Chelsea Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013/14

GavRedKing

djPSB wrote: »

It was like as if Maureen swallowed a love novel before that press conference.

Cringeworthy stuff.

Da fuq you on about it?

GavRedKing

Love this bit :

Responding to Andres Iniesta's comments that Mourinho had done "more harm than good to Spanish football" during his time at Real, Mourinho retorts: "I damaged Spanish football by breaking Barcelona's dominance."

KaiserGunner

Yeah, but Barcelona won 2 league titles and a Champions league in the three seasons that Mourinho was in charge of Real Madrid. So IMO hes kinda overstating that he broke Barcelonas Dominance. Barcelona steam rolled the league just this past season.

djPSB

KaiserGunner wrote: »

Yeah, but Barcelona won 2 league titles and a Champions league in the three seasons that Mourinho was in charge of Real Madrid. So IMO hes kinda overstating that he broke Barcelonas Dominance. Barcelona steam rolled the league just this past season.

But he ended their dominance.

GavRedKing

KaiserGunner wrote: »

Yeah, but Barcelona won 2 league titles and a Champions league in the three seasons that Mourinho was in charge of Real Madrid. So IMO hes kinda overstating that he broke Barcelonas Dominance. Barcelona steam rolled the league just this past season.

I'd agree with ya, but in the season Real won the league they set all kind of records in Spain.

Doing so after Peps dominance was no mean feat, not brilliant but still a very difficult task.

Had Jose won a UCL with Real to go with his league title he would have had a succesful stint, I'd rate it as a decent return but nothing brillaint considering the money and players he had but he still managed to wrestle the league title back from Pep.

dfx-

djPSB wrote: »

But he ended their dominance.

He didn't anymore than Schuster or Capello or even Pellegrini at Villarreal before him. Benitez and Del Bosque at the turn of the century could say they did.

Nice of him to pick out the results that Madrid were successful against Barcelona and ignore the others like the 5-0 humiliation or CL semi final defeat under his tenure :pac:

Killinator

Love this:

Press: " is this a better job than the Utd job?"
Jose: " this is MY job"

Bohrio

djPSB wrote: »

But he ended their dominance.

No he didnt, you could say Bayern did but he def didnt

Barcelona won 8 titles during Mourinhos stay in Madrid, that's 5 more than him.

Even his 100 points record that he accomplished with Madrid last year was reached this year by the worse Barcelona in the last while...

grumpymunster

Yea it's a real shame we have TSO after all he has only won

7 league titles
4 domestic cups
2 English league cups
4 Community shields (or equivalent in countries other than England)
1 Europa League
2 Champions leagues

He obviously has no idea how to manage a club what was Roman thinking of.

djPSB

grumpymunster wrote: »

Yea it's a real shame we have TSO after all he has only won

7 league titles
4 domestic cups
2 English league cups
4 Community shields (or equivalent in countries other than England)
1 Europa League
2 Champions leagues

He obviously has no idea how to manage a club what was Roman thinking of.

Did you read the script.

It's not TSO anymore, it's THO.

grumpymunster

djPSB wrote: »

Did you read the script.

It's not TSO anymore, it's THO.

Ah call me old fashioned

GavRedKing

grumpymunster wrote: »

Yea it's a real shame we have TSO after all he has only won

7 league titles
4 domestic cups
2 English league cups
4 Community shields (or equivalent in countries other than England)
1 Europa League
2 Champions leagues

He obviously has no idea how to manage a club what was Roman thinking of.

Counts for nothing if you a) are a Barca fan boy or b) dont like Jose.

He was the best we could have hoped for, luckily for us hes also one of the best around.

5starpool

No mention here of the rumours that Mourinho is contemplating getting rid of Mata? I assume that would be an unpopular thing? I thought it would have at least been discussed, but it hasn't from what I can see.

Bohrio

GavRedKing wrote: »

Counts for nothing if you a) are a Barca fan boy or b) dont like Jose.

He was the best we could have hoped for, luckily for us hes also one of the best around.

Actually most Barca fans love Mourinho and what he has done to Real Madrid. Personally I dont has been any good to Real Madrid, although the Spanish press are going to miss him, I prefer more football and less showtime. I mean he has won three titles but at what cost.

I am happy he has gone to Chelsea, he will do well in the UK, the Spanish league was definitively not for him... he will be happy now, I dont see him coming back

Yes there were rumors of him getting rid off Mata and Torres (can't blame him about Torres) but it was probably just gossip

GavRedKing

5starpool wrote: »

No mention here of the rumours that Mourinho is contemplating getting rid of Mata? I assume that would be an unpopular thing? I thought it would have at least been discussed, but it hasn't from what I can see.

Its all bo**cks really.

The stories ran out of Spain saying Jose didnt want Mata and was going to sell him for practically the same price we paid for him.

If anything, Mata will come back from the Confed cup and I'd expect him to sign an extension, theres no way Jose will want to sell our current prized asset, makes no sense what so ever.

Jose 2nd coming will be built around players like Mata.

DazMarz

Chelsea selling Mata would be like Barcelona selling Messi. It would just be an unthinkable act.

Mata is well on his way to becoming the second coming of Zola at the club. The one advantage Mata will hold over Zola is that Mata was 23 when he signed for Chelsea. Zola was 30. Zola made himself the new king of Stamford Bridge in a 7 year period (1996-2003). By the time Mata has played at Chelsea for 7 years (which he will; HANDS OFF THE FÚCKIN LOT OF YE!) he will only be 30 then. God knows what kind of a legacy he will have built by then, and god knows how many trophies he will have accumulated by then.

Juan Mata is one of the best footballers in the world at the moment. José Mourinho is one of the best managers in the world at the moment. Mata is going to be the rock that José's church is built on. No question.

Duck Soup

GavRedKing wrote: »

It's all bo**cks really.

The stories ran out of Spain saying Jose didn't want Mata and was going to sell him for practically the same price we paid for him.

The origin of the rumours tell you most of all you need to know about them. I think there's a feeling - common to both Barca and Real - that if you're a world-class footballer (obviously, particularly if you're a Spanish world-class footballer) then you must, positively must, be straining at the leash to play for one of the two big teams there.

I don't think it computes for them there that someone of the quality of Mata might want to spend the best years of his career elsewhere. As for the price, that sounds like an even bigger dollop of wishful thinking, perhaps based on the idea that Mata must really want to leave for Spain, so Chelsea better sell him before he does a Ronaldo and sets himself against his club.

Note that there is not a single shred of evidence to support the notion either of Chelsea wanting to sell him or Mata wanting to leave. I don't think that will interfere too much with the Spanish gossipverse worldview that Mata in his heart-of-hearts must really be hankering for a return home.

grumpymunster

5starpool wrote: »

No mention here of the rumours that Mourinho is contemplating getting rid of Mata? I assume that would be an unpopular thing? I thought it would have at least been discussed, but it hasn't from what I can see.

Thought it was mentioned here and there certainly there are some links to some silly season reporting where we are going to offload Luiz & Mata for significantly less than we bought them for. As has been mentioned all these rumours seem to originate in Spain (certainly a lot of the Mata ones from the "Marca" newsrag).

There has been talk of Mata and Chelsea discussing a new contract when he returns from Brazil, also on the recent Sky Sports profile of Mata he seems to love living in London - I lived in London for a long time and would have to say was impressed with his knowledge of flea markets. There seems to be a privacy he would not get in Spain.

TSO / THO does not have a record of wholesale changes when he joins a club (link provided earlier somewhere) and certainly not shipping out the best players. It is most likely RM & Barca doing what they do unsettle players to try and buy them cheap - they are reprehensible clubs.

Amirani

DazMarz wrote: »

Chelsea selling Mata would be like Barcelona selling Messi. It would just be an unthinkable act.

Mata is well on his way to becoming the second coming of Zola at the club. The one advantage Mata will hold over Zola is that Mata was 23 when he signed for Chelsea. Zola was 30. Zola made himself the new king of Stamford Bridge in a 7 year period (1996-2003). By the time Mata has played at Chelsea for 7 years (which he will; HANDS OFF THE FÚCKIN LOT OF YE!) he will only be 30 then. God knows what kind of a legacy he will have built by then, and god knows how many trophies he will have accumulated by then.

Juan Mata is one of the best footballers in the world at the moment. José Mourinho is one of the best managers in the world at the moment. Mata is going to be the rock that José's church is built on. No question.

I know Zola is a legend at Stamford Bridge, and rightly so; he was a complete class act. That said, I think Mata is in a different league. He's the best player in the Premier League at the moment for me. RVP is obviously more effective, David Silva is probably more technically accomplished, but Mata has a fantastic combination of both that's a joy to behold.

I listened to Cascarino on Matt Cooper last night giving some weight to the rumours of Mata leaving. He talked about how he's not a "Mourinho sort of player" and how he always chose Khedira over Kaka at Real Madrid. If that's the sort of logic journalists are using for this story then Chelsea fans have little to worry about.

GavRedKing

NiallSparky wrote: »

I listened to Cascarino on Matt Cooper last night giving some weight to the rumours of Mata leaving. He talked about how he's not a "Mourinho sort of player" and how he always chose Khedira over Kaka at Real Madrid. If that's the sort of logic journalists are using for this story then Chelsea fans have little to worry about.

Kaka and Kheidra is a stupid comparrison though.

One is a DCM and the other is CAM, two different positions, that would be a kin to comparing Mata and Mikel in a like for like position.

Khedira never played in the position behind a striker or wide, that was susually occupied by Ronaldo left, Ozil behind the CF and Di Maria Right.

Alonso and Khedira holding, unless Jose has some master plan to turn Mata into Makelele he'll always occupy the Ozil role in his new Chelsea line up.

Cascarino is talking tripe.

grumpymunster

Just as Duff and Robbin were not Jose type players I suppose. Kaka was a busted flush when he arrived at RM, in his day was a fine player but that was then.

Cascarino knows little about nothing and is in the same league as Balague.

Amirani

GavRedKing wrote: »

Kaka and Kheidra is a stupid comparrison though.

One is a DCM and the other is CAM, two different positions, that would be a kin to comparing Mata and Mikel in a like for like position.

Khedira never played in the position behind a striker or wide, that was susually occupied by Ronaldo left, Ozil behind the CF and Di Maria Right.

Alonso and Khedira holding, unless Jose has some master plan to turn Mata into Makelele he'll always occupy the Ozil role in his new Chelsea line up.

Cascarino is talking tripe.

Yeah that's my point. If pundits are using said comparisons to back up their views of Mata leaving then there's nothing to worry about.

grumpymunster

Still back on confusing transfer stories lets keep going

http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2013/6/11/4417928/report-chelsea-vitesse-agree-on-marco-van-ginkel-transfer-fee?

GavRedKing

NiallSparky wrote: »

Yeah that's my point. If pundits are using said comparisons to back up their views of Mata leaving then there's nothing to worry about.

Oh ya, agreed.

i'll only be worried when Mata says he wants out himself.

GavRedKing

Chelsea 4/1 to go unbeaten at home all season in the league.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

This is very weird.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/8768815/Transfer-news-Partizan-Belgrade-claim-Lazar-Markovic-belongs-to-Chelsea

I tell you Agatha Christie has nothing on this

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/406723/Chelsea-sign-Lazar-Markovic-and-loan-him-to-Benfica-for-two-years?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-sport-news+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Sport+Feed%29

GavRedKing

This p*ss me off about the council and Stamford Bridge.

Over the years it has been suggested a walkway should be built along the railway lines from the north end of the stadium towards West Brompton. That has been looked into, and was rejected at a public inquiry as the long narrow route is considered unsafe in the event of an emergency.

We have not applied for planning permission for a walkway to Fulham Broadway station as the council has already said they would reject it for safety reasons.

Killinator

GavRedKing wrote: »

This p*ss me off about the council and Stamford Bridge.

The same council who say they will do everything they can to keep Chelsea at Stamford Bridge while simultaneously shooting down any attempt or talk of redevelopment!

DazMarz

You'd think a few brown envelopes could have winged their way to the right people on the council at this stage... Jeez...

GavRedKing

Killinator wrote: »

The same council who say they will do everything they can to keep Chelsea at Stamford Bridge while simultaneously shooting down any attempt or talk of redevelopment!

There was talk that teh clubs interest in other sites is nothing but blowing hot air up the council, kind of threating them that we will move if they dont help or accommodate the club.

DazMarz wrote: »

You'd think a few brown envelopes could have winged their way to the right people on the council at this stage... Jeez...

It would be mre then the council, I'd say the Underground would need a brown envelope or two and also the Health & Safety crowd.

Lots of red tape we probably will never get around you also have to take into account the residents and business around SB.

GavRedKing

I seen on one fo the Chelsea Forums that somebody suggested Hyde Park is a venue for a new ground. :eek:

We cant get the local council to allow us to expand on our current site so ya we'll pick a big open park land and try lobby the Royal family to sign over 20-25 acres of their land to be used for a football stadium. :rolleyes:

I assume as Hyde Park falls under the Royal parks, its owned by the monarchy, feel free to correct me on it.

Although there was a funny story that when Roman first came to London he had seen Hyde park from a Helicopter and asked one of his PA's could they build Chelseas new training ground there and the PA replied thats Hyde Park, the Queen owns it, to whcih Roman was mean to have said, woudl she sell?

Could be complete bo**cks but makes for funny reading.

DazMarz

Rumour flying around that Mata will sign up a new deal after the Confederations Cup. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea. Until I see it, I won't believe it. But I hope it's true!

GavRedKing

If anyone deserves more moeny and an extension its Mata, our best player for 2 years and hes only going to get better.

grumpymunster

With regard to a new ground I don't really get the aversion to sharing. It is possible we could share a 55-60k ground with QPR on the White City site, access is quite good with underground and road links. Granted QPR would struggle to fill such a stadium but that would not be a deal breaker as I see it.

Still in the Hammersmith & Fulham district so may even get council backing

GavRedKing

grumpymunster wrote: »

With regard to a new ground I don't really get the aversion to sharing. It is possible we could share a 55-60k ground with QPR on the White City site, access is quite good with underground and road links. Granted QPR would struggle to fill such a stadium but that would not be a deal breaker as I see it.

Still in the Hammersmith & Fulham district so may even get council backing

It could be done but what I want to see is cheaper ticket prices, wont happen at Stamford Bridge becuase the cheapest ticket in the ground is still higher then mst of the league, which is why our Matchday revenue is still competitive.

Just some stats.

The average price for the cheapest ticket in the Bundesliga is £10.33 and the average cost of the lowest price adult season ticket is £207.22, compared to £28.30 and £467.95 respectively in the English Premier League

Chelsea charges the highest amount for their cheapest match day at £41 and Newcastle the least at £15.

Chelsea :

Most expensive ST - 1250
Cheapest ST - 595
Most expensive Matchday Ticket - 87
Cheapest Matchday Ticket - 41

I'll give you a comparisson, see below Bayern Munich stats for the same tickets :

Most expensive ST - 540
Cheapest ST - 67
Most expensive Matchday Ticket - 58
Cheapest Matchday Ticket - 12

Bayerns most expensive ST is cheaper then our cheapest, one of the reasons for this, well German football is better ran but also there stadium capacity can allow ticketing to be spread out liek this.

As we have nearly 30k less through the doors we've to charge a premium practically every game.

GavRedKing

Ill break it down even more, as of last season, this is every teams cheapest and most expenisve match day ticket:

Arsenal - 126/26
A.Villa - 45/20
Chelsea - 87/41
Everton - 43/31
Fulham - 75/20
Liverpool - 48/39
Man City - 58/26
Man Utd - 52/30
Newcastle - 70/15
Norwich - 50/30
QPR - 55/25
S'hampton - 48/28
Stoke - 50/25
Sunderland - 40/25
Swansea - 45/35
T.Spurs - 81/32
WBA - 39/25
West Ham - 67/36

Its only fair we compare our price with the London teams in it as capital city, capital price and all that.


We've the 2nd highest most expensive tickets and the msot expensive "cheapest" tickets in the EPL.

F**k me.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

It could be done but what I want to see is cheaper ticket prices, wont happen at Stamford Bridge becuase the cheapest ticket in the ground is still higher then mst of the league, which is why our Matchday revenue is still competitive.

Just some stats.








I'll give you a comparisson, see below Bayern Munich stats for the same tickets :



Bayerns most expensive ST is cheaper then our cheapest, one of the reasons for this, well German football is better ran but also there stadium capacity can allow ticketing to be spread out liek this.

As we have nearly 30k less through the doors we've to charge a premium practically every game.

Also the council own the stadium that they share with 1860.

GavRedKing

grumpymunster wrote: »

Also the council own the stadium that they share with 1860.

If we went down the road of sharing though and it was with QPR the difference in pricing of tickets would be immense though.

Theres no way QPR could charge lets say 80 pound for a ticket where as we would.

Lets say its a jopint venture and we bought paid 50% each, for them to recoup there half theyed be waiting a hell of a lot longer then we would.

You can rule out the council building us a nice new stadium as well, this will all be Roman backed and coudl be secured with a loan or naming rights.

DazMarz

I wouldn't want to share a stadium with anyone. I know the likes of AC and Inter do it, and Bayern share a stadium with 1860 Munich, but fúck that.

I wouldn't agree with the idea at all. Chelsea needs its own stadium.

GavRedKing

DazMarz wrote: »

I wouldn't want to share a stadium with anyone. I know the likes of AC and Inter do it, and Bayern share a stadium with 1860 Munich, but fúck that.

I wouldn't agree with the idea at all. Chelsea needs its own stadium.

AC Milan are also looking to move out of the Guiseppe Meazza, they want the council to either allow them redevelope the site or to move to a new stadium, ala Juventus.

I'm sure the council own the majority of the stadiums, except Juventus stadium whcih they built and funded themselves and its due to hold the Europa league final next year.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

If we went down the road of sharing though and it was with QPR the difference in pricing of tickets would be immense though.

Theres no way QPR could charge lets say 80 pound for a ticket where as we would.

Lets say its a jopint venture and we bought paid 50% each, for them to recoup there half theyed be waiting a hell of a lot longer then we would.

You can rule out the council building us a nice new stadium as well, this will all be Roman backed and coudl be secured with a loan or naming rights.

Wouldn't have thought for a minute that the council would build us a nice shiney stadium, but it is something done with Bayern & 1860 as a comparison.

Ground sharing is not something done in England, indeed when rugby & soccer clubs do it they seem to think it strange. Now rugby I accept can make a horlicks of a pitch but two soccer clubs sharing with modern grass technology you should have no issues with the pitch and you would save a lot of operating costs. Stamford Bridge may be small by modern standards but it stands on a lot of ground and is used on average say 30 times a year - not a lot when you think of it. Of course there will be some conferences and what not but you would hold them in the new stadium anyway and I think you would need a lot of conferences to generate half the operating costs of a stadium.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

AC Milan are also looking to move out of the Guiseppe Meazza, they want the council to either allow them redevelope the site or to move to a new stadium, ala Juventus.

I'm sure the council own the majority of the stadiums, except Juventus stadium whcih they built and funded themselves and its due to hold the Europa league final next year.

Quite oddly the Juve ground is quite small at 41,000 seats.

GavRedKing

grumpymunster wrote: »

Quite oddly the Juve ground is quite small at 41,000 seats.

Its a better fit then the old Stadio Delle Alpi though, fans are closer to the ground and transport has been provided out to the new stadium via underground networks.

Juventus tickets this season :

Most expensive ST - 998
Cheapest ST - 291
Expensive matchday ticket - 75
Cheapest macthday ticket - 30


New stadium, similar capacity and cheaper across the board.

Now, if we build a 55k stadium, I wouldnt expect ticket prices to fall all that much but I also think we're more likely to go it alone or redevelope the Bridge then share with anyone.

kev1.3s

I'm not a fan of the stadium sharing either especially with the likes of qpr, but if it were to happen how would that affect a potentially lucrative stadium naming deal?

MaroonAndGreen

Do we really need to be charging them prices though?

grumpymunster

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

Do we really need to be charging them prices though?

Thing is whilst the ground is full most of the time there is no necessity to reduce them.

Kess73

grumpymunster wrote: »

Wouldn't have thought for a minute that the council would build us a nice shiney stadium, but it is something done with Bayern & 1860 as a comparison.

Ground sharing is not something done in England, indeed when rugby & soccer clubs do it they seem to think it strange. Now rugby I accept can make a horlicks of a pitch but two soccer clubs sharing with modern grass technology you should have no issues with the pitch and you would save a lot of operating costs. Stamford Bridge may be small by modern standards but it stands on a lot of ground and is used on average say 30 times a year - not a lot when you think of it. Of course there will be some conferences and what not but you would hold them in the new stadium anyway and I think you would need a lot of conferences to generate half the operating costs of a stadium.

You would in effect be doubling the amount of playing time the pitch gets, and could have instances where they would be two or three games on the same pitch in the one week.

Some pitches in the Premiership and Championship can look worse for wear in winter with only one game a week.

Personally I loathe the idea of ground sharing. I just think it robs at least one of the clubs of a little of their own identity, and can do the same to the support. Plus some manky shyte would get to sit in my seat 19+ times a season. Now that is fine when the manky shyte shouts for the same team as me, but not if the sod shouts for the wrong team.:)

And if it is a proper 50/50 ground share then the colours of the seats either have to be in a neutral colour or there is a horrible 50/50 split in the colours.

It is an idea that has been suggested many times in Liverpool, and it has met with very strong objections every time. Would imagine there would be just as strong a reaction amongst the Chelsea support to such an idea.

Kess73

GavRedKing wrote: »

Its a better fit then the old Stadio Delle Alpi though, fans are closer to the ground and transport has been provided out to the new stadium via underground networks.

Juventus tickets this season :

Most expensive ST - 998
Cheapest ST - 291
Expensive matchday ticket - 75
Cheapest macthday ticket - 30


New stadium, similar capacity and cheaper across the board.

Now, if we build a 55k stadium, I wouldnt expect ticket prices to fall all that much but I also think we're more likely to go it alone or redevelop the Bridge then share with anyone.

How much of a backlog is there on the season ticket list at Chelsea? I know a lot of any ground expansion would go towards exec boxes and the like,but generally a club will have a pretty hefty waiting list if it tries to expand it's ground's capacity by 25% or more.

I know the Liverpool backlog is substantial and when the list was cleaned up recently there were still people forty thousand places and more back the list.

Do Chelsea also have a big waiting list? I know being in London is a big advantage compared to some Northern clubs, but then again there is probably more competition in London in terms of getting bums on seats especially corporate bums.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

homer simpson

Phoenix wrote: »

Anyone hear the chatter from a few sources that Cavani to Chelsea is nearly a done deal?

Quite the opposite...

Turned down €34mil + Torres.

http://www.givemesport.com/351560-napoli-reject-341m-plus-torres-bid-for-cavani