Boehly vs Henry

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by HB Fashion Sakala is offside again (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
Liverpool after missing out on Caicedo, the one that would make them a much tougher proposition would do well to miss out on Lavia (imo massively overpriced, they both are).

But to force Chelsea from spending 140m for the pair to 175m would be good work although leave them needing another midfielder. I think there are better than Lavia for the money they have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid logic really. Overpriced, I agree. But Chelsea's financial structuring of deals allows them to basically overpay for Lavia but at a rate of 10m or less a year on the books, so it makes little difference. At that price, he would be a gamble worth taking to give depth to our midfield.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not stupid logic unless Chelsea don't intend to ever get back into Europe. As far as UEFA are concerned no deal can be spread over more than 5 years. They won't be paying less per year for Lavia than any other club would be paying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay - let's look at it another way. Let's say Chelsea spend a billion, which they may well do but recoup 300m in transfers. over 5 years, thats 140 million a year. Chelsea's revenue per year without Champions League is around 400 million. The spend on wages is arounf 150m a year. They are allowed to lose up to 105 million over 3 year periods. Chelsea are actually well within those figures. It's to do with contract lengths, paying in installments and actually having reduced overall wages by sifting high earners. This will be helped if we sell Lukaku and udson Odoi and loan out Kepa for a fee plus wages. Do the maths. The people in charge of Chelsea are financial experts.

comment by Henry Swanson (U4302)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sounds very similar to the time Utd had an agreement to sign Obi Mikel, only for him to turn around and say he wanted to sign for Chelsea all along, this was back in 2004 when they were freshly bank rolled with Roman's billions and barely won anything...yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
mikel was way further along, theyd taken the photos of him holding the shirt

What a dumbass club we are

I really have no idea what we’re were trying to achieve with the whole sorry Caicedo saga. We didn’t get Caicedo and now we’re going to have to now pay even more for Lavia if we want him. It’s all been an utter nonsense and explanations need to be made.

Just unfortunately showed massive naivety in the Caicedo episode. To lose him and Lavia to
Chelsea though would be absolutely disastrous, really would.

comment by Ul7ra KONa7e (U22043)
posted 8 minutes ago
I really have no idea what we’re were trying to achieve with the whole sorry Caicedo saga. We didn’t get Caicedo and now we’re going to have to now pay even more for Lavia if we want him. It’s all been an utter nonsense and explanations need to be made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, at the moment I have no idea why a player would choose us over Liverpool. However, the fact that we can spend the money is because the the investment our board has made and how it chooses to re-invest revenue. I'm pretty sure Henry and co are taking out money from the 700m revenue Liverpool received last season on top of interest on the 150m loan.

Henry has been slapped about harder than a naughty ginger haired step child.

comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 3 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 54 minutes ago
Boehly wins hands down. They don't mind paying whatever it takes to buy players while we pretend to be smart in the market.

As I said yesterday that we tried to disrupt the big boys market and then left with our pants pulled firmly down full of marks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you love this narrative but Chelsea threw the first punch by bidding for Lavia and now they've ended up spending tens of millions more than they'd have to if they had just stuck with Caicedo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which they can afford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't stop them haggling for 3 months and failing to offer Brighton's valuation.

Because of that faffing about they've had to pay tens of millions more for Caicedo.

comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by Ul7ra KONa7e (U22043)
posted 8 minutes ago
I really have no idea what we’re were trying to achieve with the whole sorry Caicedo saga. We didn’t get Caicedo and now we’re going to have to now pay even more for Lavia if we want him. It’s all been an utter nonsense and explanations need to be made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, at the moment I have no idea why a player would choose us over Liverpool. However, the fact that we can spend the money is because the the investment our board has made and how it chooses to re-invest revenue. I'm pretty sure Henry and co are taking out money from the 700m revenue Liverpool received last season on top of interest on the 150m loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never heard of FSG taking money out the club. Got a link?

Got a link

They for are not over investing in the squad for sure

Prudence and penny pinching , still skint

i think you can be fairly certain they are rinsing more than their washing.