Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES

[Paul the Wolf]

I mean, yes? Clearly we were not operating from a position of strength in the summer and we signed players willy-nilly to plug gaps.

Respectfully you seem to be poorly informed over the Enzo transfer. His profile is as good as any young midfielder in the world's bar Bellingham - and we ultimately paid €1m more than the release clause to allow for a more favourable payment structure and avoid the colossal tax and FFP penalties associated with actually triggering the clause.

Sure - €1m is a lot in a vacuum but it hardly constitutes us paying "over and above" when you consider the fact that we avoided something like €40m in taxes and would not have been able to amortise Enzo's contract making it impossible to comply with FFP.

Enzo played 17 times for Benfica in the league and played for River Plate before that . He's 22 and only just past 100 games. Paying a British record fee you'd expect a star striker. Add one of the fees for the many defenders you bought you could have bought a superstar striker.

Who cares about winning when you can have amortisation, the new buzz word.

Enzo got into a strop with Benfica for trying to stop him joining a mid-table PL club. Hope you're paying him well.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Enzo played 17 times for Benfica in the league and played for River Plate before that . He's 22 and only just past 100 games. Paying a British record fee you'd expect a star striker. Add one of the fees for the many defenders you bought you could have bought a superstar striker.

Who cares about winning when you can have amortisation, the new buzz word.

Enzo got into a strop with Benfica for trying to stop him joining a mid-table PL club. Hope you're paying him well.

Yeah nothing you've posted here suggests I was wrong in my assessment of your understanding about the Enzo transfer. Also pro-tip - check the location of the person you're responding to because it might give an indication they have a better idea than the opinion you've formed from reading baseless posts on forums?

Signing a "superstar striker" would have been the stupidest thing we could have done - Chelsea's midfield has been dysfunctional since Kante has suffered injury problems, which has very obviously hindered our attack. Bringing in a midfielder who is elite at ball progression, through balls, and final third passing is far more likely to have a direct impact on our goalscoring than signing another striker who will stand there with his thumb up his arse starved of service.

 

[NLunited]

Maybe next season. But I don’t expect this team to gel properly until then. It will simply be more individual performances getting us through games. Though I will be happy to be proven wrong.

Just need to get them focused and working for each other. Without that nothing will gel.

 

[Niemans]

A question out of simple curiosity.

Has it been published how much Chelsea has paid in agent fees for these 17 signings?

 

[NLunited]

A question out of simple curiosity.

Has it been published how much Chelsea has paid in agent fees for these 17 signings?

Not as much as fecking Barça.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yeah nothing you've posted here suggests I was wrong in my assessment of your understanding about the Enzo transfer. Also pro-tip - check the location of the person you're responding to because it might give an indication they have a better idea than the opinion you've formed from reading baseless posts on forums?

Signing a "superstar striker" would have been the stupidest thing we could have done - Chelsea's midfield has been dysfunctional since Kante has suffered injury problems, which has very obviously hindered our attack. Bringing in a midfielder who is elite at ball progression, through balls, and final third passing is far more likely to have a direct impact on our goalscoring than signing another striker who will stand there with his thumb up his arse starved of service.

It's not a questioning of not understanding what Chelsea did, it's a question of paying that sort of money for that player. Which are the baseless posts on forums.? What?

What about signing Enzo and a superstar striker, wouldn't cost over £600m. Could even buy a few other players as well for that money - plus you still haven't got a decent striker. You could integrate four or five players over a period of time .None of this makes any sense whatsoever if you're trying to win football matches.

All the Chelsea fans seem brainwashed into thinking Boehly has some sort of brilliant plan whereas so far you've dropped to mid-table with a poor manager and almost no chance of European football next season. That could extend to two or three.

 

[Niemans]

Not as much as fecking Barça.

Thank you for participating. If you say no as much as Barcelona, you know the amount. Could you say it?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

It's not a questioning of not understanding what Chelsea did, it's a question of paying that sort of money for that player. Which are the baseless posts on forums.? What?

What about signing Enzo and a superstar striker, wouldn't cost over £600m. Could even buy a few other players as well for that money - plus you still haven't got a decent striker. You could integrate four or five players over a period of time .None of this makes any sense whatsoever if you're trying to win football matches.

All the Chelsea fans seem brainwashed into thinking Boehly has some sort of brilliant plan whereas so far you've dropped to mid-table with a poor manager and almost no chance of European football next season. That could extend to two or three.

I suggest you take a look at the spreadsheet I put together that tabulates exactly why the approach you've suggested is far more detrimental to the financial state of a club. And furthermore, given how much Chelsea have spent on strikers over the past few years what on earth could possibly make you think that signing another one would suddenly be the cure for all our ails?

You have an odd fixation on the number of players being brought into a team without considering anything else. Integrating 4 or 5 players on higher fees that handicap the club financially (as we did during the summer) is not inherently a better strategy than what we did in the winter - in fact all signs point to it being a far worse strategy given the financial figures, flexibility going forward, and the simple fact that UEFA moved immediately to stop us from doing what we were doing vis a vis contracts.

 

[Daydreamer]

Enzo played 17 times for Benfica in the league and played for River Plate before that . He's 22 and only just past 100 games. Paying a British record fee you'd expect a star striker. Add one of the fees for the many defenders you bought you could have bought a superstar striker.

Who cares about winning when you can have amortisation, the new buzz word.

Enzo got into a strop with Benfica for trying to stop him joining a mid-table PL club. Hope you're paying him well.

I really hate to come to the defence of Chelsea (of all teams) but why should they have spent the Enzo money on a striker? They've pretty much wrapped up Nkunku for the Summer and their midfield was one of their weakest areas. City won the league last year without a "superstar striker" and are currently a poorer side with the deadliest forward of the planet as their spearhead. Liverpool only became a true force when they added van Dyjk and Alisson.

Whenever it's pointed out that City and United have spent similar amounts over the last decade (leaving aside where City got it from) invariably there will be a dig at Pep about how much he "spends on full backs". Which I don't understand. Clearly, having players comfortable on the ball at full back can be hugely effective. Why is there an insistence on large fees being reserved on for strikers if there is clear evidence that spreading transfer spend around the team can produce outstanding results?

Genuine question, btw - I come in peace.

 

[SirReginald]

It's not a questioning of not understanding what Chelsea did, it's a question of paying that sort of money for that player. Which are the baseless posts on forums.? What?

What about signing Enzo and a superstar striker, wouldn't cost over £600m. Could even buy a few other players as well for that money - plus you still haven't got a decent striker. You could integrate four or five players over a period of time .None of this makes any sense whatsoever if you're trying to win football matches.

All the Chelsea fans seem brainwashed into thinking Boehly has some sort of brilliant plan whereas so far you've dropped to mid-table with a poor manager and almost no chance of European football next season. That could extend to two or three.

You keep talking out your back side. You literally don’t have any clue about how the club is run but you talk like an expert. As a fan of United you have absolutely no right to talk about the success or future success of another club when you guys have been absolutely dreadful for 10 years. Worry more about your own club, you could be taken over by Qatari’s and you’ll then join the sportswashed lot. That seems like a bigger issue than what a rival is doing.

 

[Suedesi]

Anyone that has watched Chelsea closely over the last few seasons could see that the squad was in need of a rebuild add to that close season losing Rudiger and Christensen compounded matters.

As for players not playing or playing badly well that’s the conundrum every club faces yes 8 year contracts add another factor but clubs have and always will find away around that. Of course clubs will take a financia hit

You lot are making Andreas Christensen sound like Franco fckn Baresi in his prime, not a bench option with hardly ever 20+ PL appearances a season.

Rudiger was the only decent guy you lost out because he wanted to play for Madrid.

 

[Suedesi]

You keep talking out your back side. You literally don’t have any clue about how the club is run but you talk like an expert. As a fan of United you have absolutely no right to talk about the success or future success of another club when you guys have been absolutely dreadful for 10 years. Worry more about your own club, you could be taken over by Qatari’s and you’ll then join the sportswashed lot. That seems like a bigger issue than what a rival is doing.

What's that all about you pompous arse? You're on a Man United forum - piss off if you don't like it

 

[roonster09]

You keep talking out your back side. You literally don’t have any clue about how the club is run but you talk like an expert. As a fan of United you have absolutely no right to talk about the success or future success of another club when you guys have been absolutely dreadful for 10 years. Worry more about your own club, you could be taken over by Qatari’s and you’ll then join the sportswashed lot. That seems like a bigger issue than what a rival is doing.

 

[adexkola]

I really hate to come to the defence of Chelsea (of all teams) but why should they have spent the Enzo money on a striker? They've pretty much wrapped up Nkunku for the Summer and their midfield was one of their weakest areas. City won the league last year without a "superstar striker" and are currently a poorer side with the deadliest forward of the planet as their spearhead. Liverpool only became a true force when they added van Dyjk and Alisson.

Whenever it's pointed out that City and United have spent similar amounts over the last decade (leaving aside where City got it from) invariably there will be a dig at Pep about how much he "spends on full backs". Which I don't understand. Clearly, having players comfortable on the ball at full back can be hugely effective. Why is there an insistence on large fees being reserved on for strikers if there is clear evidence that spreading transfer spend around the team can produce outstanding results?

Genuine question, btw - I come in peace.

Why come in peace tho?

 

[Suedesi]

Why come in peace tho?

The most annoying Reddit expression ever

 

[adexkola]

I thought Felix had potential in his first game. Would like to see him as the false 9 between maybe Sterling and Murdyk.

Gallagher and Mount cannot start together. You just waste Enzo that way and your midfield is essentially useless.

 

[duffer]

A question out of simple curiosity.

Has it been published how much Chelsea has paid in agent fees for these 17 signings?

I think they brought in a cap (in agent fees) which was effective from this recent window. Be interesting to know if that worked.

 

[do.ob]

If I'm not mistaken UEFA publishes a yearly report, which includes agent fees.

 

[roonster09]

Nope, those things are never published in English football.

FA publishes the report, Liverpool usually tops it every year.

 

[duffer]

If I'm not mistaken UEFA publishes a yearly report, which includes agent fees.

After a quick check I've edited my post.
You're right (the FA publishes a report for sure).

 

[duffer]

FA publishes the report, Liverpool usually tops it every year.

You got in before my edit! You're right of course.

Be interesting to see what difference the new cap will make.

 

[Steve 007]

I look at Chelsea’s signing’s and despite all the money spent and the ages and lengths off contracts, I think you might has well have burnt the money. There’s some good players potentially in there such as Felix and Mudrich but Felix is a loan. Chelsea did this a few years back when they went on a big spree and it got them nowhere now they’ve done it again. Surely they’d have been better in the summer spending on 5 class players like Kane, Casemiro, Bellingham two x defenders etc.. The only annoying thing is that they’ll go after Man Utd/ Arsenal targets. I honestly believe they’ve bought their players based on press hype. Koulibally has been hyped in the press over here for years yet no one actually even bid for him. I can see why now

 

[terraloo]

You've missed my point. Even if Potter had a say in the winter signings and Tuchel had a say in the summer signings they are two different managers with different ideas. Maybe Potter doesn't want all the Tuchel signings. Why did Boehly sign all those players in the summer for vast amounts of money if he sacked Tuchel in early September? It makes zero sense and then, Potter is without doubt a downgrade on Tuchel. So it's not one strategy.

You are making sweeping judgments without knowing all the facts. Ok a lot of it is rumour but if it’s close to correct it’s pretty obvious why changes were made.

Like most clubs Chelsea chelsea head coach is just that not a manager.The HC generally works with the resources and players the hierarchy and other experts deem appropriate.

Ok Potter statistically isn’t pulling up trees but everyone and their dog talks about head coaches / managers needing time to this point in time Potter hasn’t been able to get close to his first choice 11 and yes some of the new signings haven’t settled but I for one will wait till around Christmas 2023 till I judge Potter

 

[Rajiztar]

I was told over and over again that there was one clear strategy. Now there isn't. Spending all this money for an unproved manager who has only managed smallish clubs with a 31% win rate sounds even worse than us appointing Moyes to replace Fergie.

I'm not getting convinced.

Once again you are thinking wrong. This signings have been made by technical team. Not a direct recommendation from manager potter but he wanted certain profile of players and technical team analysed and decided which player better fit in for that profile,financially better for team and team s ambition and longevity too.

Potter now armed with better players than when he took charge. Boehly wanted to give him fair chance with fully fit team coming back and backed him in market.

 

[Rnd898]

Respectfully you seem to be poorly informed over the Enzo transfer. His profile is as good as any young midfielder in the world's bar Bellingham - and we ultimately paid €1m more than the release clause to allow for a more favourable payment structure and avoid the colossal tax and FFP penalties associated with actually triggering the clause.

Sure - €1m is a lot in a vacuum but it hardly constitutes us paying "over and above" when you consider the fact that we avoided something like €40m in taxes and would not have been able to amortise Enzo's contract making it impossible to comply with FFP.

Also on top of the payment terms being negotiated I'm pretty sure I read some rant from Rui Costa where he said he didn't think it was fair that a part of the agent fees now had to come out of Benfica's end of the money (guessing a 50/50 split between us and them) but if we'd triggered the full buy-out then any agent fee would have come entirely from us.

Of course the sensibility of paying a 120M€+ for a midfielder to begin with is open to discussion/argumentation but considering the circumstances around the sale I'm not really sure if 'paying more than the clause' is something to slate the club with because triggering the actual clause would have cost even more.

I look at Chelsea’s signing’s and despite all the money spent and the ages and lengths off contracts, I think you might has well have burnt the money. There’s some good players potentially in there such as Felix and Mudrich but Felix is a loan. Chelsea did this a few years back when they went on a big spree and it got them nowhere now they’ve done it again. Surely they’d have been better in the summer spending on 5 class players like Kane, Casemiro, Bellingham two x defenders etc.. The only annoying thing is that they’ll go after Man Utd/ Arsenal targets. I honestly believe they’ve bought their players based on press hype. Koulibally has been hyped in the press over here for years yet no one actually even bid for him. I can see why now

The reason nobody actually bid for Koulibaly before was not because he wasn't good but because Aurelio De Laurentiis the Napoli owner was only willing to sell for 100M+ and when that guy says something like that you can be sure he really means it.

He simply moved to the PL too late in his career but because of his contract situation an earlier move would have been very difficult to facilitate. I'd say 3-5 years ago he'd have been worth all the hype and was an actual world class player but I look at him now and there's something seriously wrong with him. There's been some media talk he's struggled to settle to life in London and that's affected his performances but not sure if I'm buying that because he looks so clumsy and that's more to do with the physical and not the mental side of the game.

I have to admit I honestly thought Koulibaly would still be good for us in the short term to fill the gap left by Rüdiger's departure. The idea was to get an established player in the position to give the club more time to think about a longer term solution over the next couple of years but he's been nothing short of a catastrophe and the club have clearly given up on him too given the Badiashile signing, who I have to say looks quite good based on the first few games he's played.

Can only hope there's a club somewhere who would be willing to take him off our hands in the summer but any departure will still cost us a lot of money given his big salary. The most likely outcome is he'll stay another season and maybe then we'll find a solution where he can return back to Italy because after two years away he'd again be eligible for the Italian tax breaks for footballers (50% reduction) which would make the salary issue much easier to solve.

If only the club had the balls to go for Badiashile already in the summer instead of Koulibaly we'd be much better off now but Koulibaly was Tuchel's recommendation because of his vast experience and we're now suffering the consequences of that decision.

 

[Daydreamer]

The most annoying Reddit expression ever

Noted.

 

[EtH]

You keep talking out your back side. You literally don’t have any clue about how the club is run but you talk like an expert. As a fan of United you have absolutely no right to talk about the success or future success of another club when you guys have been absolutely dreadful for 10 years. Worry more about your own club, you could be taken over by Qatari’s and you’ll then join the sportswashed lot. That seems like a bigger issue than what a rival is doing.

I struggle to understand why many of you Chelsea lot are allowed to continue to post on this forum.

 

[Solius]

You keep talking out your back side. You literally don’t have any clue about how the club is run but you talk like an expert. As a fan of United you have absolutely no right to talk about the success or future success of another club when you guys have been absolutely dreadful for 10 years. Worry more about your own club, you could be taken over by Qatari’s and you’ll then join the sportswashed lot. That seems like a bigger issue than what a rival is doing.

Why is this the case? I'm pretty sure the majority of Utd fans were well aware of how badly the club was being run. If anything does that not give us a better chance of identifying that when we see it at other clubs?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Once again you are thinking wrong. This signings have been made by technical team. Not a direct recommendation from manager potter but he wanted certain profile of players and technical team analysed and decided which player better fit in for that profile,financially better for team and team s ambition and longevity too.

Potter now armed with better players than when he took charge. Boehly wanted to give him fair chance with fully fit team coming back and backed him in market.

Who is this technical team? Football experts who first bought Tuchel's players and then bought Potter's players; Should they sell all the players bought in the summer because they were the wrong profile. Winstanley now supposeed to be some genius when the biggest transfer he'd ever handled above £20m was Mwepu who has since had to give up football because of health problems.

When they spoke to the players they were signing they presumably asked why they wanted to sign for Chelsea; Chelsea told them, we have 3 other players in your position so you'll have to fight for your place; Your salary is low but if you play well you'll earn much more (but please don't play well because we won't comply with FFP if we have to pay you high wages).
Player says but "I've always dreamed of playing for Graham Potter."

Sorry but absolutely none of this makes sense.

You think other clubs/fans are envious. Maybe they would be if the team had been transformed by signing superior players. I'm looking at it in complete and utter bewilderment.

I'd be very surprised if Potter's still manager this time next year. In which case you'd have two sets of players plus the original players not in the plan of the third manager in 18 months.

All I can say is what a relief Boehly didn't buy us. And I hope we're not bought out by Qatar either.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You keep talking out your back side. You literally don’t have any clue about how the club is run but you talk like an expert. As a fan of United you have absolutely no right to talk about the success or future success of another club when you guys have been absolutely dreadful for 10 years. Worry more about your own club, you could be taken over by Qatari’s and you’ll then join the sportswashed lot. That seems like a bigger issue than what a rival is doing.

Pathetic insulter back again. We know we've been bad for ten years. Welcome to the club. But we've finally sorted it out. See you in the CL in ten years.

"How dare you talk about Chelsea" - says the Chelsea fan on a Man Utd site. Wobble your head - it might help.

 

[bringbackbebe]

Why is this the case? I'm pretty sure the majority of Utd fans were well aware of how badly the club was being run. If anything does that not give us a better chance of identifying that when we see it at other clubs?

Some are of the belief that if they repeat the same mistakes as other clubs have done in the past, it'll end differently for them.

 

[Rnd898]

I'm pretty sure the majority of Utd fans were well aware of how badly the club was being run. If anything does that not give us a better chance of identifying that when we see it at other clubs?

Sure it does but the question remains are Chelsea still run comparably to United over the last decade or so where Woodward was essentially working as a makeshift DOF for 7-8 years before finally coming to his senses and leaving those responsibilites to someone else?

Last summer there was definitely a similarity with Boehly taking charge of running things by himself, but even then it was always just going to be temporary and the idea from the start was to eventually bring in people with actual football knowledge and experience of running a football club. That's exactly what they've now done with the appointments of Vivell, Winstanley, Lawrence, Shields, Macaulay and Fraser as well as promoting Neil Bath from within the club to a role that now has more responsibilities, yet lots of people seem to think all decision making at the club is still basically just Boehly going gung-ho with very little input or planning from anyone else.

Now it's of course possible that the above mentioned group of people have all been terrible hires who have no clue what they're doing either but to claim that definitively at this point is probably more wishful thinking than anything based on any actual evidence. And to be fair the same goes to blindly believing this new recruitment team is perfect and the signings made by them are going to be definite success stories. Truth is at this point none of us could possibly know for certain one way or the other and this will all get much clearer over the next 1-2 years when we start actually seeing how the players they've brought in will perform and what kind of moves they make going forward.

Personally I consider the likes of RB Leipzig, AS Monaco and Brighton (the clubs where our most important hires have come from) to be very well run over the last years so I would like to believe these people are up to the task but of course there's no denying that a club like Chelsea proposes a very different challenge compared to those smaller clubs so the jury is still very much out. Even so, Chelsea fans have plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the future (while also noting there may be some potential concerns too) and rival fans have every right to focus on the negatives and hope it all goes tits up. That's just football for ya.

 

[Solius]

Sure it does but the question remains are Chelsea still run comparably to United over the last decade or so where Woodward was essentially working as a makeshift DOF for 7-8 years before finally coming to his senses and leaving those responsibilites to someone else?

Last summer there was definitely a similarity with Boehly taking charge of running things by himself, but even then it was always just going to be temporary and the idea from the start was to eventually bring in people with actual football knowledge and experience of running a football club. That's exactly what they've now done with the appointments of Vivell, Winstanley, Lawrence, Shields, Macaulay and Fraser as well as promoting Neil Bath from within the club to a role that now has more responsibilities, yet lots of people seem to think all decision making at the club is still basically just Boehly going gung-ho with very little input or planning from anyone else.

Now it's of course possible that the above mentioned group of people have all been terrible hires who have no clue what they're doing either but to claim that definitively at this point is probably more wishful thinking than anything based on any actual evidence. And to be fair the same goes to blindly believing this new recruitment team is perfect and the signings made by them are going to be definite success stories. Truth is at this point none of us could possibly know for certain one way or the other and this will all get much clearer over the next 1-2 years when we start actually seeing how the players they've brought in will perform and what kind of moves they make going forward.

Personally I consider the likes of RB Leipzig, AS Monaco and Brighton (the clubs where our most important hires have come from) to be very well run over the last years so I would like to believe these people are up to the task but of course there's no denying that a club like Chelsea proposes a very different challenge compared to those smaller clubs so the jury is still very much out. Even so, Chelsea fans have plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the future (while also noting there may be some potential concerns too) and rival fans have every right to focus on the negatives and hope it all goes tits up. That's just football for ya.

Don't disagree with that really, and of course we'll see in due time how it all goes. Was mostly just responding to the 'you can't talk about this because your club didn't do well' rhetoric which is just nuts. Nobody would talk about anything if that was the case.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Who is this technical team? Football experts who first bought Tuchel's players and then bought Potter's players; Should they sell all the players bought in the summer because they were the wrong profile. Winstanley now supposeed to be some genius when the biggest transfer he'd ever handled above £20m was Mwepu who has since had to give up football because of health problems.

When they spoke to the players they were signing they presumably asked why they wanted to sign for Chelsea; Chelsea told them, we have 3 other players in your position so you'll have to fight for your place; Your salary is low but if you play well you'll earn much more (but please don't play well because we won't comply with FFP if we have to pay you high wages).
Player says but "I've always dreamed of playing for Graham Potter."

Sorry but absolutely none of this makes sense.

You think other clubs/fans are envious. Maybe they would be if the team had been transformed by signing superior players. I'm looking at it in complete and utter bewilderment.

I'd be very surprised if Potter's still manager this time next year. In which case you'd have two sets of players plus the original players not in the plan of the third manager in 18 months.

All I can say is what a relief Boehly didn't buy us. And I hope we're not bought out by Qatar either.

Again, you are just incorrect. The team wasn't in place during the summer - that's why Boehly was temporarily our DoF. This is what everyone is saying to you - there was no plan in the summer, but there's just no way you can look at the coordinated strategy we've used this winter and argue that they are at all similar in terms of rudderlessness.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Don't disagree with that really, and of course we'll see in due time how it all goes. Was mostly just responding to the 'you can't talk about this because your club didn't do well' rhetoric which is just nuts. Nobody would talk about anything if that was the case.

Yeah agreed. Ludicrous post from the other guy.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I really hate to come to the defence of Chelsea (of all teams) but why should they have spent the Enzo money on a striker? They've pretty much wrapped up Nkunku for the Summer and their midfield was one of their weakest areas. City won the league last year without a "superstar striker" and are currently a poorer side with the deadliest forward of the planet as their spearhead. Liverpool only became a true force when they added van Dyjk and Alisson.

Whenever it's pointed out that City and United have spent similar amounts over the last decade (leaving aside where City got it from) invariably there will be a dig at Pep about how much he "spends on full backs". Which I don't understand. Clearly, having players comfortable on the ball at full back can be hugely effective. Why is there an insistence on large fees being reserved on for strikers if there is clear evidence that spreading transfer spend around the team can produce outstanding results?

Genuine question, btw - I come in peace.

The poster I was discussing that with said there was no point buying a striker if they couldn't supply him so they bought a player to supply a non-existent striker. Nkunku would have been Tuchel and he's not an out and out striker when Chelsea already have bought other wide strikers. City won the league because they have a good blend and a far superior manager. Does anybody know what Chelsea's gameplan is , does Potter? The weakest part of all of this is Potter. Just don't get the plan at all.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Again, you are just incorrect. The team wasn't in place during the summer - that's why Boehly was temporarily our DoF. This is what everyone is saying to you - there was no plan in the summer, but there's just no way you can look at the coordinated strategy we've used this winter and argue that they are at all similar in terms of rudderlessness.

So there was no plan now (which is what we were saying before the winter) and Boehly spent what over £300m just for the sake of spending money on random players which was what everyone was saying. No wonder Tuchel and Boehly fell out.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

So there was no plan now (which is what we were saying before the winter) and Boehly spent what over £300m just for the sake of spending money on random players which was what everyone was saying. No wonder Tuchel and Boehly fell out.

What are you talking about? There was no plan in the summer because the takeover dragged on and we legally weren't allowed to start hiring directors. The effort was made to keep Granovskaia and Cech on for the summer to ease the transition, but both refused. Consequently there was little opportunity for long-term planning and the priority was filling holes left in the squad by key departures - e.g. Sterling as a replacement for Werner, Cucurella for Alonso, Koulibaly/Fofana for Rudiger/Christensen, Aubameyang for Lukaku.

Those appointments and the new hierarchy were installed over the fall, and they came up with a plan for moving the team forward that started in the winter in earnest.

 

[Sassy Colin]

What's that all about you pompous arse? You're on a Man United forum - piss off if you don't like it

I struggle to understand why many of you Chelsea lot are allowed to continue to post on this forum.

"How dare you talk about Chelsea" - says the Chelsea fan on a Man Utd site. Wobble your head - it might help.

Well said

 

[Paul the Wolf]

What are you talking about? There was no plan in the summer because the takeover dragged on and we legally weren't allowed to start hiring directors. The effort was made to keep Granovskaia and Cech on for the summer to ease the transition, but both refused. Consequently there was little opportunity for long-term planning and the priority was filling holes left in the squad by key departures - e.g. Sterling as a replacement for Werner, Cucurella for Alonso, Koulibaly/Fofana for Rudiger/Christensen, Aubameyang for Lukaku.

Those appointments and the new hierarchy were installed over the fall, and they came up with a plan for moving the team forward that started in the winter in earnest.

What are you talking about? You sold Werner; Alonso left on the last day of the transfer window and Lukaku is still your player. Aubameyang is now not even in the CL squad. Why did Gran and Cech leave and Tuchel - didn't buy into the madness?

Before the winter, there was a brilliant plan by Boehly, there are spreadsheets showing how brilliantly Boehly had thought it all out by spreading the costs over x number of years and that there had to be a rebuild because you lost two CB's on frees.

Now there was no plan but the new plan is so brilliant. Moving the goalposts is very apt.