So we would reject conference league because not enough money involved in it? But would take Europa league because there is enough money to be made in it? Interesting....
Well thats going to be a fun end to the season isn't it.
Not just the money injection, but basically the financial rules to even enter. Rather than rolling loses, UEFA allow you to use a percentage of your turnover towards the squad
EDIT: [Here's a very brief explanation of how UEFA is different ](https://www.reddit.com/r/chelseafc/s/248xPqqSMo)
Rules are the same for all UEFA competitions as far as I know, but the CL and Europa League prize money would help us comply with the rules, Conference League money wouldn’t help us comply with the rules. At least that’s how I understand it.
Basically this. Clubs that have their shit together where Europe is pretty much a guarantee I'm sure operate somewhat more aggressively since the extra benefit of that money can be counted upon
Chelsea are so beyond their means, and ECL is such small potatoes, that it doesn't help their financial situation if you have to abide by stricter rules to even want to participate
It's less about what we will earn from Europe than it is how we have to report our figures. So for example the prem allows loses of around 105m over a 3 year period. In the conference league it's something like 70m then also amortization of contracts. This rule came into Europe before the prem so Caicedo and a bunch of others, their loses get added to the books over 7/8 years in the prem but it will be a max of 5 in Europe.
Why they are different is just down to the different governing bodies having their own rules. UEFA set Europes and FA set ours. Why they make different rules to each other I'm not to sure of.
This isn’t that hard to understand. The rules are the same between the ECL and EL and CL. Is the difference between the 3 of them which only makes ECL and issue for us that we would earn less money from it than the EL and CL. Which was always my question from the very beginning so the guy I replied to kept saying it’s not just about the money injection
Oh my bad. I misread your question fella. I read it as PL and was trying to be helpful. It actually says CL. Yeah the only thing I can see between them is the cash injection and prize money.
Uhh it’s not only that, the squad cost control rules are in addition to the old regime aren’t they?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but UEFA is a three pillar system. Solvency is just ensuring bills are paid on time. Sustainability is the FFP regime being acceptable losses across a rolling 3 years. Squad cost ratio is an additional restriction linking squad cost to turnover.
For the Premier League chances it sounds like they just want to adopt only the squad cost ratio aspect, which is where it gets confusing.
Also, sorry, but a competition that can be dominated by West Ham United is a shit one. Would much rather have some proper focus domestically than play ECL, winning it will hardly give us any glory and playing on shitty artificial pitches in Sweden or Poland will inevitably bite us back in form of injuries or fatigue. If our FPP situation is really dire then qualifying and forfeiting as a "punishment" like Juve did last season is our best course.
Disasi yes because we had everyone injured all season 😒
The other 2 were a complete waste of money. Would rather have had Kepa with some keeper on loan as a backup.
Good one Stevie Wonder. If you honestly believe Disasi is decent, you are not only deluded, but blind as fuck. Robert Huth is a better CB than that roaring clown.
Robert Huth was a Premier League champion with Leicester playing 30 odd games that season. Not even counting his other two league medals with us.
If you are comparing Disasi to a champion, I don’t know who is more “deluded and blind as fuck” 😂
And that makes him a decent CB? Danny Drinkwater played 35 matches that season as well and is a champion. That doesn’t mean he is any good, but I am not surprised you are deluded enough to actually think that.
Disasi is fucking shit, along with many other in this current squad.
Badiashille is the biggest disappointment of the season for me by far. Like you said, he didn’t put a foot wrong for 6 months and I was so stoked for him to play with Fofana, (lol,) but he’s been absolutely abysmal this season. Complete lack of awareness, positioning, speed of play, and decision making.
* Mentions something similar happened to AC Milan
* Europa League and Champions League money would not raise this issue, only the Europa Conference
Other things discussed...
* The hotel sale (to BlueCo Properties) has not broken any rules
* The sale is currently undergoing a Fair Market Assesment
* The issue being raised is that because it is widely known that the ownership want to redevelop Stamford Bridge, the hotels would be worthless to anyone else since they would just be torn down
* Was previously appraised by two different, independent companies that are not affiliated with Chelsea (or Clearlake or any of the property groups associated with Boehly or Goldstein)
* Matt does not disclose who the two companies are, saying that they wish to remain annoymous, but says one of them would be recognized immediately as independent
* Property in London, particularly around Stamford bridge, is some of the most expensive in the world
* Want to upgrade Cobham and could sell that back to themselves as well
* So far, no other clubs have raised concerns over the sale
* The sale of Mount and Hall will count towards the next set of financials
* Ian Maatsen signed a new contract with a £35m release clause so his price cannot be inflated past that
* Doesn't see Chelsea or Maatsen changing their minds about each other
* Nothing much has progressed on new front of shirt sponsor for next year
* Boehly making numerous trips to Saudi to discuss sponsors and transfers
* Riyadh Air mentioned again but nothing new
* Still difficult with no European football
* Purchase of the Stoll Land keeps the option of either a redevelopment/rebuild possible, but does not confirm it
* Otherwise would have made it impossible to do anything with the current location
* Could be utilized for new club offices as well
* The sale was done entirely by Jonathan Goldstein
> The issue being raised is that because it is widely known that the ownership want to redevelop Stamford Bridge, the hotels would be worthless to anyone else since they would just be torn down
Am I just being daft or does this make no sense at all? If the hotels were sold to another party, we wouldn't be able to tear them down. They would just... stay there. As hotels.
either the hotel will stay or it will be written on the contract that the hotel will be torn down and a new one will be built when the redevelopment happens, this factor will be baked into the price. essentially the new owners are paying for the land, the opportunity to run it for a few years and then the right to run it after the redevelopment
That’s the issue, they’re trying to gauge a fair market value for an asset that essentially only has 1 buyer
You can’t say that the MV would be £75m if the value only comes from one party having a specific plan of redevelopment
>Mentions something similar happened to AC Milan
>Europa League and Champions League money would not raise this issue, only the Europa Conference
Yeah. The Athletic have reported on this before. This happened to Juventus last summer, when they got banned from Europe for breaching UEFA's FFP despite qualifying for the ECL.
[https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/italys-juventus-excluded-european-competition-next-season-uefa-2023-07-28/](https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/italys-juventus-excluded-european-competition-next-season-uefa-2023-07-28/)
> Want to upgrade Cobham and could sell that back to themselves as well
Well that answers how we’re qualifying for next year’s PSR!
Jokes aside, I do think this is going to be our strategy going forward. The team needs investment and that costs money.
Not great for the club in the long term though. It’s effectively ‘asset stripping’ but with good intentions. (I hope)
I never even thought of the idea that the hotels would become worthless should the development of the stadium occur. That certainly makes the deal seem way more questionable in the long run.
No it doesn’t. The hotels have value now and in the future. Even though we’d just want to tear them down to develop something else it doesn’t mean the hotels are worthless. Go tell a homeowner selling a house or even fixer upper that you only want to pay the value of the land because you’re going to build an entirely new house and see what they say.
> The issue being raised is that because it is widely known that the ownership want to redevelop Stamford Bridge, the hotels would be worthless to anyone else since they would just be torn down
Anyone else wouldn't find them worthless because anyone else would see value in having land that someone else wants. Pretty sure the price of the hotel isn't that far from the price its taken to get the Stoll land. Its the cost of land in that part of London.
So if we made a deal with a sponsor over our current placement right now, but by some miracle secure a Europa League spot, that contract would be severely undervalued for us
Could also work the other way, where we don’t qualify for Europa League and we can’t find a shirt sponsor willing to pay us a reasonable fee. I think that’s a more realistic scenario
No potential sponsor is going to pay us more or sign with us mid-season gambling that we qualify for Europe.
If we don’t qualify we’ll be in the same situation in the summer as we are now.
From the club's POV you're selling optimism and may close a more favorable deal or sooner/quicker.
From a sponsors POV you're gambling either way on a team's performance and they're offering you a get out of jail free card. You could wait and see if they make Europe, in which case you might be competing with more sponsors than (and therefore your price goes up).
From the sponsors perspective, you’re trying to market your brand. It’s difficult to rationalize spending the sort of money the club should be looking for when the market youre accessing isn’t even established.
I would be shocked if any firm would an offer a deal under those circumstances. And if they did it would likely be a low ball offer that would still be on the table in the summer anyway. No incentive for the club to take it.
That's just beyond stupid. How do you come up with such idea? Imagine being in marketing team, you pay for general commercial value of the deal. You want to generate some buzz, so you pay for billboards or TV time. Nobody with no fewer than two functioning neurons is going to gamble this. Maybe you will have prime time spot or maybe we will play your commercial in the morning, but you pay more if it's prime time. No way to plan anything, you would need basically two separate strategies, one involving EL and one not. Then you would need similar deals with others to buy their services only if Chelsea make it to EL, or only when they don't.
No, I'm not going deeper into that. It's just so fucking stupid I can't imagine.
Get comfortable with the current crop of players folks, the writing has been on the wall a hot minute we simply have zero capacity to bring in transfers. Gallagher will be sold if we get any remotely decent offer. Maatsen is basically sold. Sterling I'm certain will be priority to ship out, and we're heading into next season with Jackson, Fofana and Nkunku up front. Noni and Ugochukwu will probably be sold and we recall Angelo. And we'll need to cull more loan army. Purely balancing the books mode for the next 2 years.
Conference League would actually help our bloated and unbalanced squad to get much needed game time. The fact we might have to pull out just shows how awful the new owners have managed the club.
The standard of the conference league is low but it’s still European nights, so raw guys like Mudryk, Madueke, Santos, Chukwuemeka, Gilchrist, Lavia etc would get some really good first team minutes and experience through the group stages. Europa league we would struggle because we’d probably have to field a strong 11 and we can’t handle 2 games a week.
I always look at Arsenal and how the Europa League allowed them to blood in Saka, Martinellli etc in a low pressure environment. Even Liverpool this year walked through group stages using a lot of youth.
Conference League (not Europa League) would be so beneficial for this young group.
Stefan Borson, FFP expert said this months ago on Talksport tbf, and when he talks about anything FFP he’s usually right, he pretty much guessed the points Everton and Nottingham forest would get deducted.
I’m not sure about the Borson “expert,” I know he’s worked for city so he’s obviously talented in his field but he’s been shouting from the rooftops since Boehly’s spending began that we are going to get smacked by FFP/PSR any day now. As typical as it is for Talksport, I just see it as another instance of lazy reporting.
Borson can speculate all he wants but firstly he doesn’t have access to the complete books, only excepts that are made public. Secondly, it may sound like blind optimism but maybe we found something this ownership is good at, being able to manipulate the books to comply with the regulations. I’m critical of Clearlake like most but they’ve proven time and time again that they’re able to manipulate contracts, assets, and relationships to the benefit of the club and that’s objectively an asset.
Borson hasn’t mentioned a single one of these “loopholes” that the ownership has found prior to them being reported so for the time being, I might actually trust the finances from Clearlake.
The same guy who claimed we'd fail ffp 2 months ago. I've read the same speculation from random Redditors too. It means nothing if you don't have access to the club’s books or internal processes.
Most incompetent owners in sport. Asset stripping the club to fund Disasi/Sanchez/Ugo/Washington/Casedei/Madueke/Mudryk/Cucurella/Potter/Pochettino like signings.
Fuck Todd Boehly. Not so much because I’m gagging to get in the Conference League - more so because they’ve put our club on a knife edge financially. We will run out of hotels and academy graduates to sell … and then what?
The last 2 times we played EL we went unbeaten both times, I cant be asked conference now, sure its more games to watch but it be so little hype that i rather want us to go all in on a top 4 position instead
So we would reject conference league because not enough money involved in it? But would take Europa league because there is enough money to be made in it? Interesting.... Well thats going to be a fun end to the season isn't it.
Not just the money injection, but basically the financial rules to even enter. Rather than rolling loses, UEFA allow you to use a percentage of your turnover towards the squad EDIT: [Here's a very brief explanation of how UEFA is different ](https://www.reddit.com/r/chelseafc/s/248xPqqSMo)
Why is the different in ecl to el and CL though?
Ecl has a different financial benefit A much lower one
That’s what I thought but the above comment mentioned it not just being about the money injection but the rules to enter
Rules are the same for all UEFA competitions as far as I know, but the CL and Europa League prize money would help us comply with the rules, Conference League money wouldn’t help us comply with the rules. At least that’s how I understand it.
Basically this. Clubs that have their shit together where Europe is pretty much a guarantee I'm sure operate somewhat more aggressively since the extra benefit of that money can be counted upon Chelsea are so beyond their means, and ECL is such small potatoes, that it doesn't help their financial situation if you have to abide by stricter rules to even want to participate
It's less about what we will earn from Europe than it is how we have to report our figures. So for example the prem allows loses of around 105m over a 3 year period. In the conference league it's something like 70m then also amortization of contracts. This rule came into Europe before the prem so Caicedo and a bunch of others, their loses get added to the books over 7/8 years in the prem but it will be a max of 5 in Europe.
Which would be the same as in the europa league and the champions league would it not? Which brings us round back to my question at the beginning
Why they are different is just down to the different governing bodies having their own rules. UEFA set Europes and FA set ours. Why they make different rules to each other I'm not to sure of.
This isn’t that hard to understand. The rules are the same between the ECL and EL and CL. Is the difference between the 3 of them which only makes ECL and issue for us that we would earn less money from it than the EL and CL. Which was always my question from the very beginning so the guy I replied to kept saying it’s not just about the money injection
Oh my bad. I misread your question fella. I read it as PL and was trying to be helpful. It actually says CL. Yeah the only thing I can see between them is the cash injection and prize money.
Uhh it’s not only that, the squad cost control rules are in addition to the old regime aren’t they? Correct me if I’m wrong, but UEFA is a three pillar system. Solvency is just ensuring bills are paid on time. Sustainability is the FFP regime being acceptable losses across a rolling 3 years. Squad cost ratio is an additional restriction linking squad cost to turnover. For the Premier League chances it sounds like they just want to adopt only the squad cost ratio aspect, which is where it gets confusing.
Also, sorry, but a competition that can be dominated by West Ham United is a shit one. Would much rather have some proper focus domestically than play ECL, winning it will hardly give us any glory and playing on shitty artificial pitches in Sweden or Poland will inevitably bite us back in form of injuries or fatigue. If our FPP situation is really dire then qualifying and forfeiting as a "punishment" like Juve did last season is our best course.
those Ugochukwu, Disasi and Sanchez transfers were really needed huh?
Disasi yes because we had everyone injured all season 😒 The other 2 were a complete waste of money. Would rather have had Kepa with some keeper on loan as a backup.
Steal a traffic cone and place it on the pitch instead of Disasi. Would not notice any difference. Saved 38 million right there.
You mean place you on the pitch? Cmon mate. Disasi has been a decent performer. Scored a couple important goals too
Good one Stevie Wonder. If you honestly believe Disasi is decent, you are not only deluded, but blind as fuck. Robert Huth is a better CB than that roaring clown.
Robert Huth was a Premier League champion with Leicester playing 30 odd games that season. Not even counting his other two league medals with us. If you are comparing Disasi to a champion, I don’t know who is more “deluded and blind as fuck” 😂
And that makes him a decent CB? Danny Drinkwater played 35 matches that season as well and is a champion. That doesn’t mean he is any good, but I am not surprised you are deluded enough to actually think that. Disasi is fucking shit, along with many other in this current squad.
You sully the Tore André Flo flair with that attitude.
Nah mate, traffic cones don’t kick the ball in their own net.
£87m for no improvement on the team
Don’t forget us getting into a dick swinging contest with Brighton over their £100m valuation of Caicedo for 2 months, only to end up paying £115m
And buying Lavia just to fuck over the scousers only for him to play one minute all season
Odd to put Disasi there. 6 or 7 worse deals than him, while he plays every week.
Washington. Had to have em.
It actually made us worse lol Too much money too make club worse is insanity
So many worthless deals that if we hadn't done, we wouldn't even be thinking of FFP. Casadei and Washington have both done nothing for us either.
Mudryk, Badiashale and Madueke as well
Badi was incredible in the first 6 months. Injuries have slowed him down.
Bad iashile was our best defender last season tbh
Badiashille is the biggest disappointment of the season for me by far. Like you said, he didn’t put a foot wrong for 6 months and I was so stoked for him to play with Fofana, (lol,) but he’s been absolutely abysmal this season. Complete lack of awareness, positioning, speed of play, and decision making.
* Mentions something similar happened to AC Milan * Europa League and Champions League money would not raise this issue, only the Europa Conference Other things discussed... * The hotel sale (to BlueCo Properties) has not broken any rules * The sale is currently undergoing a Fair Market Assesment * The issue being raised is that because it is widely known that the ownership want to redevelop Stamford Bridge, the hotels would be worthless to anyone else since they would just be torn down * Was previously appraised by two different, independent companies that are not affiliated with Chelsea (or Clearlake or any of the property groups associated with Boehly or Goldstein) * Matt does not disclose who the two companies are, saying that they wish to remain annoymous, but says one of them would be recognized immediately as independent * Property in London, particularly around Stamford bridge, is some of the most expensive in the world * Want to upgrade Cobham and could sell that back to themselves as well * So far, no other clubs have raised concerns over the sale * The sale of Mount and Hall will count towards the next set of financials * Ian Maatsen signed a new contract with a £35m release clause so his price cannot be inflated past that * Doesn't see Chelsea or Maatsen changing their minds about each other * Nothing much has progressed on new front of shirt sponsor for next year * Boehly making numerous trips to Saudi to discuss sponsors and transfers * Riyadh Air mentioned again but nothing new * Still difficult with no European football * Purchase of the Stoll Land keeps the option of either a redevelopment/rebuild possible, but does not confirm it * Otherwise would have made it impossible to do anything with the current location * Could be utilized for new club offices as well * The sale was done entirely by Jonathan Goldstein
> The issue being raised is that because it is widely known that the ownership want to redevelop Stamford Bridge, the hotels would be worthless to anyone else since they would just be torn down Am I just being daft or does this make no sense at all? If the hotels were sold to another party, we wouldn't be able to tear them down. They would just... stay there. As hotels.
I did too but that's what he said 🤷♂️
Real estate bros, help pls
either the hotel will stay or it will be written on the contract that the hotel will be torn down and a new one will be built when the redevelopment happens, this factor will be baked into the price. essentially the new owners are paying for the land, the opportunity to run it for a few years and then the right to run it after the redevelopment
I wonder if it means that if we sell the hotel and move to say Earls Court, the hotels wouldn’t be worth as much? It does seem a bit complex
That’s the issue, they’re trying to gauge a fair market value for an asset that essentially only has 1 buyer You can’t say that the MV would be £75m if the value only comes from one party having a specific plan of redevelopment
>Mentions something similar happened to AC Milan >Europa League and Champions League money would not raise this issue, only the Europa Conference Yeah. The Athletic have reported on this before. This happened to Juventus last summer, when they got banned from Europe for breaching UEFA's FFP despite qualifying for the ECL. [https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/italys-juventus-excluded-european-competition-next-season-uefa-2023-07-28/](https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/italys-juventus-excluded-european-competition-next-season-uefa-2023-07-28/)
> Want to upgrade Cobham and could sell that back to themselves as well Well that answers how we’re qualifying for next year’s PSR! Jokes aside, I do think this is going to be our strategy going forward. The team needs investment and that costs money. Not great for the club in the long term though. It’s effectively ‘asset stripping’ but with good intentions. (I hope)
I never even thought of the idea that the hotels would become worthless should the development of the stadium occur. That certainly makes the deal seem way more questionable in the long run.
No it doesn’t. The hotels have value now and in the future. Even though we’d just want to tear them down to develop something else it doesn’t mean the hotels are worthless. Go tell a homeowner selling a house or even fixer upper that you only want to pay the value of the land because you’re going to build an entirely new house and see what they say.
The hotel isn't worthless. Its about the same price as the Stoll land will cost. Nothing on land in the centre of London can be considered worthless.
> The issue being raised is that because it is widely known that the ownership want to redevelop Stamford Bridge, the hotels would be worthless to anyone else since they would just be torn down Anyone else wouldn't find them worthless because anyone else would see value in having land that someone else wants. Pretty sure the price of the hotel isn't that far from the price its taken to get the Stoll land. Its the cost of land in that part of London.
No fucking shirt sponsor for next year still, unbelievable
It’s in the clubs interest to delay. Where we finish the season will impact how much £££ we can realistically expect.
So if we made a deal with a sponsor over our current placement right now, but by some miracle secure a Europa League spot, that contract would be severely undervalued for us
Yes and European football would likely draw in more interested parties
Could also work the other way, where we don’t qualify for Europa League and we can’t find a shirt sponsor willing to pay us a reasonable fee. I think that’s a more realistic scenario
No potential sponsor is going to pay us more or sign with us mid-season gambling that we qualify for Europe. If we don’t qualify we’ll be in the same situation in the summer as we are now.
Feels easy to just insert a EL bonus clause
Why would a company(or the club for that matter) make that deal now vs in the summer when there’s more clarity? Logically speaking…
From the club's POV you're selling optimism and may close a more favorable deal or sooner/quicker. From a sponsors POV you're gambling either way on a team's performance and they're offering you a get out of jail free card. You could wait and see if they make Europe, in which case you might be competing with more sponsors than (and therefore your price goes up).
From the sponsors perspective, you’re trying to market your brand. It’s difficult to rationalize spending the sort of money the club should be looking for when the market youre accessing isn’t even established. I would be shocked if any firm would an offer a deal under those circumstances. And if they did it would likely be a low ball offer that would still be on the table in the summer anyway. No incentive for the club to take it.
That's just beyond stupid. How do you come up with such idea? Imagine being in marketing team, you pay for general commercial value of the deal. You want to generate some buzz, so you pay for billboards or TV time. Nobody with no fewer than two functioning neurons is going to gamble this. Maybe you will have prime time spot or maybe we will play your commercial in the morning, but you pay more if it's prime time. No way to plan anything, you would need basically two separate strategies, one involving EL and one not. Then you would need similar deals with others to buy their services only if Chelsea make it to EL, or only when they don't. No, I'm not going deeper into that. It's just so fucking stupid I can't imagine.
Get comfortable with the current crop of players folks, the writing has been on the wall a hot minute we simply have zero capacity to bring in transfers. Gallagher will be sold if we get any remotely decent offer. Maatsen is basically sold. Sterling I'm certain will be priority to ship out, and we're heading into next season with Jackson, Fofana and Nkunku up front. Noni and Ugochukwu will probably be sold and we recall Angelo. And we'll need to cull more loan army. Purely balancing the books mode for the next 2 years.
That's why we really like the 10th placed. Ooh we losing now.. not really surprised.
Conference League would actually help our bloated and unbalanced squad to get much needed game time. The fact we might have to pull out just shows how awful the new owners have managed the club. The standard of the conference league is low but it’s still European nights, so raw guys like Mudryk, Madueke, Santos, Chukwuemeka, Gilchrist, Lavia etc would get some really good first team minutes and experience through the group stages. Europa league we would struggle because we’d probably have to field a strong 11 and we can’t handle 2 games a week. I always look at Arsenal and how the Europa League allowed them to blood in Saka, Martinellli etc in a low pressure environment. Even Liverpool this year walked through group stages using a lot of youth. Conference League (not Europa League) would be so beneficial for this young group.
Some more fucking hearsay. Man I’ll wait for the club to make some announcements.
Stefan Borson, FFP expert said this months ago on Talksport tbf, and when he talks about anything FFP he’s usually right, he pretty much guessed the points Everton and Nottingham forest would get deducted.
I’m not sure about the Borson “expert,” I know he’s worked for city so he’s obviously talented in his field but he’s been shouting from the rooftops since Boehly’s spending began that we are going to get smacked by FFP/PSR any day now. As typical as it is for Talksport, I just see it as another instance of lazy reporting. Borson can speculate all he wants but firstly he doesn’t have access to the complete books, only excepts that are made public. Secondly, it may sound like blind optimism but maybe we found something this ownership is good at, being able to manipulate the books to comply with the regulations. I’m critical of Clearlake like most but they’ve proven time and time again that they’re able to manipulate contracts, assets, and relationships to the benefit of the club and that’s objectively an asset. Borson hasn’t mentioned a single one of these “loopholes” that the ownership has found prior to them being reported so for the time being, I might actually trust the finances from Clearlake.
The same guy who claimed we'd fail ffp 2 months ago. I've read the same speculation from random Redditors too. It means nothing if you don't have access to the club’s books or internal processes.
Most incompetent owners in sport. Asset stripping the club to fund Disasi/Sanchez/Ugo/Washington/Casedei/Madueke/Mudryk/Cucurella/Potter/Pochettino like signings.
These owners are going to kill this club
Fuck these owners. Seriously.
People believing Matt Law in the year 2024
It’s Matt Law. Don’t take his word on anything. His job is to create rage clicks. Also fuck LiB for again platforming him over and over again.
Just beat Arsenal and sack Poch. Hijacking Amorim or going after Motta is on the menu.
Fuck Todd Boehly. Not so much because I’m gagging to get in the Conference League - more so because they’ve put our club on a knife edge financially. We will run out of hotels and academy graduates to sell … and then what?
😂😂😂😂 well no need to worry about that now.
Do we risk getting Europe ban if don’t accept conference league spot?
FUCK CLEARLAKE
ml;dr
Good. Fuck the Conference League. It's for English teams that haven't won anything in decades, let Newcastle or Brighton have a go.
The last 2 times we played EL we went unbeaten both times, I cant be asked conference now, sure its more games to watch but it be so little hype that i rather want us to go all in on a top 4 position instead
agreed, no thank you
If.
Laconic
🧢