The Official Chelsea Thread [Vol 3]

[TaylotS2K]

TTmonkey said:

Power shift in London. Will it last though?

Nothing like jumping the gun. Spurs have to start winning trophies consistently for that to happen.

Our main problem again highlighted in the Spurs game.

We created numerous chances in the 1st half and should have gone in at HT with a couple of goals advantage at least. AGAIN, we weren't deadly enough like Spurs were in the 2nd half. Even in the 2nd half, specifically at the start we perhaps should have scored another couple. This team lacks character and knew we wouldn't bounce back like days of old when we had characters such as JT, Lamps etc.

[TEKNOPUG]

aeropilot said:

Helicopter123 said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

The fact we're failing to challenge for the title is the board's fault

The fact we're failing to challenge for the top 4 is Conte's fault

Be careful what you wish for. If RA were to walk away where would that leave Chelsea?

I don't think anyone can realistically compete with Man City domestically when they have an unlimited budget. They will spend again this summer to build on a squad that is already out of sight in the league.

Are Chelsea ready to spend £500m + to compete next season.

Is anyone?

It's not just a matter of budget to compete with Man City, you've got the small matter of finding a manager/coach that can compete with Pep.......and clearly, there's not many of them around.

I think, everyone else will just have to settle for fighting over the scraps until Pep gets bored and goes off to dominate Serie A or takes a few years out and then takes over Spain to add the European and World Cups to his managers trophy cabinet.

It's all budget. Jose, Klopp, Poch, Conte, hell even Wenger would all have City winning the league this season.

The problem Chelsea have is that it's all about instant success - and in order to achieve that you need to spend big (bigger than all your rivals) each season. Which wasn't so expensive to do before City. Lack of managerial continuity means your squad is always in a state of flux and an expensive merry go round. The 2 stand out players this season were both on your books and let go. Had you had a manager with a 3-5 year contract and a brief to build a title winning squad over the next 3 years, they may still be there.

Expecting a manager to come in the summer and build a squad capable of taking on City, without massively outspending them, is fantasy. Does RA have the pragmatism or patience to accept that it's going to take a 3-5 season lead time before challenging for the title again?

[Ascayman]

Lets not pretend that Chelsea dont spent bar utd and city they spend more than everyone else.

[TEKNOPUG]

Ascayman said:

Lets not pretend that Chelsea dont spent bar utd and city they spend more than everyone else.

They should always finish top 3. Probably top 2. It's only them and City whose only priority is to win the league. Every other club is a business whose owners expect a financial return or at the very least, don't expect to be making losses each season.

[Ascayman]

TEKNOPUG said:

Ascayman said:

Lets not pretend that Chelsea dont spent bar utd and city they spend more than everyone else.

They should always finish top 3. Probably top 2. It's only them and City whose only priority is to win the league. Every other club is a business whose owners expect a financial return or at the very least, don't expect to be making losses each season.

Agreed.

[trackdemon]

Ascayman said:

Lets not pretend that Chelsea dont spent bar utd and city they spend more than everyone else.

Except our net spend was less than Leicester & Watford last season. Don't let facts get in the way of a Chelsea rant though...

[aeropilot]

TEKNOPUG said:

hell even Wenger would all have City winning the league this season.

[Ascayman]

trackdemon said:

Ascayman said:

Lets not pretend that Chelsea dont spent bar utd and city they spend more than everyone else.

Except our net spend was less than Leicester & Watford last season. Don't let facts get in the way of a Chelsea rant though...

Are you basing this on one single window?

Over any realistic parameter of time to give you a proper picture you will be in the top 3. then chuck in your wage bill too. To pretend that Chelsea arent one of the top 3 spenders in the league is simply bananas.

[Sparkyhd]

[redacted]

[Adam B]

TEKNOPUG said:

They should always finish top 3. Probably top 2. It's only them and City whose only priority is to win the league. Every other club is a business whose owners expect a financial return or at the very least, don't expect to be making losses each season.

I thought RA had a 10 year plan by which CFC had to break even - did the smart thing of spending big pre-FFP (or the joke that became) and then tick over spending more sensibly. Thought CFC had managed to achieve that in last 3 or 4 years

[TaylotS2K]

So many similarities between us and Juve last night. Juve played pretty well and times, but were outdone by Real's ruthlessness in front of goal (Ronaldo) and his performance was akin to Messi's against us. You've got to take your chances in football and be resolute at the back when needed.

[jcremonini]

TEKNOPUG said:

It's all budget. Jose, Klopp, Poch, Conte, hell even Wenger would all have City winning the league this season.

Sorry - don't agree one bit.

If it was 'all budget' then why aren't ManU winning ? They've spent just as much as City and yet are miles behind. And, if it was just budget why haven't City just gone out and bought the most expensive players in each position ? Don't forget, as well, that when City go knocking at the door for a player their club can add 30% to the transfer fee knowing they can afford it.

The simple fact is that when you look at City's spending they have bought well and have not broken any transfer records in doing so (57m for Laporte is the club record IIRC). They have also transitioned into a young team and one with strength in depth no other team can compare to.

Suggesting anyone could win the league with those players is a great disservice to Guardiola. The very notion that Conte, Klopp or Poch would play the same way as they do under Guardiola (when they don't play the same style of football in their respective clubs) and , yet, would still win the league is just wrong (you need the right players in the right positions playing the right way to win things).

[jcremonini]

Helicopter123 said:

Be careful what you wish for. If RA were to walk away where would that leave Chelsea?

I don't think anyone can realistically compete with Man City domestically when they have an unlimited budget. They will spend again this summer to build on a squad that is already out of sight in the league.

Are Chelsea ready to spend £500m + to compete next season.

Is anyone?

Chelsea cannot afford to spend big for next season. Or the season after that or the one after that. We have a stadium to build and that is where all the money will go.

Personally I'm not too bothered by where we currently are - the fact is for the next few seasons we will be on a very limited budget. What I would like to see is a new manager who will start playing the youth through during that period (Let's be honest here - we are head and shoulders above any other team for youth). If that means we finish 4th-6th for a few years then so be it - at least when we come out the other side we will be much healthier for it.

[jcremonini]

Ascayman said:

trackdemon said:

Ascayman said:

Lets not pretend that Chelsea dont spent bar utd and city they spend more than everyone else.

Except our net spend was less than Leicester & Watford last season. Don't let facts get in the way of a Chelsea rant though...

Are you basing this on one single window?

Over any realistic parameter of time to give you a proper picture you will be in the top 3. then chuck in your wage bill too. To pretend that Chelsea arent one of the top 3 spenders in the league is simply bananas.

He's probably basing it on a complete financial position rather than the one you've read in the Sun or wherever.

Chelsea's net transfer spend over the last 3 seasons has been negative to the tune of an average of 20m per season. What the papers fail to report into net spend is the money earned from players out on loan and we have loads of them. Chelsea don't do it for any other reason than it being lucrative to do so (Musonda to Celtic is worth £5m over 18 months plus Celtlic pay his salary)..

[TEKNOPUG]

jcremonini said:

TEKNOPUG said:

It's all budget. Jose, Klopp, Poch, Conte, hell even Wenger would all have City winning the league this season.

Sorry - don't agree one bit.

If it was 'all budget' then why aren't ManU winning ? They've spent just as much as City and yet are miles behind. And, if it was just budget why haven't City just gone out and bought the most expensive players in each position ? Don't forget, as well, that when City go knocking at the door for a player their club can add 30% to the transfer fee knowing they can afford it.

The simple fact is that when you look at City's spending they have bought well and have not broken any transfer records in doing so (57m for Laporte is the club record IIRC). They have also transitioned into a young team and one with strength in depth no other team can compare to.

Suggesting anyone could win the league with those players is a great disservice to Guardiola. The very notion that Conte, Klopp or Poch would play the same way as they do under Guardiola (when they don't play the same style of football in their respective clubs) and , yet, would still win the league is just wrong (you need the right players in the right positions playing the right way to win things).

Providing we ignore the fact that City have spent more than United since Fergie left (City have spent the most in the league over the same period) and that City have the highest wage bill in the whole country....and that both Pellegrini and Mancini also won the league with City (and with the biggest budget and highest wage bill) and that Pep has always managed the club with the best squad (inherited at Barca) or the biggest budget/wage bill in the country (Bayern/City)...then yes, I'm sure it's all about Pep and no other manager would be able to win the league with City's resources this season.

[trackdemon]

jcremonini said:

He's probably basing it on a complete financial position rather than the one you've read in the Sun or wherever.

Chelsea's net transfer spend over the last 3 seasons has been negative to the tune of an average of 20m per season. What the papers fail to report into net spend is the money earned from players out on loan and we have loads of them. Chelsea don't do it for any other reason than it being lucrative to do so (Musonda to Celtic is worth £5m over 18 months plus Celtlic pay his salary)..

Indeed. We've tightened our belt, but that's not going to stop other fans suggesting we just spend our way to the league (as though any league winning club hasn't spent money in Premier League times). It may have had some relevance in the early Roman years, when he invested heavily in the squad (just like City & Utd have), but no longer. Hence why it's water off a ducks back.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Just been confirmed Ray Wilkins has died

[TaylotS2K]

Such sad news. RIP Ray.

Legend.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Very sad.

[TaylotS2K]

jcremonini said:

Helicopter123 said:

Be careful what you wish for. If RA were to walk away where would that leave Chelsea?

I don't think anyone can realistically compete with Man City domestically when they have an unlimited budget. They will spend again this summer to build on a squad that is already out of sight in the league.

Are Chelsea ready to spend £500m + to compete next season.

Is anyone?

Chelsea cannot afford to spend big for next season. Or the season after that or the one after that. We have a stadium to build and that is where all the money will go.

Personally I'm not too bothered by where we currently are - the fact is for the next few seasons we will be on a very limited budget. What I would like to see is a new manager who will start playing the youth through during that period (Let's be honest here - we are head and shoulders above any other team for youth). If that means we finish 4th-6th for a few years then so be it - at least when we come out the other side we will be much healthier for it.

Yep. With the new stadium on the horizon (lets not forget City got given theirs) the purse strings will be tightened. Lets just hope we continue to pick up trophies in the process, like the FA Cup this year....