thevelourfog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, Max Fowler said: We have to sell them by June 30th and make 100 million. Are you that convinced we will do that when there is the Euros in mid June? I don't think we need to raise £100m and my depressing guess is that deals are pretty much done by now, never mine June. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, thevelourfog said: I don't think we need to raise £100m and my depressing guess is that deals are pretty much done by now, never mine June. We do. We need to raise 100 million by 30th June. How can you think Broja is done when we just flubbed getting him out on loan? We are clearly trying to raise his value by getting him some game time. The only deal I can imagine being done already is Lukaku - how we get Gallagher out by then I have no idea when the Euros is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 8 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: We do. We need to raise 100 million by 30th June. How can you think Broja is done when we just flubbed getting him out on loan? We are clearly trying to raise his value by getting him some game time. The only deal I can imagine being done already is Lukaku - how we get Gallagher out by then I have no idea when the Euros is on. Max, did you ever hear the story or Peter and the Wolf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: We do. We need to raise 100 million by 30th June. How can you think Broja is done when we just flubbed getting him out on loan? We are clearly trying to raise his value by getting him some game time. The only deal I can imagine being done already is Lukaku - how we get Gallagher out by then I have no idea when the Euros is on. You'd think that the people ensuring that a club balances it's books and invented the transfer window , one of the controlling factors in enabling them to do so , would factor in the issue that there's an International tournament in the middle of the cut off period wouldn't you? Sadly , it's not just Chelsea riddled with incompetence . Edited February 6 by Mark Kelly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratsbrother Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 20 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: We do. We need to raise 100 million by 30th June. Dragons Den it is then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 18 minutes ago, Dwmh said: Max, did you ever hear the story or Peter and the Wolf? Again I can reshare a table the exact numbers, but everyone is in agreement we are in this situation. Yes he’s Man City and Man City ffp blah blah blah lol lol but this guy explains it clearly, as all other outlets are concurring with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 8 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Again I can reshare a table the exact numbers, but everyone is in agreement we are in this situation. Yes he’s Man City and Man City ffp blah blah blah lol lol Peter and the Borson then. It is one guy with a lot who want him to be right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Max Fowler said: We do. We need to raise 100 million by 30th June. Sorry, Max. It isn't worth engaging beyond this. You don't know this as a fact the way you are suggesting you do. All of us are just making best guesses, and that's fine. Discussion becomes pointless when any of us pretend otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thevelourfog Posted February 6 Popular Post Share Posted February 6 45 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Again I can reshare a table the exact numbers, but everyone is in agreement we are in this situation. Yes he’s Man City and Man City ffp blah blah blah lol lol but this guy explains it clearly, as all other outlets are concurring with It all sounds very plausible. I expect he'll be right about a lot as it seems a fair analysis of what is knowable to those outside the club. But he isn't "explaining" anything, because he doesn't know anything. Not anything about what we've spent, what our incoming is, what the potential overspend is, what our potential argument for mitigation is. He's offering a reasonable but largely uninformed option. The only difference between him and you, me or anyone else here is that platform and audience. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: It all sounds very plausible. I expect he'll be right about a lot as it seems a fair analysis of what is knowable to those outside the club. But he isn't "explaining" anything, because he doesn't know anything. Not anything about what we've spent, what our incoming is, what the potential overspend is, what our potential argument for mitigation is. He's offering a reasonable but largely uninformed option. The only difference between him and you, me or anyone else here is that platform and audience. Much of what we do on here is to a certain degree speculative. If you think it’s not true fair enough - personally with 60% likelihood of accuracy I’d still rather speculate on potential implications or we’d never talk about anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 9 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: It all sounds very plausible. I expect he'll be right about a lot as it seems a fair analysis of what is knowable to those outside the club. But he isn't "explaining" anything, because he doesn't know anything. Not anything about what we've spent, what our incoming is, what the potential overspend is, what our potential argument for mitigation is. He's offering a reasonable but largely uninformed option. The only difference between him and you, me or anyone else here is that platform and audience. I can only put up one thumb or one tick or one praise or like for this. It really needs 3 of each Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patThenevin Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 11 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: It all sounds very plausible. I expect he'll be right about a lot as it seems a fair analysis of what is knowable to those outside the club. But he isn't "explaining" anything, because he doesn't know anything. Not anything about what we've spent, what our incoming is, what the potential overspend is, what our potential argument for mitigation is. He's offering a reasonable but largely uninformed option. The only difference between him and you, me or anyone else here is that platform and audience. This is really true. Then you take a speculative step back and look at the general performance 'at the top'......and I can't have any faith in them not running the ship against the rocks. Speculation indeed but we are already dangerously off course (...anymore ship analogies) all but two years after being champions of Europe. The direction of travel does not bode well given the ilk of this financier class at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) Not exactly covering themselves as good business people or even decent human beings if this is true: Edited February 6 by east lower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 55 minutes ago, east lower said: Not exactly covering themselves as good business people or even decent human beings if this is true: This came up a week ago. (the Youmgster is 25). Le Havre specifically refer to the Chelsea cancellation of his contract and the low salary Le Havre were offering him. So the contract cancellation would be on terms agreed between player and agent with Chelsea. He was out of contract when he arrived so is probably on a fair old whack. I'm guessing there is more to the contract cancellation (and compensation for the loss of 18 months big time money than Le Havre know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, Dwmh said: This came up a week ago. (the Youmgster is 25). Le Havre specifically refer to the Chelsea cancellation of his contract and the low salary Le Havre were offering him. So the contract cancellation would be on terms agreed between player and agent with Chelsea. He was out of contract when he arrived so is probably on a fair old whack. I'm guessing there is more to the contract cancellation (and compensation for the loss of 18 months big time money than Le Havre know about. Rumour is £100k a week. He’s had one decent game, Brentford away. Rest of the time I’ve seen him live, he looks very limited. Very poor signing The chap quoted is reasonable specific, nothing that’s too ambiguous - doesn’t read well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 13 minutes ago, east lower said: The chap quoted is reasonable specific, nothing that’s too ambiguous - doesn’t read well. So Sarr and Chelsea are discussing who should take the loss on his £7.5m of remaining wages (far more than the Sarr we know could possibly earn in the remaining 7-10 years of his career). And the Le Havre guy thinks the issue is between Le Havre and Chelsea? Sounds to me like Sarr and agent are playing hard ball with CFC and we aren't playing. But I am glad Chelsea haven't responded to the provocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 4 minutes ago, Dwmh said: So Sarr and Chelsea are discussing who should take the loss on his £7.5m of remaining wages (far more than the Sarr we know could possibly earn in the remaining 7-10 years of his career). And the Le Havre guy thinks the issue is between Le Havre and Chelsea? Sounds to me like Sarr and agent are playing hard ball with CFC and we aren't playing. But I am glad Chelsea haven't responded to the provocation. Agreements had been reached, he’d been given permission to travel, permission withdrawn and then subsequently given again. Very detailed, no lines to read between other than the real reason for Chelsea not to do the deal. I’ve thoughts why and they revolve around poor maths and not by Le Havre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, east lower said: Agreements had been reached, he’d been given permission to travel, permission withdrawn and then subsequently given again. Very detailed, no lines to read between other than the real reason for Chelsea not to do the deal. I’ve thoughts why and they revolve around poor maths and not by Le Havre. As I say - there was only ever on issue. Do Chelsea give Sarr £5m for the rest of his £7.5m contract or £7m? I doubt Chelsea or Sarr cared about anything else. So Chercher la Femme, or as they say in Poland, if you don't know what it is about it is about money. Sarr's money from Chelsea. Everything else is irrelevant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 7 minutes ago, Dwmh said: As I say - there was only ever on issue. Do Chelsea give Sarr £5m for the rest of his £7.5m contract or £7m? I doubt Chelsea or Sarr cared about anything else. So Chercher la Femme, or as they say in Poland, if you don't know what it is about it is about money. Sarr's money from Chelsea. Everything else is irrelevant. No, I agree it was most likely about money. But Chelsea decided that whatever sum had been decided upon to terminate the contract, they could no longer take that hit. My suspicion is that the ‘other’ deal being done at the same time didn’t end up producing the revenue they thought it would and to cover the money agreed with Sarr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwmh Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 7 minutes ago, east lower said: No, I agree it was most likely about money. But Chelsea decided that whatever sum had been decided upon to terminate the contract, they could no longer take that hit. My suspicion is that the ‘other’ deal being done at the same time didn’t end up producing the revenue they thought it would and to cover the money agreed with Sarr. no - you believe this find £100m or Chelsea gets hit by FFP story. Much simpler to see it as Sarr wanting more. And of course Le Havre are not in the loop so would end up saying the same thing either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCreadie Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I know it’s only £7.5m, but am I right in thinking, if we keep him and amortise at whatever it is, say £1.5m a year, we are better off than paying him £5m now, as far as ffp for this year goes? If so, that might be the penny that dropped mid deal. Perhaps we are better keeping him and loaning him for small fees for the rest of his contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 4 minutes ago, Dwmh said: no - you believe this find £100m or Chelsea gets hit by FFP story. Much simpler to see it as Sarr wanting more. And of course Le Havre are not in the loop so would end up saying the same thing either way. No, I believe we are walking a very fine line separating compliance and non-compliance. Transfer would have only been close with the acquiring and disposing clubs being broadly aligned. Put succinctly if Broja had gone for the loan fee first quoted then Sarr goes. Dont rate Sarr and was overpaid when here, that’s not his fault. Deal would have been around 50% ish of remaining salary in all likelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, McCreadie said: I know it’s only £7.5m, but am I right in thinking, if we keep him and amortise at whatever it is, say £1.5m a year, we are better off than paying him £5m now, as far as ffp for this year goes? If so, that might be the penny that dropped mid deal. Perhaps we are better keeping him and loaning him for small fees for the rest of his contract? He’s got 18 months left on his initial 5 year deal. Rumour was £100k per week wages, that’s where the £7.5m comes from I believe. Other issue is he keeps getting sent back from his loans. I believe he was a free-transfer, hence the large wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCreadie Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 30 minutes ago, east lower said: He’s got 18 months left on his initial 5 year deal. Rumour was £100k per week wages, that’s where the £7.5m comes from I believe. Other issue is he keeps getting sent back from his loans. I believe he was a free-transfer, hence the large wage. Ah got it thank you. I knew all that once haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
east lower Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Not seen this posted on here so here you are. If you can't manage within the rules, the just change them to provide more scope, simple really: https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/1754887064405827718?s=20 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now