I’ll say this for Conte
by HTownND (2018-05-13 11:32:01)
Edited on 2018-05-13 11:32:16

Dude doesn’t give a shit.

The lineups the last two games have been questionable.

Results have shown.


I mean why not give Ross Barkley his first PL start in God knows how long.

And our best defender the past few weeks, grab a seat.

His selections have caused quite the outrage amongst the fanbase. Seems like he’s resigned to leaving.


It’s nice that Hazard doesn’t see playing champions league
by miamioh_irishfan  (2018-05-13 13:18:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Football as the be all, end all.

Those long flights to Eastern Europe will be fun, I’m sure.


He’s done both
by HTownND  (2018-05-13 13:19:11)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Just another opportunity to no show in a big game for him.

Don’t get me wrong, if Real wants him they will pay out the wazoo for him, but I’m fine with Eden in Europa. He didn’t even play in Europe last year and we were fine.

We’ve won Europa and we are the only London team to win the UCL. I’m not sweating a season in Europa next year.

Hopefully we get our shit together for another title run.


Hazard has to be the most frustrating player for Chelsea
by IrishCavan  (2018-05-14 10:36:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

supporters. The guy has all the talent in the world but seems to lack the work ethic or attitude of a world class player. There are times he just doesn't seem to give a shit. I also wonder if he hasn't been the ring leader 2 of the 3 past years in getting rid of coaches.


There's an interesting tidbit on ESPNFC
by HTownND  (2018-05-14 17:48:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

"Chelsea under Roman Abramovich have always operated on the principles that stability is overrated, that coaches are disposable and that a winning culture can flow upwards from an expensively assembled dressing room rather than downwards from the top. All three were sound as long as their owner's pockets ran deeper than any others in the Premier League."

this fits with the Drogba quote, when he asked Roman, after leaving, why he always changes managers. And Roman told him, point blank, because it always works. That mindset will be tough to overcome, but stability has never, been prized, even going back to when I started following them in 2000. Gullit had been sacked a few years earlier, and Vialli was dumped one game into the season for Ranieri. It's been like that ever since

"For the first eight seasons of Abramovich's ownership, Chelsea were ever-present in the top four and won three Premier League titles. The seven seasons since 2011, when Manchester City forever altered the domestic landscape by qualifying for the Champions League for the first time, have yielded two Premier League titles but also fifth-, sixth- and 10th-placed finishes."

I hadn't seen it broke out this way, but it encapsulates what it's felt like of late. It's not lost on my that FFP was introducted in 2009

"City's rise, coupled with the incremental improvements made by Tottenham and Liverpool under Mauricio Pochettino and Jurgen Klopp respectively, have eliminated Chelsea's margin for error. The inconsistency on the pitch borne out of instability off it now has tangible consequences at Stamford Bridge.

Then there is the fact that the last two Premier League triumphs, in 2015 and 2017, were achieved by swimming against the financial tide. Chelsea's net spend of £119 million since June 2014 is significantly lower than that of Crystal Palace (£126m) and Everton (£165m), and dwarfed by the gargantuan outlay of Manchester United (£417m) and Manchester City (£496m)."

I'm not sure everyone has noticed this, because it's always been about Roman's ill gotten luchre buying the team, but in reality, they've been pretty damn frugal, despite the Torres signing, etc. Being below CP and Everton was a bit jarring though, I didn't realize it was that low, although our last two transfer windows have sucked

"Chelsea have not been the Premier League's biggest spenders for some time. They remained at the top by being the smartest, targeting elite players with friendly release clauses such as Diego Costa and N'Golo Kante and adding intelligently around their core, while Marina Granovskaia proved peerless at securing maximum value for those deemed surplus to requirements.

But recruitment has felt considerably more scattergun in recent windows, with Chelsea invariably left scrambling for squad reinforcements after failing to land their top targets. It remains difficult to see the benefit of acquiring Ross Barkley and Danny Drinkwater, particularly as both represent obstacles to graduates of the most dominant youth academy in England.

A return to the strategy that first brought Thibaut Courtois, Kevin De Bruyne, Romelu Lukaku and Mohamed Salah to Stamford Bridge is what is required. Securing top talent must be the priority this summer, even if Abramovich can no longer afford to shop at the very top of the market."

Our ability to find the young talent, as witnessed by the names in that last paragraph, and the success of our youth academy (even if they never make it to the senior team, which continues to be a huge sticking point with fans, see Dom Solanke and Musonda as the latest screw ups. They have some real kick ass young talent. I don't know if stability will change the problems we have with guys going from academy to senior team, but it's been frustrating to watch. Something has to change, but I'm not sure what will. That said, we're still going to be a big club, and we will be right back in the thick of it next year. But something's got to give at this point.


The net spend number is overrated, IMO.
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-15 11:53:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Indeed, the numbers from Manchester do speak to their willingness to splash the cash for big names. But net spend is also a reflection of running a good business by investing in the right kind of talent and cashing in when it's right. At the end of the day, Liverpool's books might look balanced, but selling Coutinho and buying Van Dijk, Keita and Salah with a neutral spending number is simply shrewd business.

A more telling number is wages. How much is a club willing to pay their superstars to keep them happy?


Good point
by HTownND  (2018-05-19 15:01:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Although it’s clear to any Chelsea fan, Roman and his lady friend have put the brakes on the big spending days.


City seemed to have dodged financial fair play rules better. *
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-21 10:56:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Typical Scouser nonsense.
by CuzTeahan  (2018-05-21 11:33:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Following significant investment at the outset, City makes a profit from operations each year with non-UAE sponsorships increasing in number and sums. Making Champions league every year in combination with rapidly escalating EPL TV money will do that.

City simply is better run than its EPL competitors, several of which have been more than happy to live on 30+ year 'istree.

Also, DeBruyne remains our highest paid transfer at 65M and we buy smart, although fair credit to Liverpool's transfers in the Klopp years.


What exactly did I say that was nonsense? *
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-21 19:36:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I don’t think you said anything in particular. It’s just
by tex29  (2018-05-21 20:08:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

that City fans are so sick of hearing other top clubs whine about City and FFP. There’s so much hypocrisy, and FFP is anything but fair—it allows the traditional powers to remain powers and prevents all others from ever having any realistic hope of competing.

In short, FFP can sod right off.


Sounds like hypersensitivity to me
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-21 21:25:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I was responding to a post about Chelsea not splashing the cash anymore. Clearly Chelsea has been impacted since ffp was started. I referenced City as a team that has been able to maneuver it.

It's a fact, and it sounds like the poster is proud of it.


You're right about that.
by CuzTeahan  (2018-05-22 10:21:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

City fan here and I am weary/sensitive to the charges of FFP violations.

City is well in compliance with FFP as written today, investing on average on par with ManU and appearing ready to slow down on spending now that a young world class team has been built. The last three years they have earned a profit with last year's revenues in excess of 473M pounds. Unlike PSG, their sponsorship revenue from UAE based companies is both declining and below market for a top EPL team.

FFP is nonsense for which the objectives and rules repeatedly shift to address different perceived issues (first excessive debt, then investment, and soon spending) to counter behavior that threatens the power teams. Originally devised to address teams making loans, then cutting bait and destabilizing teams, it has been used as a shield from competition, limiting equity investment.

My main point was that City has grown from an initial cash drain to a (minimally at this time) profitable club and group, and the charges of FFP machinations diminishes how remarkable and cutting edge what they have done is.

Cheers.


I wasn’t bothered. But I can see how he viewed your
by tex29  (2018-05-21 23:05:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

comment as a shot at City. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Wenger, Mourinho, and others have been whining about how City has managed to thrive despite rules blatantly designed to hold them back. I didn’t take your post as a real shot at City, because I’m familiar with your other posts. But I can see how he could view your post as a complaint from a fan of one of the other top clubs about how FFP hasn’t put City back in its place.

On a side note, I thought I was the only City fan back here.


FFP is crucial IMO.
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-22 09:45:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It's just about the only thing holding back clubs like PSG, Chelsea, Barca, yes even City, from completely inflating the market and buying championships. Obviously it's not a perfect system, and it still favors the bigger clubs. But the old way did too. At least the new system tries to hold the club accountable for making wise business decisions, and not just using outside money.

If you can find ways to build your powerhouse within the FFP system, then more power to you.

All that being said, I still have no idea how in the world James and Mbappe loans got pulled off.


Then institute a wage cap applicable to all teams.
by tex29  (2018-05-22 13:43:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If you want to prevent teams from buying championships, fine. I might even support that, despite the fact that it hurts my club. But it’s bullshit to tie wages to revenues. That simply allows established teams to spend more than everyone else. There is nothing fair about that Financial FairPlay regime. Who cares where the money comes from if there is no debt? Why is it inherently more fair to allow Arsenal and Liverpool to spend more money than what City’s owner is willing to spend out of pocket, simply because Liverpool and Arsenal were better teams in past decades?


Who knows. It's a complicated rule...and a crooked sport.
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-22 14:50:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Out of pocket might be a slippery slope. Theoretically, couldn't an owner use a team as collateral, and then use his money "out of pocket" to invest in his team?


As long as the debt isn’t passed on to the team, does it
by tex29  (2018-05-22 15:02:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

matter?

And again, if that’s your true concern, then you make rules about taking debt or posting your team as collateral for other obligations. There is simply no way to square FFP with anything other than a transparent attempt by traditional football powers to maintain their stranglehold in Europe. They are trying to stamp out competition, which is horseshit.


That's such a myopic view.
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-23 09:07:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Traditional powers have and continue to be powers. That's like other schools complaining that Notre Dame gets special treatment with the BCS. Damn straight they do. They earned it. And businesses and towns with workers are attached to that.

Letting an outside influence come in and destroy it all by creating an inflated market is just crazy talk. Again, if Man City have maneuvered the rules well, then what's the gripe? That you want even more outside money to pay for Neymar, Bale and the like?

Maybe you want it run like the Chinese super league.


So this is about the workers in Liverpool, London,
by tex29  (2018-05-23 09:41:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Madrid, Barcelona, Munich, etc.? I can’t believe you are making that argument with a straight face. Yes, the poor workers in Liverpool will be displaced if the unfortunate Reds can’t maintain their Champions League place year in and year out because of the evil oil oligarchs. Give me a break. What about the workers in Paris and Manchester, as well as the cities themselves, who benefit from the influx of capital?

And the BCS argument is not even close to comparable. It would be more like the NCAA passing a rule saying that the number of scholarships a team can hand out is tied to its revenue. So Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Texas, can build a roster with 110 scholarships, while the MAC schools (along with the lesser power 5 schools) can field a team of 25 or so. If the NCAA even thought about making such a rule, about 100 member teams would (rightly) scream bloody fucking murder.

EDIT: And City have been successful largely because of the moves they were able to make before EUFA tried to step in and wipe them out. This isn’t just about City. This is about the fans of the lesser clubs who will never have a chance to compete (apart from a fluke), because the rules prevent them from making the investment required to convert a smaller club into a club that can compete with the big clubs.

This would be similar to the MLB adopting a rule that tied salary to television revenues. It not only would allow the major market teams to spend freely (as they do now), but it would prohibit a wealthy owner from say, buying the pirates and spending his own money to build a winning team. This is far more than giving a subtle advantage to clubs that are currently big. It is virtually guaranteeing that those clubs, and only those clubs, will be the most successful clubs in perpetuity. It’s total horseshit.


Again, your view is myopic.
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-23 11:19:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

You act as if only the European powers and EPL clubs are the only teams that exist.

Soccer clubs across all of Europe are/were in financial distress. The big clubs were never really in doubt. It's the smaller clubs that couldn't compete in an inflated market. And entire leagues were going bankrupt. Even in the world of FFP, you look at what happened with Neymar. How can a small club compete in the transfer market if a club can arbitrarily inject outside money in the market? At least tying it to revenue and encouraging sound business investment has logic to it.

When Alex Texeira went to the Chinese Super league for 45M his market rate was probably half that. The big clubs could pay that. Tell me how a Swansea City is going to compete in an inflated market like that?

If player transfers skyrocket, but revenue is the same, how is that sustainable?


Again, if that’s your concern (that teams like Swansea can’t
by tex29  (2018-05-23 12:00:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

compete), then the simple solution is to cap spending across the board. And if teams are in financial distress due to debt caused by unsustainable spending, then you limit the amount of debt a club may incur. Structuring FFP the way it is structured can only be explained as an attempt to lock in the aristocracy of European football in perpetuity. And it’s transparent. You may be fine with that because it benefits the club you support, but I can’t see how you can be intellectually honest and yet deny that this is precisely the goal of FFP in its current form.


Across what board?
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-23 21:30:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The same cap for each league? Championship is the same as EPL? La Liga is the same as French League 1?

It's really not worth arguing with you. You seem to think it's an anti-city system, and yet nothing stops outside money. It just has to be done with wise business investment. That's hardly a controversial rule.

Your oversimplified alternative seem to address your concerns, but little else. We'll agree to disagree. If you've got that in you.


As an aside, this was a great thread
by HTownND  (2018-05-24 13:46:11)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Well done to all of you, very informative/insightful, etc


Just shows how polarizing it all is! *
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-25 07:47:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


The PL was at its best
by mitquinn  (2018-05-15 09:20:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

before Greg Dyke and the FA started their “England 2022” campaign.


It's at the point
by HTownND  (2018-05-14 15:39:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If Real come in with a ton of cash for he and Courtois, I'm OK selling at this point.

They are both amazing talents, but I'm sort of over the constant transfer speculation. It is interesting though, because Hazard is headlining the "kit reveal" publicity for next season. Chelsea has never had someone who was sold during the summer as the "cover boy", so it could be interesting (and the new kits suck. Better than the crap from Adidas, but I was hoping for a little better from Nike).

And I'll take Hazard on my team, any day, but he does shrink a bit when the lights are brightest. He may be able to turn that around somewhere else, who knows, but it's been a fairly consistent pattern. When we need him to step up and dominate possession and games, he's nowhere to be seen. But then he'll do something amazing, and you sort of forget that he was a no show last week when we needed him.


Let me know when Chelsea decide to sell Kante
by IrishCavan  (2018-05-15 11:33:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I'd love to see him on Liverpool.


(Madrid raises our hand too)
by Irish2003  (2018-05-21 17:13:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Zidane himself had a great quote about Makelele's departure along the lines of why are we putting another coat of paint on the Bentley when we're giving away the engine. I think Makelele was a very unique player who may never be fully replicated, but his young countryman has been impressive and I'd love to see that engine in white, especially as they transition to the post-Ronaldo era as he can help guys like Isco and Kova really shine.


We have to send him to Italy
by HTownND  (2018-05-15 22:54:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Or somewhere else first, then he can come back to England. That’s how it works.


Just make it Southampton. Leave no room for doubt! haha *
by NDMike2001  (2018-05-18 09:46:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Nike is terrible, so get used to it.
by tex29  (2018-05-14 16:50:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

You’ll get the Chelsea version of whatever crap kit Nike is pushing for the season.


Yeah, the USA Soccer stuff
by HTownND  (2018-05-14 17:36:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Didn't give me hope, but man, I was tired of Adidas and the three stripes shit they pulled.


I'll take AhDeeDas over Nike any day *
by wcnitz  (2018-05-14 17:36:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


This may have been my final straw with them
by HTownND  (2018-05-14 17:53:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

This is dogshit.

The lions in there are just so damn lame



And don't get me started on the alternate and away kits.

(and a favorite, the XMen kit)


So, uh...
by wcnitz  (2018-05-14 18:44:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Does it make me a prole because I think the first one is great?

The other two are awful, yes.


No
by HTownND  (2018-05-15 22:56:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

But it’s cheesy and the Lion was too big.

If some of the others hadn’t been so lame, I would probably view it in a different light, but it was just the culmination of Adidas trying too hard, much like the end at ND.


The PSG Nike kits are solid...
by iudomer  (2018-05-15 11:19:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


So is most dog poop.
by NDBass  (2018-05-15 12:22:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Which is what I'm assuming you were comparing that to.


Yikes. Those kits are not good. *
by NDBass  (2018-05-14 16:40:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post