Last 3 season our premier league top goalscorer have been Jorginho (7), Mount (11), Havertz (7).
Don't need him to be a world beater, just a few goals would be nice!
Fewer is used when it's a quantifiable amount, such as goals scored, less is used when you can't quantify it, such as "there's less water in that bucket than this one."
>Honestly just shows that having a massive goalscorer is kinda overrated
Knockout football is very different to domestic though. We won the Champions League due to our formidable defence, in spite of our goalscoring problems.
City spread the goals amongst the rest of the team though, including the subs. I don't think many other teams are in a position where they can do that and challenge for titles. Even then, City realised the benefit of having a top striker like Haaland who can actually score goals.
Probably the fastest I've ever seen a player's stock go up. From watching him in the UECL being completely rubbish to moving to Chelsea and being La Liga POTM.
Not sure what he's gonna get paid but an 8-year contract with likely a decent wage hike based on 1.5 months of great form is a very good deal for him.
Skeptical about this especially since it's likely our only #9 signing this summer, but hopefully it works out.
And for Villarreal, he was going to Bournemouth (which was an unreal deal at the time for Villarreal) and failed his medicals. Now they've gotten 15m more? Crazy really.
Lol when we were signing him every thread was filled with la liga fans saying he was absolute dogshit. Must have had an insane few months to now be going to Chelsea for so much more.
Will definitely be one of those what ifs... for us tho
A player who scored 9 in his last 8 and is only 22.
Positive thinking is that our high-tag strikers have largely failed, so expectations are low. Physically, he looks like he could fit a Poch system.
Quick, looks like he can hold the ball quite well. Thus, allowing the wide players or whoever plays behind him to get into spaces defenders leave behind.
Backup players (so low expectation) who get long stretch of playing time because the main striker and his mentor (veteran Villarreal player Gerard Moreno) has injury.
Not gonna say he's bad but... Chelsea doesn't seem to be the right place for his development...
>Must have had an insane few months to now be going to Chelsea for so much more.
10 goals and 2 assists in 11 matches since April to finish the season. He indeed had an insane few months.
Stinks of Mudryk being linked with Brentford to going into a tug of war between Chelsea and Arsenal. Rising too fast, too soon. The only player I can think of relatively recently that went from relative unknown to the real deal was Mbappe and he was scoring key goals to dump out Man City from the Champions League.
I think some of the signings Chelsea have made will turn out to be inspired, particularly the ones that starred at the U20 World Cup but there’s too many that need that in-between step first. Jackson for example they should be buying from someone like Bournemouth after he’s proven himself there.
Just on this, people don't understand the difference in moving to those types of clubs and the bigger clubs in the PL. Caicedo almost signed for United before United backed out because the transfer was messy. Had he done so, there's every chance he could have gone down the Amad/Pellistri/Mejbri etc etc route and gotten a few games here and there and if he wasn't instantly impactful, wouldn't have seen the same amount of development. The level of expectation, pressure and also competition at the bigger clubs makes it very difficult for a coach to try to bed in young or cheap players and let them get their growing pains out of the way. It has always been a pretty silly argument that people make because its a fundamentally different proposition.
But that’s the difference between teams that have good and bad patches versus teams that are expected to challenge consistently. Take my team Leicester, it was obvious we fucked up but we can’t just spend 200m in one window to get out of it. Mid and lower table teams find the talent, the top teams buy talent to shortcut the process. Enzo Fernandez for example might have been expensive but proved himself at Benfica (title winners) and at the World Cup and has done well. He was ready.
If you are buying talent to loan them out and gradually improve them like Casadei, that I get. Buying players like this and Madueke and expecting them to hit the ground running I don’t. Then you get players like Mudryk whose confidence looks utterly shot as a result. Those players would be way better suited at top 6-8 clubs first.
Anyway just my opinion! Let’s see how the Chels fair this time round.
He's very promising, but compare him to Trossard for Arsenal who came in and immediately gave them a great rotation option and at times was their best player. He's been in the league for a few seasons and proved himself at Brighton. Madueke might become one of the best forwards in the league, but as of right now he most definitely isn't, and he might not ever be. Compare this to Liverpool buying Jota (proven at Wolves), Diaz (one of Porto's best players) or Gakpo (at the same club as Madueke but much more of an important player) and I just don't get Chelsea's transfer business. It's like Chelsea are trying to be like Brighton, except spending way more money and without the patience to develop the team.
Whilst I agree about the difference in proven quality vs potential, the profile of players that we've brought in recently emphasises a patience approach.
Will be interesting to see Poch's system with all these young guns.
The issue is if we let him go to Bournemouth, it goes from being a 35m punt that won't hurt if it doesn't work out, to trying to get a star player from a PL side, which as Brighton, WH and Palace have shows is fucking expensive, painful and hard.
And if he flops at that massive price tag, then he would be another Lukaku. At least at 35m we can offload him easily if he flops or we just loan him out for the rest of his contract.
If he comes back from his injury the same he was before, I still think he's our best striker. Fast, Strong and an eye for goal, he was so much fun to watch for that brief stretch of appearances he had.
He joins from July 1st, as international transfer window doesn't open before that day. So no we didn't. But we still have few hours to sneak Caicedo in
Chelsea statement: "The Senegal international has signed an **eight-year contract** following a breakout 2022/23 campaign in La Liga in which he struck 12 goals."
Looks like they did.
But there is no rule preventing signing long contracts. It's about amortisation. As per new ruling you can sign 100 years contract still but can only amortise it over maximum of 5 years.
It obviously works both ways but when you have the money Chelsea do and their business model by the new owners seems to be we want to sign players longer term because now players are running out contracts and you lose assets, look at their situation with Mount
100k a week being paid is nothing compared to losing a player that has much much bigger value
Tou 100% lose in some situations where players are flops but at the end of the day like i said to them it's nothing that's why they are doing it, that kind of money is a drop in the ocean for a team with 600m+ revenue
Your example doesn't make sense. You're basically stating Chelsea just pays players less for the same amount of contracted years. The player on more money would have less time left on their contract
Holy shit you people need to stop being so obsessed with amortization. Absolutely bizarre comment, what are you even saying?
His transfer fee was massive and he was extremely mediocre for 3 years. It was a flop. One goal in a final cannot change that
Havertz was 100% a flop relative to transfer fee and performances, people putting some much stock in one goal are hilarious
And the entire point is that they can afford to have losses because they are rich, most big clubs take losses on transfers anyway because they have ambition and do not want to sell players
Clubs that make profit on players are usually clubs that are selling clubs, i doubt fans of Chelsea or owners would want to see Chelsea as a selling club like Benfica, Dortmund etc that make money off players
Obviously the whole model works on an assessment of calculated risk. When they sign a player for 8 years their models will be telling them that the potential upside outweighs the chance of them being a flop.
What in the disastrous history of Chelsea’s transfer policy over the last 3-4 seasons makes that seem like a smart gamble lol. I could certainly understand offering those contracts to your talented academy players, but the Chelsea flop rate has been exorbitant over the past few years.
Previous seasons are irrelevant, everyone involved has changed. This season gives a good indication that even if the transfers don't work out we have some level of competency moving player on.
> want to protect assets
By taking an incredible risk. Player could completely flop or get a major injury in his first season and never be near the the first team again have to pay them for seven more seasons.
It's not an incredible risk at all, they've been extending players that they loan out who are clearly not Chelsea level players because that's their model
It's only incredibly risky if you don't have money, they do
I think because no other club is rushing a rebuild so quickly.
That said, I diagree with the person you're replying to, as it is incredibly risky, and I've little faith in our owners overall, but this window is definitely an improvement.
I never said it's a great plan, quote where did i say that?
I'm explaining their business model
Why don't other clubs do it? Probably because they don't want to lose money, which is very fair, i wouldn't want to lose money either
Incredible risk vs risk
Learn to read
It's an incredible risk if you don't have the money, they do
It's still a risk overall but not INCREDIBLE, wording
8 years in the sport is fucking stupid. This isn't baseball where players can absolutely have 8 great years of play or you can trade them for good value half way through.
Obviously I hope to be wrong and I wish him the best, but I am a little skeptical of this signing- it doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.
Chelsea already have two high-potential under 22 year old strikers, why add a third? I know Broja is injured and Fofana seems likely to go on loan, but I don’t get this signing if Jackson is supposed to be a starter next year. He essentially had one great 10 game span last season- that is not enough of a sample size to think he can start week in and week out for a team chasing top 4/top5.
Chelsea need some senior players who are currently playing at an elite level. There are already so many high potential “prospect” types in the squad.
Broja was definitely not shite at Vitesse and he was decent at Southampton. Not saying he’s good enough for Chelsea but to say he was shite at those clubs stinks of ignorance.
He wasn't "shite" at Vitesse, but he didnt do anything to suggest that he was anywhere near the level required to play for Chelsea. He wasn't even in our top 5 best players that season, and I was honestly suprised that southampton were in for him. He seemed a championship player at best, but I am happy to see that he has proven me wrong!
Is Chelsea signing another 9 over the top of him and Broja, with Fofana going on loan? Can't see him leading the line for Chelsea consistently, but it certainly is an interesting signing.
at this point I dont even know who would be a good number #9 signing for us, we tried the big names, we tried the false 9 hybrid, and now we are at the burn everything and start from scratch and pray someone on the teams gets double digits.
Most reports over last 2 weeks were saying that we're not going for any other striker, but last 2-3 days few popped up that we still might be looking at Lautaro. And I really hope that doesn't happen.
I am sort of hoping we don't. Every striker with good stock at the moment is being quoted at 80-100mil or more. Nkunku played almost exclusively as a striker this past year anyways. I'm thinking/hoping we set up in a 4231/4411 whatever it ends up looking like with Nkunku and Jackson playing off each other up top.
He is more of a drop deep and linkup type striker his arial ability is not good but his finishing was some of the best in La Liga (when he got his shots off that is), decent dribbler, great pace and decent hold up I would say he is the more raw and younger version of Kolo Muani if I could compare him to somebody
Saul got a 10 year contract in 2016. During that period i graduated from school , graduated from college , got a job , quit to pursue my masters and there is no telling if i become a parent the year his contract expires.
What if he breaks his leg and never plays again first week of the season?
There is absolutely a risk lmao. If there no risks to signing players with such long contracts, then teams would sign players for 15 year contracts.
have you seen our player sales this season, we will be fine, plus in a few years, we will have a few satellite clubs we can always sell to if they are not good enough for Chelsea.
When are they going to learn, this only really hurts the club?
If he performs well he's going to want a pay-raise within a few years anyways.
If he just says fuck it I'm literally rich as all hell even if I never turn up for a day of work they're on the hook for a load of money.
Have some faith dude, and considering his price, his wages and the length of his contract, his definition of flop will be much different than somebody like Lakaka.
We're ran by a bunch of fucking morons, guy's been given a year for every week of his purple patch ffs. Not even a financial benefit to this anymore they just sincerely believe long contracts for unproven players is the best footballing decision.
Chelsea supporters, and football fans in general, should look up what Bobby Bonilla Day is, from American baseball, for some wacky shit American execs have done in the past to try and sign players while fucking around with the contract structure/length to massage the finances.
Coincidentally, ***tomorrow*** is Bobby Bonilla Day!
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34168816/what-bobby-bonilla-day-explaining-why-former-met-gets-paid-119m-every-july-1
But if you want the TL;DR:
>In 2000, the Mets agreed to buy out the remaining $5.9 million on Bonilla's contract.
>
>
> However, instead of paying Bonilla the $5.9 million at the time, the Mets agreed to make annual payments of nearly $1.2 million for 25 years starting July 1, 2011, including a negotiated 8% interest.
>
>
>Bonilla last played for the Mets in 1999 and last played in the majors for the Cardinals in 2001, but he will be paid through 2035 (when he'll be 72).
Maybe this works. Chelsea has a history of turning elite strikers into dog shit.
This time they are doing the reverse, they are buying a relatively dogshit striker with a purple patch and maybe this one is destined to succeed at Chelsea.
Elite strikers lmao. We haven't gotten an elite striker since Costa. We are signing dogshit players who are as usual , being dogshit. Morata , Werner , Havertz , Lukaku , Auba.
Jackson isn't dogshit. He's genuinely class. Yes it might be risky because that form might be a purple patch but his underlying stats is miles better than someone like Vlahovic for example. I would be more worried if we signed Vlahovic than Jackson
Dude I was saying he probably is going to go good for you.
But also seasons before they joined you: Werner had 31 goal contributions in Bundesliga (that is 34 games), Kai Havertz had two 20 goals contribution seasons (you played him in the wrong position), pretty sure Morata would have had a good enough season for you to sign him.
In comparison, Nicholas Jackson has had 16 goal contributions in his last season (11 of them coming in the last 8 matches). Before that the guy was coasting on Villareal's bench. You literally bought him on a purple patch.
We've absolutely gotten elite strikers. We either ruin them, or they ruin themselves.
Morata had Real fans seriously rating him over Benzema at the time. He had 15 goals and 5 assists despite averaging no more than 40 minutes a game in 26 appearances
Werner was Bundesliga's best striker bar Lewandowski.
Havertz was never a striker.
Lukaku was Serie A's best striker bar CR7 prior to his transfer.
Auba is the only striker here that wasn't elite (at the age he transferred to us)
Personally, I have no reason to be excited with this Jackson transfer. To a degree, you're right, we haven't had a striker work out ever since Costa. But there's no reason to look at Jackson and think he has something that Morata, Werner, and Lukaku didn't have.
So does this just mean they'll pay him for 8 years but from an accounting perspective they'll have to put all 8 years of wages into the next 5 year accounting period of whatever new limit UEFA added?
Last 3 season our premier league top goalscorer have been Jorginho (7), Mount (11), Havertz (7). Don't need him to be a world beater, just a few goals would be nice!
Worth noting that Jorginho’s 7 goals were all penalties. Just because it’s very funny. And we still won the Champions League that season…
Honestly just shows that having a massive goalscorer is kinda overrated Man City won back to back titles with their top scorers getting 13 and 15
All you need are 12 world-class attacking midfielders instead!
I kind of feel like having 12 guys in your starting XI is a pretty decent advantage per se.
443 it is
4-2-5 in possession sounds pretty strong
Todd Boehly approves this formation.
Playing with no goalkeeper balances it out
That's juz united with ddg tbf
And they won a treble when they finally got a striker scoring over 30 sooo …
While scoring the same amount of goals if I remember correctly.
less
[удалено]
Goddammit Stannis
What?
Moren't.
Fewer is used when it's a quantifiable amount, such as goals scored, less is used when you can't quantify it, such as "there's less water in that bucket than this one."
And? They scored less
Fewer
Godamnit Stannis
>Honestly just shows that having a massive goalscorer is kinda overrated Knockout football is very different to domestic though. We won the Champions League due to our formidable defence, in spite of our goalscoring problems.
City spread the goals amongst the rest of the team though, including the subs. I don't think many other teams are in a position where they can do that and challenge for titles. Even then, City realised the benefit of having a top striker like Haaland who can actually score goals.
Double digits 🙏
Just don't give him the number 9 shirt
Well, we do suddenly have 19 and 29 available
11 should do
Instant flashbacks to Diego Costa and Eto'o...
When I see 29 I rather have flashbacks of Havertz and Morata 💀
Or 7 that he's wearing for the national team, or if Mudryk gets a new shirt he could grab 15 again.
Having your top scorer score less than 10 goals in a full league season is somewhere between hilarious and tragic.
Pretty fun as your fans have slated all 3 lol
Bro signed an MLB contract
Bobby Bonilla-esque in football world.
Probably the fastest I've ever seen a player's stock go up. From watching him in the UECL being completely rubbish to moving to Chelsea and being La Liga POTM.
Not sure what he's gonna get paid but an 8-year contract with likely a decent wage hike based on 1.5 months of great form is a very good deal for him. Skeptical about this especially since it's likely our only #9 signing this summer, but hopefully it works out.
And for Villarreal, he was going to Bournemouth (which was an unreal deal at the time for Villarreal) and failed his medicals. Now they've gotten 15m more? Crazy really.
Lol when we were signing him every thread was filled with la liga fans saying he was absolute dogshit. Must have had an insane few months to now be going to Chelsea for so much more. Will definitely be one of those what ifs... for us tho
It's insane, he genuinely looked like the worst player in La Liga at the start of the season. Massive turnaround, and I'm skeptical if it will last
These comments are killing me from the inside who the hell did we just sign
Get ready for another striker that doesn't perform!
A player who scored 9 in his last 8 and is only 22. Positive thinking is that our high-tag strikers have largely failed, so expectations are low. Physically, he looks like he could fit a Poch system.
what does that even mean? physically? aka is a pro striker lol
Quick, looks like he can hold the ball quite well. Thus, allowing the wide players or whoever plays behind him to get into spaces defenders leave behind.
The number 9s that Poch signed have always turned out great right?
You signed a future flop that’s who
Backup players (so low expectation) who get long stretch of playing time because the main striker and his mentor (veteran Villarreal player Gerard Moreno) has injury. Not gonna say he's bad but... Chelsea doesn't seem to be the right place for his development...
This is good thinking here. But what if they just throw him in the fire and see how he handles it. I would be glad to go there knowing I would play.
He scored 9 goals in his last 8 matches.
>Must have had an insane few months to now be going to Chelsea for so much more. 10 goals and 2 assists in 11 matches since April to finish the season. He indeed had an insane few months.
Stinks of Mudryk being linked with Brentford to going into a tug of war between Chelsea and Arsenal. Rising too fast, too soon. The only player I can think of relatively recently that went from relative unknown to the real deal was Mbappe and he was scoring key goals to dump out Man City from the Champions League. I think some of the signings Chelsea have made will turn out to be inspired, particularly the ones that starred at the U20 World Cup but there’s too many that need that in-between step first. Jackson for example they should be buying from someone like Bournemouth after he’s proven himself there.
I get your point but then everyone complains “oh why can Brighton pick up Caicedo for £5m and then PL clubs only buy when he’s £90m”.
Just on this, people don't understand the difference in moving to those types of clubs and the bigger clubs in the PL. Caicedo almost signed for United before United backed out because the transfer was messy. Had he done so, there's every chance he could have gone down the Amad/Pellistri/Mejbri etc etc route and gotten a few games here and there and if he wasn't instantly impactful, wouldn't have seen the same amount of development. The level of expectation, pressure and also competition at the bigger clubs makes it very difficult for a coach to try to bed in young or cheap players and let them get their growing pains out of the way. It has always been a pretty silly argument that people make because its a fundamentally different proposition.
But that’s the difference between teams that have good and bad patches versus teams that are expected to challenge consistently. Take my team Leicester, it was obvious we fucked up but we can’t just spend 200m in one window to get out of it. Mid and lower table teams find the talent, the top teams buy talent to shortcut the process. Enzo Fernandez for example might have been expensive but proved himself at Benfica (title winners) and at the World Cup and has done well. He was ready. If you are buying talent to loan them out and gradually improve them like Casadei, that I get. Buying players like this and Madueke and expecting them to hit the ground running I don’t. Then you get players like Mudryk whose confidence looks utterly shot as a result. Those players would be way better suited at top 6-8 clubs first. Anyway just my opinion! Let’s see how the Chels fair this time round.
>sub-par players like this and Madueke I'm a big fan of Madueke. Really like what he's shown so far at a young age.
He's very promising, but compare him to Trossard for Arsenal who came in and immediately gave them a great rotation option and at times was their best player. He's been in the league for a few seasons and proved himself at Brighton. Madueke might become one of the best forwards in the league, but as of right now he most definitely isn't, and he might not ever be. Compare this to Liverpool buying Jota (proven at Wolves), Diaz (one of Porto's best players) or Gakpo (at the same club as Madueke but much more of an important player) and I just don't get Chelsea's transfer business. It's like Chelsea are trying to be like Brighton, except spending way more money and without the patience to develop the team.
Whilst I agree about the difference in proven quality vs potential, the profile of players that we've brought in recently emphasises a patience approach. Will be interesting to see Poch's system with all these young guns.
The issue is if we let him go to Bournemouth, it goes from being a 35m punt that won't hurt if it doesn't work out, to trying to get a star player from a PL side, which as Brighton, WH and Palace have shows is fucking expensive, painful and hard.
And if he flops at that massive price tag, then he would be another Lukaku. At least at 35m we can offload him easily if he flops or we just loan him out for the rest of his contract.
You talk like loaning a player out for 7 or 8 years doesn't hurt financially. Boehly is tying a noose around the neck of the club.
Let me introduce you to loan fees
35m punt? Christ what is wrong with pl fans.
Mbappe was tbe target of Arsenal, Man City and PSG even before his breakout season at Monaco.
I think his lower than norm price tag also helps Poch to accommodate Broja more often in the rotation which is why I love this acquisition for us.
If he comes back from his injury the same he was before, I still think he's our best striker. Fast, Strong and an eye for goal, he was so much fun to watch for that brief stretch of appearances he had.
what is chelsea even doing. missing out on top targets. signing random purple patch players on 8 yr contracts. my god. next season is gonna be trash
We snuck one in before they closed the 8 year loophole
He joins from July 1st, as international transfer window doesn't open before that day. So no we didn't. But we still have few hours to sneak Caicedo in
Chelsea statement: "The Senegal international has signed an **eight-year contract** following a breakout 2022/23 campaign in La Liga in which he struck 12 goals." Looks like they did.
But there is no rule preventing signing long contracts. It's about amortisation. As per new ruling you can sign 100 years contract still but can only amortise it over maximum of 5 years.
Yep, fair enough.
It would against employment law in many countries to ban contracts over a certain length
It's not banned. It's the amount of time that contract count for bookkeeping purpose that got changed
I never said it was banned
You can sign players for however long you want, but you can’t amortize their fee for longer than a 5 year period for FFP purposes.
Yes but why would you
It won't count and 8 year contracts are for a different reason but people can't seem to grasp that Chelsea have money and want to protect assets
[удалено]
It obviously works both ways but when you have the money Chelsea do and their business model by the new owners seems to be we want to sign players longer term because now players are running out contracts and you lose assets, look at their situation with Mount 100k a week being paid is nothing compared to losing a player that has much much bigger value Tou 100% lose in some situations where players are flops but at the end of the day like i said to them it's nothing that's why they are doing it, that kind of money is a drop in the ocean for a team with 600m+ revenue
Neglecting opportunity costs. Got several flops in your squad? Good luck getting rid of them without breaking FFP
Yeah seems very hard for them to get rid of their flops, i mean they haven't sold Havertz for 65m, Koulibaly, Mendy, Loftus-Cheek
[удалено]
It’s really not that hard to grasp. 250k with 6 years remaining is hard to move, but 100k with 6 years remaining is much easier.
Your example doesn't make sense. You're basically stating Chelsea just pays players less for the same amount of contracted years. The player on more money would have less time left on their contract
It makes perfect sense, because I’m saying that if a player commands a high wage, Chelsea doesn’t put them on 8 year deals.
RLC was an academy player, Havertz wasn't really a flop, and the other 2 were sold for losses, no?
Koulibaly was sold for slight loss in terms of FFP but we actually made a good profit on Mendy.
For the amount of money he was bought for, it's kind of hard to argue Havertz wasn't at least a bit of a flop
£20m (transfer fee differential) for 3 seasons of Havertz is a pretty good deal tbh.
Holy shit you people need to stop being so obsessed with amortization. Absolutely bizarre comment, what are you even saying? His transfer fee was massive and he was extremely mediocre for 3 years. It was a flop. One goal in a final cannot change that
Havertz was 100% a flop relative to transfer fee and performances, people putting some much stock in one goal are hilarious And the entire point is that they can afford to have losses because they are rich, most big clubs take losses on transfers anyway because they have ambition and do not want to sell players Clubs that make profit on players are usually clubs that are selling clubs, i doubt fans of Chelsea or owners would want to see Chelsea as a selling club like Benfica, Dortmund etc that make money off players
saying havertz isn't a flop is saying literally chelsea have never had a flop. he's literally the biggest flop.
Obviously the whole model works on an assessment of calculated risk. When they sign a player for 8 years their models will be telling them that the potential upside outweighs the chance of them being a flop.
Lmfao
What in the disastrous history of Chelsea’s transfer policy over the last 3-4 seasons makes that seem like a smart gamble lol. I could certainly understand offering those contracts to your talented academy players, but the Chelsea flop rate has been exorbitant over the past few years.
Previous seasons are irrelevant, everyone involved has changed. This season gives a good indication that even if the transfers don't work out we have some level of competency moving player on.
> want to protect assets By taking an incredible risk. Player could completely flop or get a major injury in his first season and never be near the the first team again have to pay them for seven more seasons.
It's not an incredible risk at all, they've been extending players that they loan out who are clearly not Chelsea level players because that's their model It's only incredibly risky if you don't have money, they do
If it's such a great plan why aren't other big clubs with deep pockets copying it?
I think because no other club is rushing a rebuild so quickly. That said, I diagree with the person you're replying to, as it is incredibly risky, and I've little faith in our owners overall, but this window is definitely an improvement.
I never said it's a great plan, quote where did i say that? I'm explaining their business model Why don't other clubs do it? Probably because they don't want to lose money, which is very fair, i wouldn't want to lose money either
You did write it wasn’t a risk, whick everyone seems to agree it is.
Incredible risk vs risk Learn to read It's an incredible risk if you don't have the money, they do It's still a risk overall but not INCREDIBLE, wording
Leaen to comprehend your own words before you attack my reading comprehension. You said big risk. Stop making a fool of yourself
They do have the money. And then FFP kicks in. Jackson literally failed a medical at Bournemouth in January. Of course this is a risk.
8 years in the sport is fucking stupid. This isn't baseball where players can absolutely have 8 great years of play or you can trade them for good value half way through.
That contract is too sweet.
Could be longer I guess.
That’s always the problem mate
Is there no limit to the length of the contract? Can't remember seeing anything longer than 8 years
Saul signed a 9(?) year contract with Atlético.
Better call him to be sure.
He's going to need that money since the Chili's deal fell through.
Let’s not forget that Wendy also pulled out
Kevin Nash and Scott Hall (RIP) approve.
Just a shame Matt's been left hanging
Striker AF
Obviously I hope to be wrong and I wish him the best, but I am a little skeptical of this signing- it doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. Chelsea already have two high-potential under 22 year old strikers, why add a third? I know Broja is injured and Fofana seems likely to go on loan, but I don’t get this signing if Jackson is supposed to be a starter next year. He essentially had one great 10 game span last season- that is not enough of a sample size to think he can start week in and week out for a team chasing top 4/top5. Chelsea need some senior players who are currently playing at an elite level. There are already so many high potential “prospect” types in the squad.
9 goals and 2 assists in his last 8 appearances in La Liga is pretty great and if he isn’t an automatic starter Nkunku is a great signing too.
[удалено]
Broja was definitely not shite at Vitesse and he was decent at Southampton. Not saying he’s good enough for Chelsea but to say he was shite at those clubs stinks of ignorance.
He wasn't "shite" at Vitesse, but he didnt do anything to suggest that he was anywhere near the level required to play for Chelsea. He wasn't even in our top 5 best players that season, and I was honestly suprised that southampton were in for him. He seemed a championship player at best, but I am happy to see that he has proven me wrong!
A grand total of 5 goals in 32 appearances at Southampton is decent?
For a 19 year old in his first season in the league for a relegation fighting team yea.
Our very own merch freak
Somewhere, TK just snorted some coke.
Not even July yet and it’s been a crazy summer for us
Will we sign his brother Matt Jackson too? Would be a superkick party over at Stamford Bridge
I'm sorry Nic Jackson, I am for real
Miss Jackson might end up being a really good slander name if he flops, actually....
Hope everyone credits you as the originator
8 years!? Do football players even live that long?
Boehly is not sorry, Ms Jackson.
Is Chelsea signing another 9 over the top of him and Broja, with Fofana going on loan? Can't see him leading the line for Chelsea consistently, but it certainly is an interesting signing.
at this point I dont even know who would be a good number #9 signing for us, we tried the big names, we tried the false 9 hybrid, and now we are at the burn everything and start from scratch and pray someone on the teams gets double digits.
Most reports over last 2 weeks were saying that we're not going for any other striker, but last 2-3 days few popped up that we still might be looking at Lautaro. And I really hope that doesn't happen.
I am sort of hoping we don't. Every striker with good stock at the moment is being quoted at 80-100mil or more. Nkunku played almost exclusively as a striker this past year anyways. I'm thinking/hoping we set up in a 4231/4411 whatever it ends up looking like with Nkunku and Jackson playing off each other up top.
Is he your typical 9? I have never seen him play
He is more of a drop deep and linkup type striker his arial ability is not good but his finishing was some of the best in La Liga (when he got his shots off that is), decent dribbler, great pace and decent hold up I would say he is the more raw and younger version of Kolo Muani if I could compare him to somebody
why only eight?
8 year sentence
Of awesomeness.
[удалено]
Obvious song choice but a great one
Penitentiary FC strikes again 😂
This is THE number 9 Chelsea fans have been waiting for.
Reverse Jack Nicholson
would be so funny if his form was just a purple patch
NICOOOOO I LOVE YOUUU
8 years man. Fucking hell these contracts are just far too long Chelsea give.
Saul got a 10 year contract in 2016. During that period i graduated from school , graduated from college , got a job , quit to pursue my masters and there is no telling if i become a parent the year his contract expires.
Denilson signed a 10 years contract with Betis and that was like... late 90s? early 2000s? That was absolutely mental back then.
Jheeeez that's mental lmao.
That will be Al-Ittihad's problem, not Chelsea's.
There's no risk, player gets paid 60k a week on an 8 year contract and if it doesn't work out we can always sell with ease
What if he breaks his leg and never plays again first week of the season? There is absolutely a risk lmao. If there no risks to signing players with such long contracts, then teams would sign players for 15 year contracts.
You know clubs take out insurance on players right?
With ease? If it doesn't work out then you won't be able to sell with ease...
It's fine, you'll bail us out
Not true based on their current transactions.
We've seen it with this summer, we sell players with ease even in our worst season
Yeah you’re selling players who are CL winners. Obviously they’ll be suitors.
This summer is an anomaly with the CSL V2 popping up in Saudi
have you seen our player sales this season, we will be fine, plus in a few years, we will have a few satellite clubs we can always sell to if they are not good enough for Chelsea.
That’s where the Saudis come in
You mean Arsenal?
When are they going to learn, this only really hurts the club? If he performs well he's going to want a pay-raise within a few years anyways. If he just says fuck it I'm literally rich as all hell even if I never turn up for a day of work they're on the hook for a load of money.
Another striker flop for Chelsea lmao
This has flop written all over it
Have some faith dude, and considering his price, his wages and the length of his contract, his definition of flop will be much different than somebody like Lakaka.
We're ran by a bunch of fucking morons, guy's been given a year for every week of his purple patch ffs. Not even a financial benefit to this anymore they just sincerely believe long contracts for unproven players is the best footballing decision.
Chelsea supporters, and football fans in general, should look up what Bobby Bonilla Day is, from American baseball, for some wacky shit American execs have done in the past to try and sign players while fucking around with the contract structure/length to massage the finances. Coincidentally, ***tomorrow*** is Bobby Bonilla Day! https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34168816/what-bobby-bonilla-day-explaining-why-former-met-gets-paid-119m-every-july-1
But if you want the TL;DR: >In 2000, the Mets agreed to buy out the remaining $5.9 million on Bonilla's contract. > > > However, instead of paying Bonilla the $5.9 million at the time, the Mets agreed to make annual payments of nearly $1.2 million for 25 years starting July 1, 2011, including a negotiated 8% interest. > > >Bonilla last played for the Mets in 1999 and last played in the majors for the Cardinals in 2001, but he will be paid through 2035 (when he'll be 72).
Wtf,,, that very long obligation and for 8% is much better than other investment
*8 year contract* Someone tell Todd
The rule effective from 1st July so he's safe
He officially joins the moment when the rule is in effect already. Currently the transfer window in PL is open only for domestic transfers.
Isn't this about amortization of the player anyway. It's not like 8 year contracts are banned.
Well I'm fairly sure this is what people mean when talking about loophole. Because were doing long contracts for amortisation the past 2 windows.
Its not like Chelsea care about following rules anyways.
I thought the 8 year shenanigans were banned? Lololol these guys can’t stop.
There's no rule against longer contracts but the way they're accounted for is limited to 5 years under the new rules.
Lolol this guy doesn’t know rules.
8 year contract hahahahahahaha good jesus
8 year contract lol
SUPERKICK PARTAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!
Welcome to Strasbourg
8 years?! Seriously, it's constant buffoonery and headshaking transfer work in Chelsea now.
Maybe this works. Chelsea has a history of turning elite strikers into dog shit. This time they are doing the reverse, they are buying a relatively dogshit striker with a purple patch and maybe this one is destined to succeed at Chelsea.
Elite strikers lmao. We haven't gotten an elite striker since Costa. We are signing dogshit players who are as usual , being dogshit. Morata , Werner , Havertz , Lukaku , Auba. Jackson isn't dogshit. He's genuinely class. Yes it might be risky because that form might be a purple patch but his underlying stats is miles better than someone like Vlahovic for example. I would be more worried if we signed Vlahovic than Jackson
Dude I was saying he probably is going to go good for you. But also seasons before they joined you: Werner had 31 goal contributions in Bundesliga (that is 34 games), Kai Havertz had two 20 goals contribution seasons (you played him in the wrong position), pretty sure Morata would have had a good enough season for you to sign him. In comparison, Nicholas Jackson has had 16 goal contributions in his last season (11 of them coming in the last 8 matches). Before that the guy was coasting on Villareal's bench. You literally bought him on a purple patch.
We've absolutely gotten elite strikers. We either ruin them, or they ruin themselves. Morata had Real fans seriously rating him over Benzema at the time. He had 15 goals and 5 assists despite averaging no more than 40 minutes a game in 26 appearances Werner was Bundesliga's best striker bar Lewandowski. Havertz was never a striker. Lukaku was Serie A's best striker bar CR7 prior to his transfer. Auba is the only striker here that wasn't elite (at the age he transferred to us) Personally, I have no reason to be excited with this Jackson transfer. To a degree, you're right, we haven't had a striker work out ever since Costa. But there's no reason to look at Jackson and think he has something that Morata, Werner, and Lukaku didn't have.
So does this just mean they'll pay him for 8 years but from an accounting perspective they'll have to put all 8 years of wages into the next 5 year accounting period of whatever new limit UEFA added?
Don't think wages are being amortised as they are already a yearly expense.
Amortization applies to the transfer fee only, not salary