Bimfo: Evans better than Cahill

U see why we have to go back to worshipping SANGO(god of thunder)

Dhellake: And one fool was comparing that shitty Evans to Gary Cahill just last week

Dhellake: . But It's Chelsea Ruining Football Since'03

hensben: Man u is evil, they are paying for the cheat SAF did for 27 years, have you asked yourself why man utd have so many english players in their team even when they are average players, he sign them just to get favours and help from referee and english FA and it works for him over the years. He let tevez go just to have welbeck, he let cr7 go just to have young, he let pique go just to have evans, he let pogba go just to have cleverly(they even called him new paul scholes,lol), he benched chicharito for welbeck for full season, welbck scored just 2 goals while chicharito scored 15 goals from substitute in same season...Tevez hated him till this time, cos he used him as scape goat and discarded him, ...When he was asked why he dosent use african players, he said and i quote 'africans doesnt have world class talent, only drogba and essien are world class from there', he made this statement before the emergence of yaya toure. So you see, he is also a racist.

Same reason mikel never signed for him but people think he went to chelsea for money, chelsea have good relationship with black players mostly, africans right from history, this reason made mikel to change his mind and as you all can see, he did the right thing, else, SAF would have discarded him for long just like quinton fortune, djemba djemba, miram diouf, manucho and pogba. Mikel wouldnt have have any medals or trophies, he would have been forgotten by now just like other africans that went there.

SailorXY:
ok

lalaboi: Mata - £37m
Shaw - £30m
Herrera - £28.8m
Fellaini - £27.5m
Di Maria - £60m

But Manchester City and Chelsea are ruining football. They are 'Buying the trophies too'

coogar:

the difference is - united are actually spending the money their brand is generating - unlike chelsea/man city who rely on sugardaddies.

if the chelsea brand is where the money is coming from, no one would give a fück. no one criticises madrid for what they spend - they don't rely on any sugardaddy. spend the money your club generates, leave abramovic out of it.

Bimfo: Evans better than Cahill

U see why we have to go back to worshipping SANGO(god of thunder)

coogar:

the difference is - united are actually spending the money their brand is generating - unlike chelsea/man city who rely on sugardaddies.

if the chelsea brand is where the money is coming from, no one would give a fück. no one criticises madrid for what they spend - they don't rely on any sugardaddy. spend the money your club generates, leave abramovic out of it.

coogar:

the difference is - united are actually spending the money their brand is generating - unlike chelsea/man city who rely on sugardaddies.

if the chelsea brand is where the money is coming from, no one would give a fück. no one criticises madrid for what they spend - they don't rely on any sugardaddy. spend the money your club generates, leave abramovic out of it.

Bimfo:
Thats a Lie! The Only time Abramovic spent alot of Money was when he bought Chelsea.. From the Year 2004-2012, there was no English Club that got money from UEFA than Chelsea, that alone has boosted the Sponsorship revenue generated from our Brand.. (pls dont tell me to look for Link, google is ur friend)

And Y should we leave abramovic out of it?? Is He not the Owner of the Club?

lalaboi:
Deviating from the point.
Regardless where the Money is coming from, You are overspending on what is neccesary. Teams who have done that in the past have all been crucified for destroying the game by rival fans like yourself.

United spending what they Make? when they still have huge debts they are servicing from the Glazer takeover of 05. . .
Make una dey decieve unaselves

coogar:

the difference is - united are actually spending the money their brand is generating - unlike chelsea/man city who rely on sugardaddies.

if the chelsea brand is where the money is coming from, no one would give a fück. no one criticises madrid for what they spend - they don't rely on any sugardaddy. spend the money your club generates, leave abramovic out of it.

Dhellake: Torres move to Milan is looking more and more likely, I go dey happy die if the deal goes through

coogar:

your brand is animal shyte - how many sponsors do you have? what's your revenue & your turnover every season? how much do you make at the gate? your stadium is only 40,000 and you don't even fill it to capacity....

your shirt sponsors are one of the cheapest of all elite teams in europe. united's DHL deal alone for training kit is much more than what samsung is paying for your football shirt. this is the difference between united & sugar-daddy clubs like chelsea & man city.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/1657395_image_jpeg9f360c5ab7736510df54c882e9dbf188

united are spending the money generated organically by the club itself. chelsea are spending the money abramovic is pumping in through his shady oil deals in russia. it's solely because of chelsea & city that UEFA introduced the FFP.




football doesn't work that way, i'm afraid. reasons why FFP came into existence to curb the excesses of sugar daddies. clubs should only spend the money club generates on it's own. criminals with oil money shouldn't buy clubs and use the clubs to launder ill-gotten wealth. it destroys the essence of sportsmanship!


if united spend £20 billion in a transfer window, it's their money & it's theirs to spend as they please.




the success on the pitch in the last 20 years provided the money united are spending today. if a club that finished 7th can cajole adidas to shell out £750m on shirts alone then shame on chelsea & man city.

where are your own corporate sponsors? are your under any restriction to get sponsors? teams who have overspent in the past were crucified cos the money came from a sugardaddy. the point here is chelsea fc should generate his own huge revenue & spend it like the other top clubs.



that debt is like a mortgage......
there's no rush to pay it off completely. it's like your house - as long as you are meeting up with the monthly payment, who the heck cares. what's the value of man utd in comparison to their debt?

you are having a laugh or you're clueless about corporate accounts!

coogar: you are having a laugh or you're clueless about corporate accounts!

hensben: what difference does it make huh, sugar daddy or no sugar daddy its money that is been spent,moreover, man u have a sugar daddy too(glaziers family). chelsea is a big club now deal with it, madrid is collecting money from government thereby, making spanish people to be poor, they are been sanction for it now, go ask what franco(a madridster) did to other club in spain in favor of madrid,he(franco) was a fascist, they(madrid) are owning a huge debt, same with man u,SAF, referee and english FA, chelsea none.

hensben: you are just consoling yourself, the truth is that if man u continue like this, they will loose many of this endorsement #facts, thats football for you..so, tell your club to continue splashing cash or else...

coogar:

so how much of the glazers money have been spent on united? do you people just sprout nonsense from your mouth cos you love the sound of your voice or what?

that united are even broke today is because of the leveraged take-over by the glazers. not a single penny of theirs has been put in man utd. it's the united brand that is the cash cow providing the funds the club has been operating on.




contrary to your stance, it was the season united finished 7th that adidas decided to splash £750m on a 10-year deal.... bayern was ignored, chelsea was ignored. united have a £75m per year deal while chelsea are on £30m per year......same shirt-maker!

y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. if i post all the sponsors of man utd on this thread, NL will crash. don't ever compare.....there's a universe of difference between united & chelsea when it comes to the commercial brand.

what's chelsea's value? what's united's value??

coogar: the success on the pitch in the last 20 years provided the money united are spending today. if a club that finished 7th can cajole adidas to shell out £750m on shirts alone then shame on chelsea & man city.

where are your own corporate sponsors? are your under any restriction to get sponsors? teams who have overspent in the past were crucified cos the money came from a sugardaddy. the point here is chelsea fc should generate his own huge revenue & spend it like the other top clubs.



that debt is like a mortgage......
there's no rush to pay it off completely. it's like your house - as long as you are meeting up with the monthly payment, who the heck cares. what's the value of man Utd in comparison to their debt?

you are having a laugh or you're clueless about corporate accounts!

Report: Torres would need to take paycut to go to Milan

By Graham MacAree
@MacAree on Aug 27 2014, 12:53p
According to Football Italia , who are citing AC Milan's official television channel*, the club and Fernando Torres are €2.5 million apart on completing a deal, widely reported to be a one-year loan move.
Milan naturally want the striker, Chelsea's most expensive player, to take a significant pay cut (my guess is that following Italian convention the €2.5 million cited is actually the cut to Torres' net wages) in order to be willing to bring him to the San Siro; Torres equally naturally doesn't want to leave any money on the table.

*And therefore presumably not making this up.

It's unclear how much of a subsidy Chelsea would be willing to pay to hasten Torres towards the exit, if indeed they're willing to contribute any money at all. Ditching the 30-year-old is an exercise in saving money, after all, and since he'll need replacing the margins are pretty slim. But that Milan are apparently willing to pay €5.5 million of Torres' net €8 million per year wages (about 70 percent) is promising, and should they manage to talk him even a little way down from his wage demands Chelsea contributing some money (or indeed Marco van Ginkel) to the cause doesn't seem so implausible. As to the talk of a loan ... that we're hearing so much about fees and salary figures suggest otherwise to me. But this is a slightly confused situation, and until it's closer to a resolution we won't have a particularly clear picture of what's happening.

AirborneLacer: Romeu departs and Mikel stays? Ginkel departs and Mikel stays?

It doesn't make sense!

Tval:

I am not sure Ginkel wants to leave.

Tval: We have been drawn to play at home against Bolton in the Capital one cup.