Ballack to Chelsea?

cymatty · 2 Mar 2006 at 17:13

G|mp said:
Yeah which is why MU aint going for him

They cant compete with the wages Chelski can pay and we dont want
the changing room squabbles when the rest of the players see him picking up wads

You need him 10x more than Chelsea though.

fozzybear · 2 Mar 2006 at 17:15

I don't want him anyway. I'd much rather us buy young players in their early 20's. Ballack is 29 so he's not really one for the future.

G|mp · 2 Mar 2006 at 17:23

I agree with Fozzy

And we do need him at the moment but Chelski will buy him just so we cant
they have done it before so why not again

Scream · 2 Mar 2006 at 17:36

I do wonder what all the fuss is about Ballack. Yes he is a fantastic player and will come for free but for the likes of Man U, they need to build a new squad and by buying a guy who is about to turn 30 and then build a squad around him is just stupid.

He'd make a great sub but not someone you expect to be the key player in midfield for years to come.

HangTime · 2 Mar 2006 at 18:11

You'd get at least 3 good years out of him though, which isn't bad for a free transfer. Would you rather have 3 years of Ballack or 8 years of Fletcher?

BaZ87 · 2 Mar 2006 at 18:24

Scream said:
I do wonder what all the fuss is about Ballack. Yes he is a fantastic player and will come for free but for the likes of Man U, they need to build a new squad and by buying a guy who is about to turn 30 and then build a squad around him is just stupid.

He'd make a great sub but not someone you expect to be the key player in midfield for years to come.

I agree that he shouldn't be a player that a club plans to build a team around, but in the case of Man Utd, they need a top class player who can walk straight into there line up and who can practically guarantee top performances. I don't think Man Utd can wait for a young player (of which i can't think of any that will develop into a player of Ballacks ability) to develop into a top player.
I suppose in Chelsea case, signing Ballack won't mean the end of Lampard (thats a bit extreme), when you can afford to get any top player that comes available. All i can see happening would be Makelele occasionally getting rested with Essien playing that posistion and Ballack moving to Essiens role or the occasional rest for Lampard or Essien. When your certain to play 50 odd games in a season, resting the 3 players for 10 games a season (plus injuries and suspensions) would give Ballack at least 30 games. All that would happen is that Essien, Makelele and Lampard (or whoever JM see's as his first choice 3) would be fresher for the big games.
All in all i can't see it as a bad move for Chelsea considering there financial clout.
Nearly forgot paying Ballack £120k a week would mean they would have to pay Lampard and Terry £120k aswell (pretty sure they have a clause in there contracts guarateeing them to be the top earners). So if Terry and Lampard are on £90k (as reported) then it will actually be costing Chelsea £180k a week to sign Ballack. :eek:

fozzybear · 2 Mar 2006 at 20:37

Rumour is that Mourinho isn't the person trying to bring Ballack to Chelsea. Abramovich interfering? Surely not!

Nedved11 · 2 Mar 2006 at 23:08

Shame, what a waste. Well he hasn't not set the world a light of late anyway, they can have him.

BoomAM · 2 Mar 2006 at 23:41

Ballack wont go Chelsea. My money is on the fools at Inter.

As for the best team in Europe, that accolade is reserved for the tank that is Juventus. This season, they can beat anyone. They would school Chelsea & Barca.

Gooner14 · 2 Mar 2006 at 23:47

BoomAM said:
As for the best team in Europe, that accolade is reserved for the tank that is Juventus. This season, they can beat anyone. They would school Chelsea & Barca.

Like Werder Bremen, oh wait...

BoomAM · 3 Mar 2006 at 00:00

Gooner14 said:
Like Werder Bremen, oh wait...

3-2 away is a good result. They dont fail to score at home, 1 goal would put the tie way beyond Bremen. Plus, all good teams have bad days. Including the one where Juve got whipped by Milan!

.
Seriously though, they are, imo, the best in Europe at the moment. And considering Juve are Milans rivals, thats quite a statement for me to make.

lemonkettaz · 3 Mar 2006 at 00:02

cymatty said:
You need him 10x more than Chelsea though.

if man utd dont get a class midfield player in the summer then they will have failed again in the transfer market.

their current midfield is past it, or too inexperienced to compete with chelsea, and europes finest.

bingham67 · 3 Mar 2006 at 01:04

lemonkettaz said:
if man utd dont get a class midfield player in the summer then they will have failed again in the transfer market.

their current midfield is past it, or too inexperienced to compete with chelsea, and europes finest.

I agree being Man utd fan myself wish we could get someone like Ballack

BoomAM · 3 Mar 2006 at 07:52

United need Ballack, and someone like that Diarra from Lyon.
They're fine for LM/RM with Park & CryBaby.

Loki · 3 Mar 2006 at 08:40

I fail to see what Ballack will bring to the Chelsea Party to be honest. Granted he's strong, good in the air and has a fantastic left foot on him. No real difference to what they have in Lampard imho and Essien if they get him sorted.

I know its an easy thing to say as they are in Easy target. However I suspect that If he does goto Chelsea then part of the reason is to stop him going elsewhere. So if UTD did get him it would bring them closer to Chelsea in the league. However if Chelsea got him then it doesn't make them that much better. A good policy used by Liverpool in the 80's and Milan th 90's. How do you keep yourself strong ??? By ensuring your nearest competition remains weaker. Lampard to UTD never in a month of Sundays.

Personally from UTD point of view it would be a nice to have but as a replacement for Scholes I don't think so. Two different kinds of attacking midfielders. Ballack controls it all from the edge of the box. Scholes did the damage with his late runs into the box. Would much prefer Riqueleme personally. Just at the right age to mature with the rest of the team.

BaZ87 · 3 Mar 2006 at 11:21

Loki said:
I fail to see what Ballack will bring to the Chelsea Party to be honest. Granted he's strong, good in the air and has a fantastic left foot on him. No real difference to what they have in Lampard imho and Essien if they get him sorted.

He won't make there starting 11 better, but it would be nice to have a player of his quality on the bench or to play when 1 of the other 3 get injured or suspended. For most clubs you wouldn't bring a player of that quality in as backup but when money is no object then i can't see any problem.

BoomAM said:
3-2 away is a good result. They dont fail to score at home, 1 goal would put the tie way beyond Bremen. Plus, all good teams have bad days. Including the one where Juve got whipped by Milan! .
Seriously though, they are, imo, the best in Europe at the moment. And considering Juve are Milans rivals, thats quite a statement for me to make.

I agree that Juve should qualify, but they don't ALWAYS score at home as Liverpool proved. I also agree that they are proberly the strongest side in europe; presuming barca beat chelsea, i would have them as strong favourites for the CL, i just think the way Barcalona play will suit Juve down to the ground.

5ingh · 3 Mar 2006 at 12:22

BaZ87 said:
He won't make there starting 11 better, but it would be nice to have a player of his quality on the bench or to play when 1 of the other 3 get injured or suspended. For most clubs you wouldn't bring a player of that quality in as backup but when money is no object then i can't see any problem.

Albeit a 'reported' £120k p/w contract, theres absolutely no chance he will be benchwarming with that sort of money if its true.

BaZ87 · 3 Mar 2006 at 12:27

Mr Singh said:
Albeit a 'reported' £120k p/w contract, theres absolutely no chance he will be benchwarming with that sort of money if its true.

Don't get me wrong, im not saying that Chelsea would buy him just as cover, but it would be nice for JM to be able to choose 3 players from the 4 which allows him to rest players etc. But if there is one team that could afford to pay £120k a week on a player to warm the bench it is Chelsea

maby66 · 4 Mar 2006 at 14:42

Can't see it myself.
Earlier in the week the player and his agent say that there is no agreement or contact between the two clubs - 3 days later and its said he's on his way...
Sounds more to me like the agent is using Chelsea to bump up his value/contract with another club....
I'm expect him to go to another club, which has probably been more likely all along, and then for the papers to print a raft of stories about Ballack rejecting Chelsea/Chelsea missing out on another target......ho hum....

NiCkNaMe · 4 Mar 2006 at 15:09

BoomAM said:
3-2 away is a good result. They dont fail to score at home, 1 goal would put the tie way beyond Bremen. Plus, all good teams have bad days. Including the one where Juve got whipped by Milan! .
Seriously though, they are, imo, the best in Europe at the moment. And considering Juve are Milans rivals, thats quite a statement for me to make.

Well imo they aren't, so suck on that