A midfield partnership of Cleverly and Anderson is not 'fine' for a Man United midfield tbh, Cleverly looked good at the start of the season but he wasn't omgwtfbbq good at Wigan and Anderson... just isn't that good. The rest of the team when fit is fine but our central midfield is just pony.
Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [27th Jan - 1st Feb 2012]
- Thread starter red11
- Start date
tbf from the games I saw of Cleverley at Wigan (which was by no means the majority) he was played wide left in all of them. England did the same in the under 21's.
Anderson I'll agree with you on but personally I'm more than encouraged to know that we're only 1 really good midfielder away from being a very very good team again (and I'm sure Fergie wont let another year go by without addressing that area of the pitch)
Maybe this is the wrong way to work it out
£20m over 4 year contract - £5m/year (4 years is usually the typical initial length, and Chelsea dont often buy players much under £20m)
&
£100k/week - £5m+
£10m+ /season/ new signing
I believe Chelsea are already the wrong side of FFP (although I seem to recall it isnt by much) - even with the few others possibly leaving in the summer, I cant see how they can do " a huge rebuilding" as you put it without ignoring FFP (mirroriing City lol)
.....even if they are lucky enough to be able to buy 4 players (of the quality they are likely to target in the main) that equate to the same cost of the four wages you indicated have or will leave
In regards to Utd, I doubt OShea, Brown (and definitely Scholes) would be on serious amounts /week (I only include Scholes because he is one of the few who would never ask /insist on a raise lol.....and I seem to recall last season it being stated he was on something relatively tiny like £80k/wk)
He was playing quite well at the start of the season but I can't remember the last time he got a good run of games. In a dynamic attacking style of football he is good but when its all a bit stale he won't set the world alight on his own.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I've said it for years, Chelsea had a pretty decent squad back when Ranieri left including Robben and Cech, there was backup in most positions, several in form strikers. Mourinho got a few decent signings but mostly cack ones.
The strength in depth at Chelsea, for a team that has spent THAT much is laughable, truly laughable. Mourinho spent years trying anyone and getting rid of them a year later. How many Mourinho buys went on to be more than good enough, Tiago's been pretty decent, certainly better than a lot of midfielders, definately a good rotation option, 15mil in, 3-4mil on wages, out for 10mil a year later.
Then you've got tosh like Kalou and Malouda sucking down wages while he got rid of Robben, a guy who is so ridiculously better than both of them. I can't remember the timing but, though the Robben deal was a very good fee. not being able to persuade him to stay and Mourinho got fired a few months later?
Chelsea should both have a stronger squad, with better players and more depth. Instead like most of the top 6 they have a few excellent players, and too many average or even crap ones on massive wages rather than excellent players on massive wages, makes all the difference.
They should have by now had 5-10 Fabregas/Cleverly/Wilshire types come through over the past decade but they've had basically no one at all. Cheap players, they've been buying youth players but most of them have been no where near the level required. Had they bought a bunch of the available 16-18year olds, the right ones, they'd have half a squad of very cheap talented players, its a market Chelsea has probably missed, or utterly screwed up in more than any other top team in the world.
Also, Chelsea are in circa 70mil losses, they aren't close to breaking FFP. Torres cost a lot but its only 10mil a year on the books over 5 years, the transfer fee's spread over the years mean's they aren't a particularly substantial part of their losses, its wages, and they can't "fix" that problem without a new stadium, something their insanely ungrateful fans seem ignorant of. Abramovich saved them from bankruptcy, bought them titles, a team, ploughing billions into the club....... but now when he wants to spend another 200-300mil on a stadium they get picky because he wants to offset his losses by making a profit on the current stadiums land, why in the hell shouldn't he? "Here I've given your team 1.5-2billion after a new stadium, is it so bad that I offset the price of a stadium by making some profit on that land?" chelsea owners group "yeah, we want more money from you, you evil tight git you". It's honestly unbelievable.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 1,913
- Location
- Alicante, Es / Wales
he got 4 in 18 games last season which wasnt too bad, and something like 2 or 3 in 10 games this season, 6 or 7 in 28 games is OK. still only 23 tho so still time to improve if he got a good run of games
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,023
- Location
- Surrey
He's not really an attacking midfielder any more, United don't really play them.
Unless Torres is playing for nothing , then its highly unlikely that he is only costing Chelsea 10m a season
Its more likely to be £16m+ (£10m transfer fee and £6m wages) /season
FPP is all about spending more as a "going" concern than you are getting in (ie requiring a rich benefactor to balance the books) - its nothing to do with "losses" as finite figure. Which is exactly why Chelsea are reportedly struggling (although as I initially said, no where near City's dilemma - not including the £400m sponsorship of course lol)
Lindegaard is out for 'at least 4 weeks', so De Gea will have to start all the games now.
We'll see how he gets on.
If Amos starts instead, then well...
De Gea will be tortured at SB if his reactions at Anfield are anything to go by
I think Im going to hide on sunday
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's directly to do with losses, Chelsea report a loss of 70mil this year, despite being rich and not actually being in any real debt at all. The loss is given as clubs income vs clubs outgoing before Roman puts his "outside" money in.
Its that loss that is measured for FFP, they'll be allowed X amount averaged over 3 years in year one, a little less in year two and be neared break even point a few years later. I forget the starting figure but it will be around the 30-35mil mark, but keep in mind again that is average over 3 years, if Chelsea make 70mil loss each year for 2 years, they'd need to post profits of circa 110mil in the third year to average that out to an acceptable loss.
Also while Torres's wages are obviously included, I was just making the point that while Chelsea's loss was 70mil its not like next year it will be 20mil because the Torres transfer was 50mil and that is why their losses were so big. Without torres's transfer fee at 10mil a year, the loss only reduces to 60mil. The wages make a difference obviously but again, there isn't going to be a massive drop in those losses if they did get rid of Torres's wages.
Essentially a club needs to be making maybe 15mil losses, max, and Chelsea are currently 55mil away from that figure, they aren't even slightly close to where they need to be for FFP.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
De Gea will be tortured at SB if his reactions at Anfield are anything to go by
I think Im going to hide on sunday
I'm going to hide behind everyone who told me that he was proven keeper and a good signing for us. Thankfully that human wall will be so big you won't even see me.
It was very stupid for people to say he was proven, a 21 year old keeper coming to a new league was always likely to be a work in progress.
That's true, but for me there is nothing about him that looks particularly special.
Well his shot stopping has come on very well, he's quicker to get down and doesn't dive over it like when he first played, his handling and catching look solid and his distribution is exceptional.
I'm hoping with experience his decison making at crosses and corners improves, he also needs to be quicker to come out to block the shot, like with Kuyt last week, and to build up his physique so he's not getting outmuscled so easily.
I think in time, his weaknesses can be rectified.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,023
- Location
- Surrey
Don't be silly Accendo, it's cool to hate on De Gea at the moment. He's probably the worst keeper the league has ever seen don't ya know?
Those are things you would expect such a goalkeeper to get right. Other than his distribution, does he do anything better than Lindegaard?
Distribution isn't nearly as important as how he handles corners and so on.
I said there's nothing about him that 'looks particularly special'. Not that he's rubbish.
Do you disagree?