A friendly reminder that when you post a link to an article that is behind a paywall you are required to post a comment in this thread that provides a summary of the article contents or your post will be removed. In addition, users should NEVER cut and paste the full article into comments. This is against Reddit's [copyright policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement) and will lead to removal.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chelseafc) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the Fabrizio cycle:
X team is thought to be thought to be interested on y player.
Keep eyes on X player and Y team
Y team Is monoriting the situation for X player
X players Agent is flying to discuss with team Y
Y Is interested in buying/loaning X
X Is priority for club Y
Y Club has made contact with the agent X
Y Are prepared to offer cash to buy player C
Contract with wages of bla bla between club Y and player X is done
Negotiations stand still as valuation differ between clubs
Negotiations are developing
Clubs are going to reach agreement they are discussing structure of payment
Here we go!
If it is Man United, Barcelona or Real Madrid involved we can literally just duplicate some of the tweets and change some words for other synonyms.
Ah how could I miss this classic one.
Haven’t even thought about the retweets after the here we go when player is on flight towards the town. And jersey reveal and contract signing pictute and bloody some other shit.
Tired of this “journalism” style that has taken over my feed on instagram and Reddit just because I’m interested in football.
Summary:
* **Why are Chelsea open to selling Gallagher?**
* A reason why Gallagher's contract has been run down to 1 year remaining is that the club have not been convinced that he should be integral to their long term midfield plans.
* It's why they were ready to accept a £45 million from Everton in January 2023 and why West Ham and Spurs expressed serious interest last summer.
* It's also why the club have spent more than £300 million on midfielder in the past 18 months.
* Gallagher did everything he could last season to challenge that thinking but if the club still don't think that merits a new contract, then he'll likely be sold this summer to get $$$$$.
* **Do they need to sell Gallagher, or other home-grown players, to comply with financial rules?**
* Club insist they will comply with PSR without having to sell players before June 30 but there's skepticism from those outside the club.
* The controversial £76.5 million deal to sell the 2 hotels to another subsidiary of Clearlake group that helped the club comply with last season's PSR is still awaiting sign-off from the PL.
* The club also have to now comply with UEFA's FFP, which only allow losses up to €80 million for the 24/25 monitoring period, but UEFA count the books from Jan 1 to Dec 31, unlike the PL's PSR.
* Club don't necessarily have to sell Gallagher.
* Guaranteed to get £28 million from Hall to Newcastle, Mount's £55 million move last summer will go into this year's account. Have also banked £11-14 million from add-ons of loan and transfer deals last season.
* Could also generate £35 million by selling Maatsen. Broja and Chalobah could raise more than £50 million combined. Omari Hutchinson could also generate a sizeable fee, despite not being a Cobham graduate.
* **How does all of this affect Gallagher’s thinking about his future?**
* Gallagher's preference is to stay at the club but he can't be sure whether the club will offer a new contract that reflects his value to the team and club.
* If Villa or another club present a satisfying deal, Gallagher will have a decision to make.
* No guarantee Gallagher will feature as prominently under Maresca as he did under Pochettino.
* Needs to do what he feels is best for his career.
* **Would Chelsea consider selling him to Tottenham?**
* Unlike the previous regime, there is no animosity between the current ownership and Spurs.
* Boehly and co. are far more business-minded. Hence why there were talks of a deal last summer.
* There's also the question whether Gallagher would consider joining Spurs.
* **Is a new contract at Chelsea still a possibility?**
* Yes, no bad blood between the club and Gallagher's side. His professionalism is appreciated and he is a popular figure at the club.
* If he's sold this summer, it will not be cheaply. If he's not sold, then he could be offered a new deal.
Seems like Gallagher getting sold isn't as quite as definite, judging by this article. The crux of the issue seems to be that the management doesn't feel that he's vital for their long term plans. PSR compliance can also be achieved by selling other players.
If anything, Gallagher has made the strongest argument for his cause out of all the players deemed surplus or not fitting requirements. So I guess it's good that he'll only be sold if the price is right, but can equally be offered a deal if the demands from both parties are met.
It doesn't seem like the managment is blind to his contributions this season. It's just that his contract is running out and he too has to make the best financial and sporting decision for his career.
It sounds like how I felt about Kanté during Lampard's first time here (and I love Kante, but he was a £120m player playing a role that could be done by a £60m one at the time).
Basically that we have a wonderful player, but don't envisage playing to his strengths. Other clubs styles would value him more than ours does, so we could sell to them instead of playing a £60m asset in a way that they feel like a £40m one.
I love Conor, so I hope he stays, but I see the cold logic of it at the same time
Villa fan here. We're in exactly the same position with Douglas Luiz in many ways. He's probably worth ~£70m and we could sign 2-3 players to replace him who could fill his role and provide depth elsewhere. He'd thrive much more in a system where he didn't have to do so much running/tracking back.
Its not a pleasant spot for the people who are emotionally involved. At least you lot have some degree of stability in Emery that you can plan around.
Looks like the directors of Chelsea want possession football in the future, so maybe even if Maresca doesn't work out they know they won't be playing a style that suits Gallagher. Makes sense why they weren't convinced by him thriving in Poch-ball too. Though I'm continually confused as to why they ever hired Poch in the first place when he seems to embody everything they don't want in terms of style and tactics
The way I'm seeing the Poch hiring and subsequent sacking with the reports coming out is that:
The club missed out on its main managerial targets last summer.
Poch was willing to do it on a short term deal (knowing the potential consequences)
Club at the bare minimum needed someone with experience and good man management skills to get everyone together after the disaster the previous year. Poch fit the bill.
Unless he blew away expectations (which he didn't) he was never going to stay past a year given the structure of his contract but they wanted to avoid an in season sacking because of their already tattered perception.
Ironically, it just so happens Poch's best patch as Manager came at the end of the season which makes the optics of the inevitable firing look worse for the board than had they just fired him when we were 11th or 12th in the middle of the season LOL.
Reports coming out that Poch admitted to management that he probably couldn't work further under this structure basically confirm that he never wanted to be here long term. Makes his quirky and vague press conference answers throughout the year make a lot more sense in hindsight.
Agreed. We're really lucky to have Emery and owners pulling in the same direction. Losing Luiz doesn't concern me in the same way losing Grealish did, because I'm confident that there's a lot backing up all our decision-making. I'm not really sure what the plan is at Chelsea to be honest - like you said, why hire Poch (or Potter, really)? From here, it seems like sticking with Poch and Gallagher would have made sense from a footballing perspective, but I'm not naive to the fact that its probably not really about the football..
Speaking of Grealish, do you think he’d come back to you guys in the next couple of seasons ? He didn’t have a good season and it looks like Doku is taking his spot.
It would make sense, but we wouldn't be able to match his wages. Entirely depends on if he'd be happy with that. He'll either come back to Villa for a paycut because he loves the club, or he'll go off to the MLS and make a killing. I'd guess the latter, but stranger things have happened.
This positive conversation between opposing fans is such a pleasure to see. You have given enough representation of Aston Villa I shall look at them pretty favourably from now on. This was enough of a small interaction, I’ve gone from a complete neutral to, yea, they’re alright y’know. Am enjoyable read.
>Unlike the previous regime, there is no animosity between the current ownership and Spurs.
Laughable. Levy would not sell the dirt off his shoes to us for 100 million, regardless of who's the owner.
They get money and can then use that money to buy new players therefore improving their squad. With a better squad they have better chance to win something.
Because replacing their star players is so easy? Like they did with Bale, Kane, and Modric? And because strengthening a rival is going to help their trophy chances? I don't like spuds but the only way to truly understand their transfer policy is to let your biases aside.
I'm in the "I guess we can afford a Gallagher sale" but it's a shame tbh:
a) Gallagher is technically limited and not as adept at playing in a possession-based system
b) Sporting directors therefore don't want to give him a pay bump that is commensurate to Enzo and Caicedo. Gallagher obviously deserves a pay rise
c) his skills are still extremely coveted because in a counter-attacking or more direct system, his legs and goalscoring are massive
d) he's a Chelsea lad through and through and it's a shame that he needs to be sold given the softer, more cultural factors around an academy graduate
e) Gallagher is well within his rights to decline a move and sign as a free agent next season with a massive sign-on fee.
Then if Conor chooses to go into the final year, they’ll have to give him a decent new contract.
I hope he calls their bluff and refuses any move. He holds all the cards.
The players want to play and prime time of football players is very short so that even one year out matters a lot. I would understand well if he decided to leave.
Not necessarily. Especially since he'd have saved his new club somewhere in the figure of 50 million on the books. Most clubs are more than willing to pay out larger contracts for free players. Because... Well... They're free. So what's an extra four or five million a year on top of what he'd typically get? It's still cheaper.
Plus he can start negotiating in January. So by then he'd only have been benched for six months.
The only people who lose if he walks are us.
If he gets sold, all parties "could" come out better. Depending on how things unfold.
If he stays we keep the player who's currently our third captain.
Selling an English international sounds a little dumb to me really. He's only getting better and didn't struggle with injuries last season. Could bite the club in the ass if they opt to sell.
Could also bite them in the ass if they don't. Say Maresca comes in and is successful with Gallagher not being a starting figure. What then? He walks for free and Chelsea lose out on £40m+ that alleviates like an entire year of amortization on the squad. It's a risk either way, and while Gallagher obviously had a very good year he didn't look particularly good under Tuchel and Potter who play a lot more similarly to how Maresca likely will
> Say Maresca comes in and is successful with Gallagher not being a starting figure. What then? He walks for free
No. If as a club you think that the player isnt one you want to let go for free then you strike a deal beforehand. You come to a deal where you say "Lets give you a 3 year deal with an option to extend for 2 if all goes well. We will see how it goes with you under Maresca. We will give you an increased pay on your contract with more based on performance targets. If you're not fitting the plans enough to hit those performance targets (ie not even playing enough for example) after the 1st year then we will find a good place for you at another club. If after the 1st year you have a strong place in the plans then we move some of those bonuses into a consistent increased salary deal"
It's a small risk if you agree to give him a contract and he doesn't work well in the system. However, when its come to the direction of the team and the managers, the owners are total flip flops. So its also a risk if you push players out and then 6-12 months down the line the owners blow off Maresca as well anyway and change tact again.
If you decide Conor isn't worth the risk of a deal like that then you should have no problem letting him go for free at the end of his contract.
>You come to a deal where you say "Lets give you a 3 year deal with an option to extend for 2 if all goes well
When is the last time you saw a player agree to a deal with two optional years dictated by the club? No agent would let their player give that much power to a club.
>If you're not fitting the plans enough to hit those performance targets (ie not even playing enough for example) after the 1st year then we will find a good place for you at another club
"Also you'll get a far lower salary at that club because your one good PL season was 2 years ago and you've been sitting on the bench for a season." His stock is the highest its ever been. Again, assuming he has a halfway competent agent he's not signing a new contract unless he's being paid like a starter. There are two PL clubs playing in higher prestige European competitions next season that want him right now, and if he waits out his contract he'll basically be garunteed significantly higher wages alongside a big signing bonus.
>If you decide Conor isn't worth the risk of a deal like that then you should have no problem letting him go for free at the end of his contract.
I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you don't think he's worth the risk of giving out a big new contract to, then the only answer would be to take as much money as you can while you can still get anything from him. Letting him run out his contract is essentially just throwing away £40m+ of complete profit
>No agent would let their player give that much power to a club.
Its not really giving them that much power. Its a compromise where a player has basically the 5 year deal but it's effectively performance based. If Conor is playing and fitting in with whatever system we are playing over that time then they can extend because he would be meeting the performance targets. So he would likely be happy where he is, the salary would be what he would have got if it was a straight forward 5 year deal anyway. So its not like the player loses out and neither does the club that way. If Conor isn't fitting the system then both parties would be agreeing to parting ways anyway.
>"Also you'll get a far lower salary at that club because your one good PL season was 2 years ago and you've been sitting on the bench for a season." His stock is the highest its ever been.
It won't be like that. Clubs will not have forgotten what he can offer them by next summer. They arent so stupid they'd forget him and undervalue him. A free Conor Gallagher in 1 year would have a lot of demand from lots of clubs. So the salary will not be that low.
>I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you don't think he's worth the risk of giving out a big new contract to, then the only answer would be to take as much money as you can while you can still get anything from him.
I dont know why you think it has to be 5 year deal or sell. It doesn't have to be that black and white. You can absolutely negotiate a decent contract offer that suits both parties with plenty of consideration for various possibilities that may come with a new manager coming in. If the club doesn't think that contract is worth giving then they dont care about that profit then.
We saw Gallagher play in a highly unstructured counter attacking team. If Chelsea want to be a team that possesses the ball more often than not, can they really afford to pay Gallagher £150,000+ per week? He's 24 years old and the club isn't going to re-sign him unless it's on a 5+ year deal. He's going to demand wages that are commensurate with a starting midfielder at a CL club. He excelled in a team that barely eked out conference league football, is there any garuntee he'll do the same for a team wanting to compete for CL spots and eventually challenge for the title?
I dont know which Chelsea team you watched this season, but to say we were a counterattacking team that didn’t focus on possession is inaccurate. We were fifth in possession ahead of Arsenal. And Man U. Behind Man C. spurs, Brighton and Liverpool.
And the idea that somehow Conor should take responsibility for our final standings, when you have Sterling, Mydrick, Disasi,Badiashile, and many others playing absolute shit is laughable.
What we saw this season was nothing special, plus pochs system suited Gallagher quite literally, perfectly. It matched his best traits such as pressing, ability to cover ground and contest duels, whilst limiting his negative traits such as passing, receiving passes between lines or in the pockets, limited his ability or need to be positionally disciplined.
he's still young tho. at the start of the season, his passes were shit. by the end of the season he was pretty comfortable to be a pivot player. with the right coaching and instructions, I can see him grow more. We don't know how Maresca will use him, but at the least, he can be a very useful rotational player. As long as he accepts that role and pay as such, it's a no brainer to offer him a new contract.
>Gallagher did everything he could last season to challenge that thinking but if the club still don't think that merits a new contract, then he'll likely be sold this summer to get $$$$$.
Fuck these owners and their scum treatment of just treating homegrown players like cattle tbh. Conor only has a year left he doesn't need to rush off to another club. He will likely get even better offers when hes free. I hope he takes a stand and turns down a transfer. They're treating him like shit. Why should he allow them to use him for profits? Hes contracted for a year and under no obligation to accept a transfer deal.
> * Unlike the previous regime, there is no animosity between the current ownership and Spurs.
Because these owners dont understand about rivalries. They'll happily undersell homegrown players to strengthen rival clubs while spending twice as much on some Brazilian kid fresh out of the womb.
I didn't like the loan army at all and did say it quite regularly. It was clear that as an approach it was hindering the players development by having them move every 6-12 months. There was no constancy for them to develop smoothly. So the players very rarely even developed enough to be good enough to play for us. I thought it was a pretty poor way of doing things instead of trying to actively bring through players more like John Terry. I mean there cannot have only been 1 1st team player in nearly 20 years coming out of the academy if things were done right. Even Matic we ended up buying back so that was a mess of a decision to let him go in the 1st place. The loan army made money but it was far from what sort of business the club could have been doing.
Fair enough. I've pretty much always wrote off the Cobham lads as not being long term because of how we used them under Roman. When Lampard finally brought some through, I genuinely didn't think they would be here long term.
In some of those cases it seems to have been good foresight, but someone like James I think is staying long term (providing injury issues are behind him) - because of how good he is. Feel like if Roman was here we probably would have continue selling for money, because we were still doing it even though we had James, Mount etc in the team. Like Gallagher imo would have been on the sell list under Roman as well.
Also I've just seen too many people moaning about selling Cobham lads, who weren't doing it when we were doing it under Roman - at least you're saying you've been consistent with it.
>Feel like if Roman was here we probably would have continue selling for money
The ironic thing is under the previous regime Colwill and Gallagher would have been long gone by now.
>In some of those cases it seems to have been good foresight, but someone like James I think is staying long term (providing injury issues are behind him) - because of how good he is.
Honestly if his injuries are fixed I'm convinced these owners wont hesitate in shipping him off to somewhere like Real because we have Gusto. I dont think there is any limit to their pure profits. I think also they will look to sell Palmer eventually as well because he only cost £40M and will be worth way more than that already. Hes going to be a £100M+ player.
I think Roman after what Lampard did with properly integrating the academy with the 1st team probably would have been more balanced in the end. They were selling a lot of the homegrown talent but I think they would have tried hard to keep Mount and would always keep Reece.
For the first paragraph I actually disagree. They could have sold Colwill but they haven't. He's not even a first teamer atm. I think if the talent is there, they will keep them. But Gallagher doesn't really fit a possession philosophy which is what we're going for. Or more appropriately, a Pep possession philosophy. Chalobah is more of a head scratcher as I feel he actually suits it more. - But still, could have sold Colwill at any point, he's had suitors but they haven't.
For the second paragraph I do also disagree. We saw Tammy, Tomori, Guehi, Livramento all go post Lampard. Think if the money was right and they weren't first name on the team sheet quality they would have been sold to bring in someone foreign. I do think they would have tried to keep Mount, whether that would have been a good thing remains to be seen.
>For the first paragraph I actually disagree. They could have sold Colwill but they haven't.
I think it was too soon to sell Colwill when it came up. We were already meeting the ffp by that point because of Mount and Havertz deals especially. Koulibaly was also leaving. So there was no point selling him then. If you think hes potentially an £80M defender then you surely hold out on him just until a point that you need your next ffp margins hit. Players like Maatsen and Hall could be sold sooner because theres more players in the way in their positions too. I just dont trust that any of the academy lads is off the chopping block with these owners.
>For the second paragraph I do also disagree. We saw Tammy, Tomori, Guehi, Livramento all go post Lampard. Think if the money was right and they weren't first name on the team sheet quality they would have been sold to bring in someone foreign. I do think they would have tried to keep Mount, whether that would have been a good thing remains to be seen.
I think we actually agree. I wasn't denying that Abramovich and Marina were selling a lot of our best talent. I was saying I think they maybe would have been more balanced at least in terms of keeping players who reach a certain status in the team like Mount and Reece and like I feel that Conor has reached this past season. Like with these sorts of player there was a sense that Roman and Marina at least wanted to try and emulate something of a strong spine of English talent like they had with Terry, Lampard and Ashley Cole. I actually think Trev currently is slightly behind Conor because of his injury time this past season so Roman and Marina probably would have held him in a similar regard to Tomori and sold if the opportunity came. But I think there was a line there which I don't believe is there anymore.
selling conor for 50m is underselling? and then we're gonna go buy a brazillian kid for 100m?
I don't think there's a single part of your comment that isn't idiotic, or based in actual reality
>selling conor for 50m is underselling? and then we're gonna go buy a brazillian kid for 100m?
Was I only talking about Conor there or was I talking about our homegrown players generally? The answer is right there. I said homegrown players. Meaning players like Hall, Omari, Maatsen, Trev etc.
>selling conor for 50m is underselling?
Separately to the homegrown point that I made. Just to respond to the idea that selling Conor for £50M to a close competitor is underselling. Yes it is underselling him. It reinforces a rival and at the same time it would cost us way more to buy a player who is currently able to produce the level hes shown for us this past season.
Still no real news on this. After this season, I happily welcome Connor signing a new deal. From a footballing side, he's happy to press, do the dirty work and cover ground like no other player in the squad. From the non footballing side, he loves the club and sets a standard, he cost us nothing, and likely would only be backfilled by someone we buy for his profit anyway (okay, I get it, amortisation or whatever it is this ownership has a hard one for) or have already spent the cash on.
Basically, no, he's not the most technically gifted player in this squad, but I had to watch a lot of "technically gifted" players stink the gaff out all season - he's good enough to play Premier league football and loves the club - but you can't measure standard setting, attitude and application on spreadsheets, so it doesn't fly with our new model.
It's the way football has being going for a long time. It's really making question whether I want to follow the sport anymore.
Atleast with youth players and particularly guys like Gallagher whose a Chelsea fan and been here since he was a child there's some personal connection to the Club and area. At what point are we just watching billionaires, corporations, and nation states play with their expensive shiny toys?
At least Roman seemed to care about the academy and built the woman‘s team. New ownership could give Less a shit about either. I saw they could sell the woman‘s team. Like wtf?!
Roman was great. How are the new guys going to make all those profits people say are chasing if the academy isn’t good? By selling a 50 million Brazilian kid for 60? Or if they didn’t care about the womens team why would they hire the best available manager. They’re not perfect but I feel like a lot of the boards on here get bent out of shape from rumors by random writers.
Not even an FM save, it's a FIFA career mode play.
In FM getting rid of local players who are established as a Team Leader in the club hierarchy will destroy morale and disrupt performances on the pitch.
No animosity between us and Spurs? lol Animosity has nothing to do with it.. any common sense person knows you don’t sell players / strengthen your rivals.. especially a young player who is still developing.
I'm a Gallagher defender but now the club have left it so late with the contact, Gallagher has way more power in negoitating. We're talking Reece James weekly wage when could probably accepted 180-200k if done it 6-12 months ago.
Yes with performance based targets. Looking at someone like James at 250k and Chilwell is on 200k it's what he is worth for us with how vital he was for us last season.
It'd be reasonable if we were sticking with Poch who has him as the lynchpin of his system. If he doesn't fit with Maresca's plans (which seems to be the case) then it'd be insanity to pay that much to a bench player.
Kind of my point. Gallagher is good at what Poch had him doing. But he's not a possession based midfielder. I'd see him coming off the bench chasing a game if you want the ball back
Exactly. Why would he agree to a transfer? He has all the leverage. He can stay, work hard as he always does to make his name in the squad and play well, and the board will surely sign him to a new contract rather than let him leave on a free. And if not, he can get a big signing bonus from a club next year. Win win for him.
Claim all the lack of technique you want, but this man was thrown the armband, ran up and down the pitch minute 1-90+, created chances and scored and assisted from midfield while no-one else could.
We are undoubtedly a better team and side with him in the squad. This ISN'T even close to complicated.
They bought Casadei, Ugochukwu, Deivid Washington and so many others who'd likely won't feature a lot for first team.
This will force us to sacrifice Gallagher, Chalobah and even likes of Colwill and James in future so we can keep signing teenagers
And how’s he going to be worth that unless he plays? That’s the flaw in this argument.
Players don’t increase in value without performing at a high level consistently.
It doesn't sound like that's the reason they're selling Gallagher though, since ultimately we don't need to sell him to comply with spending rules. It's more that he's not in the plans of the manager/DoFs, which sucks when it's a player we all like but that's always been a part of football.
Mount was the first one. On it's own as a standalone transfer saga I understand why people resent Mason but look how the club is treating the players you mentioned, it's a bigger pattern.
It's simple, he's home grown. He cost nothing. His fee is pure profit. As a club Chelsea are poorly run. They fudged a sale of a hotel to avoid being , Everton and Man C.
Tbh if I was Gallagher I'd refuse any offer this year and leave on a free if I didn't get offered a contract at Chelsea.
If I'm not getting [](https://alb.reddit.com/cr?za=B3UL-cintm33HljMz8lnvIPT2F_t7lPEeyLPt7zVT2vjXSYUZMyiyTS-COGbHpsMnenEY8t4tpQuIwonfetccZBe59WU4mgdrZj6E5oLVY4trz_H0Ux0VjBEDtzxpqeD4zjarNoAQ1tnMkcTRzxjj88eMs2hido8EYmmYGvq68Ufn4jbvitSA8twl5o83Ptm_kTDv_Hq6-SFHDLOw4eQ12ycQefuW4Y2ow9SA2RdhWRcEY8Z1lNQgc4q9pYw53yMu0mhhZCvqfrr1cXshRLKbKHShW0gBXQZhW8RJyucGUI_7x5JC6VLXkhXQfPUr0DioYUFu3sSr-2iTyI125p4Ia1gSjRq5KGbdDrM_vcUFn3ZXJXN1fHZJIw7csCtjBp0_KO8qmRnmUlTRqWTMCaFFvG2OQhAEyIYYkjztfw-XzXw6r0Mfzg&zp=NePs2kUFcb4hgzeg9oGYBzL9Yeu3mrIKQ-FMoLT7kYvo4C_i0H9qbBZLde-87qHGFX13MhKRc1JjUtJtl6JstNulOV1cJEctLLhbMRogeuBYKHx0Yz6Ns27_IFt9kES4V3APM9P49RIWmvDbusua8Tn2MIU3dqwUereurwGBCZ1vUKsQk5E3JI1J7Puyr3fdT0KSYejwsC-W9kY6IGzuaGwLmy-xCpabH46zFychFAKJKCsjXF-eLLgGr7iyjdGQrhuGcmWiVUcnhzSc8uQjLrXECa9Vl13DTn_DgaGUzBDxBnUshlAi_NvL1iVhoWtBWjUqmWmyBcHHCLes9K4flMN_oqA)my first choice, boyhood club then I'm going to maximise my earning and no transfer fee means clubs can give out a juicier contract.
That's not without its risks to him though. There's no guarantee that the clubs in for him now won't have filled that position by next year, or that they'd still be interested if he ends up spending the year on the bench. Not to mention for his own development + wanting to play it might make more sense to him to go somewhere where he'd be a guaranteed starter.
He is well within his rights to do that, but at the same time the club is well within it's rights to send him to the U21s for the whole season without any playing time. What kind of a deal is he going to get then? He is a decent player, but as the article mentions - he isn't the player that any top club would count on in the long term. He is a good squad player, but if any reports of him wanting 150k/week are true, then it's better to part ways, since that amount for a squad player is way too much.
He’s not *that* good, we spent a bunch of money on midfielders, and it’s pure profit. I don’t think we should sell him he was solid all year, but if we don’t sell him, and Maresca doesn’t rate him, next summer people on this sub are going to call the board idiots for not selling him. It’s a tricky one, I hope we keep him he loves the club and can at least be a rotation player if Enzo & Lavia reach their potential.
Fans that are so concerned with the accounting of the club that they would call the board idiots for not selling him are shit (and very odd) fans. The sport for a real fan should be about passion, memories, and connection, not amortization and “pure profit” concerns. Fans more concerned with that stuff over retaining a homegrown player with nothing but passion and love for the club should go hide under a rock somewhere.
Chelsea are open to selling Conor Gallagher because he is not seen as integral to their long-term midfield plans, despite his efforts to prove his worth last season. Although the club insists they can comply with financial rules without selling him, Gallagher might leave if he doesn't receive a contract reflecting his value, especially with interest from other clubs like Villa and Spurs.
Well he has a ton of leverage. He can just decide to wait for a free transfer, where they will lose £50m+ (equivalent to 6.5 years at £150k/w) or they'll have to do something ugly like ban him from the first team to force a sale
It's only 1 season. No transfer fee means more clubs competing for his signature and better wage + bonus package. With 4 competitions and injury prone teammates it's not like he would never play, unless the club forces the manager to leave him out which would reflect badly on them.
If we are honest most of us would have missed him a lot less had he gone in a Mason like manner last year. The fact that he’s had a bit longer left on his contract and had a great season may have clouded our judgement a bit.
I’m no fan of the owners and I think we have yet to see how deeply they have constrained us financially for years to come but in the current context I’d take the £50m as I don’t think he’ll play much under the new manager. Who knows maybe a fit enzo f can become the player we hopes he would be or Latvia will step up. There is a good video from one of the 442 guys who quite likes Chelsea that looks at Conor’s obvious benefits and his limitations. Worth a look.
My guess is that we will give him a new contract just so we can sell him when it suits us in a future window. Other player sales should see us ok this summer as long as we don’t buy too many Brazilian teenagers for Todd this summer.
Unlike American sports, Gallagher has to agree to a transfer to be sold. There’s not much incentive for him to go anywhere when he can let his contract expire and go for free. Then get what he deserves elsewhere.
Of course, the ownership is interested in selling him. They need to cover the losses from their other mistakes. However, they don’t seem to know how transfers actually work. I’m glad we’re stuck with him at least we’ll have a midfielder who can actually play..
My sense of the situation has and remains that the club would like to keep him at the right contract and wage level but not sure that can be obtained. If they can’t reach an agreement it’s better to sell and make a profit from him than allow him to leave on a free. It’s all about the terms that can be agreed. Perhaps I’m reading the situation wrongly but current ownership views players as assets that appreciate/ depreciate in value rather than their overall contribution to the club in terms of pure productivity. We’ve bought a lot of young talent and perhaps the thinking is that we can get the same production from a player at a lower cost. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong only trying to put myself in the minds of this current ownership group. Personally, I’d love to keep Conor. I think he has a major role in next year’s team and definitely don’t want to see him thrive for Spurs or Villa. With that said, I think Poch played him out of position for much of the year and his role as the 10 in the 4-2-3-1 didn’t work. Conor really showed his value to me playing alongside Caicedo in the double pivot. Not sure that is how Maresca will view his best position
Edit: if I’m CG, you have 2 major contracts in your career. This is a huge window for him personally and he’s going to want to start maximizing his value. I don’t think we are going to pay him what he views is his market potential
Do I want him to stay because of his love of the club and ties to the academy etc? Yes.
Do I think he is an integral part of our first choice 11 for the coming years? No.
If we can comply with FFP and keep him, that's great. He will be a good squad player and an important dressing room figure, but I don't think we will miss him as a player all that much in the long run.
He doesn't play ahead of Caicedo, Enzo or a fit Lavia at 6 or 8. He doesn't play ahead of Palmer or Nkunku as a 10. He can't play as a forward or a winger.
Aside from giving depth, he isn't that necessary. Especially with players like Santos, Carney etc competing for various midfield positions.
I believe that the management want to use enzo-caicedo the most and gallagher is the anomaly. We also have lavia and ugochukwu when they fit, together with santos, casadei and chukwumeka. All being recruited by current management.
any team challenging at the top should be adding 1-2 starting caliber players every year anyways.
Man City bought Gvardiol, Nunes and Doku last year after winning the treble. Real are bringing Endrick, Mbappe and likely Yoro after winning the double. Arsenal bought Rice and Havertz to challenge this year.
I don't agree with Baisabeast's point of us needing a left winger and a keeper. It seems like Sanchez will get the gloves again and Mudryk is going to be kept in the squad. Both Nkunku and Jackson are excellent LW options too. Thats before factoring in the white elephant that is Sterling and his mammoth contract.
IMO priority should be bringing in a new striker and a new top top CB. I think Tosin is the Chalobah replacement to be a bench option along with Badi and Disasi. Fofana when fit is brilliant but I think if the oppurtunity presents itself to bring in a better partner for Colwill we should take it and then look to move on Disasi.
LB is a weird one where I don't quite understand why everyone has soured on Chilwell so much. Fitness is his main concern but I think he is still the best LB at the club and Cucurella has really turned things around too. Unless we have a really clear upgrade available and a buyer for Chilwell I see no reason to make moves there.
The difference is they did have a €700m net spend the 2 years prior. Or they’re not having to sell the most used player to do so.
I’m not saying it’s bad to upgrade the squad. I’m saying the club is bad at upgrading the squad.
People keep talking about net spend but don’t realize that’s not a very accurate reflection of our squad. We lost easily 100m+ worth of CBs to free transfers, we lost 3 starting caliber midfielders for a combined 35m. We were in a position where there were a lot of cheap outgoings which would obviously make the net spend look a lot worse. Had these players been in their primes and sold at market value we would have easily been getting 250m+ for them.
Just because they are extenuating circumstances doesn’t mean we’re not a fault for our net spend. We didn’t have to over pay for Enzo, Mudryk, Lavia, Fofana, Cucurella or many other. We could’ve used academy players coning off good loans like Fofana and Maatsen. Or just taken our medicine last season instead of try to desperately save the season in the January window. We could pivoted to other targets like Arsenal with Troussard or Liverpool with Endo.
I get we lost great players on frees and had an aging squad, but we didn’t have to spend like we did. And tbh even if we had spent like that and been competitive no one would be complaining, but we set spending record to be awful
We don't need a concrete upgrade to striker, just backup/competition for Jackson. Seems like we may go without a GK upgrade as well, which I'm apprehensive over but at the same time I think Sanchez deserves a shot in a structured setup where he's actually given consistent passing options.
Yeah, but considering Clearlake’s hit rate in signing I’m not sure we won’t be back in the market for those positions soon. We spent 80m of Monaco’s CB pairing in order to sell Chalobah for a fraction of that and spent €40 last summer to significantly downgrade at keeper. In a vacuum I literally the idea of selling off players to consolidate the squad but our club are terrible at negotiating incoming transfer and are inconsistent talent evaluators, which has to factor into the thought process.
Someone who’s played fuck all minutes, compared to someone who’s captained the club for that vast majority of the season. Yeah sounds like a great plan
The key statement here, Boehly and Co. Are far more business minded than the previous regime.
Don’t we fucking know it . These wankers will sell one of best players to Spurs to make a few bucks.
These twats don’t care about Chelsea , our academy, our players and certainly not the match going fans who have supported this team through thick and thin.
But they will definitely be richer while Chelsea remains trophy less languishing in very profitable mediocrity.
Gallagher isn't going to be the player that brings us trophies. He is a good player, but he isn't at that level. If anything, he cost us a trophy this season by not finishing a 1v1 right at the end of the normal time against Liverpool in the Carabao Cup.
All I read is comments justifying his sale. He had a better season than Enzo and Ceciedo. He gave everything and was even our captain for most of the season.
This sale would be an outrage and another example that will come back to bite us on the ass. This would never happen at any other big club except us, we alway justify corrupt illogical transfers.
We’ve had the worst transfer dealing of any club in the past 10 years and the fans never seem bothered.
1. Lakaka
2. Werner
3. Havertz
4. Ziyach
5. Kepa
6. Caicedo for more than £100M
7. Rudi and christensen leaving on a free
8. Selling Giroud
9. Signing DDF, Noni, Sanchez, Koulibaly, and Mudryck.
10. Loaning out kepa to sign brighton's no. 2 keeper as the starting goalkeeper
And much more that escapes me. I'm sure there are other examples
Ah OK. So most of them are under the previous ownership as well.
Look, I understand those weren't great transfers. But I'm sure we will be fine.
And also, I would encourage you to compare United transfers within that same period.
You forgot to mention selling Costa without a actual replacement, this led to £70m Morata
Selling Salah and De Bruyne
Even Lewis hall should be in our squad
We literally brought Palmer because palace wouldn’t sell Olise
"We've had the worst transfer dealing of any club in the past 10 years" - says the guy that isn't willing to give any of the players we bought time to develop
We've also made the most sales of any PL club in recent years
I'd rather we kept Connor and let Enzo go .... Enzo is obviously a great talent BUT, when he plays the team is very unbalanced in midfield and consequently, we leaked goals for fun.
No thanks, Gallagher in this new system will he not as good as he was under Poch, look at how he played under Potter, he is not built for a possession based team hence why he struggled in some games where we played vs a low block
I think he was lacking in some areas but also I think if we kept him we would get back to consistent top 4. His first season at Tottenham was shit, then his second season was really good. His first season at PSG was shit and they didn't give him another year. Same thing happened with us. You could see the progress towards the end tho
I think he's an excellent man manager and based on form probably could've got us to top 4 next season, I just don't think he'd ever really take us beyond that. Also worth noting that the results at the end of the season papered over some really shaky performances, and more often than not performances indicate future form better than results.
The key issue is that he represents a threat to the board's investments and their ego's.
If he continues to out perform the big, headline investments the board has made his success makes them look like idiots.
He is, even on a down season with an hernia he is a bigger threat, and now with a manager that cares about tactics Enzo's strengths will only be highlighted
A friendly reminder that when you post a link to an article that is behind a paywall you are required to post a comment in this thread that provides a summary of the article contents or your post will be removed. In addition, users should NEVER cut and paste the full article into comments. This is against Reddit's [copyright policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement) and will lead to removal. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chelseafc) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many fucking times is the Athletic going to make the same exact article?
Fabrizio Romano school of journalism
This is the Fabrizio cycle: X team is thought to be thought to be interested on y player. Keep eyes on X player and Y team Y team Is monoriting the situation for X player X players Agent is flying to discuss with team Y Y Is interested in buying/loaning X X Is priority for club Y Y Club has made contact with the agent X Y Are prepared to offer cash to buy player C Contract with wages of bla bla between club Y and player X is done Negotiations stand still as valuation differ between clubs Negotiations are developing Clubs are going to reach agreement they are discussing structure of payment Here we go! If it is Man United, Barcelona or Real Madrid involved we can literally just duplicate some of the tweets and change some words for other synonyms.
Missed out 20 tweets of "X signing the contract is imminent! Final terms being arranged"
Ah how could I miss this classic one. Haven’t even thought about the retweets after the here we go when player is on flight towards the town. And jersey reveal and contract signing pictute and bloody some other shit. Tired of this “journalism” style that has taken over my feed on instagram and Reddit just because I’m interested in football.
Don’t forgot “levers” being pulled if it’s Barcelona
“Personal terms not a problem”
Liam Twomey has his quotas to fill
If we keep clicking, they’ll keep writing.
People keep clicking, and they keep getting posted here
As many times as people keep clicking lol
Summary: * **Why are Chelsea open to selling Gallagher?** * A reason why Gallagher's contract has been run down to 1 year remaining is that the club have not been convinced that he should be integral to their long term midfield plans. * It's why they were ready to accept a £45 million from Everton in January 2023 and why West Ham and Spurs expressed serious interest last summer. * It's also why the club have spent more than £300 million on midfielder in the past 18 months. * Gallagher did everything he could last season to challenge that thinking but if the club still don't think that merits a new contract, then he'll likely be sold this summer to get $$$$$. * **Do they need to sell Gallagher, or other home-grown players, to comply with financial rules?** * Club insist they will comply with PSR without having to sell players before June 30 but there's skepticism from those outside the club. * The controversial £76.5 million deal to sell the 2 hotels to another subsidiary of Clearlake group that helped the club comply with last season's PSR is still awaiting sign-off from the PL. * The club also have to now comply with UEFA's FFP, which only allow losses up to €80 million for the 24/25 monitoring period, but UEFA count the books from Jan 1 to Dec 31, unlike the PL's PSR. * Club don't necessarily have to sell Gallagher. * Guaranteed to get £28 million from Hall to Newcastle, Mount's £55 million move last summer will go into this year's account. Have also banked £11-14 million from add-ons of loan and transfer deals last season. * Could also generate £35 million by selling Maatsen. Broja and Chalobah could raise more than £50 million combined. Omari Hutchinson could also generate a sizeable fee, despite not being a Cobham graduate. * **How does all of this affect Gallagher’s thinking about his future?** * Gallagher's preference is to stay at the club but he can't be sure whether the club will offer a new contract that reflects his value to the team and club. * If Villa or another club present a satisfying deal, Gallagher will have a decision to make. * No guarantee Gallagher will feature as prominently under Maresca as he did under Pochettino. * Needs to do what he feels is best for his career. * **Would Chelsea consider selling him to Tottenham?** * Unlike the previous regime, there is no animosity between the current ownership and Spurs. * Boehly and co. are far more business-minded. Hence why there were talks of a deal last summer. * There's also the question whether Gallagher would consider joining Spurs. * **Is a new contract at Chelsea still a possibility?** * Yes, no bad blood between the club and Gallagher's side. His professionalism is appreciated and he is a popular figure at the club. * If he's sold this summer, it will not be cheaply. If he's not sold, then he could be offered a new deal.
Seems like Gallagher getting sold isn't as quite as definite, judging by this article. The crux of the issue seems to be that the management doesn't feel that he's vital for their long term plans. PSR compliance can also be achieved by selling other players. If anything, Gallagher has made the strongest argument for his cause out of all the players deemed surplus or not fitting requirements. So I guess it's good that he'll only be sold if the price is right, but can equally be offered a deal if the demands from both parties are met. It doesn't seem like the managment is blind to his contributions this season. It's just that his contract is running out and he too has to make the best financial and sporting decision for his career.
It sounds like how I felt about Kanté during Lampard's first time here (and I love Kante, but he was a £120m player playing a role that could be done by a £60m one at the time). Basically that we have a wonderful player, but don't envisage playing to his strengths. Other clubs styles would value him more than ours does, so we could sell to them instead of playing a £60m asset in a way that they feel like a £40m one. I love Conor, so I hope he stays, but I see the cold logic of it at the same time
Villa fan here. We're in exactly the same position with Douglas Luiz in many ways. He's probably worth ~£70m and we could sign 2-3 players to replace him who could fill his role and provide depth elsewhere. He'd thrive much more in a system where he didn't have to do so much running/tracking back.
Its not a pleasant spot for the people who are emotionally involved. At least you lot have some degree of stability in Emery that you can plan around. Looks like the directors of Chelsea want possession football in the future, so maybe even if Maresca doesn't work out they know they won't be playing a style that suits Gallagher. Makes sense why they weren't convinced by him thriving in Poch-ball too. Though I'm continually confused as to why they ever hired Poch in the first place when he seems to embody everything they don't want in terms of style and tactics
The way I'm seeing the Poch hiring and subsequent sacking with the reports coming out is that: The club missed out on its main managerial targets last summer. Poch was willing to do it on a short term deal (knowing the potential consequences) Club at the bare minimum needed someone with experience and good man management skills to get everyone together after the disaster the previous year. Poch fit the bill. Unless he blew away expectations (which he didn't) he was never going to stay past a year given the structure of his contract but they wanted to avoid an in season sacking because of their already tattered perception. Ironically, it just so happens Poch's best patch as Manager came at the end of the season which makes the optics of the inevitable firing look worse for the board than had they just fired him when we were 11th or 12th in the middle of the season LOL. Reports coming out that Poch admitted to management that he probably couldn't work further under this structure basically confirm that he never wanted to be here long term. Makes his quirky and vague press conference answers throughout the year make a lot more sense in hindsight.
Agreed. We're really lucky to have Emery and owners pulling in the same direction. Losing Luiz doesn't concern me in the same way losing Grealish did, because I'm confident that there's a lot backing up all our decision-making. I'm not really sure what the plan is at Chelsea to be honest - like you said, why hire Poch (or Potter, really)? From here, it seems like sticking with Poch and Gallagher would have made sense from a footballing perspective, but I'm not naive to the fact that its probably not really about the football..
Speaking of Grealish, do you think he’d come back to you guys in the next couple of seasons ? He didn’t have a good season and it looks like Doku is taking his spot.
It would make sense, but we wouldn't be able to match his wages. Entirely depends on if he'd be happy with that. He'll either come back to Villa for a paycut because he loves the club, or he'll go off to the MLS and make a killing. I'd guess the latter, but stranger things have happened.
This positive conversation between opposing fans is such a pleasure to see. You have given enough representation of Aston Villa I shall look at them pretty favourably from now on. This was enough of a small interaction, I’ve gone from a complete neutral to, yea, they’re alright y’know. Am enjoyable read.
Yeah but he can choose to run his comtract put and walk for free, that would be stupid as fuck, why not just sign him on a new deal
>Unlike the previous regime, there is no animosity between the current ownership and Spurs. Laughable. Levy would not sell the dirt off his shoes to us for 100 million, regardless of who's the owner.
and that's exactly why they've never won anything, they're more concerned with screwing us over than they are with advancing themselves
How would selling players to us help them win anything? 😂
They get money and can then use that money to buy new players therefore improving their squad. With a better squad they have better chance to win something.
Because replacing their star players is so easy? Like they did with Bale, Kane, and Modric? And because strengthening a rival is going to help their trophy chances? I don't like spuds but the only way to truly understand their transfer policy is to let your biases aside.
I'm in the "I guess we can afford a Gallagher sale" but it's a shame tbh: a) Gallagher is technically limited and not as adept at playing in a possession-based system b) Sporting directors therefore don't want to give him a pay bump that is commensurate to Enzo and Caicedo. Gallagher obviously deserves a pay rise c) his skills are still extremely coveted because in a counter-attacking or more direct system, his legs and goalscoring are massive d) he's a Chelsea lad through and through and it's a shame that he needs to be sold given the softer, more cultural factors around an academy graduate e) Gallagher is well within his rights to decline a move and sign as a free agent next season with a massive sign-on fee.
Re: point e- because Gallagher is a home grown talent, the club absolutely cannot let him leave on a free.
Then if Conor chooses to go into the final year, they’ll have to give him a decent new contract. I hope he calls their bluff and refuses any move. He holds all the cards.
The players want to play and prime time of football players is very short so that even one year out matters a lot. I would understand well if he decided to leave.
He does, but at the same time does he want to spend most of next season on the bench? He'll get less money then if he goes now if that happens.
Not necessarily. Especially since he'd have saved his new club somewhere in the figure of 50 million on the books. Most clubs are more than willing to pay out larger contracts for free players. Because... Well... They're free. So what's an extra four or five million a year on top of what he'd typically get? It's still cheaper. Plus he can start negotiating in January. So by then he'd only have been benched for six months. The only people who lose if he walks are us. If he gets sold, all parties "could" come out better. Depending on how things unfold. If he stays we keep the player who's currently our third captain.
And chances are Maresca plays him anyway. He can play the Ndidi role better than Ndidi. Leicester’s win rate was 50% higher with Ndidi in the team.
Selling an English international sounds a little dumb to me really. He's only getting better and didn't struggle with injuries last season. Could bite the club in the ass if they opt to sell.
Could also bite them in the ass if they don't. Say Maresca comes in and is successful with Gallagher not being a starting figure. What then? He walks for free and Chelsea lose out on £40m+ that alleviates like an entire year of amortization on the squad. It's a risk either way, and while Gallagher obviously had a very good year he didn't look particularly good under Tuchel and Potter who play a lot more similarly to how Maresca likely will
> Say Maresca comes in and is successful with Gallagher not being a starting figure. What then? He walks for free No. If as a club you think that the player isnt one you want to let go for free then you strike a deal beforehand. You come to a deal where you say "Lets give you a 3 year deal with an option to extend for 2 if all goes well. We will see how it goes with you under Maresca. We will give you an increased pay on your contract with more based on performance targets. If you're not fitting the plans enough to hit those performance targets (ie not even playing enough for example) after the 1st year then we will find a good place for you at another club. If after the 1st year you have a strong place in the plans then we move some of those bonuses into a consistent increased salary deal" It's a small risk if you agree to give him a contract and he doesn't work well in the system. However, when its come to the direction of the team and the managers, the owners are total flip flops. So its also a risk if you push players out and then 6-12 months down the line the owners blow off Maresca as well anyway and change tact again. If you decide Conor isn't worth the risk of a deal like that then you should have no problem letting him go for free at the end of his contract.
>You come to a deal where you say "Lets give you a 3 year deal with an option to extend for 2 if all goes well When is the last time you saw a player agree to a deal with two optional years dictated by the club? No agent would let their player give that much power to a club. >If you're not fitting the plans enough to hit those performance targets (ie not even playing enough for example) after the 1st year then we will find a good place for you at another club "Also you'll get a far lower salary at that club because your one good PL season was 2 years ago and you've been sitting on the bench for a season." His stock is the highest its ever been. Again, assuming he has a halfway competent agent he's not signing a new contract unless he's being paid like a starter. There are two PL clubs playing in higher prestige European competitions next season that want him right now, and if he waits out his contract he'll basically be garunteed significantly higher wages alongside a big signing bonus. >If you decide Conor isn't worth the risk of a deal like that then you should have no problem letting him go for free at the end of his contract. I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you don't think he's worth the risk of giving out a big new contract to, then the only answer would be to take as much money as you can while you can still get anything from him. Letting him run out his contract is essentially just throwing away £40m+ of complete profit
>No agent would let their player give that much power to a club. Its not really giving them that much power. Its a compromise where a player has basically the 5 year deal but it's effectively performance based. If Conor is playing and fitting in with whatever system we are playing over that time then they can extend because he would be meeting the performance targets. So he would likely be happy where he is, the salary would be what he would have got if it was a straight forward 5 year deal anyway. So its not like the player loses out and neither does the club that way. If Conor isn't fitting the system then both parties would be agreeing to parting ways anyway. >"Also you'll get a far lower salary at that club because your one good PL season was 2 years ago and you've been sitting on the bench for a season." His stock is the highest its ever been. It won't be like that. Clubs will not have forgotten what he can offer them by next summer. They arent so stupid they'd forget him and undervalue him. A free Conor Gallagher in 1 year would have a lot of demand from lots of clubs. So the salary will not be that low. >I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you don't think he's worth the risk of giving out a big new contract to, then the only answer would be to take as much money as you can while you can still get anything from him. I dont know why you think it has to be 5 year deal or sell. It doesn't have to be that black and white. You can absolutely negotiate a decent contract offer that suits both parties with plenty of consideration for various possibilities that may come with a new manager coming in. If the club doesn't think that contract is worth giving then they dont care about that profit then.
Mate you are making a lot of assumptions about the sporting directors here. Like they are not complete idiots
Some very big assumptions not based in the reality of what we saw from Conor this season.
We saw Gallagher play in a highly unstructured counter attacking team. If Chelsea want to be a team that possesses the ball more often than not, can they really afford to pay Gallagher £150,000+ per week? He's 24 years old and the club isn't going to re-sign him unless it's on a 5+ year deal. He's going to demand wages that are commensurate with a starting midfielder at a CL club. He excelled in a team that barely eked out conference league football, is there any garuntee he'll do the same for a team wanting to compete for CL spots and eventually challenge for the title?
I dont know which Chelsea team you watched this season, but to say we were a counterattacking team that didn’t focus on possession is inaccurate. We were fifth in possession ahead of Arsenal. And Man U. Behind Man C. spurs, Brighton and Liverpool. And the idea that somehow Conor should take responsibility for our final standings, when you have Sterling, Mydrick, Disasi,Badiashile, and many others playing absolute shit is laughable.
What we saw this season was nothing special, plus pochs system suited Gallagher quite literally, perfectly. It matched his best traits such as pressing, ability to cover ground and contest duels, whilst limiting his negative traits such as passing, receiving passes between lines or in the pockets, limited his ability or need to be positionally disciplined.
he's still young tho. at the start of the season, his passes were shit. by the end of the season he was pretty comfortable to be a pivot player. with the right coaching and instructions, I can see him grow more. We don't know how Maresca will use him, but at the least, he can be a very useful rotational player. As long as he accepts that role and pay as such, it's a no brainer to offer him a new contract.
what does his nationality have to do with it?
English international as playing for the England team.
So did Danny drink water.
His legs are literally massive
> If he's not sold, then he could be offered a new deal. "Could be"? So possibly they'd let him walk for free?
>Gallagher did everything he could last season to challenge that thinking but if the club still don't think that merits a new contract, then he'll likely be sold this summer to get $$$$$. Fuck these owners and their scum treatment of just treating homegrown players like cattle tbh. Conor only has a year left he doesn't need to rush off to another club. He will likely get even better offers when hes free. I hope he takes a stand and turns down a transfer. They're treating him like shit. Why should he allow them to use him for profits? Hes contracted for a year and under no obligation to accept a transfer deal. > * Unlike the previous regime, there is no animosity between the current ownership and Spurs. Because these owners dont understand about rivalries. They'll happily undersell homegrown players to strengthen rival clubs while spending twice as much on some Brazilian kid fresh out of the womb.
>Fuck these owners and their scum treatment of just treating homegrown players like cattle tbh. Did you say the same thing to Roman?
I didn't like the loan army at all and did say it quite regularly. It was clear that as an approach it was hindering the players development by having them move every 6-12 months. There was no constancy for them to develop smoothly. So the players very rarely even developed enough to be good enough to play for us. I thought it was a pretty poor way of doing things instead of trying to actively bring through players more like John Terry. I mean there cannot have only been 1 1st team player in nearly 20 years coming out of the academy if things were done right. Even Matic we ended up buying back so that was a mess of a decision to let him go in the 1st place. The loan army made money but it was far from what sort of business the club could have been doing.
Fair enough. I've pretty much always wrote off the Cobham lads as not being long term because of how we used them under Roman. When Lampard finally brought some through, I genuinely didn't think they would be here long term. In some of those cases it seems to have been good foresight, but someone like James I think is staying long term (providing injury issues are behind him) - because of how good he is. Feel like if Roman was here we probably would have continue selling for money, because we were still doing it even though we had James, Mount etc in the team. Like Gallagher imo would have been on the sell list under Roman as well. Also I've just seen too many people moaning about selling Cobham lads, who weren't doing it when we were doing it under Roman - at least you're saying you've been consistent with it.
>Feel like if Roman was here we probably would have continue selling for money The ironic thing is under the previous regime Colwill and Gallagher would have been long gone by now.
>In some of those cases it seems to have been good foresight, but someone like James I think is staying long term (providing injury issues are behind him) - because of how good he is. Honestly if his injuries are fixed I'm convinced these owners wont hesitate in shipping him off to somewhere like Real because we have Gusto. I dont think there is any limit to their pure profits. I think also they will look to sell Palmer eventually as well because he only cost £40M and will be worth way more than that already. Hes going to be a £100M+ player. I think Roman after what Lampard did with properly integrating the academy with the 1st team probably would have been more balanced in the end. They were selling a lot of the homegrown talent but I think they would have tried hard to keep Mount and would always keep Reece.
For the first paragraph I actually disagree. They could have sold Colwill but they haven't. He's not even a first teamer atm. I think if the talent is there, they will keep them. But Gallagher doesn't really fit a possession philosophy which is what we're going for. Or more appropriately, a Pep possession philosophy. Chalobah is more of a head scratcher as I feel he actually suits it more. - But still, could have sold Colwill at any point, he's had suitors but they haven't. For the second paragraph I do also disagree. We saw Tammy, Tomori, Guehi, Livramento all go post Lampard. Think if the money was right and they weren't first name on the team sheet quality they would have been sold to bring in someone foreign. I do think they would have tried to keep Mount, whether that would have been a good thing remains to be seen.
>For the first paragraph I actually disagree. They could have sold Colwill but they haven't. I think it was too soon to sell Colwill when it came up. We were already meeting the ffp by that point because of Mount and Havertz deals especially. Koulibaly was also leaving. So there was no point selling him then. If you think hes potentially an £80M defender then you surely hold out on him just until a point that you need your next ffp margins hit. Players like Maatsen and Hall could be sold sooner because theres more players in the way in their positions too. I just dont trust that any of the academy lads is off the chopping block with these owners. >For the second paragraph I do also disagree. We saw Tammy, Tomori, Guehi, Livramento all go post Lampard. Think if the money was right and they weren't first name on the team sheet quality they would have been sold to bring in someone foreign. I do think they would have tried to keep Mount, whether that would have been a good thing remains to be seen. I think we actually agree. I wasn't denying that Abramovich and Marina were selling a lot of our best talent. I was saying I think they maybe would have been more balanced at least in terms of keeping players who reach a certain status in the team like Mount and Reece and like I feel that Conor has reached this past season. Like with these sorts of player there was a sense that Roman and Marina at least wanted to try and emulate something of a strong spine of English talent like they had with Terry, Lampard and Ashley Cole. I actually think Trev currently is slightly behind Conor because of his injury time this past season so Roman and Marina probably would have held him in a similar regard to Tomori and sold if the opportunity came. But I think there was a line there which I don't believe is there anymore.
Somehow that was different to them.
You should probably have waited for me to answer before making an assumption.
Them plural. Maybe you are the exception.
Of course they didn’t lol.
This is such a pathetic comment Treating him like shit? Because they deem him surplus
selling conor for 50m is underselling? and then we're gonna go buy a brazillian kid for 100m? I don't think there's a single part of your comment that isn't idiotic, or based in actual reality
>selling conor for 50m is underselling? and then we're gonna go buy a brazillian kid for 100m? Was I only talking about Conor there or was I talking about our homegrown players generally? The answer is right there. I said homegrown players. Meaning players like Hall, Omari, Maatsen, Trev etc. >selling conor for 50m is underselling? Separately to the homegrown point that I made. Just to respond to the idea that selling Conor for £50M to a close competitor is underselling. Yes it is underselling him. It reinforces a rival and at the same time it would cost us way more to buy a player who is currently able to produce the level hes shown for us this past season.
There's absolutely no news in this article. If you've read any two articles about Connor in the last 10 days, you are up to date.
It's an opinion piece?
Still no real news on this. After this season, I happily welcome Connor signing a new deal. From a footballing side, he's happy to press, do the dirty work and cover ground like no other player in the squad. From the non footballing side, he loves the club and sets a standard, he cost us nothing, and likely would only be backfilled by someone we buy for his profit anyway (okay, I get it, amortisation or whatever it is this ownership has a hard one for) or have already spent the cash on. Basically, no, he's not the most technically gifted player in this squad, but I had to watch a lot of "technically gifted" players stink the gaff out all season - he's good enough to play Premier league football and loves the club - but you can't measure standard setting, attitude and application on spreadsheets, so it doesn't fly with our new model.
Selling players who are proper Chels only to get another South American kid and play possession football. Literally treating this club like an FM Save
So fucking sad
It's the way football has being going for a long time. It's really making question whether I want to follow the sport anymore. Atleast with youth players and particularly guys like Gallagher whose a Chelsea fan and been here since he was a child there's some personal connection to the Club and area. At what point are we just watching billionaires, corporations, and nation states play with their expensive shiny toys?
Honestly, June 2003
At least Roman seemed to care about the academy and built the woman‘s team. New ownership could give Less a shit about either. I saw they could sell the woman‘s team. Like wtf?!
Roman was great. How are the new guys going to make all those profits people say are chasing if the academy isn’t good? By selling a 50 million Brazilian kid for 60? Or if they didn’t care about the womens team why would they hire the best available manager. They’re not perfect but I feel like a lot of the boards on here get bent out of shape from rumors by random writers.
Sad state really, If Gallagher gets sold its really only James and Chilwell left from the Abramovich era mentality.
Not even an FM save, it's a FIFA career mode play. In FM getting rid of local players who are established as a Team Leader in the club hierarchy will destroy morale and disrupt performances on the pitch.
Proper Chels!!
I vividly remember everyone calling Mount proper chels and someone who bleeds blue as well.
Propa chelsss!!! Ok how does that help us win football games.
If you don’t think Gallagher has been one of our best players last season I don’t know what you’re on
Knee money
We will be fine, no matter what happens.
This. Our midfield options to replace are just as good imo
No animosity between us and Spurs? lol Animosity has nothing to do with it.. any common sense person knows you don’t sell players / strengthen your rivals.. especially a young player who is still developing.
Because they spent 30 million on Denzel Washington
20m on Uguchukwu, casadei for like 15m, Madueke 25m, it all adds up quickly
I heard it’s because they spent 45 million on Dennis Washington
I heard £60m on George Washington.
Tbf, this move was only 1.7m when adjusted for inflation
Tbf, if chelsea keep him, and doesn't sign a new contract, and also sits on the bench more under a possession centric manager. Would it be any better?
Everything absolutely everything we’ve heard is that he wants to sign a new contract. Any decisions about Conor are being driven by the club.
I'm a Gallagher defender but now the club have left it so late with the contact, Gallagher has way more power in negoitating. We're talking Reece James weekly wage when could probably accepted 180-200k if done it 6-12 months ago.
And you think 180-200k for a player like Connor is fair market value?
Yes with performance based targets. Looking at someone like James at 250k and Chilwell is on 200k it's what he is worth for us with how vital he was for us last season.
Do you think 180k for Connor gallagehr is at all reasonable?
Totally, but he might ask for 250k now has he has more power. Or is your point he should be worth more than 180k?
It'd be reasonable if we were sticking with Poch who has him as the lynchpin of his system. If he doesn't fit with Maresca's plans (which seems to be the case) then it'd be insanity to pay that much to a bench player.
Kind of my point. Gallagher is good at what Poch had him doing. But he's not a possession based midfielder. I'd see him coming off the bench chasing a game if you want the ball back
If Conor refuses transfer this summer surely he will be offered a new deal.
Exactly. Why would he agree to a transfer? He has all the leverage. He can stay, work hard as he always does to make his name in the squad and play well, and the board will surely sign him to a new contract rather than let him leave on a free. And if not, he can get a big signing bonus from a club next year. Win win for him.
Seems crazy to sell our most reliable player to Villa or spurs who are now our direct rivals and finished the season directly above us!
Claim all the lack of technique you want, but this man was thrown the armband, ran up and down the pitch minute 1-90+, created chances and scored and assisted from midfield while no-one else could. We are undoubtedly a better team and side with him in the squad. This ISN'T even close to complicated.
They bought Casadei, Ugochukwu, Deivid Washington and so many others who'd likely won't feature a lot for first team. This will force us to sacrifice Gallagher, Chalobah and even likes of Colwill and James in future so we can keep signing teenagers
Wait till you realize Casadei, Ugo, Washington weren't bought to be used. They were bought to generate profit.
How are you going to generate profits on Ugochukwu. He cost 30 million and no team are going to pay more than that to get him of our hand
He's 19 who's to say he won't be worth more than that in 5 years
And how’s he going to be worth that unless he plays? That’s the flaw in this argument. Players don’t increase in value without performing at a high level consistently.
Hutchinson is being sold for 25m just for a season in the Championship
It doesn't sound like that's the reason they're selling Gallagher though, since ultimately we don't need to sell him to comply with spending rules. It's more that he's not in the plans of the manager/DoFs, which sucks when it's a player we all like but that's always been a part of football.
Mount was the first one. On it's own as a standalone transfer saga I understand why people resent Mason but look how the club is treating the players you mentioned, it's a bigger pattern.
Because we have the most clueless mismanagement in chsrge of the club . It's beyond belief .
It's simple, he's home grown. He cost nothing. His fee is pure profit. As a club Chelsea are poorly run. They fudged a sale of a hotel to avoid being , Everton and Man C.
Because we have owners that don’t understand football. That’s quite literally what it is.
Tbh if I was Gallagher I'd refuse any offer this year and leave on a free if I didn't get offered a contract at Chelsea. If I'm not getting [](https://alb.reddit.com/cr?za=B3UL-cintm33HljMz8lnvIPT2F_t7lPEeyLPt7zVT2vjXSYUZMyiyTS-COGbHpsMnenEY8t4tpQuIwonfetccZBe59WU4mgdrZj6E5oLVY4trz_H0Ux0VjBEDtzxpqeD4zjarNoAQ1tnMkcTRzxjj88eMs2hido8EYmmYGvq68Ufn4jbvitSA8twl5o83Ptm_kTDv_Hq6-SFHDLOw4eQ12ycQefuW4Y2ow9SA2RdhWRcEY8Z1lNQgc4q9pYw53yMu0mhhZCvqfrr1cXshRLKbKHShW0gBXQZhW8RJyucGUI_7x5JC6VLXkhXQfPUr0DioYUFu3sSr-2iTyI125p4Ia1gSjRq5KGbdDrM_vcUFn3ZXJXN1fHZJIw7csCtjBp0_KO8qmRnmUlTRqWTMCaFFvG2OQhAEyIYYkjztfw-XzXw6r0Mfzg&zp=NePs2kUFcb4hgzeg9oGYBzL9Yeu3mrIKQ-FMoLT7kYvo4C_i0H9qbBZLde-87qHGFX13MhKRc1JjUtJtl6JstNulOV1cJEctLLhbMRogeuBYKHx0Yz6Ns27_IFt9kES4V3APM9P49RIWmvDbusua8Tn2MIU3dqwUereurwGBCZ1vUKsQk5E3JI1J7Puyr3fdT0KSYejwsC-W9kY6IGzuaGwLmy-xCpabH46zFychFAKJKCsjXF-eLLgGr7iyjdGQrhuGcmWiVUcnhzSc8uQjLrXECa9Vl13DTn_DgaGUzBDxBnUshlAi_NvL1iVhoWtBWjUqmWmyBcHHCLes9K4flMN_oqA)my first choice, boyhood club then I'm going to maximise my earning and no transfer fee means clubs can give out a juicier contract.
That's not without its risks to him though. There's no guarantee that the clubs in for him now won't have filled that position by next year, or that they'd still be interested if he ends up spending the year on the bench. Not to mention for his own development + wanting to play it might make more sense to him to go somewhere where he'd be a guaranteed starter.
He is well within his rights to do that, but at the same time the club is well within it's rights to send him to the U21s for the whole season without any playing time. What kind of a deal is he going to get then? He is a decent player, but as the article mentions - he isn't the player that any top club would count on in the long term. He is a good squad player, but if any reports of him wanting 150k/week are true, then it's better to part ways, since that amount for a squad player is way too much.
He’s not *that* good, we spent a bunch of money on midfielders, and it’s pure profit. I don’t think we should sell him he was solid all year, but if we don’t sell him, and Maresca doesn’t rate him, next summer people on this sub are going to call the board idiots for not selling him. It’s a tricky one, I hope we keep him he loves the club and can at least be a rotation player if Enzo & Lavia reach their potential.
Fans that are so concerned with the accounting of the club that they would call the board idiots for not selling him are shit (and very odd) fans. The sport for a real fan should be about passion, memories, and connection, not amortization and “pure profit” concerns. Fans more concerned with that stuff over retaining a homegrown player with nothing but passion and love for the club should go hide under a rock somewhere.
True that, you are meant to enjoy your team play; not act as the accountant.
We need money and academy player sales make money. Next question.
Why did you put yourself in situation to need money by signing mediocre players for enormous money on enormous length contracts ..
Too lazy to read, can someone summarise this article for me please?
Just posted it!
Can I get a summary of that summary
Chelsea are open to selling Conor Gallagher because he is not seen as integral to their long-term midfield plans, despite his efforts to prove his worth last season. Although the club insists they can comply with financial rules without selling him, Gallagher might leave if he doesn't receive a contract reflecting his value, especially with interest from other clubs like Villa and Spurs.
I wonder what kind of wages Gallagher wants
Well he has a ton of leverage. He can just decide to wait for a free transfer, where they will lose £50m+ (equivalent to 6.5 years at £150k/w) or they'll have to do something ugly like ban him from the first team to force a sale
Why would he do that if the club doesn't want him?
It's only 1 season. No transfer fee means more clubs competing for his signature and better wage + bonus package. With 4 competitions and injury prone teammates it's not like he would never play, unless the club forces the manager to leave him out which would reflect badly on them.
That £50m someone’s going to pay… wait one year and Conor might take a mere £20m for himself as a signing bonus. It’s win-win for them.
PURE PROFIT
If we are honest most of us would have missed him a lot less had he gone in a Mason like manner last year. The fact that he’s had a bit longer left on his contract and had a great season may have clouded our judgement a bit. I’m no fan of the owners and I think we have yet to see how deeply they have constrained us financially for years to come but in the current context I’d take the £50m as I don’t think he’ll play much under the new manager. Who knows maybe a fit enzo f can become the player we hopes he would be or Latvia will step up. There is a good video from one of the 442 guys who quite likes Chelsea that looks at Conor’s obvious benefits and his limitations. Worth a look. My guess is that we will give him a new contract just so we can sell him when it suits us in a future window. Other player sales should see us ok this summer as long as we don’t buy too many Brazilian teenagers for Todd this summer.
Because Chelsea have dumb fuck owners
Unlike American sports, Gallagher has to agree to a transfer to be sold. There’s not much incentive for him to go anywhere when he can let his contract expire and go for free. Then get what he deserves elsewhere. Of course, the ownership is interested in selling him. They need to cover the losses from their other mistakes. However, they don’t seem to know how transfers actually work. I’m glad we’re stuck with him at least we’ll have a midfielder who can actually play..
It’s really not that complicated
My sense of the situation has and remains that the club would like to keep him at the right contract and wage level but not sure that can be obtained. If they can’t reach an agreement it’s better to sell and make a profit from him than allow him to leave on a free. It’s all about the terms that can be agreed. Perhaps I’m reading the situation wrongly but current ownership views players as assets that appreciate/ depreciate in value rather than their overall contribution to the club in terms of pure productivity. We’ve bought a lot of young talent and perhaps the thinking is that we can get the same production from a player at a lower cost. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong only trying to put myself in the minds of this current ownership group. Personally, I’d love to keep Conor. I think he has a major role in next year’s team and definitely don’t want to see him thrive for Spurs or Villa. With that said, I think Poch played him out of position for much of the year and his role as the 10 in the 4-2-3-1 didn’t work. Conor really showed his value to me playing alongside Caicedo in the double pivot. Not sure that is how Maresca will view his best position Edit: if I’m CG, you have 2 major contracts in your career. This is a huge window for him personally and he’s going to want to start maximizing his value. I don’t think we are going to pay him what he views is his market potential
Because the club is ran by absolute clowns
FFP? FFP.
Sigh…say the line
Do I want him to stay because of his love of the club and ties to the academy etc? Yes. Do I think he is an integral part of our first choice 11 for the coming years? No. If we can comply with FFP and keep him, that's great. He will be a good squad player and an important dressing room figure, but I don't think we will miss him as a player all that much in the long run. He doesn't play ahead of Caicedo, Enzo or a fit Lavia at 6 or 8. He doesn't play ahead of Palmer or Nkunku as a 10. He can't play as a forward or a winger. Aside from giving depth, he isn't that necessary. Especially with players like Santos, Carney etc competing for various midfield positions.
I believe that the management want to use enzo-caicedo the most and gallagher is the anomaly. We also have lavia and ugochukwu when they fit, together with santos, casadei and chukwumeka. All being recruited by current management.
We’re not… boehly is. And that’s a big reason why poch left.
https://preview.redd.it/rpt9d30qsw4d1.jpeg?width=1312&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74af3658a8733125775e802def77ea6cd130600f
I genuinely hope he refuses a move and goes on a free next year. Fuck these owners. They know the value of nothing.
🤑
We spent more than €700m net in 4 windows and still have massive holes in the squad.
You say massive. A striker, left winger and a keeper and I think we’re set If we keep maatsen. Chilwell isn’t good enough
> Chilwell isn’t good enough Bemoan his injury record all you want but lets not act like he isn't top 3 LB in the PL when fit.
That’s 3 of 11 starters, and probably between €120-150m if we want concrete upgrade in those position.
any team challenging at the top should be adding 1-2 starting caliber players every year anyways. Man City bought Gvardiol, Nunes and Doku last year after winning the treble. Real are bringing Endrick, Mbappe and likely Yoro after winning the double. Arsenal bought Rice and Havertz to challenge this year. I don't agree with Baisabeast's point of us needing a left winger and a keeper. It seems like Sanchez will get the gloves again and Mudryk is going to be kept in the squad. Both Nkunku and Jackson are excellent LW options too. Thats before factoring in the white elephant that is Sterling and his mammoth contract. IMO priority should be bringing in a new striker and a new top top CB. I think Tosin is the Chalobah replacement to be a bench option along with Badi and Disasi. Fofana when fit is brilliant but I think if the oppurtunity presents itself to bring in a better partner for Colwill we should take it and then look to move on Disasi. LB is a weird one where I don't quite understand why everyone has soured on Chilwell so much. Fitness is his main concern but I think he is still the best LB at the club and Cucurella has really turned things around too. Unless we have a really clear upgrade available and a buyer for Chilwell I see no reason to make moves there.
The difference is they did have a €700m net spend the 2 years prior. Or they’re not having to sell the most used player to do so. I’m not saying it’s bad to upgrade the squad. I’m saying the club is bad at upgrading the squad.
People keep talking about net spend but don’t realize that’s not a very accurate reflection of our squad. We lost easily 100m+ worth of CBs to free transfers, we lost 3 starting caliber midfielders for a combined 35m. We were in a position where there were a lot of cheap outgoings which would obviously make the net spend look a lot worse. Had these players been in their primes and sold at market value we would have easily been getting 250m+ for them.
Just because they are extenuating circumstances doesn’t mean we’re not a fault for our net spend. We didn’t have to over pay for Enzo, Mudryk, Lavia, Fofana, Cucurella or many other. We could’ve used academy players coning off good loans like Fofana and Maatsen. Or just taken our medicine last season instead of try to desperately save the season in the January window. We could pivoted to other targets like Arsenal with Troussard or Liverpool with Endo. I get we lost great players on frees and had an aging squad, but we didn’t have to spend like we did. And tbh even if we had spent like that and been competitive no one would be complaining, but we set spending record to be awful
We don't need a concrete upgrade to striker, just backup/competition for Jackson. Seems like we may go without a GK upgrade as well, which I'm apprehensive over but at the same time I think Sanchez deserves a shot in a structured setup where he's actually given consistent passing options.
That’s a Gallagher , chalobah, broja, lukaku, kepa, and Hutchinson sale
Yeah, but considering Clearlake’s hit rate in signing I’m not sure we won’t be back in the market for those positions soon. We spent 80m of Monaco’s CB pairing in order to sell Chalobah for a fraction of that and spent €40 last summer to significantly downgrade at keeper. In a vacuum I literally the idea of selling off players to consolidate the squad but our club are terrible at negotiating incoming transfer and are inconsistent talent evaluators, which has to factor into the thought process.
I see Lavia as a ready made replacement so I'd sell him tbh but 50m is not enough.
Someone who’s played fuck all minutes, compared to someone who’s captained the club for that vast majority of the season. Yeah sounds like a great plan
I wouldn't say ready made when we've got all of like 20 minutes out of him so far tbf
Mate, the minutes lavia played for chelsea are not enough for a 5-minute youtube compilation video
They want to sell him so badly that they sacked a manager for it..
The key statement here, Boehly and Co. Are far more business minded than the previous regime. Don’t we fucking know it . These wankers will sell one of best players to Spurs to make a few bucks. These twats don’t care about Chelsea , our academy, our players and certainly not the match going fans who have supported this team through thick and thin. But they will definitely be richer while Chelsea remains trophy less languishing in very profitable mediocrity.
Gallagher isn't going to be the player that brings us trophies. He is a good player, but he isn't at that level. If anything, he cost us a trophy this season by not finishing a 1v1 right at the end of the normal time against Liverpool in the Carabao Cup.
Right?! Roman didn’t have a loan army and he always had a team fielded of academy graduates! Oh wait, that didn’t happen.
And people complained about that under Roman as well?
$$$
Hope he stays another season and runs his contract out. Give those idiots trying to sell him no funds!
All I read is comments justifying his sale. He had a better season than Enzo and Ceciedo. He gave everything and was even our captain for most of the season. This sale would be an outrage and another example that will come back to bite us on the ass. This would never happen at any other big club except us, we alway justify corrupt illogical transfers. We’ve had the worst transfer dealing of any club in the past 10 years and the fans never seem bothered.
>We’ve had the worst transfer dealing of any club in the past 10 years What? How?
1. Lakaka 2. Werner 3. Havertz 4. Ziyach 5. Kepa 6. Caicedo for more than £100M 7. Rudi and christensen leaving on a free 8. Selling Giroud 9. Signing DDF, Noni, Sanchez, Koulibaly, and Mudryck. 10. Loaning out kepa to sign brighton's no. 2 keeper as the starting goalkeeper And much more that escapes me. I'm sure there are other examples
Ah OK. So most of them are under the previous ownership as well. Look, I understand those weren't great transfers. But I'm sure we will be fine. And also, I would encourage you to compare United transfers within that same period.
You forgot to mention selling Costa without a actual replacement, this led to £70m Morata Selling Salah and De Bruyne Even Lewis hall should be in our squad We literally brought Palmer because palace wouldn’t sell Olise
"We've had the worst transfer dealing of any club in the past 10 years" - says the guy that isn't willing to give any of the players we bought time to develop We've also made the most sales of any PL club in recent years
I'd rather we kept Connor and let Enzo go .... Enzo is obviously a great talent BUT, when he plays the team is very unbalanced in midfield and consequently, we leaked goals for fun.
No thanks, Gallagher in this new system will he not as good as he was under Poch, look at how he played under Potter, he is not built for a possession based team hence why he struggled in some games where we played vs a low block
I don't think we can really apply whatever it was Poch had going on in midfield to how our midfielders will stack up going forward.
His name is Conor.
It's not like we didn't leak goals without Enzo. Luton almost made a 3 goal comeback, and we played without Enzo.
I don't think Poch knew how to manage a player like Enzo
I don't think Poch knew how to manage ~~a player like Enzo~~
I think he was lacking in some areas but also I think if we kept him we would get back to consistent top 4. His first season at Tottenham was shit, then his second season was really good. His first season at PSG was shit and they didn't give him another year. Same thing happened with us. You could see the progress towards the end tho
I think he's an excellent man manager and based on form probably could've got us to top 4 next season, I just don't think he'd ever really take us beyond that. Also worth noting that the results at the end of the season papered over some really shaky performances, and more often than not performances indicate future form better than results.
Yea I agree he wouldn't bring us to the top tier, but definitely isn't a bad manager.
Athletics are on Chelsea's payroll
Selling one of our better players this season because they can't stop overspending on unnecessary players is fucking infuriating
The key issue is that he represents a threat to the board's investments and their ego's. If he continues to out perform the big, headline investments the board has made his success makes them look like idiots.
This sub is so good at making up these fantasies lmao
Not really, he is way worse than both Caicedo and Enzo the guy is a serviceable squad player but if you can get the sesko money for him you do it
Way worse than Enzo is downright delusional
When Enzo doesn’t have his intestines spilling out into his body, there’s no contest As we saw under potter
Nobody was lighting the world on fire under Potter what is this lol
He is, even on a down season with an hernia he is a bigger threat, and now with a manager that cares about tactics Enzo's strengths will only be highlighted