Chelsea agree fee for Porto's Hulk

Giggsy11

I watched him in just very few cup games and the game against us in 2008-09, he was very selfish and frustrating player, shooting from ridiculous angles and distance. He has improved as a player but I'm not sure he is worth all that.

Good player but like few said overvalued (doing business with Porto is pain is ass for any team). Even against City he just tried to do it all by himself instead of passing, he should improve on that for sure. Imagine him and Sturridge playing at the same time, all the 9 other players will go for toilet breaks as they know they wont pass to save their life.

GavRedKing

Another good option, the club clearly feel 6th is not good enough and have taken HUGE steps to ensure it doesnt happen next season.

Hazard Mata Hulk playing behind Torres?

:eek:

LuckyLloyd

cson wrote: »

Screams FFP is the absolute bollocks I thought it was tbh.

Of course! When Barca and Real carry on like they do is something like this ever going to be enforced? People fixate on Man City and Chelsea, but they aren't the only people doing this...

Sgt Pepper 64

You bitters are all such fun - thank you, from the heart of my bottom.

In reply to your money many concerns regarding my beautiful current champions of europe club, I say this.......

1/ Its so unfair, Chelsea dont even have a manager, how can they be buying players?

Where have you been the last 9 years? Chelsea operate the very common "rich despot" model as seen at Real Madrid etc, where all players are bought by the owner. A manager is incidental and one will be appointed soon, so someone exists to carry the can if all the transfers fail to bring home a trophy or 2. Other clubs operate the same way (Liverpool now), but a single owner has been replaced by a group of rich despots

2/ Its so unfair, what about the fair play rules

Chelsea are merely spending the proceeds from being champions of europe
Chelsea will make an estimated 100 mill, and also the departure of drogba, kalou, bose, anelka and alex should put millions more back in the kitty. You also have to demonstrate a downward trend, which we can do as our spending has decreased dramitcially from our initial splurge(s)

3/ Its so unfair - the Hulk is rubbish and not worth 38 million

Quite a few chelse fans agree with you, but surely you cant judge someone before the season has started? Come back this time next year
The fee is more than many would like, but was Mata a waste of 30 million?
All fees are subjective anyway

4/ Its just so unfair! Chelsea are building an exciting attack force

Yes, yes we are

City and Utd - we are coming for YOU

(Arsenal - errrrr - NO!)

MagicMarker

So Chelsea have spent almost €100m on players and they don't have a manager?

What could go wrong!?

greendom

So Chelsea's 4 attacking players (Mata, Hulk, Hazard & Torres) cost approx 145 million. At what point is it fair game to talk about obscene levels of spending ?

Sgt Pepper 64

"At £32m, £38m & £8m respectively, Hazard, Hulk & Marin have cost Chelsea a mere £3m more than Carroll, Henderson & Downing. Mind-boggling..."

niallo27

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

You bitters are all such fun - thank you, from the heart of my bottom.

In reply to your money many concerns regarding my beautiful current champions of europe club, I say this.......

1/ Its so unfair, Chelsea dont even have a manager, how can they be buying players?

Where have you been the last 9 years? Chelsea operate the very common "rich despot" model as seen at Real Madrid etc, where all players are bought by the owner. A manager is incidental and one will be appointed soon, so someone exists to carry the can if all the transfers fail to bring home a trophy or 2. Other clubs operate the same way (Liverpool now), but a single owner has been replaced by a group of rich despots

2/ Its so unfair, what about the fair play rules

Chelsea are merely spending the proceeds from being champions of europe
Chelsea will make an estimated 100 mill, and also the departure of drogba, kalou, bose, anelka and alex should put millions more back in the kitty. You also have to demonstrate a downward trend, which we can do as our spending has decreased dramitcially from our initial splurge(s)

3/ Its so unfair - the Hulk is rubbish and not worth 38 million

Quite a few chelse fans agree with you, but surely you cant judge someone before the season has started? Come back this time next year
The fee is more than many would like, but was Mata a waste of 30 million?
All fees are subjective anyway

4/ Its just so unfair! Chelsea are building an exciting attack force

Yes, yes we are

City and Utd - we are coming for YOU

(Arsenal - errrrr - NO!)

I see you have mentioned a few times that chelsea made a 100 million quid from winning the champions league, where is this figure coming from, any figures i have seen put it at around 40-45 million.

greendom

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

"At £32m, £38m & £8m respectively, Hazard, Hulk & Marin have cost Chelsea a mere £3m more than Carroll, Henderson & Downing. Mind-boggling..."

Yes Chelsea spend big but at least they buy quality.... Torres will get there, i'm sure.

niallo27

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

"At £32m, £38m & £8m respectively, Hazard, Hulk & Marin have cost Chelsea a mere £3m more than Carroll, Henderson & Downing. Mind-boggling..."

Sure Chelsea's money payed for Carrol, Henderson and Downing as well.

homerjay2005

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Don't rate him as much as Chelsea obviously do. Hugely overrated.

i posted the other day on the united thread that he was overly rated. i still think that, 38 million makes him one of the top transfers of all time. however, his stats over the past 18 months have been magnificent and he could turn out to be a beast of a player for chelsea.

still overrated, but he is a far better footballer (going off his stats as i dont watch alot of portuguese football) than he used to be.

Sgt Pepper 64

niallo27 wrote: »

I see you have mentioned a few times that chelsea made a 100 million quid from winning the champions league, where is this figure coming from, any figures i have seen put it at around 40-45 million.

Its quoted in quite a few places - below is one example.
I believe that Barca achieved that figure.
50-60 is just for winning it the rest from sponsers deals etc

The club have calculated that their penalty shoot-out win in Munich could be worth more than £100 million, which has given them the funds required to improve their squad without compromising their long-term goal of self-sufficiency.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/chelsea-agree-to-sign-eden-hazard/story-e6frg7mf-1226371282963

IvySlayer

Scary team Chelsea have :eek:

LuckyLloyd

greendom wrote: »

So Chelsea's 4 attacking players (Mata, Hulk, Hazard & Torres) cost approx 145 million. At what point is it fair game to talk about obscene levels of spending ?

Does it matter how obscene the spending is though? Chelsea fans don't care so long as they bring home the cheddar at the end of the season, something they've done with regularity over the past 8 years.

I'd love to take solace in the 'joke of a club' / 'success bought rather than earned' rubbish trotted out in this thread but let's get real here - you play to win the game. Chelsea under Roman are winners.

GavRedKing

All of the big clubs spend big on transfers, as long you win trophies then the end justifies the means IMO.

Yes we've spent a shite load but look at what this club has won under Roman in his tenure.

3 EPL's, 4 FA cup's, 2 League Cup's, 1 UCL.

Yes everyone at Chelsea would have loved one or two more leagues but we cant change that now.

We will be pushing both Manchester clubs next season and thats something that everyone at Chelsea would expect to do given the squad we have.

greendom

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Does it matter how obscene the spending is though? Chelsea fans don't care so long as they bring home the cheddar at the end of the season, something they've done with regularity over the past 8 years.

I'd love to take solace in the 'joke of a club' / 'success bought rather than earned' rubbish trotted out in this thread but let's get real here - you play to win the game. Chelsea under Roman are winners.

So the answer is never ?

Rekop dog

-Ade- wrote: »

Scary how many people say he's overrated yet have watched what.. maybe a couple of games he's been in at a push I'm sure some people here have watched him a good bit and that's fair enough, but I have my doubts for a percentage here.

Anyway, good signing. Will strengthen that RW/RWF spot while adding an extra option to lead the line at times. Don't agree with the fee paid, but sure, sometimes you have to overpay to get your primary targets. In saying that, if Sturridge wasn't such a moaner in regards to playing out wide. Hulk wouldn't have been needed IMHO.

Most peoples footballing opionions are formed based on very little, it's quite easy to tell too.

Like value becomes less of an issue the richer you are, Anzhi were willing to pay 90 millions for the guy last season. If Roman wants a player I don't think he's all that bothered to be taken for a bit of a ride in terms of paying over the odds. Sure the guy has spent 80 million on a piece of art before, think people forget how stupidly rich he is. Happy he's flexing the old muscles a bit and showing City there not the only obnoxiously wealthy club in town.

Personally think the premiership will be a good fit for Hulk, always like when players join a league which best suits their style. Also a strong Brazilian presence at the club which you'd imagine would lessen the fear of him not settling in.

2ndcoming

Wouldn't be quaking in my boots too much despite Chelsea's latest splurge.

Hulk I would liken to Julio Baptista, except a £38m Julio Baptista. He's never lit up the big stages despite numerous opportunities and scoring 30 yrd belters in the Portuguese league, well, I think people need to watch League One review more often.

Marko Marin was once a bright light up and coming on the scene, but the past couple of years that spark has faded significantly. Unless they have a major injury crisis it'll be Carling Cup/FA Cup at best for him.

The jury is out on Hazard, technically gifted but has a player so motivated by money ever been seen? Interestingly his stats over the past two seasons were actually worse than Gervinho's in his last two seasons at Lille. Make what you will of that. In my book he has the makings of a far superior player but til he's a year under his belt in the Prem we'll have to reserve judgement.

And then of course, we have the best notion I've seen on here, "we have loads of money, we don't need a manager." It's criminal that Di Matteo hasn't been given the job permanently, and any bright young thing with pressing, attacking football ideas will go the way of AVB as long as Terry and Lamps are in the team.

Will Torres be there next season though?

Surely there's a more prolific striker needed to lead the line?

Samich

I'd go out on a limb and say there's a big money right back coming in this summer too.

MagicMarker

Samich wrote: »

I'd go out on a limb and say there's a big money right back coming in this summer too.

Well they did allegedly "enquire" about Rafael, I'd take 35m.

Samich

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well they did allegedly "enquire" about Rafael, I'd take 35m.

Forgot about that! I wouldn't :P

Who else is there? Dani Alves maybe?

speedboatchase

Samich wrote: »

Forgot about that! I wouldn't :P

Who else is there? Dani Alves maybe?

Łukasz Piszczek of Dortmund would be a great signing. Is Van Der Wiel a right-back? They've been linked to him.

maximoose

Chips Ahoy wrote: »

Chelsea are assembling the avengers?.

This cant be good

All they need now is

Carlos Bocanegra - Captain (of) America
Gylffi Thor Sigurdsson
Kevin Nolan (irons man?)
And get Hawkeye goal line technology in

God I'm bored :pac:

GavRedKing

maximoose wrote: »

All they need now is

Carlos Bocanegra - Captain (of) America
Gylffi Thor Sigurdsson
Kevin Nolan (irons man?)
And get Hawkeye goal line technology in

God I'm bored :pac:

:pac:

Sgt Pepper 64

Four days ago, Eden Hazard had announced his decision to join Chelsea, with whom he had agreed to the terms of a five-year contract. This Friday, Lille has found common ground with the club champion of Europe 2012 for a transfer up to 40 million euros. The Belgian striker will now pass a medical test in London before signing the lease this Sunday and be presented following the press

Translated.

For the first time, actually looking forward to and will watch and england friendly

Hope he doesnt get injured!

GavRedKing

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Four days ago, Eden Hazard had announced his decision to join Chelsea, with whom he had agreed to the terms of a five-year contract. This Friday, Lille has found common ground with the club champion of Europe 2012 for a transfer up to 40 million euros. The Belgian striker will now pass a medical test in London before signing the lease this Sunday and be presented following the press

Translated.

For the first time, actually looking forward to and will watch and england friendly

Hope he doesnt get injured!

Banker to do his cruicate on Saturday. :pac:

If he does get injured then we wont be stuck with him. :P

I can imagine all parties, England squad including, just want a run around at a good pace, with a bit of bite to warm up for the French game.

Equium

Roman must know some creative accountants, or have a whopper nepotistic sponsorship deal lined up a lá City and Ethihad. Oh well, FFP was a nice theory.

greendom

Equium wrote: »

Roman must know some creative accountants, or have a whopper nepotistic sponsorship deal lined up a lá City and Ethihad. Oh well, FFP was a nice theory.

It won't be long before it's time for Platini to put up or shut-up. Be interesting to see which course he takes...

GavRedKing

Equium wrote: »

Roman must know some creative accountants, or have a whopper nepotistic sponsorship deal lined up a lá City and Ethihad. Oh well, FFP was a nice theory.

http://www.timeturk.com/en/2012/05/30/besiktas-banned-playing-in-european-cups-for-one-year.html



** May I add, I dont think any of the big clusb will be banned. (AC Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Utd etc etc etc

greendom

gavredking wrote: »

http://www.timeturk.com/en/2012/05/30/besiktas-banned-playing-in-european-cups-for-one-year.html



** May I add, I dont think any of the big clusb will be banned. (AC Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Utd etc etc etc

What about City, PSG, Chelsea or Malaga ?

PCPhoto

cant believe no-one has said it so far ....and I have read all 9 pages !!

Hulk might be a great player (if over-rated) ..... but can he do it on a wet november at Swansea ??

Same goes for Hazard !!

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

What about City, PSG, Chelsea or Malaga ?

I dont think Chelsea will be banned, PSg and Malaga arent exactly in the UCL year on year so its easoer to banish them and make an example and hope the bigger boys conform.

UEFA have to do something but all the big clubs will be given more time to comply compared to most clubs IMO.

greendom

PCPhoto wrote: »

cant believe no-one has said it so far ....and I have read all 9 pages !!

Hulk might be a great player (if over-rated) ..... but can he do it on a wet november at Swansea ??

Same goes for Hazard !!

Or on a warm Saturday lunchtime in late October at Stamford Bridge

greendom

gavredking wrote: »

I dont think Chelsea will be banned, PSg and Malaga arent exactly in the UCL year on year so its easoer to banish them and make an example and hope the bigger boys conform.

UEFA have to do something but all the big clubs will be given more time to comply compared to most clubs IMO.

That would be typical Uefa fudging and very unfair imo - you're probably right though.

Cokeistan

PCPhoto wrote: »

cant believe no-one has said it so far ....and I have read all 9 pages !!

Hulk might be a great player (if over-rated) ..... but can he do it on a wet november at Swansea* ??

Same goes for Hazard !!

*Stoke

Adolf Hipster

PCPhoto wrote: »

cant believe no-one has said it so far ....and I have read all 9 pages !!

Hulk might be a great player (if over-rated) ..... but can he do it on a wet november at Swansea ??

Same goes for Hazard !!

It hadn't been said, because it's a shiit joke.

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

That would be typical Uefa fudging and very unfair imo - you're probably right though.

I agree with ya, its very unfair but if it avoids upsetting the biggest clubs and therefore UEFA's cash cows, then they'll avoid it unless there is some huge discrepancies and even at that i'd say they'll get off with a slap on the wrist and told to buck up.

In theory that FFP should level the playing field but I dont see it happening in that fashion, it will bring some teams closer alright but the elite clubs will always be out of reach IMO.

G.K.

People calling for Chelsea's head via FFP over these spending splurges need to look up what FFP is.

Equium

gavredking wrote: »

http://www.timeturk.com/en/2012/05/30/besiktas-banned-playing-in-european-cups-for-one-year.html



** May I add, I dont think any of the big clusb will be banned. (AC Milan, Inter, Real, Barca, Utd etc etc etc

Neither do I, but I can live in hope. Naturally Chelsea fans will disagree but to watch teams go out and buy success on a continual basis, thus driving up the price of average players for everyone else, is becoming hard to stomach.

Also, the UEFA ban for Besiktas (as well as those for Bursaspor and Gaziantepspor) are different as they relate to a failure to pay debts. Chelsea's losses are currently considered to be 'investments' by Abramovich since other clubs/their players are paid on time.

Sgt Pepper 64

Equium wrote: »

Roman must know some creative accountants, or have a whopper nepotistic sponsorship deal lined up a lá City and Ethihad. Oh well, FFP was a nice theory.

Well first off you get a warning, second, it looks at accounts from certain years, third, we can prove we are comlying because we are showing a downward trend, 4th we havent spent anything we havent earnt on the hazard and hulk transfers when they actually happen

Do YOU actually know what the FPP rules are?
I suggest you google, theres lots of articles on Chelsea and city

GavRedKing

G.K. wrote: »

People calling for Chelsea's head via FFP over these spending splurges need to look up what FFP is.

Theres so much news and documents availabel on it as well that peoples ignorance to it at times is a bit silly.

Found htis which sums it up

A club wishing to participate in the UEFA Champion sLeague must balance their football-related expenditure over a three-year period up to the 2014–15 season.

The 2011–12 season is the first season which counts towards the 2014–15 assessment. Clubs, however, will be allowed to make a loss of €45 million (£39.4 million) over the three years, falling to €30 million from 2015–16 IF the loss was covered by equity contribution only. The first season that UEFA will begin actively monitoring the financial situation of individual clubs is 2013–14, but this will take into account losses made in the two preceding years (2011–12 and 2012–13).

From 2013-14 UEFA will be able to ban clubs from playing in European competitions the following season if the rules have not been met but it is not until 2018 that clubs will be expected to bring their annual losses below £8.8 million (based on 2010 exchange rates)

Only actual "football-related expenditure" — a club’s outgoings in transfers and wages — will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, sales of players and prize money is included in the assessment. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or
youth development will not be included.

GavRedKing

Equium wrote: »

Neither do I, but I can live in hope. Naturally Chelsea fans will disagree but to watch teams go out and buy success on a continual basis, thus driving up the price of average players for everyone else, is becoming hard to stomach.

Also, the UEFA ban for Besiktas (as well as those for Bursaspor and Gaziantepspor) are different as they relate to a failure to pay debts. Chelsea's losses are currently considered to be 'investments' by Abramovich since other clubs/their players are paid on time.

Ya those clubs have been banned due to debts and failing to pay them back, Portsmouth would be banned from UEFA competitions if they had qualified due to their debts also.

PhlegmyMoses

Surely if you are paying >100% of your incoming revenue on wages, then you are outside of the FFP? Chelsea cannot be far off that. There is no way that Chelsea football club are being run as a going concern. If they can get their act together in the next few years then they'll be fine but at the moment, they're ****ed.

J. Marston

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

"At £32m, £38m & £8m respectively, Hazard, Hulk & Marin have cost Chelsea a mere £3m more than Carroll, Henderson & Downing. Mind-boggling..."

Good Lord. That is brilliant.

Suryavarman

gavredking wrote: »

Theres so much news and documents availabel on it as well that peoples ignorance to it at times is a bit silly.

Found htis which sums it up

A club wishing to participate in the UEFA Champion sLeague must balance their football-related expenditure over a three-year period up to the 2014–15 season.

The 2011–12 season is the first season which counts towards the 2014–15 assessment. Clubs, however, will be allowed to make a loss of €45 million (£39.4 million) over the three years, falling to €30 million from 2015–16 IF the loss was covered by equity contribution only. The first season that UEFA will begin actively monitoring the financial situation of individual clubs is 2013–14, but this will take into account losses made in the two preceding years (2011–12 and 2012–13).

From 2013-14 UEFA will be able to ban clubs from playing in European competitions the following season if the rules have not been met but it is not until 2018 that clubs will be expected to bring their annual losses below £8.8 million (based on 2010 exchange rates)

Only actual "football-related expenditure" — a club’s outgoings in transfers and wages — will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, sales of players and prize money is included in the assessment. Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or
youth development will not be included.

Couldn't the club just keep issuing more shares and then Abramovich could buy them up allowing Chelsea to have expenditures far in excess of their revenues?

smallerthanyou

Suryavarman wrote: »

Couldn't the club just keep issuing more shares and then Abramovich could buy them up allowing Chelsea to have expenditures far in excess of their revenues?

That would be financing cash flow not footballing cash flow so wouldn't be allowed. Footballing expenses have to be covered by footballing revenues.

2ndcoming

Chelsea aren't a stock market traded club, Abramovich owns the club outright so he can't sell himself what he already owns (although that is technically what City have done with the outrageous Etihad deal).

The Stamford Bridge shares was a scheme where the stadium itself was sold to a fans consortium in 1992 as a way of keeping the club going as they were nearly went under in the 80's.

Sgt Pepper 64

I dont see why we should be penalised just for being considerably richer than other clubs.

Thats life, we live in a free democratic world.

Do we all sit at home and say unfair it is we havent got bentleys and yachts?

We should break away from the poor clubs - that'll teach um!

We follow a sport that even a club like stoke buys a player with enough money to feed a third world country - how stupid is that?!

Samich

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I dont see why we should be penalised just for being considerably richer than other clubs.

Thats life, we live in a free democratic world.

Do we all sit at home and say unfair it is we havent got bentleys and yachts?

We should break away from the poor clubs - that'll teach um!

We follow a sport that even a club like stoke buys a player with enough money to feed a third world country - how stupid is that?!

It's like the eurozone crisis, can't spend more than you get in or you'll get penalised