Transfer discussion thread

[TubbsFarquhar]

Newcastle were better than Chelsea before Roman came along. Regularly competed for cups and the league. Their league drought was similar too.

Aren't we comparing the state of the clubs when the respective takeovers happened? Newcastle were better back then but, at the time of takeovers, Chelsea were in a much more stable position than what Newcastle are now.

 

[pantskyle]

Newcastle are absolutely trash right now. Gonna take about a billion to enter the top half.

 

[moomba]

Chelsea were the 4th best team when Roman took over. Just beat out Liverpool for a champions league spot.

Newcastle are way behind.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Way more money however

 

[Zidane98]

Newcastle were better than Chelsea before Roman came along. Regularly competed for cups and the league. Their league drought was similar too.

All done without the aid of human rights abusing sportswashing dissident dismembering oil baron owners.

 

[Marcel Proust]

All done without the aid of humam rights abusing sportswashing dissident dismembering oil baron owners.

.
Chelsea were class pre takeover.

 

[pantskyle]

Way more money however

Doubt it will matter much. They are years away from convincing players to come that will actually challenge for anything.

 

[Sphynx]

Chelsea were the 4th best team when Roman took over. Just beat out Liverpool for a champions league spot.

Newcastle are way behind.

It was their first top 4 in a few years, they had floated around the top 6 for a few years prior to that. In the mid 90's they were very much a mid table/bottom half side.

The top 6 clubs around that period were probably Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Leeds, Chelsea and Newcastle. With Villa having a decent side around then too.

Probably comparable to West Ham or Everton now, so yes, in front of Newcastle comparably now, but not "way" behind as you are intimating.

Easy to forget what Chelsea were like prior to Roman.

 

[SM]

It was their first top 4 in a few years, they had floated around the top 6 for a few years prior to that. In the mid 90's they were very much a mid table/bottom half side.

The top 6 clubs around that period were probably Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Leeds, Chelsea and Newcastle. With Villa having a decent side around then too.

Probably comparable to West Ham or Everton now, so yes, in front of Newcastle comparably now, but not "way" behind as you are intimating.

Easy to forget what Chelsea were like prior to Roman.

This seems meaningless splitting of hairs when regardless of whether they were 4th best or 6th best, they were far better than this Newcastle.

 

[chef]

This seems meaningless splitting of hairs when regardless of whether they were 4th best or 6th best, they were far better than this Newcastle.

Agree, anyone following us(or the sport) back then knows that we'd been consistently building up to that UCL spot for about a decade and then Roman came along and the rest is history.

We weren't where Newcastle is now. But hey it's probably the wrong thread for this shiz.

 

[pantskyle]

Agree, anyone following us(or the sport) back then knows that we'd been consistently building up to that UCL spot for about a decade and then Roman came along and the rest is history.

We weren't where Newcastle is now. But hey it's probably the wrong thread for this shiz.

I remember telling my brother who didn't support anyone to get on board Chelsea now, they were traveling fine and just before the takeover.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Doubt it will matter much. They are years away from convincing players to come that will actually challenge for anything.

200k a week they will be begging to go norf england

 

[pantskyle]

200k a week they will be begging to go norf england

They'll sign a few bench players from around the league.

 

[Marcel Proust]

They'll sign a few bench players from around the league.

Saudis have a lot of money

 

[pantskyle]

Saudis have a lot of money

Yes they do.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Yes they do.

Footballers like money

 

[drd23]

They'll sign a few bench players from around the league.

Isn't that what they've already got?

 

[pantskyle]

Isn't that what they've already got?

But now they'll go for bench players from the top half of the table.

 

[SM]

Footballers like money

They also like winning.

 

[RossFC]

Saudis have a lot of money

Yes they do.

Footballers like money

 

[moomba]

It was their first top 4 in a few years, they had floated around the top 6 for a few years prior to that. In the mid 90's they were very much a mid table/bottom half side.

The top 6 clubs around that period were probably Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Leeds, Chelsea and Newcastle. With Villa having a decent side around then too.

Probably comparable to West Ham or Everton now, so yes, in front of Newcastle comparably now, but not "way" behind as you are intimating.

Easy to forget what Chelsea were like prior to Roman.

Top 6 seven years straight before the takeover. Newcastle haven't finished higher than 10 since 2012.

 

[jod23]

One of the biggest bummers about Newcastle getting taken over is it means we probably cant steal Saint Maximin off them.

 

[pantskyle]

One of the biggest bummers about Newcastle getting taken over is it means we probably cant steal Saint Maximin off them.

This has also been my biggest concern.

 

[Sphynx]

Agree, anyone following us(or the sport) back then knows that we'd been consistently building up to that UCL spot for about a decade and then Roman came along and the rest is history.

We weren't where Newcastle is now. But hey it's probably the wrong thread for this shiz.

Lol, I've followed the league avidly since the early 80's.

Chelsea were a consistently good side like an Everton of recent years, particularly in the late 90's and early 00's. In the mid 90's under Hoddle they were very much a low mid table side, so to say they had been building for a decade prior to 03' is a bit of a stretch. They were in Div 2 as much as they were in Div 1 in the 80's and tbh were lucky they timed their run back into Div 1 in 1990 with the formation of the PL. They didn't finish in the top half of the PL in the first 6 seasons though.

They hit some consistency in the late 90's which timed well with the recruitment of Lampard and Gallas right before the takeover and Terry also emerged from from the academy at the same time (after being poached from West Ham).

Abramovic still went out and bought Duff, Crespo, Makelele, Mutu, Veron, Parker, Geremi, Joe Cole, Johnson and Smertin in a single offseason in his first year, blowing the roof off the historical spending of a PL club.

Lampard, Terry, Gallas, Hasslebank and Gudjohnson were really the only players from 02/03 to remain as key players.


I really don't see this being any different to how Newcastle are likely to go about it. It's likely they replace 5 or 6 positions (or more) this offseason and there's some residual players from this years squad who transition to this new side.

It really depends how much value they get out of the likes of Saint-Maximim, Willock, Lascelles vs the outstanding value Chelsea got out of the players already on their roster in Lampard, Terry and Gallas, all of which are probably considered club greats/legends. Newcastle are unlikely to get that return which means they are likely going to have to recruit much more. Chelsea still picked up its fair share of duds in those early years though.

Money always talks in world football, it might take them a few years, but if Man City did it....

 

[SM]

Haha what