You dont need him anyway.
"I don’t want him to go, that is my opinion and that is my wish"
"if you ask me do I want to sell him, I don’t want to.
"
Let me guess you read the daily star and the sun too
Would love Mata at Arsenal.
Marco
Door is open, what does that mean? you really being naive an't you?
Mata acts like he owns the place, if mourinho doesn't like him then mata can fck off
What does
"if you ask me do I want to sell him, I don’t want to."
mean to you?
Saying a player can leave if he doesn't feel happy but I hope he stays is drastically different to saying you've lost all interest in a player and the sooner he's out the door the better
Hahah....you trust that egomaniac arrogant maurren then? good for you..cheers.
Mata was very patient and showing sportsmanship so far but there is a limit and I won't blame him if he protest against maurren off or on the pitch. He has abilities and hopefully he will find right club which will respect his abilities.
Never mind I'm not really interested in talking to the Daily Mail's target audience to be honest
Mata? Yes please
Mata knows he has to play to get in the spanish national team.
I wouldn't argue or debate either with someone who think they know everything in football <ok?
Mata doesnt fit Chelsea style nor would I want a luxury player like him in our team
A player who gets stroppy because he has been subbed has an attitude problem. I don't see anything wrong with what Mourinho did or said.
Keep in mind Chelsea posted a £49m loss. They just escaped FFP censure because the previous year they made a profit of £1m.
This means they can't make a loss next year either. They have to sell to buy.
Chelsea can't buy the striker of their dreams unless someone buys Mata for a lot of money. Thats not going to happen so their hands are tied.
"Keep in mind Chelsea posted a £49m loss. They just escaped FFP censure because the previous year they made a profit of £1m.
"
We Made an FFP loss of £34m
"This means they can't make a loss next year either. They have to sell to buy.
"
No it doesn't
"Chelsea can't buy the striker of their dreams unless someone buys Mata for a lot of money."
Yes we can
Luxury player??? If Mata was at Arsenal he would start every week along with Ozil. He is better than Willian, Hazard, Ramires...what system maurren taking about?
I say you are nervous
Just warming up ain't we, let's add a striker to our horrible club led by an egomaniac with a sugar daddy who I can't wait till he leaves club and then you ll really Shiite yaself,
Mata is a good player but at the end if the day the team comes 1st, and Oscar did score and set 2up, so who was right, only one winner,
We can manage without him, is this what scares you
We Made an FFP loss of £34m
------------------
Only because FFP is averaged over a few years. Thats applies going forward as well as counting previous years. You cannot make a loss next year because the average of this year and next season will send you over the top.
You are wrong about selling to buy.
"Only because FFP is averaged over a few years. "
No it's because £15m of the money we loss was from expenses that aren't counted towards FFP
"You cannot make a loss next year because the average of this year and next season will send you over the top.
"
We can make a £12m loss
"You are wrong about selling to buy.
"
No I'm right we increased our revenue from the previous year despite the fact we had 1 off boosts like winning the CL and selling TV shares compared to last year where we went out of the CL in the group stage coupled with the fact in next years report we'll have an extra £10m from our shirt sponsor, an extra £30m from the increase in premier league tv money and I'd imagine a further increase in commercial revenue. This doesn't even take into account the fact you think transfers are counted as lump sells in ffp when they're actually amortised over the length of the players contract. We most definitely do not need to sell to buy to fund any transfers though we may need to sell to buy to free up squad spaces.
Chelsea can make a loss of something like £6M in the next year. Their days of big spending are over if they want to comply to FFP rulings. They will have to sell to buy.
We can make a £12m loss
----------------------
Fair enough. And how much are those dream strikers going to cost in wages, signing on bonuses and a fee? You are players are already on quite large wages and lengthy contracts.
The increase in general revenue has occurred across the board and that usually goes into player inflation. There is also a parallel self imposed premier league FFP that stops you increasing your wages by more than £4m from the TV money so you cannot count that.
You have to sell to buy.
That comment shows you clearly lack any knowledge of it
"There is also a parallel self imposed premier league FFP that stops you increasing your wages by more than £4m from the TV money so you cannot count that.
"
Good thing we're increasing our commercial revenue then isn't it
"You have to sell to buy.
"
No we don't we have to sell to free up squad places
Good thing we're increasing our commercial revenue then isn't it
-----------------
What an extra £10m from your shirt sponsor? Most of your players and manager in fact are already on £5m+ a year. Your problem is that you are already paying huge sums to your players.
The advantage that you and City had before the FFP rules was the ability to discount contracts for player sales. Very few clubs can afford to pay the players you have equal wages. Real Madrid have a similar problem thats why they were forced to sell Ozil, a player they would have kept in the past.
You cannot do that anymore and thats why you have to sell to buy. You can't give away players like you used to in the past and add it to you balance sheet as a write off.
"What an extra £10m from your shirt sponsor?"
We had a significant increase in commercial already which didn't even take into account our shirt sponsor
"Most of your players and manager in fact are already on £5m+ a year. "
No they're not and the ones that are are being disposed of
"You cannot do that anymore and thats why you have to sell to buy."
Well we can because the players on high salaries are on contracts that expire within a year or 2. And again we don't have to sell to buy we have to sell to free up squad places.
Stop acting like you understand Chelsea finances you don't
Sign in if you want to comment
Maurren and his logic.
Page 1 of 2
posted on 1/1/14
You dont need him anyway.
posted on 1/1/14
"I don’t want him to go, that is my opinion and that is my wish"
"if you ask me do I want to sell him, I don’t want to.
"
Let me guess you read the daily star and the sun too
posted on 1/1/14
Would love Mata at Arsenal.
posted on 1/1/14
Marco
Door is open, what does that mean? you really being naive an't you?
posted on 1/1/14
Mata acts like he owns the place, if mourinho doesn't like him then mata can fck off
posted on 1/1/14
What does
"if you ask me do I want to sell him, I don’t want to."
mean to you?
posted on 1/1/14
Saying a player can leave if he doesn't feel happy but I hope he stays is drastically different to saying you've lost all interest in a player and the sooner he's out the door the better
posted on 1/1/14
Hahah....you trust that egomaniac arrogant maurren then? good for you..cheers.
Mata was very patient and showing sportsmanship so far but there is a limit and I won't blame him if he protest against maurren off or on the pitch. He has abilities and hopefully he will find right club which will respect his abilities.
posted on 1/1/14
Never mind I'm not really interested in talking to the Daily Mail's target audience to be honest
posted on 1/1/14
Mata? Yes please
Mata knows he has to play to get in the spanish national team.
posted on 1/1/14
I wouldn't argue or debate either with someone who think they know everything in football <ok?
posted on 1/1/14
Mata doesnt fit Chelsea style nor would I want a luxury player like him in our team
posted on 1/1/14
A player who gets stroppy because he has been subbed has an attitude problem. I don't see anything wrong with what Mourinho did or said.
posted on 1/1/14
Keep in mind Chelsea posted a £49m loss. They just escaped FFP censure because the previous year they made a profit of £1m.
This means they can't make a loss next year either. They have to sell to buy.
Chelsea can't buy the striker of their dreams unless someone buys Mata for a lot of money. Thats not going to happen so their hands are tied.
posted on 1/1/14
"Keep in mind Chelsea posted a £49m loss. They just escaped FFP censure because the previous year they made a profit of £1m.
"
We Made an FFP loss of £34m
"This means they can't make a loss next year either. They have to sell to buy.
"
No it doesn't
"Chelsea can't buy the striker of their dreams unless someone buys Mata for a lot of money."
Yes we can
posted on 1/1/14
Luxury player??? If Mata was at Arsenal he would start every week along with Ozil. He is better than Willian, Hazard, Ramires...what system maurren taking about?
posted on 1/1/14
I say you are nervous
Just warming up ain't we, let's add a striker to our horrible club led by an egomaniac with a sugar daddy who I can't wait till he leaves club and then you ll really Shiite yaself,
Mata is a good player but at the end if the day the team comes 1st, and Oscar did score and set 2up, so who was right, only one winner,
We can manage without him, is this what scares you
posted on 1/1/14
We Made an FFP loss of £34m
------------------
Only because FFP is averaged over a few years. Thats applies going forward as well as counting previous years. You cannot make a loss next year because the average of this year and next season will send you over the top.
You are wrong about selling to buy.
posted on 1/1/14
"Only because FFP is averaged over a few years. "
No it's because £15m of the money we loss was from expenses that aren't counted towards FFP
"You cannot make a loss next year because the average of this year and next season will send you over the top.
"
We can make a £12m loss
"You are wrong about selling to buy.
"
No I'm right we increased our revenue from the previous year despite the fact we had 1 off boosts like winning the CL and selling TV shares compared to last year where we went out of the CL in the group stage coupled with the fact in next years report we'll have an extra £10m from our shirt sponsor, an extra £30m from the increase in premier league tv money and I'd imagine a further increase in commercial revenue. This doesn't even take into account the fact you think transfers are counted as lump sells in ffp when they're actually amortised over the length of the players contract. We most definitely do not need to sell to buy to fund any transfers though we may need to sell to buy to free up squad spaces.
posted on 1/1/14
Chelsea can make a loss of something like £6M in the next year. Their days of big spending are over if they want to comply to FFP rulings. They will have to sell to buy.
posted on 1/1/14
We can make a £12m loss
----------------------
Fair enough. And how much are those dream strikers going to cost in wages, signing on bonuses and a fee? You are players are already on quite large wages and lengthy contracts.
The increase in general revenue has occurred across the board and that usually goes into player inflation. There is also a parallel self imposed premier league FFP that stops you increasing your wages by more than £4m from the TV money so you cannot count that.
You have to sell to buy.
posted on 1/1/14
That comment shows you clearly lack any knowledge of it
posted on 1/1/14
"There is also a parallel self imposed premier league FFP that stops you increasing your wages by more than £4m from the TV money so you cannot count that.
"
Good thing we're increasing our commercial revenue then isn't it
"You have to sell to buy.
"
No we don't we have to sell to free up squad places
posted on 1/1/14
Good thing we're increasing our commercial revenue then isn't it
-----------------
What an extra £10m from your shirt sponsor? Most of your players and manager in fact are already on £5m+ a year. Your problem is that you are already paying huge sums to your players.
The advantage that you and City had before the FFP rules was the ability to discount contracts for player sales. Very few clubs can afford to pay the players you have equal wages. Real Madrid have a similar problem thats why they were forced to sell Ozil, a player they would have kept in the past.
You cannot do that anymore and thats why you have to sell to buy. You can't give away players like you used to in the past and add it to you balance sheet as a write off.
posted on 1/1/14
"What an extra £10m from your shirt sponsor?"
We had a significant increase in commercial already which didn't even take into account our shirt sponsor
"Most of your players and manager in fact are already on £5m+ a year. "
No they're not and the ones that are are being disposed of
"You cannot do that anymore and thats why you have to sell to buy."
Well we can because the players on high salaries are on contracts that expire within a year or 2. And again we don't have to sell to buy we have to sell to free up squad places.
Stop acting like you understand Chelsea finances you don't
Page 1 of 2