• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Chelsea 2 Burnley 3

Recommended Posts

Holymoly   
4 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

I doubt that 'they' will say that, as the club appears to be attempting to raise the finance through commercial avenues (I.e., they're going to borrow the finance). So in reality, player sales really don't come into it, do they?

Lack of acquisitions then if you prefer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Michael Tucker said:

Look at the post that I originally replied to. 

I did.

I still don't understand why acquisitions wouldn't be impacted. Taking on a loan of that magnitude means we have to pay interest and paying back that loan. That means there's less money available for acquiring new players. 

I would have thought that to be fairly obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

I understand the frustrations with the squad size, but realistically, it wouldnt make any difference if your bench is full of quality players and your captain gets sent off after 14 minutes, and your centre midfielder puts himself in jeopardy by firstly doing a silly, sarcastic clap at the referee, then doing a rah foul to bring us down to 9. 

The 10 we had on the field after the red card and substitution was a good 10, but we ended up 3-0 down. 

Yes we need players, but we could have a squad of 50, and if the selected players are that reckless on the field, we will still be screwed on a one off game basis. 

And the ref had it in for us from minute 1 BTW. I haven't seen it again, but from where I was Alonso got booked after 3 minutes for a clean tackle..........the fiasco that ensued was fairly predictable from there on in. 

Share this post


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

I understand the frustrations with the squad size, but realistically, it wouldnt make any difference if your bench is full of quality players and your captain gets sent off after 14 minutes, and your centre midfielder puts himself in jeopardy by firstly doing a silly, sarcastic clap at the referee, then doing a rah foul to bring us down to 9. 

The 10 we had on the field after the red card and substitution was a good 10, but we ended up 3-0 down. 

Yes we need players, but we could have a squad of 50, and if the selected players are that reckless on the field, we will still be screwed on a one off game basis. 

And the ref had it in for us from minute 1 BTW. I haven't seen it again, but from where I was Alonso got booked after 3 minutes for a clean tackle..........the fiasco that ensued was fairly predictable from there on in. 

Surely a bench of serious options gives out manager...more options? 

More options makes it harder for the opposition manager to figure out what we can change. 

More options gives us a viable plan B (see last season when we shifted Oscar, Brana, JT and Fabregas from the starting XI).  

This season, if the first XI doesn't hit the ground running we have no options to change. There are no players available. 

15 senior outfielders. 5 of those is for the tree CB positions. We have 10 players for 7 positions (wing backs, CMs, AMs and S).

Madness of the highest order.

Gurj SS said it well. I also don't think that many have grasped the severity of the situation. 15 senior players for a European top club is beyond poor planning. It's incompetence of the highest order and it's the FOURTH ****ING TIME we've allowed this to happen. 

No excuses left really. Anyone who says "but there's still a few weeks left of the window" are clearly not tuned in to how severe this situation is. This season is over before it even started and the outcome is oh so predictable. There's only one person who'll pay for this debacle and unfortunately it'll be the wrong person - for the fourth time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
Just now, Sleeping Dave said:

Surely a bench of serious options gives out manager...more options? 

More options makes it harder for the opposition manager to figure out what we can change. 

More options gives us a viable plan B (see last season when we shifted Oscar, Brana, JT and Fabregas from the starting XI).  

This season, if the first XI doesn't hit the ground running we have no options to change. There are no players available. 

15 senior outfielders. 5 of those is for the tree CB positions. We have 10 players for 7 positions (wing backs, CMs, AMs and S).

Madness of the highest order.

Gurj SS said it well. I also don't think that many have grasped the severity of the situation. 15 senior players for a European top club is beyond poor planning. It's incompetence of the highest order and it's the FOURTH ****ING TIME we've allowed this to happen. 

No excuses left really. Anyone who says "but there's still a few weeks left of the window" are clearly not tuned in to how severe this situation is. This season is over before it even started and the outcome is oh so predictable. There's only one person who'll pay for this debacle and unfortunately it'll be the wrong person - for the fourth time. 

I don't diagree with a word, but Conte was never going to make 3 changes after 15 minutes. Regardless of options, he must have hoped and expected the 10 he had on the field wouldn't be 3-0 down at HT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Selling players when the coach doesn't deem them good enough is one thing. Not replacing the outgoings quite a different matter all together. 

We've seen this happen before and I'm starting to think that there are a few at this club who doesn't want the manager/coach to get too powerful. It's the only explanation that makes even a little bit of sense. Cause the alternative is utter incompetence and I'm not sure how one can hide that for 10-14 seasons... 

Looking further into possible machiavellian machinations Dave, do you think there's any possibility that Roman and maybe some others, being thoroughly peed off by the Costa fiasco, have been dragging their feet when it comes to signing more players because they might be deliberately trying to put Conte in a position whereby he will throw a wobbly and cut and run?

As I say, machiavellian, but, as you say, the alternatives suggest incompetence, which doesn't make much sense to me given the success we've enjoyed as a club during Roman's time..

On the other hand, might it not also well be that the board are adopting the strategy that, (since transfer fees are ridiculous, with every selling club leveraging the Neymar fee to up the ante on any offer they receive for any player), to deliberately play a waiting game and aim to leave it as late as possible in the window in the hope of getting much more reasonable prices then. After all, those selling clubs have their own business models to comply with and may well know that they have to sell unwanted/disaffected players eventually.

And, on still another hand, it might be simply that Roman has a lot of contending demands on his money at this time - new ground, divorce, continued financial difficulties in Russia due to sanctions and so on.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United of the South : Peter Kenyon

I think its the Newcastle United.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.