Conflicting News About Duff From Chelsea and Tottenham
There have been conflicting news reports coming out of Stamford Bridge and White Hart Lane regarding Tottenham’s bid for the Chelsea winger.
Here’s what I know for sure:
- Tottenham are willing to pay 10 mil in order to ensure that Duff plays for them next year.
- Tottenham will have to finance the deal by selling one of their players – Defoe being the most likely option.
- Chelsea have already rejected a 5-7 mil bid by Tottenham and have asked for double that amount.
- Manchester United are NOT going to hijack the deal.
Now the conflicting bits are these:
- Some reports say that Mourinho has offered Duff an extension to his current contract (but at lower wages) and that he wants him to stay.
- Other reports are saying that Chelsea want to get rid of Duff – something that I find hard to believe.
- Some people have said that Tottenham do not have to sell in order to buy Duff but seeing how they have already racked up 20 mil worth of transfers, it seems that one sale would be necessary.
The real question is – does Duff really want to leave Chelsea and miss out on the Champions League in exchange for being guaranteed better wages and a guaranteed first-11 place?
Duff’s departure would make life easier for Robben and SWP, both of whom will get more starting opportunities. For SWP especially, this move will be a godsend.
Topics: Chelsea, Football Transfers, Tottenham
Football News 24/7
30 million. Are Spurs trying to BUY Champions League qualification?
July 18th, 2006 @ 11:59Teams like Charlton, Villa, Reading, Watford, Bolton… and several others… would be right to complain that the playing field is no longer level and teams with more cash than them, like Spurs, have an unfair advantage.
Football needs to do something about teams like Spurs who have so much more money than many of their rivals and BUY whatever success they can muster.
Sarcasm?
may i also introduce you to a sense of humour and irony, considering you support Chelsea and you should be the last person to talk about money…
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:11spurs recently agreed a new £20 million kit deal with puma, a £34million sponsorship deal with mansion, & have qualified for the uefa cup which means they have a lot of money to spend
Considering that last season they spent no more than was generated through the sales of simon davies & frederic knaoute and the £10 million compensation for Arnesen to Chelsea then it looks like spurs have a lot of wonga to spend.
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:13What planet are you on Cecil? You are complaining now, and about spurs, about teams buying success. Oh dear, that was the biggest laugh I’ve had all day.
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:14I cant even be bothered to explain it to you. Muppet.
Couldn’t of put it better myself Ahmed.
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:15Roger,
good point…
Muppet? can’t you come up with something better?
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:19What? are you joking? Spurs are hardly chelsea, man u spent that much alone on wayne rooney! Spurs have this money as they have consistent support and sell out week in week out, the board are backing a manager who had success last season with money which has been garnered through qualification to the UEFA cup, higher prize money from league position, new and better sponsorship deals and something which is over looked…previous player sales. Spurs may have brought a lot of players in but a lot have also left, players like micheal brown or pedro mendes whom spurs all made a profit from. I believe we in fact have before this season made an overall profit in the last couple of years in player movement! I’m not sure saying we must sell to balance the books is even correct though… we have quite a bit of cash laying around that we attempted to spend on torres last year, we have the sposorship deals, we have the money from Portsmouth buying our reserve teams. On the topic of portsmouth, why no complaint about them? they spent a great deal of money in January. Also spending lots o money does not make you successful. Newcastle until very recetly were very high spenders and have won nothing! Blackburn were relegated despite all the money they spent winning the league just a few years before. Outside of Chelsea (who in reality have too much money) obviously money aids improvement, but a good structure is just as efficient. Just because your club does not have this does not mean you should criticise others. Think before you speak.
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:23stevo….lmao
I’m not sure who you’re ranting against – me or Chelsea. Chelsea are building a youth system thanks to Arnesen while me — this is what I said:
– Some people have said that Tottenham do not have to sell in order to buy Duff but seeing how they have already racked up 20 mil worth of transfers, it seems that one sale would be necessary.
It’s from what I’ve heard and read. Thank you for shedding more light on it and correcting my facts.
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:29My rant was aimed at sir cecil and his ridiculous buying the UEFA cup/success concept. I think the newspapers suggest a necessary balancing of the books as it creates more transfer speculation and sells more papers. After all if spurs turned down a £12m offer from Portsmouth for defoe I do not see any loginc in suggesting they would accept the same from a club that over the next few years they hope to begin to rival.
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:33Why is it Chelsea fans always have comments to make when it comes to other teams spending money ?!?
I really dont understand why you think we can only spend £30mil plus if we sell our best players. Yes i do believe that Carrick might go but anything over £10million for him is fantastic business for a guy we paid less then £3mill for !
We are building a team for the future,and when the new ruling comes in that teams must field 5 UK players we will be laughing at teams like Chelsea and ARSEnal !
And when it comes to the likes of Duff, yes of course players would raither earn say £15,000 a week less and play every week, the Chumpions league isn’t the pinnicle of every players life, the world cup is ! Just ask Shawn Wright Phillips !
Dont be to surprised to see half you squad leave to get 1st team football over the coming years.
And i also wouldn’t be too surpised if Roman leaves once you win the league again to buy an F1 team, then where will you lot be ? a £4million a week wage bill, aging players that cant command a huge fee and you lot will be Leeds United X 10 !
Yes we might not be in the top 4 and yes it must be nice to win the league all the time, but given the choice between supporting the Spurs or a team with no soul i think i know who i’ll be supporting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on you Spurs !!!!!!!!
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:46oh my god what have i done…
you’ve given spurs fans a chance to vent their frustrations at chelsea, you fool…
July 18th, 2006 @ 12:51The HUGE difference between the spending of Spurs and Chelsea (despite the fact that Chelsea can afford to effectively throw away £30 million signing a 30 year old player) is that Spurs’ spending is generated through money raised by club through the traditional methods (i.e. sponsorship, gate revenue, prize money and player trading) – Spurs operate a sensible wage policy of 50% of turnover and generate a reasonable profit every year prior to player trading and amortisation. Chelsea on the other hand simply spend money straight out of Abramovich’s pocket and make a HUGE loss every year…. Of the sort of magnitude that is higher than 75% of the Premiership’s total turnover!
July 18th, 2006 @ 14:41Just to argue the point…
so what if Chelsea are using so much money? Is that wrong? They have it, might as well use it…
Not a chelsea fan..
July 18th, 2006 @ 14:51yes it is wrong… for one it effectively destroys and devalues the premiership as a spectacle for a number of years. I am not complaining whole heartedly about chelsea now, at least theyved stopped that french lot down the road winning the league for a few years! however has anyone ever watched the SPL? no one wants to play outside Rangers or Celtic there, and if CEltic walk away with it again then They will start to become such a dominant force then there league becomes a foregone conclusion slightly. As a man U fan u must be able to see this. Furthermore when abramovich ups n leaves, and he obviously will chelsea will probably be devestated, which will not be good for them or the league. OK i know kenyon is desperatly trying to work towards a balancing of the books sometime in the future, but this is never going to happen whilst ambramovich is in control for the simple reason that a player like SWP who was probably worth around £10m’s price inflates ridiculously when any interest is disclosed. Plus they pay mega wages. Ok i know the example of he SPL is a little extreme but you get my point…
July 18th, 2006 @ 15:15To emphasize what im trying to say read the quotation from Vincent Kompany about his apparent refusal to join chelsea….
Chelsea came in for me a year-and-a-half ago, but I refused, although I could have doubled what I had at Anderlecht,” said Kompany. “But I am not crazy, I saw enough examples of others. “Chelsea are a factory.”
1) are you more concerned with your team winning or the EPL being a good football spectacle? To put it another way, do you watch / follow league matches that don’t involve your team for the sake of watching football or because the result means something to you / your team?
2) With EPL, Chelsea’s dominance has already been cut. They had a much tougher time last season, and this time around it’s going to get harder. Tottenham, Liverpool, Arsenal – all these teams are much stronger than last year and while the Spurs lack the quality to win the title, they will be in with a shout for a CL place. The quality in the league is there, and what Chelsea have done is raised the standard of the game.
3) Abramovich leaving? He’ll sell it off to some other rich dude, I imagine.
4) Kompany is responding to negative Chelsea publicity more than others. And the specific people he is talking about…let’s see, SWP? A Roman Abramovich buy and a player who does not deserve to play ahead of Duff, Robben and Cole.
I hate to defend Chelsea here, but my gripe with them does not revolve around the money they have.
Money is a big part of the game. As long as it is there, you’ll have an uneven playing field.
July 18th, 2006 @ 15:32I am a Spurs fan and they certainly wont win the League next yr, that does not stop me enjoying the title race and certainly watching as many games as possible, as long as Arsenal arent too well positioned!! Some of the best seasons in the Premiership have been close run too and throw affairs that we havent had for 2 years. (ie Newcastle vs Man U). There will always be money to finance football yes but i think RA is on a different level and if there are so many rich blokes out there willing to buy up a football club and invest millions then why hasnt every premiership team got one? He may sell to some “other rich dude” but you’re being naive if you think that there are a queue of people as wealthy as Abramovich looking to buy a football team. I dont dislike chelsea particularly but i do not think they are entirely good for the game at the moment. There are some positives, they have forced other clubs to raise their standards yes, however look at what John Madjeski recently said… and he is another “rich dude” …. “After the ITV Digital debacle, when money that was going to be paid to the clubs suddenly wasn’t forthcoming, wages started becoming more normal,” Madejski said. “But then enter the theatre Mr Abramovich and it all started going up again.”
July 18th, 2006 @ 15:44http://home.skysports.com/list.asp?hlid=402934&CPID=8&CLID=108&lid=&title=Madejski+being+forced+out&channel=…..SO….chelsea obviously arent good for at least one club in the league