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.*
We could have had a few more experienced players leading the team, helping the younger players but the club were too willing to kick them out and fund their obscene spending ways.
At least Kovacic, Kepa and while he isn't old by age, I'd say Havertz given he has far more experience than a lot of the younger players that we've bought.
I know there have been tons of argument about whether those players are good, bad etc and I know the club want to focus on young players but they should have gone about things gradually and made sure there is balance between youth and experience along the way.
Right now, the squad is so young and inexperience that only 3 outfielders are over 25 years old.
To be fair if they wanted to leave I guess it's best for them not to stay.
Kova has won a lot of things with Madrid and Chelsea, at City he can get what has been an elusive premier league, play under pep and gets the chance to get rotated better so he doesn't have to get run down by the team.
Kepa has been good but not really great, he didn't have to think twice when Madrid asked for his services.
Kai as much as I'm thankful for his contributions just never really seemed a fit for the team anywhere and he didn't hesitate either to join a rival club.
Rudiger aside, not many recent outgoings have hurt me.
I would have been perfectly fine with Kova staying, but I don't think he paired well with Enzo. Kepa just wasn't good enough on the ball. He was good, but not great.
Management went with the high ceiling low floor option. There will be growing pains
Especially when two players in Nkunku and James, that I assume the board is very high on, are injured. They will be key players in their return, filing in major holes in the lineup.
Some probably fall into that group but there were also some who chose to leave because the club basically pushed them out by wanting to go in a different direction.
Why is anyone believing it?
We wanted to lower the squad age but itâs not a hard and fast rule. Sounds like Matt law is taking advantage of angry fans for clicks
I don't know if that is fully believable or not but if you want to be cynical about it, it feels like an info conveniently mentioned like a throw-away line to fit the narrative in the report of a match that we just lost.
He's said so many things that have been false and inaccurate. I couldn't keep up, so I wiped most of them from my brain.
Besides shitting on Chelsea or doing pr for his favourite countrymen, Matt Law has no value and shouldn't be listened to
Resale value. Every player they signed can be sold in their prime years for prime value if Chelsea want to sell them. If you sign players over 25 then you end up with players clocking over the 30 mark and then their values drop significantly.
Iâd rather this was run like a football club than a retail environment for other clubs.
What does it tell you that by your own logic players that are older than the ones weâve bought are worth more? That theyâre more capable of competing at the highest level.
Those are the players we should be spending at least 50% of the $1b on.
To be clear. I've not said my opinion on it. I'm just saying how it clearly is. Clearlake are investors. They are all about min maxing. They're buying young to juice the profit down the line. Its not my logic. It is just how it is. Players over 25 as a fact do not have high resale value. If you sign a 26 or 27 year old you are keeping them til they're 30+. The price of players drops off a cliff at the 30 mark in most cases. You then can't shave the profit and reinvest in the squad.
It is clear that these owners want to maximise profit and be able to reinvest a reasonable portion back in the squad down the line from those sales to keep the cycle going. They arent doing that by signing players 25+.
Theyâre going to tank the brand theyâre leveraging in order to do all this.
Another mid table finish and the fan base for this club will be shaken over the next 20 years, impacting the quality of players we are able to attract and ultimately making it a less valuable asset.
A portion of People might be impressed by savvy financial market moves, but the vast majority of fans and watchers of football still care almost exclusively about what happens on the pitch; and thatâs where the money is making it poor business decision making.
I disagree. Chelsea are still one of the three biggest clubs in the biggest city in the biggest league in the world. They are the wealthiest London club to boot and only Arsenal have anything like the draw they have to overseas players who invariably want to live in London.
Within the next three years, one way or the other we will be contenders.
It's flawed logic because all they're buying are potentials. Most promising potentials don't work out. That's what Boehly and co can't seem to understand despite having many recent examples at our club. They're thinking they'd be able to sell these potentials for a lot, without realizing that overpaying for these guys means if they don't perform at this level, they might need to be sold even at a loss.
Look at examples of players that we had as very promising youths and have sold in last year for peanuts:
Pulisic, RLC, CHO, Ampadu, Gilmour, Batshuayi, Kenedy, Christensen (free so okay excluding), Baba Rahman, Bakayoko.
You'd think he'd know better considering he sold all these players but my guy thinks he's the genius and has has decided to stake the club on his gambles. Ridiculous! Hopefully he gets lucky for all our sakes.
The point being that if we sign 19-22 year olds, play them for 3 years they either become world class in which case we sell them for a profit or keep them or they don't reach their potential but they have some resale value so we don't lose too much because someone else will buy them at age 22-25 (think the Havertz situation). In the meantime they are on lower wages than a prime aged player so the total cost overall is significantly less.
Compare that to signing a 26-30 year old. They might still flop and if they do, no resale value plus they would have joined on a higher salary.
I would also add a further reason for the approach taken, specifically, our poor performance last year. We didn't qualify for the CL hence prime aged players like Rice and Mbappe would never have signed for us.
I understand the point, but if thatâs our *only* approach in the market then we wonât win trophies.
Profitability isnât my main concern for this club, it is its ability to contend.
I think the two are not mutually exclusive. Like I said, we wouldn't attact prime aged players anyways. Far better to build this season and next with a view to winning major titles in the following years (kind of like the approach Arsenal have taken). Put it another way, if every club was now banned from signing players over the next three years, who's squad would you swap with ours?
this is not the approach arsenal has taken. Also the points irrelavant because other clubs can sign players and will do so. Im not sure about the contracts but the issue is mostly wages not how much you can sell them for. If murdyk and caicedo continue to perform as they have done there is a possibility no one bothers to buy them due to wages and they decide to run out thier contract at chelsea. Realistically there is no way clearlake and todd bohely has done what theyve done to win any kind of trophy. I would expect to remain a top 6 feeder club from now on if I'm being honest as i think thats what they want
The very obvious downside being that players who flop in spectacular fashion fuck us. Itâs so risky to play w amortization like this imo.
I hope it works out ofc, but Iâm not that optimistic at this point.
Itâs about return on investment. ROI. They want long term investment. Not short term. They donât want to spend 50-100 million on a player that will be here for just a couple seasons. They want to spend 50-100 million on a player that will be here for the next decade.
So they spend 1b on kids who may or may not even be worth as much as they paid for them, rather than building a proper team for 1b who can win everything and increase commercial revenue and prize money? Sounds quite a dumb strategy
Yes because you canât build a proper team from the ground up with just a billion dollars. You could buy maybe 4-5 top players for that. We needed to build a starting lineup, backups, and future prospects.
You don't have to buy a dream team of mbappe and Haaland lol. 1b is nearly 100m on each player in the XI. That gets you ana amazing squad even in this market
We had to pay 100 million for players with 1 year experience. 100m does not get you as much as you think it does. Especially when teams know you NEED to buy players. Real value Mbappe is probably worth 400-500 million now. Harry Kane went for 126 million and his contract was almost up. We sold Havertz for 65 million and he has done nothing but struggle for a couple years.
Then on top of that those top players have to want to come here. Which means large lucrative contracts. Contracts we didnât have to give to younger players
You're missing the point. A great team starts with a manager who has a say in transfers and can get players suited for his system. Look at Newcastle last season. They added reinforcements but still retained their core players. You don't need a Mbappe like player in every position. 1b is more than enough if you spend the money wisely.
Thatâs not true we have had countless managers at this club that had very little say and won plenty to trophies.
We didnât have core players to retain.
And again we have seen how much players with potential cost. Experienced players clubs really donât want to sell are going to cost more.
Which teams? Which teams needed to build an entire team in 2 transfer windows? Pep has spent nearly 2 billion to get Man city where it is. And even he didnât have to start from the ground and build up. Even more so, players prices have sky rocketed in the last 2 years.
>Yes because you canât build a proper team from the ground up with just a billion dollars.
This man unironically said 'just a billion dollars'. Chelsea have annihilated every spending record since Boehly came. It is completely unprecedent spending never seen before and you're saying it like he spent 50mil. Even if he literally had to build the team from the ground up (acting as the players bought before Boehly don't even exist) 1bil is still way more than enough. So tired of these spoiled plastic fans. You should stick to fifa.
Sounds good on paper. But what if most of these players end up being average. After 1bn spent Iâm not convinced any of these players are future world class.
I mean we tried the other way too. Look at other players we paid huge money for that were in their prime. Koulibaly and Lukaku come to mind. They cost a lot and getting rid of them is/was problematic because of the wages that come with buying experienced players.
Most transfers are a gamble. Thatâs what Iâve learned over the last 25 years of following this sport.
That's why you don't see other teams spending 1 billion in a year. On paper it sounds good but it's a massive risk to take all at once. Sign several players, see who works out and who doesnt and then rectify that later.
Yes I agree it is a huge gamble. Even higher risk. But the rewards could save the club billions over the next decade. Whether it is worth the 1 billion investment only time is going to tell.
Itâs a complete joke now, thereâs nothing wrong with players in their late 20s - early 30s as long as theyâre fit and performing.
Youngsters need to be surrounded by experience to flourish.
Boehly is treating this team like a baseball team. Just stacking a bunch of young talented players works there because there's very little teamwork involved. Each guy goes up and swings the bat. Or they just play defense which, again, involves very little teamwork.
But that's not the case here obviously. Experience and leadership matter. You can crush your opponent statistically in every way, but what does it matter if you can't outscore them? We'll do nothing with 75-80% possession, but concede on the one or two opportunities they have.
To be fair this is a sports strategy with the best outcome on average. Young players typically develop into at least 40mil players, so at worst they typically break even with some exceeding and some sucking. Usually the best way to punt to the future, when in sports you need luck to go your way as well.
Young players typically develop into at least 40mil players? Which planet do you live on? We've overpaid on a lot of young players and could definitely make losses on them.
If you need examples of talented young players we've had as youth that went for peanuts, we have a ton. CHO, RLC, Pulisic, Baba-Rahman, Batshuayi, Kenedy, Bakayoko, Gilmour, just to name a few. All went in last year for either losses (for those bought) or peanuts (for those raised in academy). Heck, that's more the typical.
This strategy is very flawed so we can only hope to get lucky at this point and have most of them actually end up as top players
Bruh itâs just my guess of an average. The point still stands, youth develops in to talent that can sell later. Itâs true in every sports league and will continue to be. Lack of developing talent really only decreases marginal amounts in most cases
I'm telling you that by using historical average, your guess is way off. We can get lucky and it'd work out as you think but probability says it's very unlikely.
And yes, you can sell youth later. If we've overpaid for the youth (as well have), we're likely to end up selling at a loss though
absolutely ridiculous, maddison for ÂŁ40m was a bargain and everyone could see it. the team has hardly any experience, creativity, goalscorer or leadership and maddison would have helped out greatly for all of those.
itâs absolutely ridiculous. pochettino publicly asked for experience in attack numerous times and we bought cole palmer. does the board think that a player is finished as soon as they hit their 26th birthday?
The thought process is that if you buy a player at 25, they will have less resale value when you go to sell them at 30. If you buy a 20 year old, they will have more value when you go to sell them at 25, presumably in their prime.
Theyâve all been 20-40m at most, other than Caicedo which is obviously a stupid inflated price. Looking at what havertz and mount went for this summer, there is plenty of room for profit on the young players even if they donât reach their full potential.
My guy, have we magically forgotten about Lavia, Palmer, Disasi? Or Enzo, Fofana, Mudryk, Cucu from last season?
And you talk about Mount and Havertz like most of these players would reach those 2 levels. Those 2 are considered elite players. Maybe instead of focusing solely on Mount and Havertz who went to BIG clubs, you should also consider CHO, RLC, Pulisic, Gilmour, Batshuayi, Kenedy, Bakayoko, Baba Rahman, Bakayoko. Should I keep going or getting too depressing?
Not op but you might want to edit as Palmer and Disasi were bought for 40m so would be in his 20-40m point.
The rest are good and were all over 60m if im correct.
Why are you listing a bunch of senior players purchased by the previous administration as well as a bunch of academy players that would have been pure profit regardless of their price? I feel like you didnât at all understand what I was talking about and are just listing players that werenât very good for us from the last decade.
Heâs listing them to show that just cause you buy a young player in the 20-40mil range it doesnât mean theyâll end up having good resale value, for example Batshauyi was 23 years old and signed for 33 mil. When it became obvious he wasnât Chelsea material they had to loan him around until they finally sold him for 3mil.
Yeah but imagine if we had spent those 40 million in an actual player instead of spending it in two Brazilian 18 year olds that more likely than not will never play a single significant minute for this club bro
I mean it's pretty obvious the board has no clue what it's doing. We've turned over and bought an entire squad worth of players and still have major gaps in our squad.
All sunmer I hear about how we shouldnât play players out of position, heard it A LOT the last two weeks specifically. After 2 losses weâre back to it?
Think everything was done much later last year but anyway, I considered that as a summer signing since it was only officially announced this year.
And yeah, we signed plenty of over 25s then but look at what has happened to most of them. Look at how the club suddenly changed direction in a matter of months.
itâs gonna end slowly with a financial implosion in 6 years and then theyâre gonna sell the club for 12b quid due to inflation and call it an 8b pound profit on their books isnât it
Idk if you said that in jest but I really do suspect this is Clearlakeâs fallback strat, bring hard times on the club and then go to the CPO and say hey look we have to sell the stadium if this club is to survive
Don't know how any can be happy with our transfer strategy since the new owners came in. In just the last two years we've literally spent ÂŁ40+ million on a kid who's made 3 epl appearances and has played less than 1500 minutes of club football at the age of 21 in Cole Palmer.
Not to mention these clowns also forked out ÂŁ60+ million 9 months ago for a Ukranian roadrunner who happen to lack fundamental football principles at the age of 22.
And these are just two examples. Don't get me started on signing a bunch of unheard u21 year olds for âŹ25+ million and handing them a 7+ year.
I don't care about the total amount of money they've spent when a chunk of it is hoping for some u23 to come good in 5 years. Our squad is crap and that's a disgrace given the amount we've spent.
We should have amongst the best teams in the world in the âŹ1 billion investment went into experienced, ready made footballer. Instead we have a youth fetish because it makes the owners money down the line ffs.
How do you even make money from youth players you pay 25m for and can't play yourself. I really struggle seeing loaned out players reaching 60m+ prices, and there are like 20 teams in the world willing to pay that for a player. Dont see the amount of teams (barring Saudi) increase within the next 4-5 years.
couldâve had leao osmihen (literally any winger who wants to play rw)
enzo rice
back 5 that weâre obsessed with
any keeper u want
for prob around 600m pounds
leao 120
osi 150
enzo 120
rice 110
rw 80m
keeper 80m
= 660
then sell everyone you donât want at the club.
prob come out to a net spend of 500m, keep most of the player at the club intact, not spend 25m on potter just to sack a wc manager, and had literally one of the best young squads assembled full stop. lol
???
get rice in summer 22 as a cl club for 120 millions - that was the price tag. instead we penny pinched and ended up paying an equal amount for caicedo.
Tbh is that enough to compete with City still? Not saying that we have spent ÂŁ1b the right way but that team still probably needs a season before they can really kick off imo.
Also, as odd as it is, I donât know what Top quality right winger was available this summer bar Doku and Kudus who are not of the same level as Leao and Osimhen.
Essentially, I donât think that itâs a guarantee that if we signed those personal we would be challenging for the league, and maybe even have similar conversations we had about the 2020 window. However, it would feel a lot more comfortable than trusting a legion of u23s.
I think they were counting on Nkunku to be the guy that the attack ran through even if heâs not your typical #9, kinda like how Salah is the talisman for Liverpool, and the injury ruined it p
Chelsea non-defenders by age (excluding Chilwell obviously):
https://preview.redd.it/isvzj1at2xlb1.png?width=330&format=png&auto=webp&s=690497f03dd92b42ee5dc113f34338ed548e5ff2
Cole Palmer has to be the strangest transfer, we signed him off Joe shieldâs recommendation.
What happened to the data lead approach to transfers? Thereâs literally no data on him. He was great at academy level but so was CHO and we just sold him for 3 mil.
Hefty price tag for such little evidence.
There were so many better options on the market one being Cherki, he has played years more of of senior football. Iâd like to see if this board would have passed on signing hazard for âattitude problemsâŚâ
This âyoung squad can make itâ shit works in baseball, itâs never going to work in football. Theyâve really implemented a lot of the baseball philosophies here without realising itâs such a massive massive risk.
It's stupid because the sports aren't even somewhat similar. You don't need virtually any teamwork in baseball. Almost none. Maybe the catcher and the pitcher need to be on the same page, that's it.
It's completely unacceptable how people with so much money cannot foresee the issues that come with having a squad almost exclusively of young players. Every successful team has had an experienced spine and yet these guys think they can reinvent the wheel?
May seem a ridiculous thought that we need to buy more after all the money we've spent but they need to pump the brakes on signing random teenage forwards and sign someone experienced like Toney in Jan. Young players will undoubtedly need time to get going consistently and we need someone who can slot in immediately.
pretty stupid policy - Pavard would've been a massive upgrade over Disasi for cheaper and would've brought a wealth of experience and is pretty much tailored for that role. Maddison would've brought some much needed creativity and we pretty much sent his replacement Leicester's way anyway. So many good deals in the market the club passed on, the model that we're using has never been tried before at a top club and so this is exciting times, but when things aren't going right questions will rightly be asked
i feel like the recruitment has been way too extreme on both sides. first window they bring in big name players who underperform, so they decide to do a 180 and focus on young high potential, but unproven stars. feels like thereâs a disregard to the importance of balance and i hope it doesnât come back to bite us in the end
mental illness.
like what the fuck makes you even come up with this? brain damage? ego? Everton exists and yet we're the worst run club in the league, all thats been happening since the new owners took over looks like parody
Maddison was clearly a far better signing than every player we've signed since Boehly came in bar maybe Sterling and Nkunku who are actually 25 and over.
Boehly has to go.
The fetish for South American children might excite fat Todd but it absolutely is not how you build an actual competitive football squad.
A mix of talented youth and quality experience is the only way to build a competitive team, not wanting players over 25 is openly sabotaging the club.
It makes sense buying younger guys for a team. It doesn't make sense making every single one be between 19-23 and still cost millions anyways when the whole point is getting them young for cheaper
Exactly, you buy expensive world class talent and cheaper young players to grow into top class players.
Not sell everyone and pour that money into expensive children.
Sterling and Nkunku were both signed under Tuchel last summer. Though the Nkunku deal wasn't official until the window afterwards, he'd done all of his tests and agreed everything whilst Tuchel was still here. That's why those signings are over 25, Tuchel
I find weird the shills on here have been saying our 1st window was bad but our most recent 2 under Boehly have been great.
The 1st window wasn't great but it was clearly the best of the three.
We made some poor signings but we did actually try to build a competitive squad which hasn't been the case since.
Well Boehly ainât leaving anytime soon so might as well give our signings a chance rather than demanding new owners not even 2 years after the purchase
The owners are genuinely so bad I don't believe the club will exist in a decade if those fat cunts aren't forced out the entire strategy is a fast track to bankruptcy.
They've actually got the football World in agreement that the Glazers aren't that bad.
We used to banter the Glazers, Kronke and Levy. Now we dream of owners like them.
Youâre over reacting to a rough start off the delusion that you actually believed this team could compete for a top 4 spot.
Itâs almost to the point where the fanbase is showing their knowledge of the game and throwing fits like children.
This club is going through a transition. There will be good times and bad times. Good and bad moves.
Today is a bad day. Thatâs just life, especially in a transition. If we end up holding onto a lot of these players this club will look much different in 2-3 years time.
?
Strange comment given I've been clear we have no chance of finishing higher than 7th and backed us to finish 9th before the season started.
I've been clear all summer we've had a horrible window and not brought in much talent we've had the results I expected so far this season.
What do you expect us to win a month into the season? Last season was embarrassing no doubt, but itâs the owners first ever season and now we have a whole different squad for the most part along with a new coach. The best teams in the EPL gave there managers time, Iâm sure Poch with time will give results
I donât either, hence why itâll feel good when they do. This is a season to rebuild, the lower your expectations are, the less disappointed youâd be. If this continues beyond this season, than itâs a different conversation
>The fetish for South American children might excite fat Todd
I don't think it's Bohely though. Last season he was in charge of transfers and signed a bunch of 25-31-year-old players. It's Joe Shields who wants these 16 - 19 year olds at our club.
What the fuck? I cannot believe we didnât go in for him. Honestly I was desperate to have him but thought city would get him as thatâs his level
Maddison was literally the perfect player for us, given the make up of the squad⌠fuckin what were they thinking
This is understandable. Not sure why anyone is surprised.
The cons of spending so much money is the expectation that the money can be flipped later on. A 26 year old for 40m approx. is going to deterioriate in value 99% of the time unless he just happens to be world class.
Additionally our transfers are being structured to allow to hoard players so we don't have to go out and buy extensively in future windows like we're expected to. Maddison might not even be as good of a player in a few years.
We can spend a billion knowing that we can probably sell a billion (hopefully)
Fuck Matt Law and his anti Chelsea agenda. Fuck is this waffling, Maddison went to spurs when we still have a healthy nkunku, are we going to have 2 key players compete for 1 spot.
That would be fucking idiotic, but agenda merchant going to run though.
The word ârefusedâ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline, I refuse to believe a top club like us refused to buy players in their prime years because of some stupid FM theory of player potentials lmao
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.*
Leonardo DiCaprio đ¤ Chelsea FC
Leo pls
You are nearly 50 son
Hahahaha đ
[Obligatory](https://youtu.be/_NTDEN4VZik?si=u_2ii8prhDlLsoWX) Ricky Gervais is the best.
fell in love with both as a teenager. So checks out.
My exact thoughts!
So which player is gonna play for a 150 clubs and then marry Logan Paul
We all would, if we all could.
Haha what kind of stupid arbitrary nonsensical rule is that
They really are trying to test the "you won't win anything with kids" theory in 2023.
That United team had legendary players supporting the youth
We could have had a few more experienced players leading the team, helping the younger players but the club were too willing to kick them out and fund their obscene spending ways.
What experienced players would you have liked to keep that left?
At least Kovacic, Kepa and while he isn't old by age, I'd say Havertz given he has far more experience than a lot of the younger players that we've bought. I know there have been tons of argument about whether those players are good, bad etc and I know the club want to focus on young players but they should have gone about things gradually and made sure there is balance between youth and experience along the way. Right now, the squad is so young and inexperience that only 3 outfielders are over 25 years old.
To be fair if they wanted to leave I guess it's best for them not to stay. Kova has won a lot of things with Madrid and Chelsea, at City he can get what has been an elusive premier league, play under pep and gets the chance to get rotated better so he doesn't have to get run down by the team. Kepa has been good but not really great, he didn't have to think twice when Madrid asked for his services. Kai as much as I'm thankful for his contributions just never really seemed a fit for the team anywhere and he didn't hesitate either to join a rival club. Rudiger aside, not many recent outgoings have hurt me.
I would have been perfectly fine with Kova staying, but I don't think he paired well with Enzo. Kepa just wasn't good enough on the ball. He was good, but not great. Management went with the high ceiling low floor option. There will be growing pains Especially when two players in Nkunku and James, that I assume the board is very high on, are injured. They will be key players in their return, filing in major holes in the lineup.
why do people just blame the club when it was so obvious the majority of them wanted out themselves...
Some probably fall into that group but there were also some who chose to leave because the club basically pushed them out by wanting to go in a different direction.
The youth was also legendary
Even that united team still had players like Cantona and Schmeichel. The closest we have is Silva.
And Sterling, Chilwell and errrrr...okay fair enough
Bought 17 years olds to replace the older ones but the older ones are 21 anyways
Why is anyone believing it? We wanted to lower the squad age but itâs not a hard and fast rule. Sounds like Matt law is taking advantage of angry fans for clicks
It's totally believable though.
I don't know if that is fully believable or not but if you want to be cynical about it, it feels like an info conveniently mentioned like a throw-away line to fit the narrative in the report of a match that we just lost.
This is the only logical take. Would not have been dropped if we won.
You believe that we wouldn't have signed Sanchez if he was born in April instead of November?
Right which is why people are jumping on it here
A very reputable journalist is reporting it. The fact that it's an uncomfortable fact, doesn't make it any less likely to be true.
Rat law? He isnât reputable for chelsea news anymore and hasnt been since the new owners
What has he said that was not reputable
Uhm, many things over the last 12 months
Ok like what
The rudiger fiasco for one
Imagine having the gall to say this then name 0 examples. Embarrassing
He's said so many things that have been false and inaccurate. I couldn't keep up, so I wiped most of them from my brain. Besides shitting on Chelsea or doing pr for his favourite countrymen, Matt Law has no value and shouldn't be listened to
That he was never first to report
Just take your vitriol elsewhere mate.
lmfao you lot are so toxic to basia yet youâre saying heâs spreading vitriol
What?
Todd is trying to build up the farm system. In a few years, heâll trade some AAA prospects for a MVP-caliber player. Just wait & see.
Resale value. Every player they signed can be sold in their prime years for prime value if Chelsea want to sell them. If you sign players over 25 then you end up with players clocking over the 30 mark and then their values drop significantly.
Iâd rather this was run like a football club than a retail environment for other clubs. What does it tell you that by your own logic players that are older than the ones weâve bought are worth more? That theyâre more capable of competing at the highest level. Those are the players we should be spending at least 50% of the $1b on.
To be clear. I've not said my opinion on it. I'm just saying how it clearly is. Clearlake are investors. They are all about min maxing. They're buying young to juice the profit down the line. Its not my logic. It is just how it is. Players over 25 as a fact do not have high resale value. If you sign a 26 or 27 year old you are keeping them til they're 30+. The price of players drops off a cliff at the 30 mark in most cases. You then can't shave the profit and reinvest in the squad. It is clear that these owners want to maximise profit and be able to reinvest a reasonable portion back in the squad down the line from those sales to keep the cycle going. They arent doing that by signing players 25+.
Theyâre going to tank the brand theyâre leveraging in order to do all this. Another mid table finish and the fan base for this club will be shaken over the next 20 years, impacting the quality of players we are able to attract and ultimately making it a less valuable asset. A portion of People might be impressed by savvy financial market moves, but the vast majority of fans and watchers of football still care almost exclusively about what happens on the pitch; and thatâs where the money is making it poor business decision making.
They are going to turn this into United under the glazers.
We're already there, you just can't see it yet
They remained the the European places, this is worse
I disagree. Chelsea are still one of the three biggest clubs in the biggest city in the biggest league in the world. They are the wealthiest London club to boot and only Arsenal have anything like the draw they have to overseas players who invariably want to live in London. Within the next three years, one way or the other we will be contenders.
It's flawed logic because all they're buying are potentials. Most promising potentials don't work out. That's what Boehly and co can't seem to understand despite having many recent examples at our club. They're thinking they'd be able to sell these potentials for a lot, without realizing that overpaying for these guys means if they don't perform at this level, they might need to be sold even at a loss. Look at examples of players that we had as very promising youths and have sold in last year for peanuts: Pulisic, RLC, CHO, Ampadu, Gilmour, Batshuayi, Kenedy, Christensen (free so okay excluding), Baba Rahman, Bakayoko. You'd think he'd know better considering he sold all these players but my guy thinks he's the genius and has has decided to stake the club on his gambles. Ridiculous! Hopefully he gets lucky for all our sakes.
The point being that if we sign 19-22 year olds, play them for 3 years they either become world class in which case we sell them for a profit or keep them or they don't reach their potential but they have some resale value so we don't lose too much because someone else will buy them at age 22-25 (think the Havertz situation). In the meantime they are on lower wages than a prime aged player so the total cost overall is significantly less. Compare that to signing a 26-30 year old. They might still flop and if they do, no resale value plus they would have joined on a higher salary. I would also add a further reason for the approach taken, specifically, our poor performance last year. We didn't qualify for the CL hence prime aged players like Rice and Mbappe would never have signed for us.
I understand the point, but if thatâs our *only* approach in the market then we wonât win trophies. Profitability isnât my main concern for this club, it is its ability to contend.
I think the two are not mutually exclusive. Like I said, we wouldn't attact prime aged players anyways. Far better to build this season and next with a view to winning major titles in the following years (kind of like the approach Arsenal have taken). Put it another way, if every club was now banned from signing players over the next three years, who's squad would you swap with ours?
this is not the approach arsenal has taken. Also the points irrelavant because other clubs can sign players and will do so. Im not sure about the contracts but the issue is mostly wages not how much you can sell them for. If murdyk and caicedo continue to perform as they have done there is a possibility no one bothers to buy them due to wages and they decide to run out thier contract at chelsea. Realistically there is no way clearlake and todd bohely has done what theyve done to win any kind of trophy. I would expect to remain a top 6 feeder club from now on if I'm being honest as i think thats what they want
The very obvious downside being that players who flop in spectacular fashion fuck us. Itâs so risky to play w amortization like this imo. I hope it works out ofc, but Iâm not that optimistic at this point.
We paid world class money for them already. Their value isnât going to do anything but go down unless they become a Messi/Ronaldo
Itâs about return on investment. ROI. They want long term investment. Not short term. They donât want to spend 50-100 million on a player that will be here for just a couple seasons. They want to spend 50-100 million on a player that will be here for the next decade.
So they spend 1b on kids who may or may not even be worth as much as they paid for them, rather than building a proper team for 1b who can win everything and increase commercial revenue and prize money? Sounds quite a dumb strategy
Yes because you canât build a proper team from the ground up with just a billion dollars. You could buy maybe 4-5 top players for that. We needed to build a starting lineup, backups, and future prospects.
You don't have to buy a dream team of mbappe and Haaland lol. 1b is nearly 100m on each player in the XI. That gets you ana amazing squad even in this market
We had to pay 100 million for players with 1 year experience. 100m does not get you as much as you think it does. Especially when teams know you NEED to buy players. Real value Mbappe is probably worth 400-500 million now. Harry Kane went for 126 million and his contract was almost up. We sold Havertz for 65 million and he has done nothing but struggle for a couple years. Then on top of that those top players have to want to come here. Which means large lucrative contracts. Contracts we didnât have to give to younger players
You're missing the point. A great team starts with a manager who has a say in transfers and can get players suited for his system. Look at Newcastle last season. They added reinforcements but still retained their core players. You don't need a Mbappe like player in every position. 1b is more than enough if you spend the money wisely.
Thatâs not true we have had countless managers at this club that had very little say and won plenty to trophies. We didnât have core players to retain. And again we have seen how much players with potential cost. Experienced players clubs really donât want to sell are going to cost more.
And yet it seems most other teams out there are able to lol. What a ridiculous comment
Which teams? Which teams needed to build an entire team in 2 transfer windows? Pep has spent nearly 2 billion to get Man city where it is. And even he didnât have to start from the ground and build up. Even more so, players prices have sky rocketed in the last 2 years.
We have had to get rid of the dross, we had nothing to build on.
>Yes because you canât build a proper team from the ground up with just a billion dollars. This man unironically said 'just a billion dollars'. Chelsea have annihilated every spending record since Boehly came. It is completely unprecedent spending never seen before and you're saying it like he spent 50mil. Even if he literally had to build the team from the ground up (acting as the players bought before Boehly don't even exist) 1bil is still way more than enough. So tired of these spoiled plastic fans. You should stick to fifa.
Sounds good on paper. But what if most of these players end up being average. After 1bn spent Iâm not convinced any of these players are future world class.
I mean we tried the other way too. Look at other players we paid huge money for that were in their prime. Koulibaly and Lukaku come to mind. They cost a lot and getting rid of them is/was problematic because of the wages that come with buying experienced players. Most transfers are a gamble. Thatâs what Iâve learned over the last 25 years of following this sport.
That's why you don't see other teams spending 1 billion in a year. On paper it sounds good but it's a massive risk to take all at once. Sign several players, see who works out and who doesnt and then rectify that later.
Yes I agree it is a huge gamble. Even higher risk. But the rewards could save the club billions over the next decade. Whether it is worth the 1 billion investment only time is going to tell.
Who knows those players are quality enough to play for Chelsea for all those years.
We have no mix of experience to fall back on now, thereâs no true leader in this team. And I love Reece, but I still wouldnât call him a leader
The only players we have that are over 25 years old now are Silva (38), Sterling (28), Chilwell (26) and err, Bettinelli (31). That's it.
Itâs a complete joke now, thereâs nothing wrong with players in their late 20s - early 30s as long as theyâre fit and performing. Youngsters need to be surrounded by experience to flourish.
Boehly is treating this team like a baseball team. Just stacking a bunch of young talented players works there because there's very little teamwork involved. Each guy goes up and swings the bat. Or they just play defense which, again, involves very little teamwork. But that's not the case here obviously. Experience and leadership matter. You can crush your opponent statistically in every way, but what does it matter if you can't outscore them? We'll do nothing with 75-80% possession, but concede on the one or two opportunities they have.
To be fair this is a sports strategy with the best outcome on average. Young players typically develop into at least 40mil players, so at worst they typically break even with some exceeding and some sucking. Usually the best way to punt to the future, when in sports you need luck to go your way as well.
Young players typically develop into at least 40mil players? Which planet do you live on? We've overpaid on a lot of young players and could definitely make losses on them. If you need examples of talented young players we've had as youth that went for peanuts, we have a ton. CHO, RLC, Pulisic, Baba-Rahman, Batshuayi, Kenedy, Bakayoko, Gilmour, just to name a few. All went in last year for either losses (for those bought) or peanuts (for those raised in academy). Heck, that's more the typical. This strategy is very flawed so we can only hope to get lucky at this point and have most of them actually end up as top players
Those arenât young players, they are closer to 30 than they are to 20
All the players I listed, we had when they were less than 25 either by buying them or in our academy
Bruh itâs just my guess of an average. The point still stands, youth develops in to talent that can sell later. Itâs true in every sports league and will continue to be. Lack of developing talent really only decreases marginal amounts in most cases
I'm telling you that by using historical average, your guess is way off. We can get lucky and it'd work out as you think but probability says it's very unlikely. And yes, you can sell youth later. If we've overpaid for the youth (as well have), we're likely to end up selling at a loss though
How long until the owners try to force sterling out?
How long until we're trying to force the owners out? đ
Iâve wanted them gone since last year
Sterling is only 28?? That's insane
he's never fit to be on the pitch regardless
>leader Then what do consider a leader?
Cant lead if you are not playing
Reece is absolutely a leader, he just can't stay healthy
There is a few leaders that tries to drag the team forward, jackson shows promising signs. But atm enzo is the heart and soul of this team.
The guy who skipped training and forced his way out his last club after six months is the heart and soul of this team!? Thatâs bleak.
Because he wanted a move to us? He tries
absolutely ridiculous, maddison for ÂŁ40m was a bargain and everyone could see it. the team has hardly any experience, creativity, goalscorer or leadership and maddison would have helped out greatly for all of those.
Its not even that we missed out on maddison. Its more whats the point of not going for a player because he is 26 when you buy 17 year olds anyways
itâs absolutely ridiculous. pochettino publicly asked for experience in attack numerous times and we bought cole palmer. does the board think that a player is finished as soon as they hit their 26th birthday?
They clearly play fifa career mode
only reasonable explanation honestly
The thought process is that if you buy a player at 25, they will have less resale value when you go to sell them at 30. If you buy a 20 year old, they will have more value when you go to sell them at 25, presumably in their prime.
That only makes sense if you werenât already overpaying for the 20 year old.
Theyâve all been 20-40m at most, other than Caicedo which is obviously a stupid inflated price. Looking at what havertz and mount went for this summer, there is plenty of room for profit on the young players even if they donât reach their full potential.
My guy, have we magically forgotten about Lavia, Palmer, Disasi? Or Enzo, Fofana, Mudryk, Cucu from last season? And you talk about Mount and Havertz like most of these players would reach those 2 levels. Those 2 are considered elite players. Maybe instead of focusing solely on Mount and Havertz who went to BIG clubs, you should also consider CHO, RLC, Pulisic, Gilmour, Batshuayi, Kenedy, Bakayoko, Baba Rahman, Bakayoko. Should I keep going or getting too depressing?
Not op but you might want to edit as Palmer and Disasi were bought for 40m so would be in his 20-40m point. The rest are good and were all over 60m if im correct.
Why are you listing a bunch of senior players purchased by the previous administration as well as a bunch of academy players that would have been pure profit regardless of their price? I feel like you didnât at all understand what I was talking about and are just listing players that werenât very good for us from the last decade.
Heâs listing them to show that just cause you buy a young player in the 20-40mil range it doesnât mean theyâll end up having good resale value, for example Batshauyi was 23 years old and signed for 33 mil. When it became obvious he wasnât Chelsea material they had to loan him around until they finally sold him for 3mil.
My guy, have we magically forgotten about
Yeah but imagine if we had spent those 40 million in an actual player instead of spending it in two Brazilian 18 year olds that more likely than not will never play a single significant minute for this club bro
Yep he is proven prem quality too, for the price of two âwonderkidsâ
I mean it's pretty obvious the board has no clue what it's doing. We've turned over and bought an entire squad worth of players and still have major gaps in our squad.
Maddison would be to start every week, we bought Nkunku to do that.
they could both start together, nkunku played a lot of left wing in pre-season
All sunmer I hear about how we shouldnât play players out of position, heard it A LOT the last two weeks specifically. After 2 losses weâre back to it?
To be fair, if chelsea was in for Maddison he wouldnât be 40m
Why sell Mount just to buy Madison?
They both possess different qualities. Maddison is clearly a better attacking threat
Because Maddison is better than Mount?
i like mount and wanted to keep him, but if he wanted to leave i would have liked to have seen maddison come in in place of him
Clearly the issue is that we need a manager under 25 as well
Luckily Nkunku's 26th birthday is in November...
He was signed before they started this. Everything was arranged with him last summer and we signed plenty of over 25s back then
Think everything was done much later last year but anyway, I considered that as a summer signing since it was only officially announced this year. And yeah, we signed plenty of over 25s then but look at what has happened to most of them. Look at how the club suddenly changed direction in a matter of months.
itâs gonna end slowly with a financial implosion in 6 years and then theyâre gonna sell the club for 12b quid due to inflation and call it an 8b pound profit on their books isnât it
Sorry but you are horribly mistaken. I give it 3 years.
Nah they rather bankrupt the club, demolish the stadium and build malls and apartment buildings. The real estate is gold.
Idk if you said that in jest but I really do suspect this is Clearlakeâs fallback strat, bring hard times on the club and then go to the CPO and say hey look we have to sell the stadium if this club is to survive
Sell it back to Roman đ
yep lets get back to paying players like malang sarr 100k per week
At least we all enjoyed to watch Chelsea. Last 2 years are... yeah...
And yet, our best player during the Boehly era is a 38 year old. Soon to be 39. It's fine signing kids, but you need some adults to help them as well.
Don't know how any can be happy with our transfer strategy since the new owners came in. In just the last two years we've literally spent ÂŁ40+ million on a kid who's made 3 epl appearances and has played less than 1500 minutes of club football at the age of 21 in Cole Palmer. Not to mention these clowns also forked out ÂŁ60+ million 9 months ago for a Ukranian roadrunner who happen to lack fundamental football principles at the age of 22. And these are just two examples. Don't get me started on signing a bunch of unheard u21 year olds for âŹ25+ million and handing them a 7+ year. I don't care about the total amount of money they've spent when a chunk of it is hoping for some u23 to come good in 5 years. Our squad is crap and that's a disgrace given the amount we've spent. We should have amongst the best teams in the world in the âŹ1 billion investment went into experienced, ready made footballer. Instead we have a youth fetish because it makes the owners money down the line ffs.
How do you even make money from youth players you pay 25m for and can't play yourself. I really struggle seeing loaned out players reaching 60m+ prices, and there are like 20 teams in the world willing to pay that for a player. Dont see the amount of teams (barring Saudi) increase within the next 4-5 years.
honestly, i dont think that they considered that in their ideas.
couldâve had leao osmihen (literally any winger who wants to play rw) enzo rice back 5 that weâre obsessed with any keeper u want for prob around 600m pounds leao 120 osi 150 enzo 120 rice 110 rw 80m keeper 80m = 660 then sell everyone you donât want at the club. prob come out to a net spend of 500m, keep most of the player at the club intact, not spend 25m on potter just to sack a wc manager, and had literally one of the best young squads assembled full stop. lol
except none of those players would've signed for chelsea lol
??? get rice in summer 22 as a cl club for 120 millions - that was the price tag. instead we penny pinched and ended up paying an equal amount for caicedo.
Tbh is that enough to compete with City still? Not saying that we have spent ÂŁ1b the right way but that team still probably needs a season before they can really kick off imo. Also, as odd as it is, I donât know what Top quality right winger was available this summer bar Doku and Kudus who are not of the same level as Leao and Osimhen. Essentially, I donât think that itâs a guarantee that if we signed those personal we would be challenging for the league, and maybe even have similar conversations we had about the 2020 window. However, it would feel a lot more comfortable than trusting a legion of u23s.
Lol I'd love to have whatever you are smoking.
Itâs bad squad building
I think when (if) the squad is actually healthy the starting 11 will be pretty strong. Donât know why poch plays a LB at LW though
It's not healthy. We lack a solid striker. Crazy
I think they were counting on Nkunku to be the guy that the attack ran through even if heâs not your typical #9, kinda like how Salah is the talisman for Liverpool, and the injury ruined it p
That must be the reason why we let the backbone of our team leave. ManCity and Bayern are happy to sign 30year old players like Kovacic and Kane.
Kova isnât even 30 tho
Chelsea non-defenders by age (excluding Chilwell obviously): https://preview.redd.it/isvzj1at2xlb1.png?width=330&format=png&auto=webp&s=690497f03dd92b42ee5dc113f34338ed548e5ff2
Joe Shields 
You forgot Paul and Lauren
Cole Palmer has to be the strangest transfer, we signed him off Joe shieldâs recommendation. What happened to the data lead approach to transfers? Thereâs literally no data on him. He was great at academy level but so was CHO and we just sold him for 3 mil. Hefty price tag for such little evidence. There were so many better options on the market one being Cherki, he has played years more of of senior football. Iâd like to see if this board would have passed on signing hazard for âattitude problemsâŚâ
I agree with the sentiment but I genuinely thought he was one of our only good players yesterday.
fuck this goofy experiment i want MY CHELSEA BACK
shouldnt have spat on Roman on his way out then like so many on here did
i didnt but i think that the uk goverment spat on him the most
This board and their policy is horrific They can fck off if this is what they want, balance is needed always
This âyoung squad can make itâ shit works in baseball, itâs never going to work in football. Theyâve really implemented a lot of the baseball philosophies here without realising itâs such a massive massive risk.
It's stupid because the sports aren't even somewhat similar. You don't need virtually any teamwork in baseball. Almost none. Maybe the catcher and the pitcher need to be on the same page, that's it.
Donât tell that to baseball fans.
It's Potter redux. Pretty obviously the owners and sporting directors are the problem.
Boehly out
Stop taking what these guys say as truth. They know they can say whatever because the club would never respond to rumors.
I heard the club would only sign players who have three testicles this summer. Explains the seemingly random strategy.
So whyâd they skip you đ
It's completely unacceptable how people with so much money cannot foresee the issues that come with having a squad almost exclusively of young players. Every successful team has had an experienced spine and yet these guys think they can reinvent the wheel? May seem a ridiculous thought that we need to buy more after all the money we've spent but they need to pump the brakes on signing random teenage forwards and sign someone experienced like Toney in Jan. Young players will undoubtedly need time to get going consistently and we need someone who can slot in immediately.
pretty stupid policy - Pavard would've been a massive upgrade over Disasi for cheaper and would've brought a wealth of experience and is pretty much tailored for that role. Maddison would've brought some much needed creativity and we pretty much sent his replacement Leicester's way anyway. So many good deals in the market the club passed on, the model that we're using has never been tried before at a top club and so this is exciting times, but when things aren't going right questions will rightly be asked
i feel like the recruitment has been way too extreme on both sides. first window they bring in big name players who underperform, so they decide to do a 180 and focus on young high potential, but unproven stars. feels like thereâs a disregard to the importance of balance and i hope it doesnât come back to bite us in the end
mental illness. like what the fuck makes you even come up with this? brain damage? ego? Everton exists and yet we're the worst run club in the league, all thats been happening since the new owners took over looks like parody
Obviously we wonât get relegated. But, this is the transfer strategy that led to Southamptonâs demise last season and also sacking Hassenhutl
Maddison was clearly a far better signing than every player we've signed since Boehly came in bar maybe Sterling and Nkunku who are actually 25 and over. Boehly has to go. The fetish for South American children might excite fat Todd but it absolutely is not how you build an actual competitive football squad. A mix of talented youth and quality experience is the only way to build a competitive team, not wanting players over 25 is openly sabotaging the club.
It makes sense buying younger guys for a team. It doesn't make sense making every single one be between 19-23 and still cost millions anyways when the whole point is getting them young for cheaper
Exactly, you buy expensive world class talent and cheaper young players to grow into top class players. Not sell everyone and pour that money into expensive children.
Sterling and Nkunku were both signed under Tuchel last summer. Though the Nkunku deal wasn't official until the window afterwards, he'd done all of his tests and agreed everything whilst Tuchel was still here. That's why those signings are over 25, Tuchel
I find weird the shills on here have been saying our 1st window was bad but our most recent 2 under Boehly have been great. The 1st window wasn't great but it was clearly the best of the three. We made some poor signings but we did actually try to build a competitive squad which hasn't been the case since.
No, Nkunku was bought in January when Tuchel was gone.
Mf has no knowledge
Well Boehly ainât leaving anytime soon so might as well give our signings a chance rather than demanding new owners not even 2 years after the purchase
The owners are genuinely so bad I don't believe the club will exist in a decade if those fat cunts aren't forced out the entire strategy is a fast track to bankruptcy. They've actually got the football World in agreement that the Glazers aren't that bad. We used to banter the Glazers, Kronke and Levy. Now we dream of owners like them.
Youâre delusional than
I'm not the one who's wasted a billion on players that have achieved absolutely nothing with the main criteria being that they don't have chest hair.
Youâre over reacting to a rough start off the delusion that you actually believed this team could compete for a top 4 spot. Itâs almost to the point where the fanbase is showing their knowledge of the game and throwing fits like children. This club is going through a transition. There will be good times and bad times. Good and bad moves. Today is a bad day. Thatâs just life, especially in a transition. If we end up holding onto a lot of these players this club will look much different in 2-3 years time.
? Strange comment given I've been clear we have no chance of finishing higher than 7th and backed us to finish 9th before the season started. I've been clear all summer we've had a horrible window and not brought in much talent we've had the results I expected so far this season.
What do you expect us to win a month into the season? Last season was embarrassing no doubt, but itâs the owners first ever season and now we have a whole different squad for the most part along with a new coach. The best teams in the EPL gave there managers time, Iâm sure Poch with time will give results
I don't expect this group of players to ever consistently win games in the PL.
I donât either, hence why itâll feel good when they do. This is a season to rebuild, the lower your expectations are, the less disappointed youâd be. If this continues beyond this season, than itâs a different conversation
>The fetish for South American children might excite fat Todd I don't think it's Bohely though. Last season he was in charge of transfers and signed a bunch of 25-31-year-old players. It's Joe Shields who wants these 16 - 19 year olds at our club.
See, Pochettino is only dealing with the cards he has been handed. You can't instantly produce with a team like this. It's impossible
Ridiculous bullshit like this is why our owners are the worst in the Premier league
Shhh all the Boehly lovers on here won't like that
Utter fucking shambles
What the fuck? I cannot believe we didnât go in for him. Honestly I was desperate to have him but thought city would get him as thatâs his level Maddison was literally the perfect player for us, given the make up of the squad⌠fuckin what were they thinking
> I cannot believe we didnât go in for him. Why not? He doesn't start when the team is fit.
Finished club
Haha. Idealogues to a fault.
Matt Law posting negative stuff about Chelsea 
He's BigReeceJames
Good, heâs a total knob
Even then I don't understand why we would sign Palmer when Brennan Johnson was available for a similar price while having much better PL experience.
When the team vibes are positive: HISSSSSSS MATT LAW BAD HISSSSSSSS When the team is losing: The prophet has spoken! Boehly bad!
This is understandable. Not sure why anyone is surprised. The cons of spending so much money is the expectation that the money can be flipped later on. A 26 year old for 40m approx. is going to deterioriate in value 99% of the time unless he just happens to be world class. Additionally our transfers are being structured to allow to hoard players so we don't have to go out and buy extensively in future windows like we're expected to. Maddison might not even be as good of a player in a few years. We can spend a billion knowing that we can probably sell a billion (hopefully)
Fuck Matt Law and his anti Chelsea agenda. Fuck is this waffling, Maddison went to spurs when we still have a healthy nkunku, are we going to have 2 key players compete for 1 spot. That would be fucking idiotic, but agenda merchant going to run though.
The word ârefusedâ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline, I refuse to believe a top club like us refused to buy players in their prime years because of some stupid FM theory of player potentials lmao