Chelsea Transfer Rumours and Signings

PHB

Chelsea seem to have signed SWP from Man City for 20 million.
Adds depth to the squad, means that him and Joe Cole can fight it out for 3rd place.

mike65

Actually its 21 mill (not that Roman cares!)

I really think its a silly move, he'd be guarenteed a game with City and would be ready for the World Cup, with Chelsea he could end up very frustrated, he'd better pray for an injurey to Robben.

Mike.

Villain

I don't know Mike, he's joined the best club in the country at the moment, training with the players Chelsea have day in day out can only be good for him, he's pretty young so he's probably better off not playing every game.

PHB

Yeh Irish to an extent, he needs to be protected.
But he won't be playing in a squad rotation system, Mourinho doesn't play his teams lik ethat. He finds the top 11 and plays them every single game unless there is a reason he cannot.
It also means that he in all probability only either him or Joe Cole will be going to the world cup, and that decision will be made by Mourinho. It won't be possible to play them both enough to get them into the squad.

I'm sure we will start to hear rumblings of a move for Joe Cole soon enough

Villain

Thats true PHB, I'd hate to think Chelsea have just bought so no-one else can have him though, IMO he's a better player than Cole but then again it's easy to stand out at City (no offence to any City fans). Going to be an interesting season.

Gileadi

i dont think any other english club would have bought him right now.

if arsenal had came in with offers below 15 million (which i dont think they would have to spend on transfers if they have to spend ~15 for baptista from sevilla) i dont think that they would get him

liverpool seem to have a fetish for players with spainish passports right now so i dont think they would,and united seem more keen on signing ballack according to rumours and have already bought park so another winger would be unlikely

pickarooney

Scott Parker part II? Or is Mourinho going to pull another magic trick and fit all 4 wingers into one team?

Villain

Well when you think about it 4 players for 2 positions isn't really that much consider the number of games Chelsea will play this season and Duff and Robben had quite a few injuries last season.

pickarooney

Four players, ok, but four young players with international ambitions in the season before a World Cup could be stretching it. Although just the fact that they're Chelsea players will improve their international profile (not that Robben or Duff would ever be dropped from their respective NTs if fit).

Villain

Well as you say Duff and Robben aren't going to be dropped, so its really down to Cole and SWP and I think thats it good to have a bit of competition.

jimbling

I wouldn't be so sure about duff's place to be honest.... I am a major fan of his, but did no one notice how tired he looked towards the end of the season... most probably due to the tactics... defend defend defend.

He also looked very tired and unimaginative in the irish games at the end of the season....

SWP is an excellent player, and I'm delighted to see him go to chelsea (albeit for an astronomical fee, but hey... they have it). His energy and speed will be fantastic when duffs tricks just arent working anymore....

Villain

I meant in their national sides

tel922001

doesnt it make u sick that money is no object with a club like chelsea, from an other syupports point of view its makin the transfer market ridiculious, uping the price for every player by nearly 50% , the only thing some clubs have over chelsea is childhood dreams if a player wants to go to arsenal or liverpool or united its for the club not the money

jimbling

irish1 wrote:

I meant in their national sides

I wasn't picking your post out or anything... just the generall vibe is that duff and robben are untouchable... but i think cole was pushing at the end of last season... didnt quite get over the line, but he played very well. And SWP will do the same if not more.
Sometimes (and I stress only sometimes) duff seems to be completely unable to impact a game. His imagination runs out, and he can't get past people anymore. I am not sure if this is due to the 'never lose the ball' tactics and he's just playing safe. But either way... the injection of pace that SWP will bring to any game will be fantastic....

Villain

I'm actually surprised at how few Chelsea have bought so far, I thought they would have signed a big name striker but can't seem to get one. It's not just about money if it was Chelsea would have Adriano or Ronaldo along with Ronaldino signed plus Gerrard of course, money aint everything.

jimbling

also, on the Crespo thing... i hear he left his family back in Italy.. he's still hoping for a move to go through.

I hope Mourinho can bring him round... and convince him this is the right place to be... cause he is a quality striker and would suit the system...

did ye see drogbas comment on skysports

http://skysports.planetfootball.com/list.asp?hlid=292345&CPID=8&CLID=&lid=2&title=Drogba+blames+tactics&channel=spain

no mention of his inability to control the ball when it does come to his feet...

jimbling

tel922001 wrote:

doesnt it make u sick that money is no object with a club like chelsea, from an other syupports point of view its makin the transfer market ridiculious, uping the price for every player by nearly 50% , the only thing some clubs have over chelsea is childhood dreams if a player wants to go to arsenal or liverpool or united its for the club not the money

yes it does to be honest... well to a certain extent. And I like seeing the likes of gerard staying put... its where he belongs....

but as Irish said... if it was all about the money.. then why haven't we gotten that striker??

And it is true that if money is the object... then chelsea have first choice... but that was almost always the way.... for years it has been real madrid...now its chelsea's turn....for the time been anyway.

growler

tel922001 wrote:

doesnt it make u sick that money is no object with a club like chelsea,

absolutely not , for years I've followed a team that had no financial clout (chelsea) watching Man U and Arse (in England), Juve, Madrid , Barca, Bayern etc snap up all the quality players, paying big money for the world's best etc etc. I over the bloody moon that CFC can now afford to do what we never could in the past, buy the best, challenge for titles, win in highbury etc !

Nothing has changed at all it's just a different club at the top of the food chain, that's the way football has always been.

I think you're naive if you think anyone's boyhood dreams count for sh1t these days, even scouser Gerrard wanted money more than Kop adulation, . Those days are long gone IMO.

Jivin Turkey

jimbling wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure about duff's place to be honest.... I am a major fan of his, but did no one notice how tired he looked towards the end of the season... most probably due to the tactics... defend defend defend.

He also looked very tired and unimaginative in the irish games at the end of the season....

Ill get in here before Eirebhoy loses it

Duff played close to 60 games last year, I think thats why he could have looked tired towards the end of the season. He has never played close to as many games in any other year.

Add to that his style has been changed by the influence of Mourinho to be more energetic and complete all around the park. He is putting far more into his game now than he was a couple of years ago, and again this all action play will be more draining than waiting up the top end of the pitch for the ball and working his magic.

He is still capable of brilliance, and will get better again this year as he becomes more and more accustomed to his role.

jimbling

well I did mention in the post it was mostly due to the tactics of the manager.... it does stifle the forward players....


all I am saying is that there are times (whatever the reason) when I am watching duff and I feel that he is just not making the desired impact, he's not getting past players etc... and these are the times that SWP may be the better option.....

just imagine 60/70 minutes gone in a intense guelling match.... and chelsea will get to bring on fresh legs with the speed of SWP.

and next year... duff may not be so tired... becuase he won't have to play close to 60 matchs.... each intailing the poor guy playing in defense midfield and attack.....

tel922001

growler wrote:

absolutely not , for years I've followed a team that had no financial clout (chelsea) watching Man U and Arse (in England), Juve, Madrid , Barca, Bayern etc snap up all the quality players, paying big money for the world's best etc etc. I over the bloody moon that CFC can now afford to do what we never could in the past, buy the best, challenge for titles, win in highbury etc !

Nothing has changed at all it's just a different club at the top of the food chain, that's the way football has always been.

I think you're naive if you think anyone's boyhood dreams count for sh1t these days, even scouser Gerrard wanted money more than Kop adulation, . Those days are long gone IMO.

well if it was money why didnt gerrard go? chelsea were offering him more than he is getting now ,at heart he never wanted to leave , my point is SWP always said he wanted to play for arsenal that was his dream but i personallly think money got in the way of things not from his choice maybe from his agent and man city they want the most they can get but, do u think he would have chosen chelsea over aresnal if they matched his offer?

redspider

tel922001 wrote:

doesnt it make u sick that money is no object with a club like chelsea, from an other syupports point of view its makin the transfer market ridiculious, uping the price for every player by nearly 50% , the only thing some clubs have over chelsea is childhood dreams if a player wants to go to arsenal or liverpool or united its for the club not the money

Yes, the Abramovich-backed Chelsea is distorting the marketplace and I'm sure that Uefa and others have their eye on it. (Lest we also not forget the source of Abramovich's wealth is very illegal - if you dont know about this, no need to start me on it, just research it!). Chelsea can now come and bid for any player if they want to leave and becom available. I think it is imperative that players can no longer be allowed to go out on loan, that there are squad size caps, that there is squad spending caps (transfers and salaries) and that it becomes a more level playing field for all. Football will be better for it.

Other sports have introduced measures to prevent money buying success, but football is way behind the curve on it and something must be done.

Redspider

tel922001

I totally agree with the money issue, the reason for this not been implemented is because of clubs in debt, i persoanlly think there should be a cap of max 20m for a player or maybe less and a wage no higher than 100k a week, there is alot of tems who then can compete then , the agents dont get too involved in makin more money for themselves cause it will be the same no matter what club they go to, i have read up on how he made his money pretty shocking at the least

gsand

gerrard was not getting offered a great deal more at chelsea than he is at liverpool-his new contract his for 100,000+ at liverpool as far as i know, i imagine he could get 150 at chelsea but i mean the difference gets marginal when you are talking about 100+ and the lifestyle it ensues...

well thats my opinion but id guess a few of you might hop ship for an extra 50k a week!

tel922001

gsand wrote:

gerrard was not getting offered a great deal more at chelsea than he is at liverpool-his new contract his for 100,000+ at liverpool as far as i know, i imagine he could get 150 at chelsea but i mean the difference gets marginal when you are talking about 100+ and the lifestyle it ensues...

well thats my opinion but id guess a few of you might hop ship for an extra 50k a week!

i agree in some points of what u said, he wasnt on alot of money at liverpool before his new contract, he was only on 60k thats not alot considering ur probably the best midfielder in the world at what he does ( not best all round midfielder dont get me wrong) but he stayed for the love of the club he supported , i know alot of people jump for extra money and in my eyes its ruining it no, excitment anymore in the transfer market , if a player wanted to go to a club he really wanted to go to , if the money isnt there for him from that club its ruled out, a shame really

Guy:Incognito

growler wrote:

absolutely not , for years I've followed a team that had no financial clout (chelsea) watching Man U and Arse (in England), Juve, Madrid , Barca, Bayern etc snap up all the quality players, paying big money for the world's best etc etc. I over the bloody moon that CFC can now afford to do what we never could in the past, buy the best, challenge for titles, win in highbury etc !

Nothing has changed at all it's just a different club at the top of the food chain, that's the way football has always been.

I think you're naive if you think anyone's boyhood dreams count for sh1t these days, even scouser Gerrard wanted money more than Kop adulation, . Those days are long gone IMO.

Its not the same at all. Utd had to offset any transfers by brining money in to balance the books, chelsea dont. They are hemmoraging (sp?) money but it doesnt matter because they have an owner who is a billionaire. Noboday has the ability to spend a couple of hundred million on players bar chelsea, especially without selling a few a recouping a lot of the money.

gsand

Yes I agree I was incinuating that love of the club was more important that the extra 50k but you put it rather clearer there

Gileadi

and bear in mind the taxman would take a majority of that extra 50k a week as im damn sure he would be in the highest tax catagory

skysports news are reporting that lyon have said that essien is worth at least 31 million sterling,justifying it by saying that he is at least as good as gerrard....they named their price so lets see how it unfolds

growler

tel922001 wrote:

well if it was money why didnt gerrard go? chelsea were offering him more than he is getting now ,at heart he never wanted to leave , my point is SWP always said he wanted to play for arsenal that was his dream but i personallly think money got in the way of things not from his choice maybe from his agent and man city they want the most they can get but, do u think he would have chosen chelsea over aresnal if they matched his offer?

of course he would :-) , current champions, loads of cash, great potential etc etc, if his wanted to follow his dreams then he could have asked to talk to arsenal and taken a cut in wages IF wenger wanted him. He didn't.


I'm so bored of these unfounded allegations and suppositions regarding Roman's wealth, none of you nor any of the dubious media specualtions have a clue as to how he made his money, other than he happened to be in the right place at the right time. It's about as true and Wenger being a paedo.

jimbling

supposedly gerrard was only been offered 90K a week at chelsea... and that there was no way it would be over 100K... which is what the top earners are on there.

Brian017

From Reuters

Chelsea's former Spanish midfielder Enrique De Lucas is suing the English champions for more than 2.5 million pounds after they terminated his contract in 2003.

De Lucas, who began a London High Court action on Monday, is seeking damages in unpaid wages, bonuses, appearance fees, accommodation and other expenses, including English language tuition.



The 27-year-old's move to English football in 2002 was a complex one involving Spanish club Deportivo Alaves.

His case, which is expected to last three days, centres on whether or not Chelsea breached their contract with the player by sending him to play for Alaves after he had made 31 appearances for the west London club in 2002-03.

growler

tel922001 wrote:

well if it was money why didnt gerrard go? chelsea were offering him more than he is getting now ,at heart he never wanted to leave , my point is SWP always said he wanted to play for arsenal that was his dream but i personallly think money got in the way of things not from his choice maybe from his agent and man city they want the most they can get but, do u think he would have chosen chelsea over aresnal if they matched his offer?

of course he would :-) , current champions, loads of cash, great potential etc etc, if his wanted to follow his dreams then he could have asked to talk to arsenal and taken a cut in wages IF wenger wanted him. He didn't.


I'm so bored of these unfounded allegations and suppositions regarding Roman's wealth, none of you nor any of the dubious tabloid media specualtors have a clue as to how he made his money, other than he happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Anyway , what's it got to do with how Chelsea conduct their football affairs ? Fayed is a proven liar, why not slag Fulham, Gold at Birmingham is a porn seller, Wenger alledgedly likes young sheep, Alan sugar is a spurs fan but you don't hear people slagging him off for that etc etc

growler

Chelsea should be suing Alaves for misrepresentation under the Trade Descriptions Act , how De Useless passed himself off as a footballer i'll never know :-)

tel922001

the bitchy comments are comin out now , all i msaying is money is now ruining the great game and over the last yr its been chelsea who have done it and before that it was madrid and the spanish teams, im not directing it at chelsea as a football club but im do it towards the finacial side of it , money is wreakin it , and if i was a chelsea fan id still say the same

SteM

Stekelly wrote:

Its not the same at all. Utd had to offset any transfers by brining money in to balance the books, chelsea dont. They are hemmoraging (sp?) money but it doesnt matter because they have an owner who is a billionaire. Noboday has the ability to spend a couple of hundred million on players bar chelsea, especially without selling a few a recouping a lot of the money.

I agree with you 100%. If growler is comparing the Arsenal and United of the past to Chelsea in their current form he's way off. As a PLC United always had to balance the books. Chelsea don't have that problem leading them collect players like kids used to collect football cards, I've posted this before but of course it was ignored then too.

Smertin is a perfect example of this type of player IMO. He joined Chelsea, went on loan to Portsmouth, came back to Chelsea last season and now he's back on loan again this season. He's a decent midfielder but any other club that's money conscious and have Chelsea's midfield would have seen him as surplus to requirements and sold him to bring some money in. Chelsea don't need to as they don't need the cash even though they are loosing money every season.

jank

SteM wrote:

I agree with you 100%. If growler is comparing the Arsenal and United of the past to Chelsea in their current form he's way off. As a PLC United always had to balance the books. Chelsea don't have that problem leading them collect players like kids used to collect football cards, I've posted this before but of course it was ignored then too.

Smertin is a perfect example of this type of player IMO. He joined Chelsea, went on loan to Portsmouth, came back to Chelsea last season and now he's back on loan again this season. He's a decent midfielder but any other club that's money conscious and have Chelsea's midfield would have seen him as surplus to requirements and sold him to bring some money in. Chelsea don't need to as they don't need the cash even though they are loosing money every season.

Yep i agree, Arsenal are a privately owned club by a few shareholders. They too have to balance the books and especially with the new stadium on the way have to keep an eye on there transfers. Just look at Arsenal's record transfer and see that chelsea have broken that numerous times in the last 2 seasons.

RA's money wont last forever and if he had political intentions in russia then Putin would have had him locked up long ago with his former friend/business man Mikhail Khodorkovsky the richest man in Russia.

Maybe luckily for the rent boys and RA, the only thing he hasn't dabbled in in Russia is politics.

~Rebel~

jank wrote:

Yep i agree, Arsenal are a privately owned club by a few shareholders. Thye too have to balance the books and especially with the new stadium on the way have to keep an eye on there transfers. Just luck at Arsenal's record transfer and see that chelsea have broken that numerous times in the last 2 seasons.

RM's money wont last forever and if he had political intentions in russia then Putin would have had him locked up long ago with his former friend/business man Mikhail Khodorkovsky the richest man in Russia.

Maybe luckily for the rent boys RM the only thing he hasnt dabbled in in Russia is politics.

RM? is that meant to be abromovich?

jank

OOOPs my bad had RM instead of RA!

growler

jank wrote:

Maybe luckily for the rent boys and RA, the only thing he hasn't dabbled in in Russia is politics.

except for being governor of a Russian province ?


what do you mean his money won't last forever? it's hard to spend £3 billion , even on footballers.

"If growler is comparing the Arsenal and United of the past to Chelsea in their current form he's way off~"

how so ? Arsenal and Man U had , historically, more money to spend on transfers and wages than other english clubs, they always had first call on the best players and were able to attract the best by winning titles and challenging in Europe (Arse excepted , for Europe). They made more money by winning trophies, marketing themselves to new audiences, selling replica shirts to asia , and taking the lion's share of sky TV money, all built on the back of success that was virtually guaranteed in a two horse race.

And now, they can't guarantee a trophy, are not the in a position to dominate transfers and offer the best wages, in Utd's case their PLc idea has allowed the club to be sold from under their feet even though the money they raised from floatation allowed them to dominate English (and often European) football for over a decade, and Arsenal were more conservative, didn't float, relied on signing a good mix of new talent and experience (fair ply) but now they can't complain just cause someone has more money than them, I'd love to hear you complaining if Arse had too much cash to splash around.

SteM

growler wrote:

how so ?

Hmm, maybe read the rest of my mail.

case n basket

growler wrote:

except for being governor of a Russian province ?


what do you mean his money won't last forever? it's hard to spend £3 billion , even on footballers.

"If growler is comparing the Arsenal and United of the past to Chelsea in their current form he's way off~"

how so ? Arsenal and Man U had , historically, more money to spend on transfers and wages than other english clubs, they always had first call on the best players and were able to attract the best by winning titles and challenging in Europe (Arse excepted , for Europe). They made more money by winning trophies, marketing themselves to new audiences, selling replica shirts to asia , and taking the lion's share of sky TV money, all built on the back of success that was virtually guaranteed in a two horse race.

And now, they can't guarantee a trophy, are not the in a position to dominate transfers and offer the best wages, in Utd's case their PLc idea has allowed the club to be sold from under their feet even though the money they raised from floatation allowed them to dominate English (and often European) football for over a decade, and Arsenal were more conservative, didn't float, relied on signing a good mix of new talent and experience (fair ply) but now they can't complain just cause someone has more money than them, I'd love to hear you complaining if Arse had too much cash to splash around.

Well they probably could complain (to nobody in particular), because generally speaking if a team is richer than them then they have earned it - see United (unlike Chelsea).

And i'm not sure where you're getting this Arsenal having more money to spend than other english clubs. Maybe in the 1930's, but over the last decade they've competed at top while keeping wages at a sustainable level (small stadium, relatively small support), and spending very little. I haven't seen a transfers table in a while so they might have gone up a bit with the Reyes/Hleb signings (offset by Vieira though), but they were ranked 9th in the premiership in net spending. I don't remember where Chelsea were on it (pre Abramovich that is :P), but if i had to put money on it i'd guess they were a lot higher up, the italians, lampard etc didn't come cheap and I don't recall too many big cash outs.

growler

2003/04 Arse were the world's 6th richest club , the season before they were the 7th richest club link

hardly impoverished ! and they have been consistently in the top 20 clubs by income for the last decade.


Stem: yes Utd were a plc , yes they had books to balance and yes they were also the world's richest club and so had more money than anyone else !!
They financed this growth and success largely through the additional £10 million they got when their greedy directors decided to float to company to make themselves rich in 91.

SteM

growler wrote:

Stem: yes Utd were a plc , yes they had books to balance and yes they were also the world's richest club and so had more money than anyone else !!
They financed this growth and success largely through the additional £10 million they got when their greedy directors decided to float to company to make themselves rich in 91.

There's no need to get touchy about this growler, I'm just pointing out a fact that United were a PLC that had to pay shareholders dividends. They could not buy and keep players in the way Chelsea can now in any way shape or form.

You seem to think (or have deluded yourself) that a club building itself up through success and it's history so it was in a position to float and a club that has someone come in with billions of pounds, throwing money for fun is the same.

They're not the same thing at all.

eirebhoy

jimbling wrote:

all I am saying is that there are times (whatever the reason) when I am watching duff and I feel that he is just not making the desired impact, he's not getting past players etc... and these are the times that SWP may be the better option.....

If Duff had his way he'd be running past players whenever he gets the ball. Mourinho rarely gives him freedom. A couple of years ago Duff either beat his man or won a free kick. Now he can't get by the Faroes. Still, if Mourinho wants him to play the Robben/SWP style all he has to do is tell him. He seems to prefer him being more intelligent with his passing and less running down the wings with the ball.

Gileadi

players in the Robben/SWP mould seem to suffer alot more injuries from constantly drawing in tackles also so with the WC qualifiers and hopefully finals coming up lets hope Duff keeps up the style of play from last season,its been the longest spell i can remember him being fit while being a constant 1st team premiership player

pickarooney

WRT Veron, can anyone explain to me the logic of loaning a 29-year old flop to Inter for a three year deal?
Same with Smertin, he's 30 and on his third successive year on loan. What benefit has this to Chelsea? If the loaning clubs aren't prepared to buy them, why don't they just let them go on a free?

johnor

I assume the other clubs are paying a mjority of the players wages...thus off loadin them from chelski's books..end of the day they are still assests that are depreciating with every season....then again never know what "good faith" this will build between chelsea and inter or whoever else...

case n basket

growler wrote:

2003/04 Arse were the world's 6th richest club , the season before they were the 7th richest club link

hardly impoverished ! and they have been consistently in the top 20 clubs by income for the last decade.

and how did they get there...?

Back we go to keeping the purse strings tight!

astrofool

Veron's on perm loan till the end of his chelsea contract. i.e. when his loan period is up, he'll be a free agent.

pickarooney

He must be on collosal wages that they couldn't just get rid of him on a free.