams morale.'' Also, would a club want a player that sues their previous club?
Do you get where I'm coming from? It would likely be a silly court case that would go nowhere. Therefore, what would be the point.
I guess a lot go on loan, a bunch go to the under 21's or reserves and they sell the rest before sept 1st. I dont think its really been tested yet but i think most clubs are eager to keep it that way and fringe cases like Sancho (disciplinary issue) aren't clear cut enough to really test it.
Someone like Sterling getting left out of a squad is where it gets dicy. Chelsea will be pretty eager to resolve that one i imagine.
I mean football works on a completely different planet to "normal" jobs. On the flip side to what you're saying i could argue if did my job as badly as Kepa, Sterling and especially Lukaku have at Chelsea I would have been fired on the spot.
From my understanding we have to provide them with training (which we do) and in return they have to keep themselves in shape to be able to play if we need them. Which is why I think a lot of players find solutions instead of sitting on their deals, it's not the semi paid holiday it sometimes gets portrayed as, they still have to do the work without the perks at the end of it.
So it looks like Kepa and Petrovic are going out on loan which will mean 5 of their 9 goalkeepers are out on loan. I actually thought they had 9 already before they signed another one the other day. It's really hard to keep track of their squad. It's kind of weirdly fascinating though. I guess another one will go out on loan before end of play tomorrow.
They have 11 players on loan now. From what I have read, you can loan out 6 players abroad and 6 players within England and u21 "club-trained" players don't count as part of that limit. So they can still kind of have a mini loan army.
That leaves them with 36 players in their squad although there are a few u21s I barely recognise there so they will just be loaned out or part of the U23 setup I guess. Still, quite a few players to shift in the next 35 hours.
They have 11 players on loan now. From what I have read, you can loan out 6 players abroad and 6 players within England and u21 "club-trained" players don't count as part of that limit. So they can still kind of have a mini loan army.
That leaves them with 36 players in their squad although there are a few u21s I barely recognise there so they will just be loaned out or part of the U23 setup I guess. Still, quite a few players to shift in the next 35 hours.
Idiotic thing to stay, considering a lot of those players have no takers and may end up staying back.
He's just doing the bidding of our owners. He's the yes man they wanted.
I won't deny this might work in the short term. They may actually see success for a season or two but it will come to haunt them eventually. You just can treat an entire team of players in this fashion.
The international FIFA loan rules are clear but I'm not aware of there being any overall loan limits for outgoing domestic loans. You mentioned a limit of 6, what is your source for this information? As far as I know clubs can loan out as many players domestically as they wish, so long as they stay within the PL/EFL rules of how many players can be loaned out to any one club in particular.
I asked ChatGPT and it said this:
Domestic Loans: Clubs can loan out a maximum of six players to other clubs within England. This applies to loans across all leagues within the English football pyramid, including the EFL (Championship, League One, League Two)(
Sqaf Club),(90min.com).
I can't post the links it refers to but actually when I click on them I can't see anything about that domestic limit but another article has a paragraph from the January 2022 ruling that says:
“At domestic level, FIFA’s member associations will be granted a period of three years to implement rules for a loan system that is in line with the principles established at international level,” the Zurich-based governing body said."
I can't actually find anything relating to the FA actually doing something about that though which is surprising as it's 2 1/2 years later. It's hard to find info because google is shite these days and AI bots hallucinate sometimes, which it appears to have done here.
Apparently the Bobble said on his podcast that you offered us Fofana for DCL in a straight swap and we turned it down. 
How did they get 30m for Lukaku? Thats insane given how poor he was for them
So lucky to go through against Servette in the conference league. Their second string line up look crap.
Which Fofana? Surely David Datro presumably?Apparently the Bobble said on his podcast that you offered us Fofana for DCL in a straight swap and we turned it down.
Didn't play well for sure but just glad no one came out with a serious knee injury given that atrocity of a pitch. Genuinely far worse than an American pre-season tour pitch which takes some doing
If you look at their second goal, Jorgensen’s foot actually gets stuck in the turf just as the cross comes in. Disgraceful pitch, honestly.
With Osimhen they will surely look stronger up front, he should be better than Jackson
Yeah it's impossible to overstate how atrocious and genuinely dangerous it was. Apparently there was some sort of fungal problem so they hastily re-laid certain sections?
UEFA of course doesn't give a shit about this but they need to enforce standards if they're going to continue expanding these tournaments to this idiotic degree.
Can any Chelsea fans fill me in on where it went wrong? Everyone knew Lukaku's strengths and weaknesses from Man. United but he'd had some good years for Inter and a pretty good Euros that summer. Re-signed for Chelsea when he was 28 so at the peak of his career.
From what I remember Tuchel wanted him back in summer 2021 (he was a CL winning coach that summer so was in as strong a position as a Chelsea manager has been on signings post Mourinho) and he then started very well scoring at Arsenal and also giving our defence the run around in a 3-0 win.
Then he picked up an injury around October/November, didn't get back in the team when he was fit and then started moaning to the press about how he wished he was still at Inter. Tuchel called him out for that and after that he was never really a regular as Havertz was starting more as CF.
Tuchel then sacked early the next season but no re-integration. I always got the feeling because he was the last big signing of the Abramovich era that was reason enough for Boehly and co just wanting rid of him whoever the coach was.
David Fofana did alright at Burnley so surprised other lower end prem clubs haven't looked at him. He'd be a good signing for Leicester so perhaps a last minute move tomorrow.
The bolded bit is where it went wrong. After a couple of months being a guaranteed starter he got injured and was out for around a month or so, and when he returned Tuchel tried to ease him back in with a couple sub appearances. Then before he could start again he got COVID and was out for a few more games and it was during that time he did that ridiculous Sky Italia interview.
Prior to the infamous interview the only times he was fit and didn't start were the first few games after his month long injury. It's also worth mentioning around that time way too many of our key players were dropping like flies to long term injuries and recurring injuries (Kante, James, Chilwell etc.) so it was very much understandable that Tuchel didn't take any unnecessary risk with reintroducing Lukaku as a starter too early.
After the interview Tuchel then dropped him out of the squad completely for a big game against Liverpool, but then also offered him a way back in with like five consecutive full matches where he played like shit and didn't register a single goal or assist. That's when things really started to go south, because after giving an interview like that the worst thing one could do is play badly and look visibly disinterested doing it.
Also, by the time Tuchel got sacked Lukaku was already loaned out to Inter a couple months prior. When that loan move was made, very early into the summer transfer window, it still looked very much like Tuchel would continue and thus Lukaku would have no chance of being re-integrated. Then the following summer Tuchel was gone and Poch was in, but he didn't want anything to do with Lukaku either and the manchild himself wasn't exactly looking forward to returning either.
I would say everything that happened had very little to do with Boehly & co. making their mark and everything to do with Lukaku's rotten character. It's funny that he ended up burning his bridges to Chelsea with an interview where he proclaimed his love for Inter but then ended up going scorched earth with Inter as well only a year after, just when they were about to sign him on a permanent transfer in 2023.
Last edited:
Yes. I think he would be a good loan for a mid table team.
Will be a busy day for the club I imagine.
Where will Sterling, Chilwell and Chalobah end up? Broja deal collapsed. Will he move?
Missed out on Osimhen. Will it be Ivan Toney at the death or no one?
Any drama or surprises?
Where will Sterling, Chilwell and Chalobah end up? Broja deal collapsed. Will he move?
Missed out on Osimhen. Will it be Ivan Toney at the death or no one?
Any drama or surprises?
Agreed; he had his moments at Burnley. Still very raw but there's potential there.