Enzo Fernandez

comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by AFCISMYTEAM (U14931)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 55 minutes ago
107m for a guy with 6 months of European football under his belt.

Benfica absolutely rinsed Chelsea but if he's the real deal and it's an almighty gamble that he is nobody will care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For that amount of £££, the pressure on him will be immense imo.
It's one of them situations where if he mis controls the ball, opp fans or even some CFC fans will be like ' £107 mil for that'. He'll have to put in 8/10 performances most of the time. It's a lot to put on the young lad but we'll see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep telling yourself that. Whatever lessens the blow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we was never in for him.

comment by it'sonlyagame - today I feel like George Santos' lie detector (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
Would be funny seeing Chelsea get bent over like this over and over if it wasn't driving the market prices up for everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony being this is pretty much how UEFA and the rest of Europe perceive the EPL and will secretly be laughing their heads off should the global recession put paid to the whole circus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just remarked on another thread that I imagine this is how the big South American leagues have felt about the European clubs for decades.

It does seem disproportionate (if true) that Chelsea have outspent all of the big 4 continental leagues put together, but if they're able to, then why not, I'm certainly not going to be the one complaining. More power to them if they identified a weakness in the regulations before UEFA, FIFA or whoever amended it.

United, Liverpool, Arsenal, City ... or PSG, Madrid, Barça, Bayern, Milan, Juve for that matter ... none of their fans seem to have had a problem when it's been their own club doing the spending, so I find it pretty hypocritical to complain about it when the shoe's on the other foot. I don't see what entitles Rangers or Celtic fans to kick up a stink just because they're in a smaller pond either. In terms of spending power, they've been blasting the rest of their league out of the water for decades.

As for the Spurs lot, I've seen some of their fans on here pining for a totalitarian Arabian state to buy them out and bankroll them. Seeing how readily every other fanbase has rolled over to have their tummies scratched by some gazillionaire overlord, there can be no doubt that collectively they'd be just the same.

The only caveat is that PL clubs seem to considerably outspend other clubs with similar revenues. Either the continental lot are paying a lot more in wages, or their owners are leeching money out of the clubs like there's no tomorrow, or PL owners/investors really are creating a bubble that could sooner or later explode in their faces. They'll have to deal with the fallout if that day does indeed come, but until that happens, then let them spend whatever they think they can afford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your point about Celtic & Rangers, no doubt pointedly back at me, is only partially relevant. These two clubs dwarf every other sure but they always have purely because of catchment area & support size. Much as the historically large clubs in England always did.

Domestic TV money still represents 2-3% of turnover for them. Yet the fans have to pay the Sky UK rate subsidising the EPL before we can watch our own league which is an even worse state than the Euro teams! The cases going through the courts right now on UEFA constraining borders being anti-competitive could blow the whole thing apart? Another reason why I think the super league is inevitable - I think UEFA will lose?

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame - today I feel like George Santos' lie detector (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
Would be funny seeing Chelsea get bent over like this over and over if it wasn't driving the market prices up for everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony being this is pretty much how UEFA and the rest of Europe perceive the EPL and will secretly be laughing their heads off should the global recession put paid to the whole circus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just remarked on another thread that I imagine this is how the big South American leagues have felt about the European clubs for decades.

It does seem disproportionate (if true) that Chelsea have outspent all of the big 4 continental leagues put together, but if they're able to, then why not, I'm certainly not going to be the one complaining. More power to them if they identified a weakness in the regulations before UEFA, FIFA or whoever amended it.

United, Liverpool, Arsenal, City ... or PSG, Madrid, Barça, Bayern, Milan, Juve for that matter ... none of their fans seem to have had a problem when it's been their own club doing the spending, so I find it pretty hypocritical to complain about it when the shoe's on the other foot. I don't see what entitles Rangers or Celtic fans to kick up a stink just because they're in a smaller pond either. In terms of spending power, they've been blasting the rest of their league out of the water for decades.

As for the Spurs lot, I've seen some of their fans on here pining for a totalitarian Arabian state to buy them out and bankroll them. Seeing how readily every other fanbase has rolled over to have their tummies scratched by some gazillionaire overlord, there can be no doubt that collectively they'd be just the same.

The only caveat is that PL clubs seem to considerably outspend other clubs with similar revenues. Either the continental lot are paying a lot more in wages, or their owners are leeching money out of the clubs like there's no tomorrow, or PL owners/investors really are creating a bubble that could sooner or later explode in their faces. They'll have to deal with the fallout if that day does indeed come, but until that happens, then let them spend whatever they think they can afford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your point about Celtic & Rangers, no doubt pointedly back at me, is only partially relevant. These two clubs dwarf every other sure but they always have purely because of catchment area & support size. Much as the historically large clubs in England always did.

Domestic TV money still represents 2-3% of turnover for them. Yet the fans have to pay the Sky UK rate subsidising the EPL before we can watch our own league which is an even worse state than the Euro teams! The cases going through the courts right now on UEFA constraining borders being anti-competitive could blow the whole thing apart? Another reason why I think the super league is inevitable - I think UEFA will lose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't want anyone to feel left out!

It's as relevant as including clubs from Madrid, Barcelona, Turin, Milan, Paris, Manchester ... the amount of support any club has varies over time. Popularity is largely linked to success, both past and present.

They all have seen better and worse times, but the rancid elites (which nowadays include the 'so-called working class clubs' as much as any other) only really object to the newcomers because they'd rather a closed shop. Whensoever a club became more strongly supported or when it got cash injections isn't really all that important to me. Where's the legitimate cut-off point? 2010, 1993, 1970, 1945, 1923, 1900, 1887? Why should that matter.

comment by Randomer (U5245)
posted 12 hours, 33 minutes ago
Our net spend in the past 5 years is about £160m higher than Arsenal’s and that’s even after including Enzo. An average of about £30m a year.

Why then are we seen as putting ourselves in financial trouble while Arsenal are seen as frugal, sensible market operators when we’ve had CL revenue for four of the last five years and they haven’t been in it since what 2016/17?

The wages of our most recent signings are decent as well, with incentivised contracts and even the other big money signing Mudryk is on £97k/week base.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but the more relevant time period is surely under your new owners? And didn't you have a transfer ban for part of that, so you couldn't spend anyway. Just seems like cherry picking irrelevant information to make an argument .

Just looking at the list of the 10 most expensive transfers in history. I'd say probably half have been flops, so lets hope...

Has that loser Spurs fan called him Penzo yet?

comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 6 minutes ago
Has that loser Spurs fan called him Penzo yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to be A LOT more specific

comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 6 minutes ago
Has that loser Spurs fan called him Penzo yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to be A LOT more specific
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but there's one who's whole existence revolves around putting Pen in players and clubs names.

comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 6 minutes ago
Has that loser Spurs fan called him Penzo yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to be A LOT more specific
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, you are a Sali oldBag

Hey, I was going for Spurs fans

comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FFS Mike. (U1170)
posted 6 minutes ago
Has that loser Spurs fan called him Penzo yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to be A LOT more specific
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but there's one who's whole existence revolves around putting Pen in players and clubs names.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT TRUE.

Nowadays about a third of it involves inserting VAR into them.