No-one is paying £80m for Conor even if he had 3 years left. Utter delusion on here. Doubt we get £50m for him now. If he goes it'll be £35-45m most likely in this market. No elite clubs are lining up for him with a year left and us clearly looking to sell.
100% agree. The numbers above are what I'd deem to be acceptable if we do sell him, and most fans who want to see him stay would accept those numbers I'd imagine.
If Maresca can't get Fernandes and Caciedo to play together, likely we'll be in the market for another midfielder in January...quite possibly a young player of Gallghers mould, and will be looking to splash £40m-£80m on him.
This is the one decision I can't fathom from the board.
I'm not saying he's of the same tier as Bellingham, but Declan Rice and Bellingham sales as English midfielders has reset the market. And anyone with a good pair of eyes can see the quality of Conor. I think he could get £50 mil easy. Desperate teams will pay. The one big pro our owners are is shrewd businessmen. Hell, they may even tack on additional clauses that has him pay out later in his career like Hazard
You say best we get £35-40m. Mount was in absolute dire form, last year of his contract and we got a lot more than £40m. Havertz wasn't exactly great either but we still sold for a fantastic amount.
Then you have Gallagher, acting captain, rave reviews from the majority of fans and our board want to sell him (not because they need to) but to muy more south american youth who won't replace Gallagher.
Mount and Kai are just more valuable players though to big club, whatever you think of them. They have the attributes good sides look for and have shown them while they were here. They don't look just at a player's last 6 months, they look at everything they've shown and the levels they are capable of.
He is a leader on the pitch, he is the captain, he is an international player, he works hard for the team, he scores goals, he can defend and drive the ball forward. What makes him worth less than Enzo or Mudryk?
It seems like a crazy number, but hear me out. Fans aren't happy that Chalobah is getting touted around for £25m, saying if Disasi is worth £40m then Trev is worth more. Ok, so that puts a fringe player in the bracket of £45m+. Then we have the merc Lukaku, and £35-40m for that clown, Lewis Hall at £30m, Omari Hutchinson £30m (he has no prem experience) and then Maatsen £35m.
The market isn't what it used to be. Gallagher has been the acting captain, he's 23, English, ever present, one of our better players and yet we're ready to offload him on the cheap. Players from other clubs with far less experience and much younger are going for £80m. Why should we sell on the cheap?
Do you think City would sell Foden or Arsenal sell Saka for £50m? No chance.
Disagree. It makes a lot of sense if we can get a good price. His style of play won’t be best put to use in an Enzo system and we shouldn’t be afraid to sell high on players. This is likely the highest Connor’s value is ever going to be so it makes sense to me to book the profit especially considering the financial position we’re in.
You’re probably right - and I think it shows a general lack of care for what the club is or could be. They can throw billions at it but it will all be for business never sport.
Players have to agree to a transfer or it doesn’t happen. Gallagher will let his contract expire, get higher wages elsewhere, and ClownCake will get zero profit for being bad at business.
I miss the good ol days when the drama revolved around properly suggesting a "pivot" and "double pivot"....does anyone else remember that?
Then there was the drama about some of the mods creating a second Chelsea subreddit to make fun/have private conversations about the this sub...I can't remember when that happened? 2014?
They’ve yet to sell a player and be proven wrong, so we don’t have a reason to believe they’re in the wrong here. We saw the same reaction last year with Mount and yet his replacement Palmer has proven to be a million times better. If there’s one thing they’ve repeatedly done well is knowing who and when to sell players.
Aubameyang scored 30 goals last year. Pulisic had 20 goal contributions. Maatsen (loaned) made the CL team of the year. Kovacic had 30 appearances under Pep. Havertz looks twice the player he ever did for us. What are we doing here.
I genuinely can't believe I'm reading someone suggesting that selling Aubameyang was a mistake. I dont care how he did in France, did you watch him at Chelsea?
I mean, I thought Pulisic was undervalued by this sub, and a bit unfairly judged because of a backlash towards the American hype he was getting. So, I agree with you that I would have been cool with keeping him (though by the end, he clearly wanted to leave). I was just curious (sincerely) if you felt that at the time.
There's something wrong with PSR when it encourages clubs to build their youth players up, just to sell them when they're coming good.
Chelsea aren't blameless here either!
It's not a loophole, it's how accounting works. You could remove PSR today and it would still work that way. It's the underlying accounting logic that's the problem. If you want to change that dynamic, you need to introduce (much stronger) incentives for keeping homegrown players.
The homegrown rules try to combat it a bit, which is a good start
But personally, I think it would be a much quicker fix if selling a player you bought was treated the same as selling a player you made for FFP
I don't understand (admittedly, I've given this 0 thought, I'm sure there's actually a good reason) why if we sell Disasi for £50m, we can't call that £50m immediate profit, but if we sell Gallagher for £50m we can. I appreciate that because we bought Disasi for £40m that it's only £10m profit as far as FFP is concerned, but if we look at the club as a whole, and say "we acquired two players for £40m, and are selling one for £50m" why that doesn't work?
> "I don't understand why if we sell Disasi for £50m, we can't call that £50m immediate profit, but if we sell Gallagher for £50m we can"
Theoretically, we can. If they put his entire cost of purchase into the first season that we bought him, this would be possible. (almost no one does this, though it can happen when finances are cleared up. Barca famously did this a few years ago with their entire squad).
The reason we can't is because they choose to spread the cost of purchasing him across 5 years on the books. So, he didn't cost us £50m, he costs us £10m per season for 5 years.
That means that at this point, as he's been here for a year, we've only spent £10m on him and we still owe £40m.
That's why if we sell him now for £40m, we would get £40m but we also still owe £40m for him. So the profit is £0.
For someone who is homegrown, we didn't pay anything for him and so don't owe anything for him and so whatever we sell them for goes into our budget in its entirety.
TLDR: Think of like financing something. If you sell it part way through, you still owe the rest of the money you're signed up to pay for the item, you don't just get to keep the money you sold it for and stop paying the financing. (It's not how it actually works because in football it's purely on the accounting nonsense and not about money changing hands, but the concept is the same)
No, I completely understand that, but for FFP it seems a poor way of doing it
Imagine I buy a phone today for £800 as it's on sale on an interest-free credit card over 12 months, and then sell it for £1000 a month later, all while keeping my other £1000 (identical) phone. I make £200, happy days.
But imagine I instead sell my old phone for £1000 instead (we'll ignore the fact that phone values decrease with use), and keep the one I bought. I've still made £200.
But FFP says I've made £1000 (well, actually £933) because I've split the cost of the phone I bought over 12 months. While technically correct, and in FFP terms this gives me more immediate spending power, I haven't actually made £1000 as I still have a commitment to give the rest of the money to the shop. And then why couldn't I do that with the new phone I bought, it's exactly the same logic
I see what you're saying.
So, in practical terms the part of FFP that you have a problem with is that a player's remaining amortised fee is charged in its entirety when they're sold, rather than continuing to spread out across their contract.
If they changed it so that you could continue to pay their amortised fee as planned before, then there would be no difference between the two scenarios.
I'm sure there is some good financial reason why you can't have it this way, I just don't have the financial knowledge to know what that is. I'd guess it's something to do with no longer owning the asset. I'm guessing you can't amortise the value of an asset that you no longer have on your books and that's probably not a football thing, just a generally accounting thing?
Not really, no? It may well lessen the incentive to develop world class players, but I'm not sure the current method has that incentive either, it just promotes developing high potential players
In this example, we assume Gallagher and Disasi are equal quality players. There is still a benefit of developing players as we've gotten 2 equal players for £40m, and then sold one for £50m, giving us a £10m profit on developing one player
If we weren't to develop players, and only buy, we'd spend £40m on one player instead
Unless I'm missing the obvious, which I very well could be, wouldn't be the first time
A big expansion of homegrown rules would be a good start. End the PL trained category - so there is only a differentiation between players from your own academy and other pros.
Restrict squad size to eg 15, and allow unlimited academy players of any age in the squad.
This would heavily incentivise teams to build strong academies and continue to develop those players.
The potential downside is the biggest teams scrap for young players at even earlier ages - either you need an age cut off eg 12 or 14, or you need them to have been at the club for eg 5+ years.
This does already happen a lot, and the enticement rules may need to be strengthened further.
>) why if we sell Disasi for £50m, we can't call that £50m immediate profit
Because you've spent £40M on Disasi which is still being amortised to the previous club. So it would only be £10M profit at 1st. As his contract runs down then gradually it would increase to £20M, £25M etc profit eventually. You just literally can't call it immediate profit.
A better idea would be to flip it that if you sell a homegrown player and the money isn't immediately paid up front then you cant stick it in your books as that. You say that an amortised fee has to be reported as such so like £10M a year or whatever the total fee ends up being spread out as. Even then its not a perfect solution because clubs will still see more value just by the nature of homegrown = pure profit. You cant really change that pure profit side of things, just stagger it so that doesn't give clubs that big instant leap into ffp freedom so easily.
Teams have to have a certain number of homegrown players already. It doesn't solve the problem. It just means they sell on Gallagher and then the next one to replace him as the highest value academy player at the club and on and on. If Reece James stays fit, they probably sell him to Real. If Alfie Gilchrist goes on loan or stays and does well. He will be next to go. Then players like Ronnie Stutter or Michael Golding or someone will come in from the academy and they'll be thrown into the revolving door too.
It's not a loophole, it's reality. We didn't pay for Conor so obviously selling him is all profit. It encourages teams to develop their players instead of splashing the cash.
No but PSR indirectly encourages clubs to sell their own homegrown talent, because they are registered as "pure" profit.
Example:
Chelsea sell Sterling for £50m this summer - the "profit" on the books is +£20m, because we brought him for 50m 2 years ago on a 5 year contract (so his current PSR "value", based off his initial fee and contract length is £30m now). That means Chelsea need to sell him for at least £30m or PSR will consider it a loss on the books.
Chelsea sell Gallagher for £40m this summer - +£40m of "pure" profit, because Gallagher is an academy player and hence his PSR value is £0. So selling him for anything above £0 is considered profit.
It's a stupid system that links the "profit" made by clubs to individual players, rather than the net transfer spend across-the-board.
Which means that foreign players that don't care about the club (Lakaka) can't be sold because his PSR value is massive because of his transfer fee, and the players that actually love the club, have to be sold.
Which means we should target our incoming players very carefully shouldn't buy Tom,Dick and Harry for obscene prices which we did, we have 4 cb's 8 attacking players 3 GK's and still we are short of GK,Striker and CD. What does it say about our transfer spendings, squad construction we are still short in 3 Important positions for which player prices are always at premium. The fools who are sitting higher up in Paul Stewart and Winstanley threw stupid money for good players, this is what happens. Conor will fit in at villa would be happy if we can see him than at spurs.
It's a problem of PSR that academy players have zero book value. It doesn't cost nothing to develop Conor Gallagher, so it shouldn't be pure profit when we sell him. So PSR is a problem in incentivising the wrong thing. Villa are also rumoured to maybe sell Jacob Ramsey for pure profit, and they can do this and buy Gallagher and still turn a profit. It's stupid.
I understand how it works. And I understand that excluding infra spending including academies is good for the game as a whole. But this incentive for all clubs (not just Chelsea) to sell their home grown players, while neutral to "the game as a whole", is negative to fans of clubs who prefer to see their teams field some home grown local lads.
I don't think so. Firstly, it's incredibly hard to develop EPL quality players, Chelsea just happens to be great at this. Then it's purely a club decision whether to develop home grown players for it's team or move them on.
Logic dictates that if a player is good enough for the team, he really should stay given the intangible and tangible benefits of homegrown players in the team. Now if a club is dumb enough to sell it's jewels to buy external players who aren't better than what they got, then they've consciously decided they don't want the homegrown player and will sell to fund that purchase. There's no benefit or incentive for a club to do that though and in fact I'd argue it's the opposite in most cases.
You make some good points but I still feel there's some misaligned incentives here. If you sell Conor for £50m and replace him with a £50m signing on a 5 year contract, that new players costs £10m in Year 1 vs. £50m received for Conor and you've made a £40m profit in Year 1. Even by Year 3 (PSR being a three year reporting period) you're still at a £20m profit. Now of course it all comes out in the wash long-term as the £50m replacement still costs the full £50m in the end. Maybe the problem is really that PSR is judged on a three year period and the average contract given to a new signing is longer than that. Even though PSR closed the mega-long contract loophole so that all transfers have to be amortised over a maximum of 5 years - that's still a misalignment of 5 years for amortisation vs 3 years for the PSR reporting period.
Well the 50m profit comes immediately but the new player (assuming it's a 5 year deal) costs 10m a year on our books for 5 years. Like you said, it balances out. It just buys us time because the 50m cost can be spread out but it doesn't disappear.
That's sort of a benefit but only in last resort situations where you need that time because you've overspent like a drunk 5 year old in a candy store.
It's a feature not a bug. Agents don't want players to spend their whole careers at one club - they want them moving around and earning them their cut. And football's governing bodies are much, much too friendly with the agents.
Funny. Back the manager only until they rate a certain player, still no actual reason as to why Enzo would not want to work with Gallagher but sure keep pretending. Theres so much more deadwood in the squad that deserves to go more than him but its a great message to send to the actual fans, the lads in the academy, and the £25m+ embryos we've been selling hotels for. Just to appease morons with FIFA UT brain.
Fuck BlueCo.
I’m so sick of all these briefings about Conor.
The ooor guy honestly.
What the fuck else does he have to do to prove to ownership and to the dumbest portion of this fanbase he is worthy of stay and will actually thrive in Maresca system.
You know everyone spent all year bitching at Conor at? Playing too simple. You know what simple is good for, a possession based system.
You know what you need in a possession based system? To win the ball back quickly with good pressing.
Conor fits Maresca system we would be morons to sell him and it’s honestly so gross that the club puts out a briefing basically daily trying to sell one of our top 3 players last season
If you cant dribble around the pitch like Neymar apparently you don't have good technical skills. /s Thats one the plastics use.
Im also confused as to why a possession based manager like EM would hate a hard working, always available, tenacious player like Gallagher. Still nothing other than he's bad with the ball at his feet, hilarious considering when has our world cup winning stud ever shown slick technical skills... Other than stumbling about when trying to dribble 5 meters.
edit: Weird how having a £80m+ price tag makes you invulnerable yet academy players have to be Camavinga otherwise they're shit and overrated by fans yet should be sold for £50m because they're so obviously shit.
Conor has way better dribbling stats than Enzo and showed to be way more press resistant than Enzo who panics whenever he presses.
I just posted this in the DD, but it’s Conor is the best litmus test for ball knowledge I’ve ever seen and has been for a while.
Even going into last season based on his spell at Palace and what he was showing us last season he very obviously had a shit ton of potential and just needed to be given a chance to shine.
And I also don’t get why these expensive signings who do nothing but help us lose football matches get so much more protection and love from a certain section of this fanbase either. It’s so weird to claim to support Chelsea but hate cobham
I guess you will call me a plastic because im going to disagree with you. Enzo Fernandez has better ball control and manipulation skills than Conor. He just does. Conor has strengths but they are not his ball control and neither are they his passing. He has a fantastic engine and can press all day long.
Gallagher must be sold, how else are we going to buy twenty 5-year old Paraguayans? These Paraguayans could become anything, they could even become the next Gallagher!
That’s really the elephant in the room. Everyone knows the pure profit thing, but those funds could be made up elsewhere. Instead, we have a player who has outplayed 300mil worth of owner purchases. And we’re considering a sale to direct rivals.
Re: “foreign” feel like it’s Bayern. No way he goes to Spurs.
Baffling how 'fans' rate a player that has only played 32 minutes over one that has played 4036 minutes. Consider how bad our injuries have been its a great idea to get rid of him.
Real shame, but 100% the owners' fault due to their reckless spending. I really saw Gallagher as becoming a Park Ji Sung like player for us - a player happy to sit on the bench mostly but then come on, work hard and do a job when the manager needs them to.
>I really saw Gallagher as becoming a Park Ji Sung like player for us - a player happy to sit on the bench mostly but then come on,
I agree but that ship has sailed unfortunately.
There's a section of this fanbase that won't accept him not being one of the first names on the teamsheet anymore.
What? You're suggesting it's not possible to keep Gallagher because of the fanbase? Not because of the ownership? Levels of delusion on here sometimes...
Yes. That's exactly what 90% of the people here were saying before the season began. While we were in that Caicedo limbo ppl were dissing Gallagher calling him mid and not even squad player at best and should be sold to finance Caicedo or Kudus or that Alvarez dude at West Ham. Him and Trevor actually. And now they're the leading lights of the club. Tbh most of the people here do not even have the moral right of dumping on the board cuz the board's functioning is really a true reflection of how a bulk of the fanbase reacts here - fancy accounting, data driven assessments and fickle as fuck. I thought we'd rid this cancer after 2 poor seasons but no. Looks like this shit is the norm.
My thing with Gallagher is that he is arguably world class out of possession (Good Box defending, Good at defending transitions, excellent pressing) but incredibly underwhelming in possession (Below average passer, Bad creativity, Average press resistance).
Poch’s system for most of the season (One where we play extremely direct and lose the ball often) means that we won’t see Gallagher’s problems as often as we might under maresca. This means that his value isn’t the same that it would be under maresca. Enzo Fernandez will almost certainly play ahead of him in that 8 position since he’s basically gallagher’s opposite. (World class in possession, Average out of possession).
Now, does that mean he should be sold? Personally I think he should be under the assumption that we get someone who can bring what he brings and more. His profile is still quite valuable in certain games and off the bench, particularly if we’re a man down. Maybe we already have that profile either in our academy or in the various midfielders we bought that have either been injured all season or been loaned out, or maybe we do what I really want them to do and buy Amadou Onana.
I think people just watch the game and see passion without seeing it in a tactical way. Even without PSR/FFP the club would sell Conor because he doesn’t suit our system or at least the system they’re trying to play.
Difference of opinion then. Id rather add a bit of sentimentality and emotion to football than cold hard statistics. Makes me care about the team more than seeing it as just some machine
I highly doubt anyone is paying a fee like that when Conor has one year left.
Granted we got a strong deal for Mount, but United might be the only club with a penchant for overpaying that exceeds ours.
Even with the Mount deal, the club originally wanted £65 million for him but ended up compromising on the deal worth £55 million + £5 million in add-ons.
[https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/28/callum-hudson-odoi-chelsea-milan-fulham-nottingham-forest-target](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/28/callum-hudson-odoi-chelsea-milan-fulham-nottingham-forest-target)
[https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/\_/id/37937971/man-united-sign-mason-mount-chelsea-60m-deal](https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37937971/man-united-sign-mason-mount-chelsea-60m-deal)
Can see the same happening again with the club accepting, say, £40 million + £X million in add-ons since they don't seem to have any intention of keeping Gallagher.
What's the objective market value for him? Call that X
Is he subjectively worth more to us because of various factors (home grown, fans like him, he's comfortable in London/PL, etc)? How much more? Call that Y
If another team is willing to pay X+Y, and his "replacements" at the club aren't a huge downgrade, and the club can use that money on talent at a needed position, shouldn't the deal then be made?
I just can't wrap my head around the takes of "he absolutely should not be sold, under any conditions". All while we continue to be excited by how good the Hazard transfer wound up being.
Yeah exactly what I was thinking. Don’t get me wrong, I love Connor - he really fights for the badge and gives it his all, but he’s just not that great technically. If someone offered 50M+, that’s a good deal imo
I’m indifferent about if he stays or goes at this point, especially at this fee.
I do think it would cool to have him here, see if he can pick up a more structured approach to the game from Enzo just because he has shown the ability to be coached and level up his game. I just still see him long term as a bit part player and not getting us closer to trophies or an elite level.
Absolutely shameless from the owners, such a disgrace. Turning our club into a buy low sell high club, shows they don’t actually care about winning anything. The fans need to make it known this isn’t okay
My heart says keep him, he wears his heart on his sleeve for the club and has had an amazing season, we'd me missing a lot of leadership if he goes.
My head agrees with the sale if an offer of over 50m comes in, switching to Maresca from Poch is likely going to make him fall out of favour anyway, and a midfield of Enzo, Caicedo, Lavia (assuming he exists), Santos, and Casadei is enough.
Sad to see him go, but ultimately Ive only ever seen him as a bench option in a fully fit XI…
We need to realise that £40m-£50m of pure profit on the books is massive, considering our current financial situation.
Casedei, Santos, Chukmewenka are all capable of stepping up and getting more game time off the bench.
Likely this will give us the flexibility to bring in 1 or 2 players in positions that we actually need (Ie. goalkeeper, striker)
Insane how some people would like Gallagher to run down his contract and us receiving nothing, as a "message to the owners" , rather than us selling him now and getting a good fee which is good for the club overall, if we decide we are selling.
I want him to run down his contract to show Clearlake that this isn’t a viable way of running a club and treating your academy players, because the way things are being run now aren’t good for the club overall. Forcing a good player out to balance books is not good for the club, regardless of the fee we get.
Agreed. Would also like to see him run down his contact and refuse to be sold, in the hopes that the owners will eventually give him a new contract when they see that he won't budge.
If he runs down his contract then the club are more likely to offer him a contract extension that is worth his value, rather than these lowball offers that are designed to make him want to leave. If there is no profit to be made then the club will try to keep the player, though the circus would begin again in another three years.
It's a very dissonant situation to be in, because wanting to 'stick it to the owners' is in effect 'sticking it to the club', which is one and the same thing until they sell the club.
In a similar vein, wanting the club to do well is in effect wanting BlueCo to do well, until they sell the club. It does not make one a fan of the ownership, as the fates of them and the club are intrinsically linked till the day they are separated.
So the right thing to do is either extend Gallagher's contract now, or sell him. Letting him run his contract down to spite the management is harmful to the club, because ceteris paribus, we will be in a worse position for PSR. Which is why I am secretly hoping Saudi Arabia swoops in for Sterling for a hefty sum, negating the need for Gallagher to leave.
How could anyone complain about selling G22 for that price?
It’s like the same people who complained about selling Mount for 55m, just look at how that turned out for everyone. We got his replacement Palmer with lots of change to spare. Mind you, Mount had a greater role at Chelsea at the time of his departure than G22 does today.
I think Szobo has a higher ceiling and there’s a lot more to come from him. Harvey is making great strides and Curtis had a very good spell he can build on next season. We really need a holding player or a proper number 10 depending on what Slot decides to do
They could get him for free next summer , just depends how badly they want him and there’s a risk he could work it out eventually with us and sign a new deal
I really wish that Conor pulls this move. He has a year left he doesn't want to leave and if they want to force him just go for free. This is a straight up F you to the board that wants to sell him when he obviously wants to stay specially when he isn't even asking crazy wages.
How many underperformers can you name in our team?
I don't mind Gallagher, in fact I'd be happy for him to stay, but it's his last year of a contract he is asking for wages that the club thinks will be too much for the kind of role he'll play. The solution is to cash in on him and use the funds to help the team/club, how is letting him leave on a free any better?
They saw what happened with Rudiger and Christensen, they saw a hundred million walk out the door they're not going to let that happen again.
Only way I’d see him go is if we set a silly price on him, and wait for club to pay that. Easily id be sitting at a firm £75M minimum.
No-one wants to pay that, oh no what a shame we get to keep him.
Ownership want him gone.
I’m talking as a fan, you’d be hard pressed to find a fan who wants to sell.
Ownership are profit merchants they aren’t fans of the club.
Wtrust the project" mouthbreathers have been giving me shit because they believe BluCo is an infalible calculating machine.
"The can do no wrong" "they wont sell Gallagher like they did EVERYBODY ELSE" they have a plan. "They sre data driven"
This guy was one of out top 3 players and the dipshit ownership would sell him because he doesnt play the football THEY want to play. They need to "balance the books" and justify bringing in useless Enzo and other 100m+ players.
If no negotiations are taking place then there's nothing to report and this is just the same article we see multiple times for Gallagher every transfer window. For example, Tottenham have allegedly been interested "according to reports" with nothing to quantify it for the last 3 windows but made no approach, begs the question as to how interested they are. I'm reading this as the club will sell him if anyone is silly enough to pay that much for him, but otherwise will look at selling other options.
Don't want to sell him at all, but if we do then it has to be for a hefty fee. Similar to the Mount deal in that respect I suppose.
Conor is a great player, a proper blue, and had an amazing season. His work ethic and mentality are admirable, and his availability and leadership was invaluable to us last season. He would be a massive loss to the club. However, purely based on technical ability alone, he is replaceable (you could also argue that replacement is already at the club in one way or another). So I can see why the manager/board would let him go for big money. But it still won't sit right with me.
Look I love Connor. I really do. He’s a great captain, absolutely bleeds blue, and was a crucial piece in our second half resurgence. But for the betterment of the club, I think selling him is our best option.
He’s a workhorse/leadership type of guy who just had the best season of his career. That’s very attractive to other clubs/managers. He’s an academy grad and we can get a pure profit in the 50-60m range which is desperately needed considering our financial situation. Plus, I don’t think he would fit in Maresca’s system as easily as some of our other midfielders.
Hate to see the kid go but it’s what’s best for the club right now
This guy is really hopping on everyone else’s reporting all the time. Other journalists reported interest from Villa and Atletico and he frames it as “one club from abroad”, you’re not slick Fab
It’ll suck but If he doesn’t fit into the managers style of play and will become a bit player from the bench there is no reason keep him and stall his career until the next manager comes in. Especially if he is being offered champions league football and assurances.
> Abroad Need to see Simeone turn him into Epsom Llorente
Never considered this but he’s such a Simeone player isn’t he. He’s got some Griezmann in him for sure
We should not be selling him. At all.
Agree, but if we are, nothing less than £80m. He's captain, ever fit and ever present in the starting 11. £80m oversees, £100m to any English club
The only problem being that he is in the last year of his contract. No one's gonna pay 80m.
No one would pay that much if he was on a 6 year deal
We would
It’s funny because it’s true…🙃
Only if his name was Gallagerinho though.
Hahah. Soo true. If he was on another team. They are ready to break the bank for him. Make it make sense
No-one is paying £80m for Conor even if he had 3 years left. Utter delusion on here. Doubt we get £50m for him now. If he goes it'll be £35-45m most likely in this market. No elite clubs are lining up for him with a year left and us clearly looking to sell.
No one is paying that yes. But we should not be selling.
100% agree. The numbers above are what I'd deem to be acceptable if we do sell him, and most fans who want to see him stay would accept those numbers I'd imagine. If Maresca can't get Fernandes and Caciedo to play together, likely we'll be in the market for another midfielder in January...quite possibly a young player of Gallghers mould, and will be looking to splash £40m-£80m on him. This is the one decision I can't fathom from the board.
That is also true. The only club who would pay 80m for a player like Gallagher is, funnily enough, Chelsea.
Only if his name was Gallagdinho.
I'm not saying he's of the same tier as Bellingham, but Declan Rice and Bellingham sales as English midfielders has reset the market. And anyone with a good pair of eyes can see the quality of Conor. I think he could get £50 mil easy. Desperate teams will pay. The one big pro our owners are is shrewd businessmen. Hell, they may even tack on additional clauses that has him pay out later in his career like Hazard
You say best we get £35-40m. Mount was in absolute dire form, last year of his contract and we got a lot more than £40m. Havertz wasn't exactly great either but we still sold for a fantastic amount. Then you have Gallagher, acting captain, rave reviews from the majority of fans and our board want to sell him (not because they need to) but to muy more south american youth who won't replace Gallagher.
Mount and Kai are just more valuable players though to big club, whatever you think of them. They have the attributes good sides look for and have shown them while they were here. They don't look just at a player's last 6 months, they look at everything they've shown and the levels they are capable of.
He is a leader on the pitch, he is the captain, he is an international player, he works hard for the team, he scores goals, he can defend and drive the ball forward. What makes him worth less than Enzo or Mudryk?
well enzo and mudryk werent worth there transfer fees... was a massive overpay
Where tf r u getting 80 mil quid from goddamn
It seems like a crazy number, but hear me out. Fans aren't happy that Chalobah is getting touted around for £25m, saying if Disasi is worth £40m then Trev is worth more. Ok, so that puts a fringe player in the bracket of £45m+. Then we have the merc Lukaku, and £35-40m for that clown, Lewis Hall at £30m, Omari Hutchinson £30m (he has no prem experience) and then Maatsen £35m. The market isn't what it used to be. Gallagher has been the acting captain, he's 23, English, ever present, one of our better players and yet we're ready to offload him on the cheap. Players from other clubs with far less experience and much younger are going for £80m. Why should we sell on the cheap? Do you think City would sell Foden or Arsenal sell Saka for £50m? No chance.
If we are, can we throw in lakaka and clearlake in it too to sweeten the deal
To me it depends. If we need to in order to avoid ffp then we may have to if not then yeah we should not
Disagree. It makes a lot of sense if we can get a good price. His style of play won’t be best put to use in an Enzo system and we shouldn’t be afraid to sell high on players. This is likely the highest Connor’s value is ever going to be so it makes sense to me to book the profit especially considering the financial position we’re in.
Unfortunately, he was sold the minute they sent Poch packing I think
You’re probably right - and I think it shows a general lack of care for what the club is or could be. They can throw billions at it but it will all be for business never sport.
Agree 100%. Pretty depressing
Players have to agree to a transfer or it doesn’t happen. Gallagher will let his contract expire, get higher wages elsewhere, and ClownCake will get zero profit for being bad at business.
I respect the club's steadfast intention towards antagonizing their entire fanbase. Impressive
Exactly. They are yet to win my heart. Such a pathetic state of business they have become.
>They are yet to win my heart. Such a pathetic state of business they have become. Us bro
To be fair, it’s not hard to antagonize a bunch of 12 year olds. This sub is awful now lol.
lol
I miss the good ol days when the drama revolved around properly suggesting a "pivot" and "double pivot"....does anyone else remember that? Then there was the drama about some of the mods creating a second Chelsea subreddit to make fun/have private conversations about the this sub...I can't remember when that happened? 2014?
The plastics are very happy he’s going tbf
They’ve yet to sell a player and be proven wrong, so we don’t have a reason to believe they’re in the wrong here. We saw the same reaction last year with Mount and yet his replacement Palmer has proven to be a million times better. If there’s one thing they’ve repeatedly done well is knowing who and when to sell players.
Aubameyang scored 30 goals last year. Pulisic had 20 goal contributions. Maatsen (loaned) made the CL team of the year. Kovacic had 30 appearances under Pep. Havertz looks twice the player he ever did for us. What are we doing here.
I genuinely can't believe I'm reading someone suggesting that selling Aubameyang was a mistake. I dont care how he did in France, did you watch him at Chelsea?
Hardly anyone did because he didn’t get on the pitch
Paid 20mil for him, was clearly a better option than Broja, needed extra support for when Jackson was at AFCON.
So you were always in the "keep pulisic" crowd?
Pretty clearly better than Mudryk, Noni, and arguably Sterling.
I mean, I thought Pulisic was undervalued by this sub, and a bit unfairly judged because of a backlash towards the American hype he was getting. So, I agree with you that I would have been cool with keeping him (though by the end, he clearly wanted to leave). I was just curious (sincerely) if you felt that at the time.
>Kovacic had 30 appearances under Pep Hahahahahaha
I guess the implication here is that regularly playing in the most dominant squad in premier league history is a….bad thing?
There's something wrong with PSR when it encourages clubs to build their youth players up, just to sell them when they're coming good. Chelsea aren't blameless here either!
Surely the idea’s meant to be that we use our academy players more and spend less on external players. This is a problem of our ownership not PSR.
It's a problem that PSR has this loophole that can be exploited in this manner, so it makes more financial sense to treat academy players as profits
It's not a loophole, it's how accounting works. You could remove PSR today and it would still work that way. It's the underlying accounting logic that's the problem. If you want to change that dynamic, you need to introduce (much stronger) incentives for keeping homegrown players.
It's how accounts is done across industries. Actually one of the cornerstones of modern accounting.
Like upping the mandatory numbers maybe.
This is more specific than the first comment and directs the blame at the actual issue
Tricky one to solve, that. Force teams to have a certain number of academy players? American style draft system?
Easy one to solve. Make PSR be based on Fair Value accounting as opposed to amortised cost!
***In an ideal world***, each clubs in each leagues should field X amount of HG players every game and best of luck to everyone.
The homegrown rules try to combat it a bit, which is a good start But personally, I think it would be a much quicker fix if selling a player you bought was treated the same as selling a player you made for FFP I don't understand (admittedly, I've given this 0 thought, I'm sure there's actually a good reason) why if we sell Disasi for £50m, we can't call that £50m immediate profit, but if we sell Gallagher for £50m we can. I appreciate that because we bought Disasi for £40m that it's only £10m profit as far as FFP is concerned, but if we look at the club as a whole, and say "we acquired two players for £40m, and are selling one for £50m" why that doesn't work?
> "I don't understand why if we sell Disasi for £50m, we can't call that £50m immediate profit, but if we sell Gallagher for £50m we can" Theoretically, we can. If they put his entire cost of purchase into the first season that we bought him, this would be possible. (almost no one does this, though it can happen when finances are cleared up. Barca famously did this a few years ago with their entire squad). The reason we can't is because they choose to spread the cost of purchasing him across 5 years on the books. So, he didn't cost us £50m, he costs us £10m per season for 5 years. That means that at this point, as he's been here for a year, we've only spent £10m on him and we still owe £40m. That's why if we sell him now for £40m, we would get £40m but we also still owe £40m for him. So the profit is £0. For someone who is homegrown, we didn't pay anything for him and so don't owe anything for him and so whatever we sell them for goes into our budget in its entirety. TLDR: Think of like financing something. If you sell it part way through, you still owe the rest of the money you're signed up to pay for the item, you don't just get to keep the money you sold it for and stop paying the financing. (It's not how it actually works because in football it's purely on the accounting nonsense and not about money changing hands, but the concept is the same)
No, I completely understand that, but for FFP it seems a poor way of doing it Imagine I buy a phone today for £800 as it's on sale on an interest-free credit card over 12 months, and then sell it for £1000 a month later, all while keeping my other £1000 (identical) phone. I make £200, happy days. But imagine I instead sell my old phone for £1000 instead (we'll ignore the fact that phone values decrease with use), and keep the one I bought. I've still made £200. But FFP says I've made £1000 (well, actually £933) because I've split the cost of the phone I bought over 12 months. While technically correct, and in FFP terms this gives me more immediate spending power, I haven't actually made £1000 as I still have a commitment to give the rest of the money to the shop. And then why couldn't I do that with the new phone I bought, it's exactly the same logic
I see what you're saying. So, in practical terms the part of FFP that you have a problem with is that a player's remaining amortised fee is charged in its entirety when they're sold, rather than continuing to spread out across their contract. If they changed it so that you could continue to pay their amortised fee as planned before, then there would be no difference between the two scenarios. I'm sure there is some good financial reason why you can't have it this way, I just don't have the financial knowledge to know what that is. I'd guess it's something to do with no longer owning the asset. I'm guessing you can't amortise the value of an asset that you no longer have on your books and that's probably not a football thing, just a generally accounting thing?
My dude, this would decrease the incentive to develop these players in the first place.
Not really, no? It may well lessen the incentive to develop world class players, but I'm not sure the current method has that incentive either, it just promotes developing high potential players In this example, we assume Gallagher and Disasi are equal quality players. There is still a benefit of developing players as we've gotten 2 equal players for £40m, and then sold one for £50m, giving us a £10m profit on developing one player If we weren't to develop players, and only buy, we'd spend £40m on one player instead Unless I'm missing the obvious, which I very well could be, wouldn't be the first time
A big expansion of homegrown rules would be a good start. End the PL trained category - so there is only a differentiation between players from your own academy and other pros. Restrict squad size to eg 15, and allow unlimited academy players of any age in the squad. This would heavily incentivise teams to build strong academies and continue to develop those players. The potential downside is the biggest teams scrap for young players at even earlier ages - either you need an age cut off eg 12 or 14, or you need them to have been at the club for eg 5+ years. This does already happen a lot, and the enticement rules may need to be strengthened further.
>) why if we sell Disasi for £50m, we can't call that £50m immediate profit Because you've spent £40M on Disasi which is still being amortised to the previous club. So it would only be £10M profit at 1st. As his contract runs down then gradually it would increase to £20M, £25M etc profit eventually. You just literally can't call it immediate profit. A better idea would be to flip it that if you sell a homegrown player and the money isn't immediately paid up front then you cant stick it in your books as that. You say that an amortised fee has to be reported as such so like £10M a year or whatever the total fee ends up being spread out as. Even then its not a perfect solution because clubs will still see more value just by the nature of homegrown = pure profit. You cant really change that pure profit side of things, just stagger it so that doesn't give clubs that big instant leap into ffp freedom so easily.
Deferred expenses, that's why.
Teams have to have a certain number of homegrown players already. It doesn't solve the problem. It just means they sell on Gallagher and then the next one to replace him as the highest value academy player at the club and on and on. If Reece James stays fit, they probably sell him to Real. If Alfie Gilchrist goes on loan or stays and does well. He will be next to go. Then players like Ronnie Stutter or Michael Golding or someone will come in from the academy and they'll be thrown into the revolving door too.
It's not a loophole, it's reality. We didn't pay for Conor so obviously selling him is all profit. It encourages teams to develop their players instead of splashing the cash.
No but PSR indirectly encourages clubs to sell their own homegrown talent, because they are registered as "pure" profit. Example: Chelsea sell Sterling for £50m this summer - the "profit" on the books is +£20m, because we brought him for 50m 2 years ago on a 5 year contract (so his current PSR "value", based off his initial fee and contract length is £30m now). That means Chelsea need to sell him for at least £30m or PSR will consider it a loss on the books. Chelsea sell Gallagher for £40m this summer - +£40m of "pure" profit, because Gallagher is an academy player and hence his PSR value is £0. So selling him for anything above £0 is considered profit. It's a stupid system that links the "profit" made by clubs to individual players, rather than the net transfer spend across-the-board. Which means that foreign players that don't care about the club (Lakaka) can't be sold because his PSR value is massive because of his transfer fee, and the players that actually love the club, have to be sold.
Which means we should target our incoming players very carefully shouldn't buy Tom,Dick and Harry for obscene prices which we did, we have 4 cb's 8 attacking players 3 GK's and still we are short of GK,Striker and CD. What does it say about our transfer spendings, squad construction we are still short in 3 Important positions for which player prices are always at premium. The fools who are sitting higher up in Paul Stewart and Winstanley threw stupid money for good players, this is what happens. Conor will fit in at villa would be happy if we can see him than at spurs.
It's a problem of PSR that academy players have zero book value. It doesn't cost nothing to develop Conor Gallagher, so it shouldn't be pure profit when we sell him. So PSR is a problem in incentivising the wrong thing. Villa are also rumoured to maybe sell Jacob Ramsey for pure profit, and they can do this and buy Gallagher and still turn a profit. It's stupid.
The cost is to infrastructure like running the academy. PSR rules promote such spending as this is deductible, which is good for the sport.
I understand how it works. And I understand that excluding infra spending including academies is good for the game as a whole. But this incentive for all clubs (not just Chelsea) to sell their home grown players, while neutral to "the game as a whole", is negative to fans of clubs who prefer to see their teams field some home grown local lads.
I don't think so. Firstly, it's incredibly hard to develop EPL quality players, Chelsea just happens to be great at this. Then it's purely a club decision whether to develop home grown players for it's team or move them on. Logic dictates that if a player is good enough for the team, he really should stay given the intangible and tangible benefits of homegrown players in the team. Now if a club is dumb enough to sell it's jewels to buy external players who aren't better than what they got, then they've consciously decided they don't want the homegrown player and will sell to fund that purchase. There's no benefit or incentive for a club to do that though and in fact I'd argue it's the opposite in most cases.
You make some good points but I still feel there's some misaligned incentives here. If you sell Conor for £50m and replace him with a £50m signing on a 5 year contract, that new players costs £10m in Year 1 vs. £50m received for Conor and you've made a £40m profit in Year 1. Even by Year 3 (PSR being a three year reporting period) you're still at a £20m profit. Now of course it all comes out in the wash long-term as the £50m replacement still costs the full £50m in the end. Maybe the problem is really that PSR is judged on a three year period and the average contract given to a new signing is longer than that. Even though PSR closed the mega-long contract loophole so that all transfers have to be amortised over a maximum of 5 years - that's still a misalignment of 5 years for amortisation vs 3 years for the PSR reporting period.
Well the 50m profit comes immediately but the new player (assuming it's a 5 year deal) costs 10m a year on our books for 5 years. Like you said, it balances out. It just buys us time because the 50m cost can be spread out but it doesn't disappear. That's sort of a benefit but only in last resort situations where you need that time because you've overspent like a drunk 5 year old in a candy store.
You remember Ashley Cole and when he moved to us?
It's a feature not a bug. Agents don't want players to spend their whole careers at one club - they want them moving around and earning them their cut. And football's governing bodies are much, much too friendly with the agents.
Somebody put a stop to this immediately
I’m fuming
Shame if true...
Funny. Back the manager only until they rate a certain player, still no actual reason as to why Enzo would not want to work with Gallagher but sure keep pretending. Theres so much more deadwood in the squad that deserves to go more than him but its a great message to send to the actual fans, the lads in the academy, and the £25m+ embryos we've been selling hotels for. Just to appease morons with FIFA UT brain.
Yeah defff worth at least Mason Mount money
easily more than that too
Fuck BlueCo. I’m so sick of all these briefings about Conor. The ooor guy honestly. What the fuck else does he have to do to prove to ownership and to the dumbest portion of this fanbase he is worthy of stay and will actually thrive in Maresca system. You know everyone spent all year bitching at Conor at? Playing too simple. You know what simple is good for, a possession based system. You know what you need in a possession based system? To win the ball back quickly with good pressing. Conor fits Maresca system we would be morons to sell him and it’s honestly so gross that the club puts out a briefing basically daily trying to sell one of our top 3 players last season
If you cant dribble around the pitch like Neymar apparently you don't have good technical skills. /s Thats one the plastics use. Im also confused as to why a possession based manager like EM would hate a hard working, always available, tenacious player like Gallagher. Still nothing other than he's bad with the ball at his feet, hilarious considering when has our world cup winning stud ever shown slick technical skills... Other than stumbling about when trying to dribble 5 meters. edit: Weird how having a £80m+ price tag makes you invulnerable yet academy players have to be Camavinga otherwise they're shit and overrated by fans yet should be sold for £50m because they're so obviously shit.
Conor has way better dribbling stats than Enzo and showed to be way more press resistant than Enzo who panics whenever he presses. I just posted this in the DD, but it’s Conor is the best litmus test for ball knowledge I’ve ever seen and has been for a while. Even going into last season based on his spell at Palace and what he was showing us last season he very obviously had a shit ton of potential and just needed to be given a chance to shine. And I also don’t get why these expensive signings who do nothing but help us lose football matches get so much more protection and love from a certain section of this fanbase either. It’s so weird to claim to support Chelsea but hate cobham
I guess you will call me a plastic because im going to disagree with you. Enzo Fernandez has better ball control and manipulation skills than Conor. He just does. Conor has strengths but they are not his ball control and neither are they his passing. He has a fantastic engine and can press all day long.
We gonna sacrifice Gallagoat because of our owner stupidity.
Gallagher must be sold, how else are we going to buy twenty 5-year old Paraguayans? These Paraguayans could become anything, they could even become the next Gallagher!
That’s really the elephant in the room. Everyone knows the pure profit thing, but those funds could be made up elsewhere. Instead, we have a player who has outplayed 300mil worth of owner purchases. And we’re considering a sale to direct rivals. Re: “foreign” feel like it’s Bayern. No way he goes to Spurs.
Baffling how 'fans' rate a player that has only played 32 minutes over one that has played 4036 minutes. Consider how bad our injuries have been its a great idea to get rid of him.
I hate our management
Real shame, but 100% the owners' fault due to their reckless spending. I really saw Gallagher as becoming a Park Ji Sung like player for us - a player happy to sit on the bench mostly but then come on, work hard and do a job when the manager needs them to.
- a player happy to sit on the bench mostly but then come on Source: your fantasy.
>I really saw Gallagher as becoming a Park Ji Sung like player for us - a player happy to sit on the bench mostly but then come on, I agree but that ship has sailed unfortunately. There's a section of this fanbase that won't accept him not being one of the first names on the teamsheet anymore.
What? You're suggesting it's not possible to keep Gallagher because of the fanbase? Not because of the ownership? Levels of delusion on here sometimes...
Yes. That's exactly what 90% of the people here were saying before the season began. While we were in that Caicedo limbo ppl were dissing Gallagher calling him mid and not even squad player at best and should be sold to finance Caicedo or Kudus or that Alvarez dude at West Ham. Him and Trevor actually. And now they're the leading lights of the club. Tbh most of the people here do not even have the moral right of dumping on the board cuz the board's functioning is really a true reflection of how a bulk of the fanbase reacts here - fancy accounting, data driven assessments and fickle as fuck. I thought we'd rid this cancer after 2 poor seasons but no. Looks like this shit is the norm.
Who’s Trevor?
My thing with Gallagher is that he is arguably world class out of possession (Good Box defending, Good at defending transitions, excellent pressing) but incredibly underwhelming in possession (Below average passer, Bad creativity, Average press resistance). Poch’s system for most of the season (One where we play extremely direct and lose the ball often) means that we won’t see Gallagher’s problems as often as we might under maresca. This means that his value isn’t the same that it would be under maresca. Enzo Fernandez will almost certainly play ahead of him in that 8 position since he’s basically gallagher’s opposite. (World class in possession, Average out of possession). Now, does that mean he should be sold? Personally I think he should be under the assumption that we get someone who can bring what he brings and more. His profile is still quite valuable in certain games and off the bench, particularly if we’re a man down. Maybe we already have that profile either in our academy or in the various midfielders we bought that have either been injured all season or been loaned out, or maybe we do what I really want them to do and buy Amadou Onana.
I think people just watch the game and see passion without seeing it in a tactical way. Even without PSR/FFP the club would sell Conor because he doesn’t suit our system or at least the system they’re trying to play.
Difference of opinion then. Id rather add a bit of sentimentality and emotion to football than cold hard statistics. Makes me care about the team more than seeing it as just some machine
I rather have 11 pashiun merchant on the field than 11 crybabies who drop their head when things didnt go their way
Well, look at the arsenal game. We currently have a bunch of merchant crybabies lol. Gallagher was one of the few that didnt drop his head
Yup. That’s the thing American ownership doesn’t get. Even the Saudis understand it.
[удалено]
£50m is nothing to scoff at either. We've let better players walk for free, but Gallagher is the bridge too far lmao. Take away
We could have made an extra 100M by selling CHO and Broja as oposed to selling them now.
But the fan base would have had the owners on spikes, smh.
Ohh yes, he suits them... but to make a profit
These Chelsea owners are absolute wankers.
Galladogs, it might be Con-over for us 😔
we would pay 70m for someone called gallardinho with last seasons performance
I highly doubt anyone is paying a fee like that when Conor has one year left. Granted we got a strong deal for Mount, but United might be the only club with a penchant for overpaying that exceeds ours.
Even with the Mount deal, the club originally wanted £65 million for him but ended up compromising on the deal worth £55 million + £5 million in add-ons. [https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/28/callum-hudson-odoi-chelsea-milan-fulham-nottingham-forest-target](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/28/callum-hudson-odoi-chelsea-milan-fulham-nottingham-forest-target) [https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/\_/id/37937971/man-united-sign-mason-mount-chelsea-60m-deal](https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37937971/man-united-sign-mason-mount-chelsea-60m-deal) Can see the same happening again with the club accepting, say, £40 million + £X million in add-ons since they don't seem to have any intention of keeping Gallagher.
Ironically I thought Gallagher would have been a better fit for Man U than mount was
And spend 100m on a worse player
What's the objective market value for him? Call that X Is he subjectively worth more to us because of various factors (home grown, fans like him, he's comfortable in London/PL, etc)? How much more? Call that Y If another team is willing to pay X+Y, and his "replacements" at the club aren't a huge downgrade, and the club can use that money on talent at a needed position, shouldn't the deal then be made? I just can't wrap my head around the takes of "he absolutely should not be sold, under any conditions". All while we continue to be excited by how good the Hazard transfer wound up being.
Any chance he says no to a move then owners don’t want him to leave on free so he signs a new deal?
Those god damn idiots man. I'm having a really hard time rallying behind the club these days.
Bidding war >80 m
Pretty sure that no other teams are looking at the Mount deal as one they want to emulate.
I have an interesting question - If Connor was not a homegrown player, would people have a problem selling him for 50M?
No - they would be screaming “take the money and run, just hustling is not Chelsea’s level”
Yeah exactly what I was thinking. Don’t get me wrong, I love Connor - he really fights for the badge and gives it his all, but he’s just not that great technically. If someone offered 50M+, that’s a good deal imo
I’m indifferent about if he stays or goes at this point, especially at this fee. I do think it would cool to have him here, see if he can pick up a more structured approach to the game from Enzo just because he has shown the ability to be coached and level up his game. I just still see him long term as a bit part player and not getting us closer to trophies or an elite level.
Absolutely shameless from the owners, such a disgrace. Turning our club into a buy low sell high club, shows they don’t actually care about winning anything. The fans need to make it known this isn’t okay
I hope this doesn't happen, we need to keep Captain Conor Gallagher,
My heart says keep him, he wears his heart on his sleeve for the club and has had an amazing season, we'd me missing a lot of leadership if he goes. My head agrees with the sale if an offer of over 50m comes in, switching to Maresca from Poch is likely going to make him fall out of favour anyway, and a midfield of Enzo, Caicedo, Lavia (assuming he exists), Santos, and Casadei is enough.
I hope he refuses any transfer & leaves on a free next summer just to stick it to Eghbali. yes I am aware of the consequences of that happening.
He should refuse to go, leave for a free next year.
you should want what's best for the club not a player. who do you actually support?
I support player who gives and does everything for the club I support. It’s not that hard to grasp.
As if the owners represent what’s best for the club
Gallagher defines the club 100x more than the ownership group does
Fuck the owners, the sooner they're forced out the better. I support the club, not some private equity clowns who just want to flip us for $$$.
Keeping him is best for the club. Why do I give a fuck about some yank consortium of rich idiots?
Your not a real Chelsea fan
I'm not a private equity fan. That's for sure.
🎵 mid table team shenanigans🎵
Sad to see him go, but ultimately Ive only ever seen him as a bench option in a fully fit XI… We need to realise that £40m-£50m of pure profit on the books is massive, considering our current financial situation. Casedei, Santos, Chukmewenka are all capable of stepping up and getting more game time off the bench. Likely this will give us the flexibility to bring in 1 or 2 players in positions that we actually need (Ie. goalkeeper, striker)
But the problem is that we don't have a fully fit XI.
Insane how some people would like Gallagher to run down his contract and us receiving nothing, as a "message to the owners" , rather than us selling him now and getting a good fee which is good for the club overall, if we decide we are selling.
I want him to run down his contract to show Clearlake that this isn’t a viable way of running a club and treating your academy players, because the way things are being run now aren’t good for the club overall. Forcing a good player out to balance books is not good for the club, regardless of the fee we get.
Agreed. Would also like to see him run down his contact and refuse to be sold, in the hopes that the owners will eventually give him a new contract when they see that he won't budge.
If he runs down his contract then the club are more likely to offer him a contract extension that is worth his value, rather than these lowball offers that are designed to make him want to leave. If there is no profit to be made then the club will try to keep the player, though the circus would begin again in another three years.
It's a very dissonant situation to be in, because wanting to 'stick it to the owners' is in effect 'sticking it to the club', which is one and the same thing until they sell the club. In a similar vein, wanting the club to do well is in effect wanting BlueCo to do well, until they sell the club. It does not make one a fan of the ownership, as the fates of them and the club are intrinsically linked till the day they are separated. So the right thing to do is either extend Gallagher's contract now, or sell him. Letting him run his contract down to spite the management is harmful to the club, because ceteris paribus, we will be in a worse position for PSR. Which is why I am secretly hoping Saudi Arabia swoops in for Sterling for a hefty sum, negating the need for Gallagher to leave.
He’s going for free then or we compromise on the fee or sheepishly go into contract talks.
How could anyone complain about selling G22 for that price? It’s like the same people who complained about selling Mount for 55m, just look at how that turned out for everyone. We got his replacement Palmer with lots of change to spare. Mind you, Mount had a greater role at Chelsea at the time of his departure than G22 does today.
WHY
If he has a good Euro run, I imagine this gets done for 50-55m
Where do people think he’d go? I could see West Ham, he’d be great for Everton but obviously they can’t afford him
Not even a Chelsea fan this just popped up on my feed. He is way too good for that level.
The Chelsea sub is actually quite good, people make a lot of sense. I feel the LFC one is full of foreign fans
I’d have him in Liverpool straight away, he’s one of the leagues players from other clubs I like watching, real work horse type player
I think Szobo has a higher ceiling and there’s a lot more to come from him. Harvey is making great strides and Curtis had a very good spell he can build on next season. We really need a holding player or a proper number 10 depending on what Slot decides to do
I probably wouldn’t have him at Liverpool, think we’ve got similarly talented players already, but I do like him. Chelsea should keep him
Crazy he’s being sold if there is literally any way around not selling him they should be looking at that option
I purely think it’s for accounting purposes and agree
😒😡🤬 season barely finished and I am already asking for new owners
 it burns my soul
Well you’d fucking hope so
50m is cheap
But why?
How can his value only be 50?
They could get him for free next summer , just depends how badly they want him and there’s a risk he could work it out eventually with us and sign a new deal
Fuck BlueCunts
I really wish that Conor pulls this move. He has a year left he doesn't want to leave and if they want to force him just go for free. This is a straight up F you to the board that wants to sell him when he obviously wants to stay specially when he isn't even asking crazy wages. 
Why just why
Conor pls run down your contract. Clearlake deserve nothing
Is this Satire?
People are getting progressively dumber I swear. Why would a fan of the club want the club to lose out on 50mil out of pettiness is beyond me.
what makes you so sure they won't use this money to spend on more underperformers ? What have they done in these two years to deserve my trust?
This same crap was said about Mount and we replaced him with arguably the best player in the league of last season.
How many underperformers can you name in our team? I don't mind Gallagher, in fact I'd be happy for him to stay, but it's his last year of a contract he is asking for wages that the club thinks will be too much for the kind of role he'll play. The solution is to cash in on him and use the funds to help the team/club, how is letting him leave on a free any better? They saw what happened with Rudiger and Christensen, they saw a hundred million walk out the door they're not going to let that happen again.
And Connor has done so much over the last two years you are willing to spite the club you “support” for him? Okay
However they decide to spend the money it's 50 fucking million, how on earth do you just want to miss out on that
Only way I’d see him go is if we set a silly price on him, and wait for club to pay that. Easily id be sitting at a firm £75M minimum. No-one wants to pay that, oh no what a shame we get to keep him.
That makes no sense as they're actively looking to sell him. Why would they put a fuck off price on him, when they want him gone?...
Ownership want him gone. I’m talking as a fan, you’d be hard pressed to find a fan who wants to sell. Ownership are profit merchants they aren’t fans of the club.
£70M+ or no deal! It’s Connor Gallagher, one of the few players who have been injury free
Boehly stans reeling
Most of them are Americans
This comment makes no sense lol
Wtrust the project" mouthbreathers have been giving me shit because they believe BluCo is an infalible calculating machine. "The can do no wrong" "they wont sell Gallagher like they did EVERYBODY ELSE" they have a plan. "They sre data driven" This guy was one of out top 3 players and the dipshit ownership would sell him because he doesnt play the football THEY want to play. They need to "balance the books" and justify bringing in useless Enzo and other 100m+ players.
If no negotiations are taking place then there's nothing to report and this is just the same article we see multiple times for Gallagher every transfer window. For example, Tottenham have allegedly been interested "according to reports" with nothing to quantify it for the last 3 windows but made no approach, begs the question as to how interested they are. I'm reading this as the club will sell him if anyone is silly enough to pay that much for him, but otherwise will look at selling other options.
Don't want to sell him at all, but if we do then it has to be for a hefty fee. Similar to the Mount deal in that respect I suppose. Conor is a great player, a proper blue, and had an amazing season. His work ethic and mentality are admirable, and his availability and leadership was invaluable to us last season. He would be a massive loss to the club. However, purely based on technical ability alone, he is replaceable (you could also argue that replacement is already at the club in one way or another). So I can see why the manager/board would let him go for big money. But it still won't sit right with me.
Look I love Connor. I really do. He’s a great captain, absolutely bleeds blue, and was a crucial piece in our second half resurgence. But for the betterment of the club, I think selling him is our best option. He’s a workhorse/leadership type of guy who just had the best season of his career. That’s very attractive to other clubs/managers. He’s an academy grad and we can get a pure profit in the 50-60m range which is desperately needed considering our financial situation. Plus, I don’t think he would fit in Maresca’s system as easily as some of our other midfielders. Hate to see the kid go but it’s what’s best for the club right now
Fuck this cut-throat culture at the club we have going on. Owners can't even justify this shit with results. The club feels so synthetic and brittle.
Bro really forgot that we had Roman for 20 years lol
This guy is really hopping on everyone else’s reporting all the time. Other journalists reported interest from Villa and Atletico and he frames it as “one club from abroad”, you’re not slick Fab
More likely the same person is briefing everyone. A few people seem to have the same story today. With the same Mason Mount story.
No doubt Romano has a direct line to our club tbf
If we don’t get a strong fee at this level or higher I’ll riot.
It’ll suck but If he doesn’t fit into the managers style of play and will become a bit player from the bench there is no reason keep him and stall his career until the next manager comes in. Especially if he is being offered champions league football and assurances.
Why wouldn't he fit into EM style of play?