Would still be behind Mount, Pulisic, Havertz and Ziyech.
Think Chelsea will sell him in the summer as his value will be the highest it will ever be at Chelsea. Might go to Germany.
Mount will obviously stay but i wouldn't mind betting that 2 of the other 3 move on. Pulisic is always injured and neither of the other 2 have really impressed.
Chelsea also have way too many midfielders they don't really need if you factor in the likes of Barkley, Loftus-Cheek and Saul.
They'd be crazy to get rid of a 21 year old home grown international who (along with Mount) is now the top scoring English midfielder in the league.
Awesome talent that I hope will get away from Chelski. Borussia Dortmund should use 50% of the money they got for Sancho on Gallagher. Still think Spurs if they really had any ambition to improve would get Gallagher. Veira is getting the best out of Gallagher and Palace are a striker short of finishing top half.
If they could somehow manage to get 20,000 of them to donate, they would need to donate, on average, £2500 each to reach their target. So far the average donation is just over a tenner 😂
Chelsea will not be able to recall England midfielder Conor Gallagher, 21, from his loan at Crystal Palace in January because of a clause in his season-long deal saying they could only do so if he played in fewer than 50% of the Selhurst Park club's matches
Chelsea will not be able to recall England midfielder Conor Gallagher, 21, from his loan at Crystal Palace in January because of a clause in his season-long deal saying they could only do so if he played in fewer than 50% of the Selhurst Park club's matches
Chelsea will not be able to recall England midfielder Conor Gallagher, 21, from his loan at Crystal Palace in January because of a clause in his season-long deal saying they could only do so if he played in fewer than 50% of the Selhurst Park club's matches
Just like we had ,… oh nom, beggars can’t be choosers … fucking leagues apart … shameful shameful shameful
while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents.
And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.
Bromley Addicks meeting.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall
This is why I'm pleased he is doing well, no matter what club he plays for he wears his heart on his sleeve and works like it was his boyhood club every time.
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents.
And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.
Bromley Addicks meeting.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall
This is why I'm pleased he is doing well, no matter what club he plays for he wears his heart on his sleeve.
I'm not pleased he's doing well, he's playing for Palace
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Newcastle entered the chat.
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Gallagher is well above those players as he's already established himself as a quality PL player while owned by Chelsea. None of them were loaned to a PL club
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Newcastle entered the chat.
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
Barkley does seem like a very Newcastle player, but then have they already filled their 'England's next great midfielder who's gone on to be exactly as good as he was when he was a teenager' quota with Shelvey?
They may want more than that, though the lower you sell for the lower your eventual buyback as well, which Chelsea will bear in mind. If they demand £40m for him now then whoever gets him won't accept less than £80m as a buyback, and considering Chelsea view these sales essentially as a longterm daycare they might see a quick sale with affordable return as preferrable to a big fee. They could have got more for Guehi and Livramento in particular but chose to sell lower for return options.
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Newcastle entered the chat.
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
Barkley does seem like a very Newcastle player, but then have they already filled their 'England's next great midfielder who's gone on to be exactly as good as he was when he was a teenager' quota with Shelvey?
They may want more than that, though the lower you sell for the lower your eventual buyback as well, which Chelsea will bear in mind. If they demand £40m for him now then whoever gets him won't accept less than £80m as a buyback, and considering Chelsea view these sales essentially as a longterm daycare they might see a quick sale with affordable return as preferrable to a big fee. They could have got more for Guehi and Livramento in particular but chose to sell lower for return options.
But if he's already proved that he can do it at premier league level for a club who (unfortunately) will probably finish around 10th-12th, what else would they be expecting him to go and do to prove he's worthy of a place at Chelsea?
Unless they're going to sell him to a Spurs/Arsenal/West ham (5-8th type of club) then they might as well just keep him for 1 year and see what he can do with them? He's contracted until 2025 anyway.
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Newcastle entered the chat.
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
Barkley does seem like a very Newcastle player, but then have they already filled their 'England's next great midfielder who's gone on to be exactly as good as he was when he was a teenager' quota with Shelvey?
They may want more than that, though the lower you sell for the lower your eventual buyback as well, which Chelsea will bear in mind. If they demand £40m for him now then whoever gets him won't accept less than £80m as a buyback, and considering Chelsea view these sales essentially as a longterm daycare they might see a quick sale with affordable return as preferrable to a big fee. They could have got more for Guehi and Livramento in particular but chose to sell lower for return options.
But if he's already proved that he can do it at premier league level for a club who (unfortunately) will probably finish around 10th-12th, what else would they be expecting him to go and do to prove he's worthy of a place at Chelsea?
Unless they're going to sell him to a Spurs/Arsenal/West ham (5-8th type of club) then they might as well just keep him for 1 year and see what he can do with them? He's contracted until 2025 anyway.
I completely agree with you, but Chelsea are a weird club. Why sell Tomori to Milan when he's only 23 years old and has only fallen out of favour with the manager who based on history you know you're going to sack within two years anyway? Why allow Kevin de Bruyne and Mo Salah to be run out of the club by your angry nutcase manager when they were signed for a future that he definitely won't be part of? They got about £10m less for those two combined than they spent on Bakayoko. Why throw Lukaku in the bin and then buy him back for an additional £70m on top of what they spent to bring him in in the first place? Why spend 20 times more than you paid the first time on Matic to bring him back after you used him as a makeweight to bring in bloody David Luiz? They're insane basically, nothing they do makes sense.
while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents.
And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.
Bromley Addicks meeting.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall
This is why I'm pleased he is doing well, no matter what club he plays for he wears his heart on his sleeve.
I'm not pleased he's doing well, he's playing for Palace
I don't like who he is doing well for, but I want the best for him in his career, unless it is against us.
He is singlehandedly keeping them up this year. I love watching Conor play but this season is almost unbearable. The sooner he's back at Chelsea, the better.
My only hope is this is their relegation watershed moment, they struggle to replace him and eventually tumble down the leagues a la Scott Parker 2004. Hopefully that'll happen in one season rather than three.
already mentioned ? .. Chelsea are unable to recall Gallagher before the end of the season .. the loan deal specified that a recall could only take place if he'd played less than half the games at the time the recall was requested .. Gally has missed just one game so far and must surely be the first name down on the Palace team sheet for every game and will be for the rest of the season
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Newcastle entered the chat.
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
Barkley does seem like a very Newcastle player, but then have they already filled their 'England's next great midfielder who's gone on to be exactly as good as he was when he was a teenager' quota with Shelvey?
They may want more than that, though the lower you sell for the lower your eventual buyback as well, which Chelsea will bear in mind. If they demand £40m for him now then whoever gets him won't accept less than £80m as a buyback, and considering Chelsea view these sales essentially as a longterm daycare they might see a quick sale with affordable return as preferrable to a big fee. They could have got more for Guehi and Livramento in particular but chose to sell lower for return options.
But if he's already proved that he can do it at premier league level for a club who (unfortunately) will probably finish around 10th-12th, what else would they be expecting him to go and do to prove he's worthy of a place at Chelsea?
Unless they're going to sell him to a Spurs/Arsenal/West ham (5-8th type of club) then they might as well just keep him for 1 year and see what he can do with them? He's contracted until 2025 anyway.
I completely agree with you, but Chelsea are a weird club. Why sell Tomori to Milan when he's only 23 years old and has only fallen out of favour with the manager who based on history you know you're going to sack within two years anyway? Why allow Kevin de Bruyne and Mo Salah to be run out of the club by your angry nutcase manager when they were signed for a future that he definitely won't be part of? They got about £10m less for those two combined than they spent on Bakayoko. Why throw Lukaku in the bin and then buy him back for an additional £70m on top of what they spent to bring him in in the first place? Why spend 20 times more than you paid the first time on Matic to bring him back after you used him as a makeweight to bring in bloody David Luiz? They're insane basically, nothing they do makes sense.
It's always tough with Chelsea because they do like to buy a new player in rather than develop one themselves. They actually prefer to sell them and hover over them waiting to see if they become winners. If you look at the latest England u21 squads there's Marc Guehi, Clinton Mola, Jonathan Panzo, Tariq Lamptey and Tino Livramento who have been 'permanently' moved on by Chelsea with buy-back assumptions either inserted into the sale contract or at least stated openly. Gallagher and Colwill will probably go the same way. Chelsea's central midifield has Jorginho, Kovacic and Kante, with Loftus-Cheek and, weirdly, Barkley not looking terrible when they've played. Barkley has 18 months left on his deal and is on £110,000 a week somehow, so he's unsaleable and will remain unless he's willing to take less money, which he isn't. Saul will go but that still leaves Gallagher a lot of ground to make up. Chelsea will probably feel it's worth their time to sell him for £25m and buy him back for £40m later once someone else has rounded him off. If he develops great, if not it's £25m to spend on another failed striker.
Newcastle entered the chat.
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
Barkley does seem like a very Newcastle player, but then have they already filled their 'England's next great midfielder who's gone on to be exactly as good as he was when he was a teenager' quota with Shelvey?
They may want more than that, though the lower you sell for the lower your eventual buyback as well, which Chelsea will bear in mind. If they demand £40m for him now then whoever gets him won't accept less than £80m as a buyback, and considering Chelsea view these sales essentially as a longterm daycare they might see a quick sale with affordable return as preferrable to a big fee. They could have got more for Guehi and Livramento in particular but chose to sell lower for return options.
But if he's already proved that he can do it at premier league level for a club who (unfortunately) will probably finish around 10th-12th, what else would they be expecting him to go and do to prove he's worthy of a place at Chelsea?
Unless they're going to sell him to a Spurs/Arsenal/West ham (5-8th type of club) then they might as well just keep him for 1 year and see what he can do with them? He's contracted until 2025 anyway.
I completely agree with you, but Chelsea are a weird club. Why sell Tomori to Milan when he's only 23 years old and has only fallen out of favour with the manager who based on history you know you're going to sack within two years anyway? Why allow Kevin de Bruyne and Mo Salah to be run out of the club by your angry nutcase manager when they were signed for a future that he definitely won't be part of? They got about £10m less for those two combined than they spent on Bakayoko. Why throw Lukaku in the bin and then buy him back for an additional £70m on top of what they spent to bring him in in the first place? Why spend 20 times more than you paid the first time on Matic to bring him back after you used him as a makeweight to bring in bloody David Luiz? They're insane basically, nothing they do makes sense.
Gary, because of Putin's bitch; Money to burn or launder depending how you see it. We all know the story by now how he has used the Russian state money and thrown it at Chelsea. I detested Chelsea with a passion even before the Russian doll salesman who knew where the bodies were buried turned up.
Comments
Chelsea also have way too many midfielders they don't really need if you factor in the likes of Barkley, Loftus-Cheek and Saul.
They'd be crazy to get rid of a 21 year old home grown international who (along with Mount) is now the top scoring English midfielder in the league.
There is an obvious weaker link among the four of them.
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/66331/palace-fans-embarrassing-themselves-again/p1
Chelsea if they sell Gallagher (and i don't think they will) would certainly want a lot more than 25m, especially after this season. 25m these days gets you a top championship player. He's now a decent PL player and an England international.
The irony here is that if he was Palace's player, you can bet your life Chelsea would be one of the clubs wanting to sign him.
Couldn't care if he stays at Palace or stagnates in Chelsea hinterland
Unless they're going to sell him to a Spurs/Arsenal/West ham (5-8th type of club) then they might as well just keep him for 1 year and see what he can do with them? He's contracted until 2025 anyway.
My only hope is this is their relegation watershed moment, they struggle to replace him and eventually tumble down the leagues a la Scott Parker 2004. Hopefully that'll happen in one season rather than three.
Gary, because of Putin's bitch; Money to burn or launder depending how you see it.
We all know the story by now how he has used the Russian state money and thrown it at Chelsea. I detested Chelsea with a passion even before the Russian doll salesman who knew where the bodies were buried turned up.