11 goals and 9 assist in all competitions
So fans would have been happy with Saka and Nelson?
Personally would have preferred a player like Zaha
United wanted him
———
Mourinho did. We wouldn’t touch him since he left.
Think he got something like 8 goals and 14 assist the season before 18/19
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 26 minutes ago
Think of it this way instead - imagine we bought Willian for £15.6 million and gave him a salary of £0 a week for 3 years. Would you say that would be a lot of money to pay for a player of his calibre or is that cheap?
That is the equivalent of getting him for free and paying him £100k a week. £15.6 million is peanuts in today's world. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a great signing we've not lost out on much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've just said involves money going out the door.
No residual resale value. Certainly no profit. Not to mention a very unambitious approach to player amortization.
Literally having to sell a Saka/Iwobi every year in order to keep a retirement home running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he helps us to get top 4 then it won't be money thrown away. It's not like Iwobi has been much help in achieving that at either arsenal or Everton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willian does have his qualities. But none of the 7 sides who finished above us this season would even entertain this deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like Willian would give us zero on the pitch which is simply not the case - he will bring goals, assists and experience and hopefully be a positive role model for our youngsters for 3 years.
Also, £15.6 million was the cost over 3 years... it's nothing like selling a Saka or Iwobi each year unless you're suggesting they're only worth £5.2 million. Willian for free but on £100k wages is really very little and shouldn't impact very much on any other signings we want to make... I simply don't understand why anyone would get upset about this signing unless you just think Willian is a sh*t player
comment by Castor Troy (U8700)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barca wanted him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says more about Barca than anything. You seen how bad they are in the transfer market?
It's funny because Willian is better than most of our first team and will add far more than most of the jokers in our team.
Fans forget the fact that we have arguably the weakest squads ever
Chelsea wanted to keep him - just not on the terms that Willian wanted.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 15 minutes ago
I guess the reasons are we can actually sign them. Like Cech, Willian didn't want to leave London so that automatically gives us strength in the chase.
No a signing I am a fan of, but let us see.
And, no, he is not replacing AMN. AMN is a player who we can sell for profit in order to help us achieve our other, harder to obtain, transfer targets and would only be sold if the money is right to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I talk about the sale/Willian being old WB/MF for young. I just mean the overall effect in those positions. I'm not necessarily against Willian coming.
I wouldn't have minded Willian at Liverpool as a backup.
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 26 minutes ago
Think of it this way instead - imagine we bought Willian for £15.6 million and gave him a salary of £0 a week for 3 years. Would you say that would be a lot of money to pay for a player of his calibre or is that cheap?
That is the equivalent of getting him for free and paying him £100k a week. £15.6 million is peanuts in today's world. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a great signing we've not lost out on much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've just said involves money going out the door.
No residual resale value. Certainly no profit. Not to mention a very unambitious approach to player amortization.
Literally having to sell a Saka/Iwobi every year in order to keep a retirement home running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he helps us to get top 4 then it won't be money thrown away. It's not like Iwobi has been much help in achieving that at either arsenal or Everton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willian does have his qualities. But none of the 7 sides who finished above us this season would even entertain this deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like Willian would give us zero on the pitch which is simply not the case - he will bring goals, assists and experience and hopefully be a positive role model for our youngsters for 3 years.
Also, £15.6 million was the cost over 3 years... it's nothing like selling a Saka or Iwobi each year unless you're suggesting they're only worth £5.2 million. Willian for free but on £100k wages is really very little and shouldn't impact very much on any other signings we want to make... I simply don't understand why anyone would get upset about this signing unless you just think Willian is a sh*t player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're having to sell our kids in order to finance a money pit of a squad that has about 7-8 players who are 29 years or older.
And yet here we are arguing about adding yet another 32 year old on big wages. Good luck trying to flog him off in a year's time with his "measly" £100k p.w.
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 6 minutes ago
Chelsea wanted to keep him - just not on the terms that Willian wanted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe Chelsea wanted to keep him, I have a bridge to sell you.
We've all been here with Chelsea before. Willing buyer, willing seller. And players happy enough to continue earning significant wages without their kids having to switch schools.
It is a fact that Chelsea wanted to keep him. Just not on the terms he wanted.
Why are people discriminating on age perhaps they haven’t been watching Juventus this season or LA Lakers in King Bron and King Ronaldo enough with these ageism thingy.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is a fact that Chelsea wanted to keep him. Just not on the terms he wanted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you prefer suspension or arch bridges?
Willian is a good deal because we already have 4 young players who could excel at LW, two whom of look destined to. We most likely won't need to buy a replacement. Luis was just the wrong choice of chelsea grandad. We should have signed Cahill but again, we likely won't need to buy his replacement, having Saliba, Chambers, Holding and Mari.
Problem with the grandad buy comes when you don't have any youngsters good enough to grow into their spots and have to layout big to have any strength in the position.
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 26 minutes ago
Think of it this way instead - imagine we bought Willian for £15.6 million and gave him a salary of £0 a week for 3 years. Would you say that would be a lot of money to pay for a player of his calibre or is that cheap?
That is the equivalent of getting him for free and paying him £100k a week. £15.6 million is peanuts in today's world. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a great signing we've not lost out on much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've just said involves money going out the door.
No residual resale value. Certainly no profit. Not to mention a very unambitious approach to player amortization.
Literally having to sell a Saka/Iwobi every year in order to keep a retirement home running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he helps us to get top 4 then it won't be money thrown away. It's not like Iwobi has been much help in achieving that at either arsenal or Everton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willian does have his qualities. But none of the 7 sides who finished above us this season would even entertain this deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like Willian would give us zero on the pitch which is simply not the case - he will bring goals, assists and experience and hopefully be a positive role model for our youngsters for 3 years.
Also, £15.6 million was the cost over 3 years... it's nothing like selling a Saka or Iwobi each year unless you're suggesting they're only worth £5.2 million. Willian for free but on £100k wages is really very little and shouldn't impact very much on any other signings we want to make... I simply don't understand why anyone would get upset about this signing unless you just think Willian is a sh*t player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're having to sell our kids in order to finance a money pit of a squad that has about 7-8 players who are 29 years or older.
And yet here we are arguing about adding yet another 32 year old on big wages. Good luck trying to flog him off in a year's time with his "measly" £100k p.w.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
my point is that we don't need to sell him, he's easily worth having for 3 years and then let him go for free and it will cost us a pittance overall
Willian is a good player and will start for you next season. The mistake was giving him three years with a possible fourth at 32 years old.
Though I suppose if you didn’t he would just accept our two year deal or go elsewhere.
Auba > Mane and Salah combined
comment by AFC Bash - Tierney my hero (U21751)
posted 1 minute ago
Auba > Mane and Salah combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one
Guys.
Did we really let Salah and De Bruyne go?
I thought Lukaku was a mistake,, but those two.ffs
comment by Dr Tobias Fünke - 🏆 CHAMP19NS 🏆 (U1217)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by AFC Bash - Tierney my hero (U21751)
posted 1 minute ago
Auba > Mane and Salah combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All from my Continent happy 😃
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 36 minutes ago
Willian is a good player and will start for you next season. The mistake was giving him three years with a possible fourth at 32 years old.
Though I suppose if you didn’t he would just accept our two year deal or go elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mind we had Duff and Robben, switching wings during games.
That was cool and I felt Willian had potential there, especially with Hazard.
We should have kept Robben too lol
Sign in if you want to comment
Chelsea's past it players
Page 2 of 4
posted on 9/8/20
11 goals and 9 assist in all competitions
posted on 9/8/20
So fans would have been happy with Saka and Nelson?
Personally would have preferred a player like Zaha
posted on 9/8/20
United wanted him
———
Mourinho did. We wouldn’t touch him since he left.
posted on 9/8/20
Think he got something like 8 goals and 14 assist the season before 18/19
posted on 9/8/20
Barca wanted him
posted on 9/8/20
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 26 minutes ago
Think of it this way instead - imagine we bought Willian for £15.6 million and gave him a salary of £0 a week for 3 years. Would you say that would be a lot of money to pay for a player of his calibre or is that cheap?
That is the equivalent of getting him for free and paying him £100k a week. £15.6 million is peanuts in today's world. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a great signing we've not lost out on much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've just said involves money going out the door.
No residual resale value. Certainly no profit. Not to mention a very unambitious approach to player amortization.
Literally having to sell a Saka/Iwobi every year in order to keep a retirement home running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he helps us to get top 4 then it won't be money thrown away. It's not like Iwobi has been much help in achieving that at either arsenal or Everton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willian does have his qualities. But none of the 7 sides who finished above us this season would even entertain this deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like Willian would give us zero on the pitch which is simply not the case - he will bring goals, assists and experience and hopefully be a positive role model for our youngsters for 3 years.
Also, £15.6 million was the cost over 3 years... it's nothing like selling a Saka or Iwobi each year unless you're suggesting they're only worth £5.2 million. Willian for free but on £100k wages is really very little and shouldn't impact very much on any other signings we want to make... I simply don't understand why anyone would get upset about this signing unless you just think Willian is a sh*t player
posted on 9/8/20
comment by Castor Troy (U8700)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barca wanted him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says more about Barca than anything. You seen how bad they are in the transfer market?
posted on 9/8/20
It's funny because Willian is better than most of our first team and will add far more than most of the jokers in our team.
Fans forget the fact that we have arguably the weakest squads ever
posted on 9/8/20
Chelsea wanted to keep him - just not on the terms that Willian wanted.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 15 minutes ago
I guess the reasons are we can actually sign them. Like Cech, Willian didn't want to leave London so that automatically gives us strength in the chase.
No a signing I am a fan of, but let us see.
And, no, he is not replacing AMN. AMN is a player who we can sell for profit in order to help us achieve our other, harder to obtain, transfer targets and would only be sold if the money is right to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I talk about the sale/Willian being old WB/MF for young. I just mean the overall effect in those positions. I'm not necessarily against Willian coming.
posted on 9/8/20
I wouldn't have minded Willian at Liverpool as a backup.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 26 minutes ago
Think of it this way instead - imagine we bought Willian for £15.6 million and gave him a salary of £0 a week for 3 years. Would you say that would be a lot of money to pay for a player of his calibre or is that cheap?
That is the equivalent of getting him for free and paying him £100k a week. £15.6 million is peanuts in today's world. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a great signing we've not lost out on much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've just said involves money going out the door.
No residual resale value. Certainly no profit. Not to mention a very unambitious approach to player amortization.
Literally having to sell a Saka/Iwobi every year in order to keep a retirement home running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he helps us to get top 4 then it won't be money thrown away. It's not like Iwobi has been much help in achieving that at either arsenal or Everton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willian does have his qualities. But none of the 7 sides who finished above us this season would even entertain this deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like Willian would give us zero on the pitch which is simply not the case - he will bring goals, assists and experience and hopefully be a positive role model for our youngsters for 3 years.
Also, £15.6 million was the cost over 3 years... it's nothing like selling a Saka or Iwobi each year unless you're suggesting they're only worth £5.2 million. Willian for free but on £100k wages is really very little and shouldn't impact very much on any other signings we want to make... I simply don't understand why anyone would get upset about this signing unless you just think Willian is a sh*t player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're having to sell our kids in order to finance a money pit of a squad that has about 7-8 players who are 29 years or older.
And yet here we are arguing about adding yet another 32 year old on big wages. Good luck trying to flog him off in a year's time with his "measly" £100k p.w.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 6 minutes ago
Chelsea wanted to keep him - just not on the terms that Willian wanted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe Chelsea wanted to keep him, I have a bridge to sell you.
We've all been here with Chelsea before. Willing buyer, willing seller. And players happy enough to continue earning significant wages without their kids having to switch schools.
posted on 9/8/20
It is a fact that Chelsea wanted to keep him. Just not on the terms he wanted.
posted on 9/8/20
Why are people discriminating on age perhaps they haven’t been watching Juventus this season or LA Lakers in King Bron and King Ronaldo enough with these ageism thingy.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
It is a fact that Chelsea wanted to keep him. Just not on the terms he wanted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you prefer suspension or arch bridges?
posted on 9/8/20
Willian is a good deal because we already have 4 young players who could excel at LW, two whom of look destined to. We most likely won't need to buy a replacement. Luis was just the wrong choice of chelsea grandad. We should have signed Cahill but again, we likely won't need to buy his replacement, having Saliba, Chambers, Holding and Mari.
Problem with the grandad buy comes when you don't have any youngsters good enough to grow into their spots and have to layout big to have any strength in the position.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by V - We played a little bit with the handbrake (U7971)
posted 26 minutes ago
Think of it this way instead - imagine we bought Willian for £15.6 million and gave him a salary of £0 a week for 3 years. Would you say that would be a lot of money to pay for a player of his calibre or is that cheap?
That is the equivalent of getting him for free and paying him £100k a week. £15.6 million is peanuts in today's world. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a great signing we've not lost out on much
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you've just said involves money going out the door.
No residual resale value. Certainly no profit. Not to mention a very unambitious approach to player amortization.
Literally having to sell a Saka/Iwobi every year in order to keep a retirement home running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he helps us to get top 4 then it won't be money thrown away. It's not like Iwobi has been much help in achieving that at either arsenal or Everton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willian does have his qualities. But none of the 7 sides who finished above us this season would even entertain this deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound like Willian would give us zero on the pitch which is simply not the case - he will bring goals, assists and experience and hopefully be a positive role model for our youngsters for 3 years.
Also, £15.6 million was the cost over 3 years... it's nothing like selling a Saka or Iwobi each year unless you're suggesting they're only worth £5.2 million. Willian for free but on £100k wages is really very little and shouldn't impact very much on any other signings we want to make... I simply don't understand why anyone would get upset about this signing unless you just think Willian is a sh*t player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're having to sell our kids in order to finance a money pit of a squad that has about 7-8 players who are 29 years or older.
And yet here we are arguing about adding yet another 32 year old on big wages. Good luck trying to flog him off in a year's time with his "measly" £100k p.w.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
my point is that we don't need to sell him, he's easily worth having for 3 years and then let him go for free and it will cost us a pittance overall
posted on 9/8/20
Willian > Pepe
posted on 9/8/20
Willian is a good player and will start for you next season. The mistake was giving him three years with a possible fourth at 32 years old.
Though I suppose if you didn’t he would just accept our two year deal or go elsewhere.
posted on 9/8/20
Auba > Mane and Salah combined
posted on 9/8/20
comment by AFC Bash - Tierney my hero (U21751)
posted 1 minute ago
Auba > Mane and Salah combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one
posted on 9/8/20
Guys.
Did we really let Salah and De Bruyne go?
I thought Lukaku was a mistake,, but those two.ffs
posted on 9/8/20
comment by Dr Tobias Fünke - 🏆 CHAMP19NS 🏆 (U1217)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by AFC Bash - Tierney my hero (U21751)
posted 1 minute ago
Auba > Mane and Salah combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All from my Continent happy 😃
posted on 9/8/20
comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 36 minutes ago
Willian is a good player and will start for you next season. The mistake was giving him three years with a possible fourth at 32 years old.
Though I suppose if you didn’t he would just accept our two year deal or go elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mind we had Duff and Robben, switching wings during games.
That was cool and I felt Willian had potential there, especially with Hazard.
We should have kept Robben too lol
Page 2 of 4