Jump to content

Weekends Football 8/10 December


andykeenan

Recommended Posts

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

This is what’s crazy. Why were those clubs even in for these players? They look dreadful. Mudryk wouldn’t get minutes for us. Enzo/Caicedo wouldn’t either. 

Caciedo was great at Brighton. Issue at Chelsea is him and Enzo are essentially doing the same job so little scoring or creativity threat from those two. Fernandez has his reputation based more on his form at the world cup but again you could see him at a Madrid, Barca or Juventus in a few years as one of them will probably bail Chelsea out in some swop deal if they start having serious issues with FFP.

Jackson's been their big flop as CF is where they needed the big signing to work. I'd have Duran ahead of him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

What makes you think they are paying under market value wages?

Mudryk’s deal with Arsenal was almost done, why would he take a massive pay cut to join Chelsea?

I'm sure I read in one of the reports looking into their strategy that a few of their big money signings were accepting under 100kpw due to the long term nature of the deals:

Todd Boehly and Clearlake 'have cut Chelsea's average wage to under £75k per week' | Daily Mail Online

Quote

The report goes onto state Boehly and Co. wanted to change this and lower the risk of signings potentially going wrong. 

As a result, several of this season's additions such as Enzo Fernandez, Mykhailo Muidryk and Noni Madueke have all penned much longer contracts on significantly lower wages. 

Those three new signings - who arrived for more than a £200m outlay - all signed Chelsea deals until at least 2030.

They did clear out most of their CL 2021 winning squad in the summer so that will account for huge reduction, even more so when they finally get shot of Lukaku.

So Mudryk is seemingly on less than whatever guys like Pulisic and Ziyech were on as he directly replaced them on the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JPJCB said:

The big question is how their squad is so dogshite after all the money they’ve spent 

They are currently missing all of Pope, Dan Burn, Botman, Matt Targett, Tonali, Willock, Harvey Barnes, Elliott Anderson and Wilson and Longstaff only back on the bench today after long lay offs.

Four of those certain starters based on August and Willock and Barnes would've been used regularly in rotation line ups. They also rotated Isak/Wilson a fair bit at CF last season.

Howe is still in credit as they'll win enough at home to at least finish 6th this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

I'm sure I read in one of the reports looking into their strategy that a few of their big money signings were accepting under 100kpw due to the long term nature of the deals:

Todd Boehly and Clearlake 'have cut Chelsea's average wage to under £75k per week' | Daily Mail Online

They did clear out most of their CL 2021 winning squad in the summer so that will account for huge reduction, even more so when they finally get shot of Lukaku.

So Mudryk is seemingly on less than whatever guys like Pulisic and Ziyech were on as he directly replaced them on the left.

I guess we’ll never know, but I’m not sure I’d agree to a much lower wage just because the club want to spread the transfer fee out over 2 or 3 more years. 

It works both ways, when the contract runs down it’s an opportunity to renew on better terms if you’re doing well. Or move on a free transfer (big wages + signing on fee).

If I backed myself I’d want a premium to sign such a long deal without a payrise. The new mega money TV deal will leave these guys behind as others will be renewing on more and more money.

In the case of Mudryk who had Arsenal desperate for him the only reason I’d consider someone else would be if they offered bigger money. Same for the guy who Liverpool were desperate for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd to see Newcastle, whose progress has been defined by their combative nature and their willingness to compete getting outfought by Spurs, who traditionally have nice nails and clean hair.

For Chelsea, I think the one thing they do have is assets - there are lots of players on their books that are still young enough to trade for good money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

For Chelsea, I think the one thing they do have is assets - there are lots of players on their books that are still young enough to trade for good money.

The problem will be they’ll have to stuff the pockets of these players with millions of pounds before they’ll agree to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Keyblade said:

There are a lot of memes, but beyond all that I hope people realize Spurs are actually really good. Even depleted they have been battering teams, including us. We have to keep an eye on them in the second half of the season.

Their last win was 6 games ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

There are a lot of memes, but beyond all that I hope people realize Spurs are actually really good. Even depleted they have been battering teams, including us. We have to keep an eye on them in the second half of the season.

Shows what an impact a good manager can have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â