Chelsea Transfer Rumours and Signings

growler

case n basket wrote:

and how did they get there...?

Back we go to keeping the purse strings tight!

or one could say that perhaps Arsenal failed to relly capiltaise on their PL successes of recent years / decades, they didn't spend money on building a new stadium, they didn't splash out on superstars or float like many other clubs, but on reflection was that the best way to run the business ? maybe if it had not been run by private owners they may have developed a "global brand" to rival Man U, Madrid , Barca and co. Arsenal did a lot but never took it to the next level ( imo) , they could have invested, developed , grown and be an even bigger force in european football, and now be able to compete (monetarily) with the likes of CFC, Man U etc but they didn't.

Pure speculation on my part I know , but your post above got me thinking, how could Arsenal consistently be amongst the world's richest clubs but never grow to be a world giant ? maybe those private owners took too much of that saved cash home with them.

Apologies for wandering off topic-ish.

jank

growler wrote:

or one could say that perhaps Arsenal failed to relly capiltaise on their PL successes of recent years / decades, they didn't spend money on building a new stadium, they didn't splash out on superstars or float like many other clubs, but on reflection was that the best way to run the business ? maybe if it had not been run by private owners they may have developed a "global brand" to rival Man U, Madrid , Barca and co. Arsenal did a lot but never took it to the next level ( imo) , they could have invested, developed , grown and be an even bigger force in european football, and now be able to compete (monetarily) with the likes of CFC, Man U etc but they didn't.

Pure speculation on my part I know , but your post above got me thinking, how could Arsenal consistently be amongst the world's richest clubs but never grow to be a world giant ? maybe those private owners took too much of that saved cash home with them.

Apologies for wandering off topic-ish.

Well for one thing arent they building a new stadium? Stadium

Arsenal were just another club in London pre wenger (Although the biggest). The stronghold of football in england was traditionally in the north of the country. Arsenal in some ways changed that. London can now claim to be on par with the great cities of football like Milan, Rome, Madrid, Glasgow, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Liverpool and maybe Manchester .

Its hard to create a Global brand overnight. Arsenal are not up there yet with the big boys of Barca, Madrid, Milan but are not too far behind.They are in the G14 (Are chelsea?) Utd were lucky to have their success in the time that Sky were re-branding football.
Are the real fans better off with this though? The majority arent!


You can see Chelsea and Utd now going off on tours to the far flung corners of the world to pursue their marketing strategy. Do I want Arsenal to do that. Not really. Id prefer them to play in Europe(As they are in amsterdam) and actually concentrate on the football rather then concentrate on how many shirts they are going to sell. Sure they have to sell some shirts but I dont want them to sell their souls ala Glazier and Chelsea.

Peter Kenyon is all that is wrong with football today.

Newcastle and Liverpool spent as much if not more than Arsenal where did that get them?(Im not going to start on the CL here). So your theory of spending big = big clubs that are global brands. Remember Real Betis!?

Oh and Arsenal are still the biggest club in London and then Spurs. 100 odd years of tradition will not change over night. Its going to take more then just 2 league wins in a clubs history to change that. The rent boys were called the rent boys for a reason

Hell Id almost go as far as West Ham having a better tradition and REAL fan base then Chelsea. They gave england their world cup winning captain bobby moore and just look at how many top class players are playing for the bigger/richer clubs. Rio. Cole, Defoe etc etc Didnt beckham play with them for a while when he was 16 or so?

Chelsea are a fankenstein of a club. Enjoy while it lasts Growler but it wont last forever.

EDIT: Oh and im not even going to respond with your tin foil hat theory that the board members are pocketing the money rather then investing it in the club

PHB

The thing about becoming a global brand is that in some sense it secures future success.

People forget just how good Wenger is in the transfer market, and that when another manager comes in, which has to eventually happen, he won't be as good at spending money. Thus building up a brand is the best way to ensure you'll always have 30 million to spend a summer.

p.s. Kenyon is working veyr hard to bring Chelsea into a brandname.
Why?
RM is funding them so he doesn't need to right?
Its because he knows that RM is going to leave eventualy, I give it 5 years, at which point he will resign or be fired because of the wages he is on.
The only other club who could afford to pay him the wages he wants is Man Utd, and they won't want him back. IN 5 years time no other club in the country will want him.
Thus he wants to make Chelsea self-sufficient so he can have a job in 5 years time, but he'll fail

growler

i have no love of Kenyon either, back stabbing traitor that he is and he's a smug Man U fan to boot.!

and of course he's increasing our ticket prices , bringing new, daft policies on tickets etc. he should have stayed in Manchester where he belongs, he'd have gotten a big redundancy from Glazier an' all. But the reason why he is trying to make CFC into a global brand is coz that's his job, not because he "knows" (wishful thinking or mind reading again PHB?) that Roman is going to get tired of Chelsea and take up some other interest.


Jank, i wasn't really having a pop at Arsenal there, just after the way this discussion went i started to think "why weren't arsenal as big as Man U?" , I think you'd agree the could / should have been, and the reason why they aren't really may well have been because they didn't have a Kenyon to look at the future business of football. thats all. i agree that all this cash is ruining the game to a certain extent, but it's also allowed me to see the likes of Vialla, Gullit, Zola, Crespo, di Matteo, Duff and Wise play week in week out, it's brought Barcelona, Porto, Galatassaray, Bayern, Stoke, Tromso, Lazio etc. to play 40 feet in front of me, so I can't complain.

Back in the 80's my dad took me to a Cheslea game in SB are there were probably 5000 people there, so yes , our fan base was dismal and full of thugs in those days. But success creates new fans, new support and brings the armchair fans out of the woodwork, Bates started that a long time back and just becuase RA happens to have a few billion more than every other owner doesn't justify this insane attitude that his money has ruined the game, money was always going to control the game once it became a pro sport, clubs floating and sky deals paved the way for all this, made it possibly for a well respected honest Russian businessman of modest means to buy CFC.

Personally I don't think he'll bugger off in 5 years or 10 or whatever, he goes to more damn games than I do and seems to love every minute of it. Even if he does, I'll enjoy the roller coaster, long may it last.

Your all just jealous and Man U and Arsenal would be playing in green this season if they could ;-)

jank

"why weren't arsenal as big as Man U?

Arsenal didnt have a Munich air crash back int he 50's. Strange as it may sound that was the very first time Man Utd were heard the world over. They gained a lot of sympathy from that thus lots of fans. Its strange how things work. Ok its not down to this alone but you know what I mean

Also as I said the north of england was traditionally the power house of football in england.

for a well respected honest Russian businessman of modest means to buy CFC.

You serious? Modest as in 4 different yachts not 40

our all just jealous and Man U and Arsenal would be playing in green this season if they could ;-)

Maybe Buccaneers Utd but not Arsenal

p.pete

jank wrote:

Arsenal didnt have a Munich air crash back int he 50's. Strange as it may sound that was the very first time Man Utd were heard the world over. They gained a lot of sympathy from that thus lots of fans. Its strange how things work. Ok its not down to this alone but you know what I mean

Maybe related to the fact that they were actually doing well in Europe at the time, suffered their losses and picked themselves up to do well again.

redspider

growler wrote:

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, you need to do some research.

Abramovich is a crook. He made his original money from smuggling oil, "bought" within Russia cheaply probably via bribes and shipped illegally to western markets where the price was much much higher. This is how he made his first few millions, him, along with many others. He got mega-rich during the privatisation fiasco of Russian state assets, in payment from Yeltsin for election. He ended up using large chunks of state companies, which have ended up being worth billions. Him, and the many oligarchs. Thats how Abramovich made his money. Over 100m russians will curse at you if you mention his name to them, but they have resigned it to history. He was the right hand man of Berezkovosky, or however its spelled, who had more money than Abramovich, got by the same means, but is now penniless and in jail in Russia. Abramovich is keeping out of jail most likely by paying of Putin.

So, yes, I agree with you fully, Abramovich was in the right plac at the right time, just like all other criminals that havent been caught.

Here are some links for you (Note: this should go in the Football forum FAQ):

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=39275
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1212245,00.html
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/newssu.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-56-1409.jsp


Its got everything to do with Chelsea. His money is distorting the ame because he is not interested in making money at Chelsea. Hence he can run it at a major loss, outbid all other clubs on the planet for players, pay them the best wages, etc. There is no guarantee that this formula will be succesful, but it won the EPL last year, not the CL. Its different than the Man U money and the Arsenal and Liverpool money, which come from legal sources.

Redspider

Villain

If you were to examine where every club got their money I'm sure you would find some nice stories. Roman's history is very dark but there is quite a few Russian's with a simalar story. Chelsea have got a rich sugar daddy for a few years and good luck to them I say, there bringing quality players into a league I enjoy watching, obviously I couldn't condone some of their dealings but that happens on a smaller scale everyday, the agents are as much to blame as anyone.

snakeater

What annoys me about supporting Chelsea is the cost, like Growler when I was a kid going to see a match was no problem and wasn't really expensive. This season I got a letter from Chelsea in the post asking me to be a " True Blue". This means i have to pay 70 pound sterling to become a member. This gives me the opportunity to buy tickets before they go on sale to the general public. So in other words in order to buy a ticket for any half decent match, you need to fork out seventy quid to do so. However this won't even garauntee you to get a ticket as there is no limit to the amount of people who can become "true blues"

Guy:Incognito

irish1 wrote:

Chelsea have got a rich sugar daddy for a few years and good luck to them I say, there bringing quality players into a league I enjoy watching, .

But the thing is, they're not bringing in the top layer of world players, they are getting the second string because the really top players have the cop to stay at their own prestige clubs. The EPL is not a very attractive place for the top Europeans or Brazilians.

The money isnt doing football any good because all its doing is unsettling players and driving wages/transfer fees up.

I wounld'nt want abramovich to have bought Liverpool, because its not the way I want them to win things. I'd rather a top team be built like Liverpool or the 70's/80's and Utd. The novelty of being able to buy anything and everyone wore off me pretty quick with editors in CM. It's just eroding the last bit of football out of the game. Abramovich is the worst kind of Owner to have because hes so far beyond being in it for the money hes come full circle, its a game. If he was arrested in Russia tomorow and his assets frozen, how the hell could chelsea survive, they would go into instant administration owing millions and having massive debts and contracts to honour. It would be a sorry end to a decent club and anything they won during the RA time would be tainted.

Villain

With all due respect, teams like liveerpool gave up on home grown talent long ago, I mean how many home grown players have liverpool had play for them week in week out in the past 5 years, Owen, Fowler, McManaman, Carra and Gerrard. The league had changed a lot before Roman came along.

stevoslice

in all fairness it was more houllier stopping home grown players comin through than anythin, i.e mellor, warnock, potter have gotten there chance under benitez and did well, but players like partridge& welsh(a great prospect a few years back)got no games under houllier.

AFAIK houllier is the first manager since the fifties where no youth player came through to the senior side.

Necronomicon

Stekelly wrote:

I wounld'nt want abramovich to have bought Liverpool, because its not the way I want them to win things. I'd rather a top team be built like Liverpool or the 70's/80's and Utd. The novelty of being able to buy anything and everyone wore off me pretty quick with editors in CM.

Agreed completely. I wouldn't want my team to completely lose it's identity like Chelsea.

growler

redspider wrote:

Growler, you need to do some research.

Abramovich is a crook.

Here are some links for you (Note: this should go in the Football forum FAQ):

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=39275
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1212245,00.html
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/newssu.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-56-1409.jsp


Redspider

supposition, guilt by association, idle musings , unsubstatiated allegations and general rumour mongering, there is nothing there that shows or even proves the Roman was or is involved in any illegal activities. Sure he made his money by buying vastly undervalued state assets and happened to have the right political connections to do so , who the hell wouldn't in his shoes ?

Chelsea hasn't lost it's identity, it's got an identity now that it didn't have before and admittedly us seasoned supporters are in two minds whether it's all good or bad. As said before I'm delighted to have won the league, i'm over the moon to be challenging the Mancs and Arse now, I love seeing the best teams in Europe visit during our CL campaigns, I love watching world class footballers ( second string my arse ) every weekend. I'm really happy that the club has invested in new training grounds and has a youth policy designed to develop home grown talent.

It sure beats losing away to Villa, finishing in mid table mediocrity for years, almost achieving things but then not quite doing it, getting beaten by bloody swiss teams etc. I don't like the legions of "new fans" that drive up demand and prices but thats the price of success, I don't like the price of the chicken and mushroom pies but I can live with it and enjoy every minute of it.

BTW, I love the comical view that "if RA got arrested tomorrow Chelsea dissappear in the morning", you don't get to be a billionaire by leaving all your cash under the bed, Chelsea will be owned by so many off shore companies, subsidiaries and lawyers that it would take decades for anyone to try and unravel it. Russia doesn't have the authority to seize UK assets anyway.

PHB

Russia doesn't have the authority to seize UK assets anyway.

It actually does in a round about sense.
If the Russians said to the UK tomorrow, we are seizing all of RM's assests, they would be seized almost instantly.

Guy:Incognito

growler wrote:

Russia doesn't have the authority to seize UK assets anyway.

Thats fair enough but do you think that if RA is locked up indefinately in siberia, heis going to be concerned with the goings on at chelsea. More likely he will gather as much cash as possible and try to do a runner should the opportunity arise. Either way the outcome is still the same: no money coming in - massive bills going out.

Gileadi

well firstly i dont think that they would put him in siberia,that practise has long been stopped i believe

and secondly the country is so riddled with corruption from what i have seen that i wouldnt bet on anything happening him realistically...alot has to be proven of his guilt and not just hear say

astrofool

PHB, it's RA not RM, they're not even in the same area of the keyboard!

Jivin Turkey

redspider wrote:

Growler, you need to do some research.

Abramovich is a crook. He made his original money from smuggling oil, "bought" within Russia cheaply probably via bribes and shipped illegally to western markets where the price was much much higher. This is how he made his first few millions, him, along with many others. He got mega-rich during the privatisation fiasco of Russian state assets, in payment from Yeltsin for election. He ended up using large chunks of state companies, which have ended up being worth billions. Him, and the many oligarchs. Thats how Abramovich made his money. Over 100m russians will curse at you if you mention his name to them, but they have resigned it to history. He was the right hand man of Berezkovosky, or however its spelled, who had more money than Abramovich, got by the same means, but is now penniless and in jail in Russia. Abramovich is keeping out of jail most likely by paying of Putin.

So, yes, I agree with you fully, Abramovich was in the right plac at the right time, just like all other criminals that havent been caught.

Here are some links for you (Note: this should go in the Football forum FAQ):

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=39275
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1212245,00.html
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/newssu.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-56-1409.jsp

Some good scaremongering there Redspider. Ever consider a job with Shareholders United?

I read some of those articles. They are editorial types and just seem to be written by journos with an agenda.

PHB

Well since you took an entire post to reply, i'll do the same.
RA - Roman Ambrovimich
RM - RoMan

I call people by first names

Pepe LeFrits

that's just stupid, DV

PHB

I know it is MK, but thats just how I learnt it.
Weird eh
I do it with loads of other names, I think its to do with what I consider the main letters of a word, ya know what defines the word mostly.

evilhomer

PHB wrote:

It actually does in a round about sense.
If the Russians said to the UK tomorrow, we are seizing all of RM's assests, they would be seized almost instantly.

PHB: All the Russians could do is seize the his assets which reside in Russia.
If the Russian said to the UK Home Office "We would like to seize control of Chelsea FC because we suspect RA of being a crook" the Home office would laugh at them.

Personally I doubt very much that Roman Abramovich keeps any assets in Russia, unless they are immovable (i.e Oil Fields, etc..)

By now Abramovich Has setup residency in a Tax free Haven such as Monaco, Jersey, Bermuda, Caymen Islands, etc...

PHB

He has for the majority of his assests, but the majority of his income still comes from directly inside Russia, and thus a seizure of assests would utterly cripple him, making him only a couple of billionaire
Futhermore, if the Home Office was told that a Russian court had convicted him of whatever, his assests would be seized. People don't realise how closly security forces work together in this area, and it would be almost the same if France asked them.

growler

he could continue to finance Chelsea with the interest he earns on his dog's savings account.

redspider

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Some good scaremongering there Redspider. I read some of those articles. They are editorial types and just seem to be written by journos with an agenda.

Folks, you really need to think clearly and open your eyes about Russians that are millionaires and indeed billionaires. Russia and the Soviet Union went through a huge change, where state, army and secret service owned and ran everything to a capitalist society, where crime and criminality ande corrption has put other places of the world to a small scale.

The Oligarch's are one of the outcomes. Noe of the Oligarchs, Roman Abramovich included, are squeaky clean. In fact, far from it. Some Chelsea fans may stick their heads in the sand and refuse to believe the facts. The UN have written reports about it. Think-tanks and instututions, white papers and reports have been written, not just news articles. The evidence is pretty clear.

Like most criminals, there may not be clear evidence, and like some ciminals, there may be no irgency on the pwers that be in his area to arrest him. But consider this, Putin as bad as he is, stripped all the assets of Khodorkovsky, he was more wealthy than Abramovich.

Its a bit like in Ireland, Haughey taking a payment of 1m from Ben Dunne. Now, we all know Ben Dunne didnt do it for a laugh. Corruption first of all appears like smoke, but like all people that are guilty of a crime, yes, they remain innocent until proven guilty, but that does not mean that before prove thy have not commited a crime or crimes.

Search the net. Maybe even better, why dont you write a letter to Abramovich?

"Dear Roman, may I call you RA, yes, I know, no-one else does. Anyway, tell me clearly and distinctly how you made your fortune and why you decided to be a benovelent benefactor of wonderous Chelsea FC? Was it astute investments on your behalf? Or was it a case of you being in the right place at the right time, a right hand man of an embezzeler, a criminal? Please tell me it aint so. - Chelsea fan"

Another quote from the net:

"The chelski billionaire from Russia Roman Abramovich at the age of 36 Roman has acquiried a fortune of $5.7billion through a series of oil export deals in the early 1990s. Although not always been plain sailing for roman, his mother died when he was just 18 months old and was raised by his father who also died in a construction accident when he was only 4. his uncle finaly adopted him and he was raised in Moscow until he attended the Industrial Institute in the city of Ukhta in Komi, eventually he signed up for the Soviet army. From early on in life he focused on business activities on trading oil products out of Russia's largest refinery in Omsk, western Siberia. In 1995 his big break came when he teamed up with some dodgy capitalist Boris Berezovsky, and together they took over the oil giant Sibneft at a fraction of its share price, however in 2000 Boris fled Russia on fraud charges and Roman bought out all his shares in Sbneft and ORT television network he also bought shares in Russia's largest aluminun Co.he is also the Governor of Chukhotka and trades in the UK. as Millhouse Capital.But much more than that he is classed as a god in the London Borough of Chelsea since spending some of pocket change and buying the one and only Chelsea F.C."


Redspider

growler

redspider wrote:

. The evidence is pretty clear.

Like most criminals, there may not be clear evidence,

Redspider

so there is unclear evidence ? surprised he's not in jail.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

so there is unclear evidence ? surprised he's not in jail.

Maybe thats only a matter of time. To coin a phrase the dog's in the street know the truth behind his money.

"ROMAN ABRAMOVICH, the multi-billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club, was last week served with a court order instigated by Sibir Energy, a UK-based rival that has accused the Russian oligarch of stealing one of its assets thought to be worth up to $2 billion (£1.14 billion).

The move is set to cause considerable embarrassment for Abramovich, with a full-blown court case now looking likely.

Sibir, which has in past months been embroiled in a variety of disputes with Sibneft, the Russian oil company controlled by Abramovich, has won a court order demanding that the oligarch put aside $1 billion of assets until the court, based in the British Virgin Islands, releases them.The court papers were served last week at Abramovich’s London home and at Sibneft’s Moscow offices. Attempts to serve them at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge HQ and Abramovich’s Hampshire home failed.

The dispute centres on Sibneft-Yugra, an oil joint venture between Sibir and Sibneft set up in 2000. Sibir alleges that its share of the venture has been stolen by Sibneft. Sibneft says it acquired the stake legitimately. The court has demanded that assets in Sibneft-Yugra be put in the custody of a court receiver. The hearing is set for July 27 in the British Virgin Islands. A Sibneft spokesman said: “Sibneft will not comment on ongoing litigation.” "

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1697049,00.html

redspider

growler wrote:

"the evidence is pretty clear .... Like most criminals, there may not be clear evidence"

so there is unclear evidence? surprised he's not in jail.

Let me spell it out for those pedantics:

It is alledged that Roman Abramovich has been involved in criminal activity. These alledged criminal acts have been the major factor in his accumulation of substantial amounts of wealth. The evidence on all of these criminal acts have not, to date, been put before any courts, either in Russia or in an international court, if applicable.

It is a fact that his wealth has been derived from assets which were previously in ownership by the Russian state. It is also a fact that approx. 23 people (known as the Oligarch's) have accumulated approx. 60% of the wealth in Russia.

I cant make you put 1 + 1 together and come up with 2.

Mark my words, Abramovich's day will come, its just a matter of time.

Redspider

astrofool

ever seen the film Brewster's Millions?

Seems to me like Abramovich is doing the exact same thing.

Gileadi

anyway this is nice and all but very very off topic

growler

Red Spider, there is a difference between fact and allegations, one is proven the other is supposition, you cannot present allegations as facts.

the Muppet, if you can find one oil company that is not involved in some form of litigation dispute over ownership of assets I'll be amazed.

~Rebel~

Had to go back to page 5 to find this thread!

Anyway, Aulas claims Essien deal is dead and hits a general swipe at chelsea saying they're "killing the football transfer market"

Source: http://skysports.planetfootball.com/list.asp?hlid=296486&CPID=8&CLID=&lid=2&title=Lyon:+Essien+deal+dead&channel=football_home

Lyon claim that Chelsea's attempts to sign midfielder Michael Essien have all but collapsed.

The Blues have been pursuing the Ghanaian international all summer but have thus far refused to meet the French champions' demands with l'OL holding out for £32 million and a player in exchange.

Despite Roman Abramovich's pockets providing a seemingly bottomless transfer pit, The Blues have steadfastly refused to meet that price and Lyon themselves now believe a deal is unlikely to materialise.

Chairman Jean-Michel Aulas insists he will not be meeting Abramovich again, while director Bernard Lacombe accused the West Londoners of threatening football's entire transfer system with their 'bully-boy' tactics.

"For the moment there is no meeting (with Abramovich), the Chelsea (owner)," Aulas claimed.

"Events do not allow us to meet and things are dead."

Lacombe reiterated Aulas' view, but went on to warn that even Europe's biggest clubs could have their heads turned by Chelsea's financial muscle and its potential rewards - as has seemingly been the case with Essien himself.

"Things are on the point of death," Lacombe said of the Essien deal.

"The president [Aulas] will not meet Mr Abramovich again.

"But we must stop talking about Michael Essien, he has got a three-year contract.

"He has got to recognise he is still a Lyon player for a few more days or months.

"This boy used to be the sun in the dressing room every morning. He always has a kind word.

"Suddenly he has become closed and you can see he is unhappy. The players are annoyed to see him like that.

"They [Chelsea] exert pressure not only on Lyon, they are killing the football transfer market.

"Barcelona, Real Madrid - they are all going to be tempted sooner or later, like with Michael today."

Meanwhile, Arsenal have moved to rubbish claims by Aulas that they have joined the race to land Essien given the current impasse between Lyon and Chelsea.

Arsene Wenger had been tipped to launch a sensational raid to snare him from their London rivals, but insists he has no such plans.

"You can be reassured that we are not going to bid for Essien," Wenger declared.

eirebhoy

"They [Chelsea] exert pressure not only on Lyon, they are killing the football transfer market.

This coming from the club trying to overcharge Chelsea...

Fair play to Abramovich.

PHB

They are killing the transfer market in a sense, since Essien is worth like 15 million or so, just like Ronaldo and Reyes and Alonso were

~Rebel~

I guess what Aulas's plan is is to stick to his outrageously high price of 30odd million + player so that when chelsea don't bite, he can get Essien back on his side saying "see, they dont rate you as highly as we do. we'll make you the best paid player in france and you can show them how its done for us in the champs league next year!" Essien has made it clear he wants to leave and Aulas obviously wants to keep him so he has to get Essien back on his side, which i can only really see being done by making chelsea into villains.

Obviously if they did get that offer from chelsea they'd take it as its ridiculously ridiculously overpriced. As Phb said, if alonso last year was under 15million, theres no way essien is worth anything like lyon are touting, even if it is chelsea! Why pay that much for a player who realistically could only just about be worth that if he developes to his absolute full potential.

PHB

After a summer spent pursuing Michael Essien, it now appears that all of Chelsea's efforts are in vain after Lyon chairman Jean-Michel Aulas insisted he would not enter into any further dialogue with the Premiership champions.

The L'OL supremo has always reiterated his desire to keep hold of the Ghanaian international whilst Chelsea failed to meet his asking price of £31 million, although he had indicated that he was prepared to meet Roman Abramovich on Tuesday in a last ditch effort to agree a deal.

This meeting has now been scrapped and Jose Mourinho's hopes of landing the player appear to be doomed after Aulas categorically stated that the midfield star would not be moving to Stamford Bridge.

Indeed Essien, who has publicly declared his desire to move to The Blues and remained unwilling to play for the French outfit, will be offered a lucrative new contract extension to cement his place at Stade Gerland.

"England has the Olympics but Chelsea will not get Michael Essien," Aulas told the club's official website.

"Michael Essien is, and will remain, a Lyon player.

"We are going to make concrete the contract proposition made and accepted by his agent, which is very rewarding for the player because it comprises not only a major pay rise, but also an extension of his contract until 2009.

"I will invite Michael and his agent to come and see me in St Tropez.

"This business (with Chelsea) is finished and there will be no meeting on Tuesday."

Chelsea may now turn their attentions to other targets but Mourinho has always insisted that if the pursuit of Essien failed to yield results, then he would be happy with the players currently at his disposal.

Whilst the Ghanaian star may well be disappointed at the failure of the two clubs to agree a fee, Aulas says he can envisage a time when Essien, a future European Footballer of the Year in his eyes, will make Chelsea pay for their inability to close the deal.

"Since everything will quickly return to normal, and that Michael is a great player and a good boy, I only see good things ahead for him and for Lyon," Aulas continued.

"In my dream, I see him scoring a header in the Champions League final at the Stade de France against Chelsea, and I see him winning the Ballon d'Or."

Looks like Chelsea weren't willing to splash the cash.

I think my theory is true

TBH what I think is really going on is the following.
Essien was targetted by United quite early, before the end of the season.
United were going to make a decent bid, like 15 million, and it was probably going to be rejected. United were gona up it to 20 or something, and it'd be done and dusted.
Chelsea don't want United to get another midfielder, and thus thought it'd be great to hi-jack the deal. However I don't think they have any intention of actually buying Essien.
Why are they holding out over 8 million pounds, what is possibly in it for them? They have literally no transfer limit, they are totally rich. Why do this? If they want a player, they can simply pay for it?
Then it hit me, they don't intend to buy him.
They only wanted to **** up United's chances.
Firstly by at least raising the asking price.
Secondly by stalling so long on a deal, that no United deal could possibly happen.
Smart play if you ask me

Jimboo_Jones

I think the answer is more simple than that.

They want(ed) the player, but only if the price is right. They still may get Essien, but if they do the expectation will be sky high now after all the hype.

TheMonster

Heard earlier that Essian has a 17M buyout clause but it is only effective next summer, I assume thats the reason most clubs are not willing to go too high.

~Rebel~

Id imagine this new extension Lyon are offering which will make him the best paid player in france (apparantly) and keep him till 2009 will also raise that buyout to 40+ million.

growler

I think my theory is true

Quote:

TBH what I think is really going on is the following.
Essien was targetted by United quite early, before the end of the season.
United were going to make a decent bid, like 15 million, and it was probably going to be rejected. United were gona up it to 20 or something, and it'd be done and dusted.
Chelsea don't want United to get another midfielder, and thus thought it'd be great to hi-jack the deal. However I don't think they have any intention of actually buying Essien.
Why are they holding out over 8 million pounds, what is possibly in it for them? They have literally no transfer limit, they are totally rich. Why do this? If they want a player, they can simply pay for it?
Then it hit me, they don't intend to buy him.
They only wanted to **** up United's chances.
Firstly by at least raising the asking price.
Secondly by stalling so long on a deal, that no United deal could possibly happen.
Smart play if you ask me



a wee bit paranoid PHB ? possible of course that Kenyon would do something of this sort but i can't see why Mourinho or RA would play along with such puerile antics

PHB

Not at all.
United used to do the same.
Forlan is a great example, Fergie bought a player purely to stop another team getting him, without wanting him whatsoever.

Why wouldn't Mourinho or RA play along?
It doesn't hurt them whatsoever, and it hurts their opponents.

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Not at all.
United used to do the same.
Forlan is a great example, Fergie bought a player purely to stop another team getting him, without wanting him whatsoever.

Why wouldn't Mourinho or RA play along?
It doesn't hurt them whatsoever, and it hurts their opponents.

Essien would be a Chelsea player by now if it weren't for Lyon demanding a ridiculous fee. They have already rejected four official bids.

Ferguson bought Forlan based on his previous goalscoring record, he was hardly buying him because he was afraid of Middlesboro challenging. Forlans form in Spain demonstrates what Ferguson saw.

Mourinho wants Essien because he is a good player, he does not want to pay probably twice over a relatively generous market value for a still somewhat unproven player. Its got nothing to do with buying him just because United want him.

growler

PHB wrote:

Not at all.
United used to do the same.
Forlan is a great example, Fergie bought a player purely to stop another team getting him, without wanting him whatsoever.

Why wouldn't Mourinho or RA play along?
It doesn't hurt them whatsoever, and it hurts their opponents.

no one's going to win a "cunning plan" award for removing Forlan from the scene. :-)

Gileadi

</conspiricy mode on>
and might i say how well united did in their devious ploy to make the soccer world think forlan was a flop for the 2.5 years he was at the club with a hefty 10 goals

truley a cunning plan by ferguson to deny the rest of their opponents a brilliant striker
</conspiricy mode off>

PHB what other united players would you consider were bought purely to deny other teams out of intrest ?

jimbling

the sun is saying that the deal is done....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002390000-2005360738,00.html

and if its in the sun..... it has to be true

Big Nelly

jimbling wrote:

the sun is saying that the deal is done....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002390000-2005360738,00.html

and if its in the sun..... it has to be true

On Sportinglife and a few websites now that RA has got a deal of 27million more or less done because Lyon where going to offer Essian a huge pay rise on a long term contract and he told them he wouldnt even listen to there offer so they are going to sell on.....wonder is any player going to lyon in exchange!!

pickarooney

"Things are on the point of death," Lacombe said of the Essien deal.

That's almost certainly a lousy translation of au point mort - stalling, but not dead in the water.

Necronomicon

The Lyon chairman finally conceded that it is almost a done deal:
http://skysports.planetfootball.com/list.asp?hlid=298884

stevoslice

Chelsea have agreed a club-record fee of £26m with Lyon for Ghana midfielder Michael Essien

more to follow...