• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

paulw66   
On 12/02/2016 at 5:43 PM, Bob Singleton said:

Indeed it was, but given his age and that the club had for a few seasons been getting rid of older players under Ranieri, it's equally possible that (irrespective of money) Zola was on his way out. His best season ever (following on from his least productive) may have been a result of him feeling relaxed knowing he was going back home to Sardinia to play for Cagliari.

To say so unequivocally that we had to let Zola go because of our finances is a deeply flawed argument that can be countered by what I have said.

So why did we try and keep him after the takeover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

So why did we try and keep him after the takeover?


The answer is quite simple and, I would have thought, blindingly obvious!!!

Under Bates, Ranieri was charged with lowering the average age of the squad, which he was doing. So Zola's contract was allowed to run down.

Abramovich arrives with his billions (having apparently "fallen in love with football" following a "sexy" Man U v Real Madrid game). Before acting like a kid in a sweet shop, he looks at what he's already got, notices Zola, likes Zola, finds out Zola is leaving and tries to persuade him to stay.

One owner wanted to reduce the average age of the squad; the new owner just wanted shiny things, whatever their age. Two different strategies which meant Zola was no longer required by one but coveted by the other.

As I said earlier, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. but my scenario is just as plausible as the one you favour; that we were so poor (financially) that we couldn't afford to give a 37 year old a new contract!!!

Edited by Bob Singleton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sea foot   
19 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

So why did we try and keep him after the takeover?

My thoughts exactly.

My recollection was that we tried to keep him but, as a man of honour, he'd given his word to sign and wouldn't go back on it.

But if we just want to bash RA then we can just say that he wanted shiny baubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sea foot said:

My thoughts exactly.

My recollection was that we tried to keep him but, as a man of honour, he'd given his word to sign and wouldn't go back on it.

But if we just want to bash RA then we can just say that he wanted shiny baubles.

 

So the fact that Zola was 37, and Ranieri was under instructions from Bates to lower the average squad age has nothing to do with it... it was because we couldn't afford him?? Then when we get a new, rich, owner, we try and get him to break his verbal agreement with Cagliari only because we can now afford to keep him? Utter rubbish. Back then RA new very little about football. Zola was a star name that we'd just let go of; one who was much loved by the fans. What better way for the new owner to curry favour with a sceptical fan base than to attempt to get our bit of glitter back?

I'm not trying to bash Roman, by the way... I'm just arguing that the reason Zola wasn't given a new contract at the age of 37 by the then Bates regime wasn't because we were so poor we were about to go into administration (as some here are suggesting) but because of his age.

Edited by Bob Singleton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sea foot said:

My recollection was that we tried to keep him but, as a man of honour, he'd given his word to sign and wouldn't go back on it.

That is certainly the version I'd want out there if I were zola or Ranieri or Greenberg (our media man then).

Whether it is true, or whether we didn't want him - just had a lot of fans asking, who will ever really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holymoly   

What's the situation regarding FFP these days? Is it still dead in the water or is it likely to raise its head again?

If it is still likely to be a factor I don't see how City have a greater bargaining position than us when it comes to transfer fees as surely we have a bigger global market share than they do? While it sticks in my craw I can understand why United can outbid us on fees and wages I would have though we should head up the rest of the league at the moment.

Watching us dick about in the transfer market is so frustrating these last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Big Nike deal announced today - Kerching. 

Kerching for now, but...

£60m a year for 15 years might sound good, but in 15 years time that £60m/year will be worth considerably less than it is now, so excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down at the moment. I know we can do what we recently did with Adidas and buy ourselves out of it, but still...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
13 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

Kerching for now, but...

£60m a year for 15 years might sound good, but in 15 years time that £60m/year will be worth considerably less than it is now, so excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down at the moment. I know we can do what we recently did with Adidas and buy ourselves out of it, but still...

 

Those amounts are nothing more than heresay though. It might well be staggered. Much like a transfer rumour - no point in getting annoyed about something we don't know to be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Those amounts are nothing more than heresay though. It might well be staggered. Much like a transfer rumour - no point in getting annoyed about something we don't know to be true. 

Pretty much everyone, from "sports journalists" at national newspapers, to financial journalists at the FT, Reuters etc are saying a mix of £60m/year for 15 years or £900m over a 15 year period (which all amounts to the same). Given United's deal was £75m/year for 10 years and we paid Adidas £40m to get ourselves out of a contract with them, I'd say £60m/year sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now