Presumably they could make changes, to either the current cycle or for future years, at the AGM this summer.
Presumably they could make changes, to either the current cycle or for future years, at the AGM this summer.
My understanding is that there were a few options discussed at the last PL meeting, and someone was asked to model how those options would look and present them at the next AGM where they might decide to adopt one of them - with it coming in from 25/26 season at the earliest.
I wonder whether we are thinking about selling CHO to get us under the limit for the current cycle, so that we can hold onto MGW and Murillo for another season?
I'm quite curious about how he feels about being in Nottm and his time. I recall from an interview that he thought it had helped him getting out of London. He's calmer and more able to focus on football. If he really thinks it's helped, then he may not want to leave yet. Probably thinks another season here would do his career good.
The optimal solution to our problem should probably have been Worrall, sadly. And given all that happened, it's not going to work out to anyone's satisfaction.
People say stuff for the audience in interviews. If he moves to Spurs, he'll be saying that the year out of London did him a world of good and reset his priorities but it was good to be back.
He did well and the signs that he can come back to where he was are certainly more promising than where they were 12 months ago, but he still failed to start 20 games. In the season before he started 7 (in Germany), 11 before that, and 10 before that.
He has a lot to prove still and he
still comes with risk, so if Spurs want to spend an amount on him which will cure our financial problems for next season (and definitely if it means we can keep MGW and Murillo for another year) selling is a no-brainer and exactly the sort of sensible business we should be doing.
I agree the London comment will likely have no bearing at all, although he did choose us over Fulham and he had clearly wanted out of Chelsea, Spurs would likely be a move too good to turn down.
He did well and the signs that he can come back to where he was are certainly more promising than where they were 12 months ago, but he still failed to start 20 games. In the season before he started 7 (in Germany), 11 before that, and 10 before that.
He has a lot to prove still and he
still comes with risk, so if Spurs want to spend an amount on him which will cure our financial problems for next season (and definitely if it means we can keep MGW and Murillo for another year) selling is a no-brainer and exactly the sort of sensible business we should be doing.
Which raises the question of what would someone realistically pay and to what extent does it solve our problems, especially as it isn't clear how much of any fee would go to Chelsea as a sell on clause?
You would hope that is the discussion that those making the decision would have when any offer is received.
You would hope...
Not a trusted source, but this would be mad.
Looks like a site you can write your own stories on?
When you click on the ellipsis you get a sample page
It's not reported anywhere else, but I'll leave it up for giggles.
If it was true our owners certainly wouldn't be short of money
Edit - if all of these people existed
If it was true our owners certainly wouldn't be short of money
Edit - if all of these people existed
The yank mentioned was one of the founding fathers ...
TBF he does also appear to be a Denver Billionaire