Chelsea 2024/25

[Maluco]

Yeah I mean as mad as it is to say in retrospect given how his career has gone I do actually think there's a non-zero chance Lukaku could have been a stable long-term option for us if he'd joined before Conte's second season instead of Morata - especially given how Conte really moulded him into a top-level player at Inter subsequently.

I don’t think this is solely a Chelsea problem, to be fair to them. There is a real dirth of top class number 9s in the game now. Most sides are gambling and buying youngsters too early, and losing those gambles.

 

[acnumber9]

What happened to Palmer?

Much like this Chelsea team, he is levelling out.

 

[T00lsh3d]

Yeah I mean as mad as it is to say in retrospect given how his career has gone I do actually think there's a non-zero chance Lukaku could have been a stable long-term option for us if he'd joined before Conte's second season instead of Morata - especially given how Conte really moulded him into a top-level player at Inter subsequently.

I’m going to reserve my opinions on Lukaku….which is probably the highest credit he’s ever been given on this forum

 

[giorno]

Neto looked ace at Wolves, an attacking player with pace and trickery but he’s a moaning greedy cnut at Chelsea who looks like he’s lost any sort of ability he once had

No, you saw him play twice and he looked ace in those games

He was exactly this player for them too. One of the most bonkers moves of last summer

 

[Castia]

No, you saw him play twice and he looked ace in those games

He was exactly this player for them too. One of the most bonkers moves of last summer

I’ve seen him play loads of times, going back to the old player thread on this forum at Wolves he was one of my most wanted players until the 2 big injuries he was a standout player on a weekly basis

He looks lost at Chelsea

 

[giorno]

I’ve seen him play loads of times, going back to the old player thread on this forum at Wolves he was one of my most wanted players until the 2 big injuries he was a standout player on a weekly basis

He looks lost at Chelsea

So, he was a standout player on a weekly basis(he wasnt actually, unless you count likd 5-6 games as enough) 2 years ago. And he has been an inconsistent, injury player with little end product(he never had it btw, even in his good spells) ever since


Given his agent, and indeed his own history, I wouldn't be surprised if this signing turned up to be money laundering

 

[FootballHQ]

They miss Jackson badly just for his runs off the ball.

Imagine saying that 18 months back.

Nkunku has been a huge disappointment now he's finally got not far too ten starts in a row.

 

[WeePat]

I’ve seen him play loads of times, going back to the old player thread on this forum at Wolves he was one of my most wanted players until the 2 big injuries he was a standout player on a weekly basis

He looks lost at Chelsea

To be fair to him, he’s been shoved up front be our CF the last month or so.

 

[WeePat]

It’s not a huge chunk. That’s just coping.

You signed 460 million pounds worth of players last year for example:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chelsea/transfers/verein/631/saison_id/2023

The top three players are in the squad today.. two others were injured who would have started. Your keeper started.

The vast majority of the billions is for now. Around 85%

I mean you would need to go through about 5-6 transfer windows and not just one summer’s transfers. There is a laundry list of players signed in the last 3 years that have no hope of ever of playing meaningful minutes for Chelsea. I’ll come back to this and edit it with the info.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I’m going to reserve my opinions on Lukaku….which is probably the highest credit he’s ever been given on this forum

Beyond fair - and I fully acknowledge that I am being fully blinkered and irrational by even suggesting this as a possibility

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

So, he was a standout player on a weekly basis(he wasnt actually, unless you count likd 5-6 games as enough) 2 years ago. And he has been an inconsistent, injury player with little end product(he never had it btw, even in his good spells) ever since


Given his agent, and indeed his own history, I wouldn't be surprised if this signing turned up to be money laundering

End product is misleading for a team like Wolves though. Since he joined the PL he's been 83rd, 92nd, 75th, and 79th percentile among wingers in shot creating actions. In terms of key passes he's 86th, 97th, 78th, and 80th percentile. He was also a ball-carrying machine for Wolves.

Chelsea's recent transfer approach has been scattergun (and that's being charitable) - but I think there were genuine underlying metrics that would suggest that Neto was poised for a breakthrough upon moving to a bigger club. For me the risk with him was much more to do with his injury history than with anything he was doing on the pitch.

 

[Castia]

So, he was a standout player on a weekly basis(he wasnt actually, unless you count likd 5-6 games as enough) 2 years ago. And he has been an inconsistent, injury player with little end product(he never had it btw, even in his good spells) ever since


Given his agent, and indeed his own history, I wouldn't be surprised if this signing turned up to be money laundering

So he only had 5-6 good games for Wolves and you’re here trying to say I haven’t watched him play?

Again dig out the old player thread if it still exists I must have posted 10+ times 2 years ago hoping United would sign him, before the injuries he was excellent and his 50m+ fee after 2 years injured suggests that as well

 

[Wumminator]

I mean you would need to go through about 5-6 transfer windows and not just one summer’s transfers. There is a laundry list of players signed in the last 3 years that have no hope of ever of playing meaningful minutes for Chelsea. I’ll come back to this and edit it with the info.

Please do.

 

[WeePat]

Please do.

Okay so, according to Transfermarkt, Chelsea have spent 1370m euro across 5 transfer windows. By my calculations roughly 330m euro (I've excluded add-ons because the site doesn't give me that info, but I know some of these signings have significant add-ons like Estevao and Quenda, which people frequently include as part of the overall spend in discussions) was spent on players that fall into the following categories -

Will never play for Chelsea.
Likely will play for Chelsea but haven't yet played a game.
Played for Chelsea briefly but now on loan and likely will never play for Chelsea again.

Andrey Santos 12m
Carney Chukwuemeka - 18m
Cesare Casadei - 15m
Datro Fofana - 12m
Gabriel Slonina - 10m
Lesley Ugochukwu - 27m
Djordje Petrovic - 16m
Deivid Washington - 16m
Angelo Gabriel - 15m
Omari Kellyman - 22m
Aaron Anselmino - 17m
Caleb Wiley - 10m
Estevao Willian - 34m
Kendry Paez - 17m
Mike Penders - 20m
Mathis Amougou - 20m
*Geovany Quenda - 42m
*Dario Essugo - 22m

That's 18 players, only 5 of which have played any actual minutes for Chelsea and only 2 have played real meaningful minutes for the club. The money spent on those 18 players make up roughly 25% of the overall spend.

 

[Wumminator]

Okay so, according to Transfermarkt, Chelsea have spent 1370m euro across 5 transfer windows. By my calculations roughly 330m euro (I've excluded add-ons because the site doesn't give me that info, but I know some of these signings have significant add-ons like Estevao and Quenda, which people frequently include as part of the overall spend in discussions) was spent on players that fall into the following categories -

Will never play for Chelsea.
Likely will play for Chelsea but haven't yet played a game.
Played for Chelsea briefly but now on loan and likely will never play for Chelsea again.

Andrey Santos 12m
Carney Chukwuemeka - 18m
Cesare Casadei - 15m
Datro Fofana - 12m
Gabriel Slonina - 10m
Lesley Ugochukwu - 27m
Djordje Petrovic - 16m
Deivid Washington - 16m
Angelo Gabriel - 15m
Omari Kellyman - 22m
Aaron Anselmino - 17m
Caleb Wiley - 10m
Estevao Willian - 34m
Kendry Paez - 17m
Mike Penders - 20m
Mathis Amougou - 20m
*Geovany Quenda - 42m
*Dario Essugo - 22m

That's 18 players, only 5 of which have played any actual minutes for Chelsea and only 2 have played real meaningful minutes for the club. The money spent on those 18 players make up roughly 25% of the overall spend.

65 million of your signings there haven’t even arrived yet.

Surely this just backs up what I said. The vast vast majority of your signings are for now

 

[bgoodall]

How are they affording all these signings?

 

[WeePat]

65 million of your signings there haven’t even arrived yet.

Surely this just backs up what I said. The vast vast majority of your signings are for now

Well yes ‘vast majority’ is for now, but the ‘not for now’ transfers are still part of the overall spend, so when oppo fans say ‘all this money spent, on what?’ yeah it’s a bit of a cop out to say ‘teenagers who will never play for Chelsea’ (the original post you replied to was just me exaggerating to show my frustration at yet more millions being spent on more young players who won’t help the team right now) but it’s also partly true because roughly 25% of the nearly 1.4b was spent on young players who either haven’t yet played a minute for Chelsea or won’t ever play for Chelsea, which is not an insignificant chunk.

 

[FortunaUtd]

Okay so, according to Transfermarkt, Chelsea have spent 1370m euro across 5 transfer windows. By my calculations roughly 330m euro (I've excluded add-ons because the site doesn't give me that info, but I know some of these signings have significant add-ons like Estevao and Quenda, which people frequently include as part of the overall spend in discussions) was spent on players that fall into the following categories -

Will never play for Chelsea.
Likely will play for Chelsea but haven't yet played a game.
Played for Chelsea briefly but now on loan and likely will never play for Chelsea again.

Andrey Santos 12m
Carney Chukwuemeka - 18m
Cesare Casadei - 15m
Datro Fofana - 12m
Gabriel Slonina - 10m
Lesley Ugochukwu - 27m
Djordje Petrovic - 16m
Deivid Washington - 16m
Angelo Gabriel - 15m
Omari Kellyman - 22m
Aaron Anselmino - 17m
Caleb Wiley - 10m
Estevao Willian - 34m
Kendry Paez - 17m
Mike Penders - 20m
Mathis Amougou - 20m
*Geovany Quenda - 42m
*Dario Essugo - 22m

That's 18 players, only 5 of which have played any actual minutes for Chelsea and only 2 have played real meaningful minutes for the club. The money spent on those 18 players make up roughly 25% of the overall spend.

So your point being? Only 1 billion, not 1.3, spent on players from which you'd expect a certain level of present tense success?

 

[duffer]

So your point being? Only 1 billion, not 1.3, spent on players from which you'd expect a certain level of present tense success?

Of course. Is anyone saying anything different?

 

[DJ_21]

How are they affording all these signings?

There quite good at getting loads of money for average players. Gallagher and maatsen went for about 86m combined.

 

[FortunaUtd]

Of course. Is anyone saying anything different?

Every time I watch them, I ask myself where the money has gone.

A bunch of teenagers who they hope will be good players in 2029.

 

[WeePat]

@FortunaUtd

so when oppo fans say ‘all this money spent, on what?’ yeah it’s a bit of a cop out to say ‘teenagers who will never play for Chelsea’ (the original post you replied to was just me exaggerating to show my frustration at yet more millions being spent on more young players who won’t help the team right now)

 

[FortunaUtd]

@FortunaUtd

Fair enough, apologies for beating a dead horse.

 

[duffer]

@FortunaUtd neither of those posts you quoted me say they don't expect success.

I don't think any Chelsea fans are happy with the results of what the money has been spent on. It's certainly not all a waste but that's not the same as saying we shouldn't have more to show for it.

 

[Solius]

There quite good at getting loads of money for average players. Gallagher and maatsen went for about 86m combined.

Gallagher only went for that much because Chelsea agreed to buy Felix the opposite way. It’s fraudulent.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Gallagher only went for that much because Chelsea agreed to buy Felix the opposite way. It’s fraudulent.

It was Chelsea though, so different rules apply.

 

[duffer]

It was Chelsea though, so different rules apply.

Not different rules, we just know what the rules are.

 

[rimaldo]

Not different rules, we just know what the rules are.

Real big “actually, the age of consent is 13 over there,” energy.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Not different rules, we just know what the rules are.

Not sure any other club has been afforded a government approved takeover.

Obviously needing a £1.5 billion investment clause built in just for good measure.

 

[duffer]

Not sure any other club has been afforded a government approved takeover.

Obviously needing a £1.5 billion investment clause built in just for good measure.

£1.75 billion.

Having owners who want to put money into the club is rare these days but it's not really against the rules.

 

[WeePat]

Fair enough, apologies for beating a dead horse.

No worries. On the topic of the spending vs quality on the pitch, I don’t think anybody can make the argument it’s been a good use of resources. I’m on record saying the approach was wrong from the beginning. I’d have preferred a more measured approach (they did take over a recent CL winner after all) than the path they chose.

 

[WeePat]

Not sure any other club has been afforded a government approved takeover.

It was a hostile takeover. I don’t think we’ve ever seen an owner be forced to sell a club by the government due to an on going war before.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

£1.75 billion.

Having owners who want to put money into the club is rare these days but it's not really against the rules.

Only if they can buy it at below market value though

 

[duffer]

Only if they can buy it at below market value though

Sure.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

It was a hostile takeover. I don’t think we’ve ever seen an owner be forced to sell a club by the government due to an on going war before.

Hostile takeover, but first has to be approved by the government and have a built in investment.

If only these sort of takeovers were available when the Glazers were sniffing around United.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Sure.

Yes I'm sure.

 

[duffer]

Yes I'm sure.

You're correct, I'm agreeing with you.

It wasn't a sarcastic "sure". It was a yes obviously "sure".

 

[WeePat]

Hostile takeover, but first has to be approved by the government and have a built in investment.

If only these sort of takeovers were available when the Glazers were sniffing around United.

The government were forcibly removing an owner, so it’s not a surprise who the outgoing owner was selling to would need to be approved.

The built in investment has nothing to do with the government, it was something Abramovich insisted on guaranteeing from all takeover candidates. There was an anti-Glazers clause inserted though, which prevents Boehly and Clearlake from taking dividends out of the club. That is only there because of what United have been through the last 20 years.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

The government were forcibly removing an owner, so it’s not a surprise who the outgoing owner was selling to would need to be approved.

The built in investment has nothing to do with the government, it was something Abramovich insisted on guaranteeing from all takeover candidates. There was an anti-Glazers clause inserted though, which prevents Boehly and Clearlake from taking dividends out of the club. That is only there because of what United have been through the last 20 years.

I am pleased that Chelsea have not only benifited from a rogue owner the government wanted to remove, but then also an 'ant-Glazer' clause who the government have decided that they are still fine with been United's majority owners.

 

[WeePat]

I am pleased that Chelsea have not only benifited from a rogue owner the government wanted to remove, but then also an 'ant-Glazer' clause who the government have decided that they are still fine with been United's majority owners.

I mean it was still his club until the takeover was complete, so unless you wanted the government take over the process and then to find the worst possible owners with the worst possible intentions for Chelsea, I’m not sure what you’re gripe is with the takeover process.

Yes government should have prevented the Glazers from milking United, and they should definitely step in to oust them now.