Speculation The hysterical and annoying, but traditional, totally unfounded winter 2022/23 rumours thread

[pork pie fox]

He could be an excellent signing imho.

I think he'd be ok, but not really a position of need is it. He'd also be much more likely to stay in the London area, if he moves, so somewhere like Palace or West Ham.

 

[The Old Fox]

Serious question: do you think we are really trying to sign anyone, or are we surfing the rumours without the slightest intention of parting with money?

 

[jb5000]

I'd take that.

Although centre mid is the one area we're well covered.

I would too, though why not buy him with the funds raised from the sale which will create that gap in midfield he'll be filling?

 

[jb5000]

Let's be honest - he's gone to Gent. Will we really have been in for him if he's gone there? Would we really have been outbid for him?

 

[FOX Franks]

Serious question: do you think we are really trying to sign anyone, or are we surfing the rumours without the slightest intention of parting with money?

We are doing **** all and everyone knows it.

 

[alex]

Where's that LB with the hair? That's what we need. A blonde hairy left back.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Where's that LB with the hair? That's what we need. A blonde hairy left back.

Jemma Purfield?

 

[Volpone]

Let's be honest - he's gone to Gent. Will we really have been in for him if he's gone there? Would we really have been outbid for him?

And he's only on loan for the rest of the season. Wouldn't his club have preferred a sale if we really wanted to buy him?

 

[popillius]

Let's be honest - he's gone to Gent. Will we really have been in for him if he's gone there? Would we really have been outbid for him?

No, no, no. You must believe every press release, anywhere, ever. We were definitely in for him but then we couldn't find the pennies down the back of the sofa so we definitely won't sign anyone at all in the next two days, weeks or years.

 

[AberFox]

We are doing **** all and everyone knows it.

Didn't we get a loan quite recently using the promise of one of the upcoming Fofana instalments? My assumption was that they did this so they could use it in the January window. Otherwise what would be the point of taking out a loan when there's money incoming soon anyway (March I think)?

 

[FOX Franks]

No, no, no. You must believe every press release, anywhere, ever. We were definitely in for him but then we couldn't find the pennies down the back of the sofa so we definitely won't sign anyone at all in the next two days, weeks or years.

You aren’t wrong but based on recent years I’ve no idea where your optimism comes from.

 

[City Fan]

You aren’t wrong but based on recent years I’ve no idea where your optimism comes from.

It’s called being blinkered.

 

[Payne74]

Reading the article on the BBC about Chelsea’s spending and not being in breach of any FFP rules, it appears that if you sign a player the amount paid is spread over the length of the players contract but any players sold the money goes straight into the books regardless of how the deal is structured.

 

[big_mac4824]

Reading the article on the BBC about Chelsea’s spending and not being in breach of any FFP rules, it appears that if you sign a player the amount paid is spread over the length of the players contract but any players sold the money goes straight into the books regardless of how the deal is structured.

This appears to be Chelsea's new model of signing players now maybe other clubs are taking this approach?

 

[popillius]

It’s called being blinkered.

Or, not being a miserable ****.

Tough one.

 

[popillius]

You aren’t wrong but based on recent years I’ve no idea where your optimism comes from.

I'm not optimistic necessarily. I'm just not ****ing panicking given we've got half a window left.

 

[Robin127]

Reading the article on the BBC about Chelsea’s spending and not being in breach of any FFP rules, it appears that if you sign a player the amount paid is spread over the length of the players contract but any players sold the money goes straight into the books regardless of how the deal is structured.

I don't understand how you can say you've got the money when you actually haven't. Sort of like crypto, all make believe.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Reading the article on the BBC about Chelsea’s spending and not being in breach of any FFP rules, it appears that if you sign a player the amount paid is spread over the length of the players contract but any players sold the money goes straight into the books regardless of how the deal is structured.

I would have assumed this is standard

 

[fitz]

I would have assumed this is standard

Tis. But it's profit on sale thats recognised.

 

[big_mac4824]

Ruben Loftus-Cheek

Leicester interested in signing Chelsea midfielder Ruben Loftus-Cheek

he is not a bad player is he injury prone? he will cost way too much anyhow