Lacroix

[ASCPFC]

Really disappointed in losing Lacroix. He said he wanted Champions League football. So why go to Chelsea? They're not in it!

Because double the wages means more.

 

[NEILLO]

Desailly not a fan of Lacroix!
"Is he what Chelsea really needs? I actually think they need a centre-back with more experience, a player that is already established and can come in and lead the defence," Desailly told Football London. "We need a real experienced leader at the heart of the defence."

Desailly stressed that Chelsea should be targeting players accustomed to the highest levels of the game. He added: "It’s a good move for Lacroix, but I really want to see them target a player who has played at an elite level for a similar-sized club as Chelsea, with similar pressures, not a player from a smaller club than Chelsea."

What Desailly doesn't appear to get is that so called '' elite players '' want to participate in elite competitions. Chelsea can't offer that immediately. They need to improve their squad so that they do qualify for Champions League in future. And they see Lacroix as part of that process. And he's certainly an improvement on what they currently have.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Really disappointed in losing Lacroix. He said he wanted Champions League football. So why go to Chelsea? They're not in it!

Concerned about the team at the moment. Premier League is a fiercely competitive league and I am not sure that the team is quite good enough at the moment.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

You talk about ‘the glass ceiling cannot be broken’ and in respect of us against the biggest clubs that’s true. But how much more joy did we feel after winning our three trophies?

Of course, but it would be better for that to be the possible begining of even better times than the end of that chapter before we go back to square one.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

Concerned about the team at the moment. Premier League is a fiercely competitive league and I am not sure that the team is quite good enough at the moment.

Relax.

For us to be in any serious relegation trouble we'd have to have sold our best players every year for three or four years, spent all the profits on a series of misfiring forwards who we couldn't give away let alone sell, have employed a manager with no experience of the country, let alone the league or the club, appointed a director of football whose last club imploded under the strain of awful player trading and then, just to tempt fate, have embarked on a huge redevelopment project thats only viable if we stay in the top flight at a time of wildly escalating costs.

Until then, we're fine.

 

[pssguy]

Really disappointed in losing Lacroix. He said he wanted Champions League football. So why go to Chelsea? They're not in it!

I suspect that for most of his contract length they will be. Hopefully, we meet up again there in 2027.28

 

[Palace Old Geezer]

Concerned about the team at the moment. Premier League is a fiercely competitive league and I am not sure that the team is quite good enough at the moment.

There speaks a proper Palace supporter.

 

[Bingee]

I hope we don't sell off our best players this summer, but if this one's transfer to Chelsea comes of for £50M plus then no great shakes for our defence.

 

[JessieJ]

I suspect that for most of his contract length they will be. Hopefully, we meet up again there in 2027.28

because I believe such comments are nothing but BS. It's all about salary and clearly one can no longer say "it's because I want to be selected for my country" as we had one of the best representations of any Eurpean club. Money money money.

 

[doombear]

because I believe such comments are nothing but BS. It's all about salary and clearly one can no longer say "it's because I want to be selected for my country" as we had one of the best representations of any Eurpean club. Money money money.

Yes it is about money but it's also about status, i.e., being able to say when you retire that you played for Chelsea or Man C or Arsenal or Liverpool or Manure rather than Palace or Brentford or Bournemouth etc.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

A paltry £52M for a French international with 3 years left on his contract and a replacement who will probably end up costing somewhere around £30M. A net profit of around £22M.

Does that seem like good business? The club obviously think so.

 

[doombear]

A paltry £52M for a French international with 3 years left on his contract and a replacement who will probably end up costing somewhere around £30M. A net profit of around £22M.

Does that seem like good business? The club obviously think so.

It depends on what lay behind the Lacroix exit price.

Was it:

• a release fee?
• a desperate need to balance the books after the January window fiasco?
• a need to get some money in quick so we can buy at least 2 other players this window?
• a belief that £52m (if that is indeed the amount) is a fair price?

If we get Matsima and if he settles quickly and proves to be at least as good as Lacroix then the £22m can be recycled to meet other needs.

The problem with a successful strategy of buying low and selling high is that clubs note your previous success and want to screw as much as they can out of you. Even that South Coast club are finding that now.

I'm trying to be generous to the board but it's difficult!

 

[Linford]

What Desailly doesn't appear to get is that so called '' elite players '' want to participate in elite competitions. Chelsea can't offer that immediately. They need to improve their squad so that they do qualify for Champions League in future. And they see Lacroix as part of that process. And he's certainly an improvement on what they currently have.

Indeed. He also doesn't seem to get that Lacroix has outperformed every Chelsea defender in every metric...

Or that Lacroix has been playing European football well enough to win a trophy...

Or that Lacroix would be leaving a club that is about to play another season in Europe, for a club that isn't playing in Europe.

 

[Linford]

Yes it is about money but it's also about status, i.e., being able to say when you retire that you played for Chelsea or Man C or Arsenal or Liverpool or Manure rather than Palace or Brentford or Bournemouth etc.

On the flip side "I achieved six trophies with a club expected to win none" sounds better than "I achieved ten trophies with a club expected to win twenty".

 

[Teddy Eagle]

On the flip side "I achieved six trophies with a club expected to win none" sounds better than "I achieved ten trophies with a club expected to win twenty".

And I used to play for a club whose fans actually supported their club and we're happy to win anything instead of this bunch of entitled dickbrains.

 

[Stirlingsays]

If it's 52 million that's poor compared to what I've heard for some players.

Recent transfer fees paid compared to received hasn't been looking good.

I still can't get over 48 million for Larson.

 

[Linford]

If it's 52 million that's poor compared to what I've heard for some players.

Recent transfer fees paid compared to received hasn't been looking good.

I still can't get over 48 million for Larson.

Everyone on here keeps saying 52, it's 51 according to Sky and all the other sites. Either way, it is indeed a poor fee for a player who is worth far more than that to us (and to the receiving team too frankly).

Yep, ins vs outs will start to look increasingly unjustifiable.

 

[ASCPFC]

Wake up Palace. No where near a good enough fee.
Do one Chelsea kunts.

 

[est1905]

Relax.

For us to be in any serious relegation trouble we'd have to have sold our best players every year for three or four years, spent all the profits on a series of misfiring forwards who we couldn't give away let alone sell, have employed a manager with no experience of the country, let alone the league or the club, appointed a director of football whose last club imploded under the strain of awful player trading and then, just to tempt fate, have embarked on a huge redevelopment project thats only viable if we stay in the top flight at a time of wildly escalating costs.

Until then, we're fine.

The current squad was good enough to win a European trophy and stay away from any serious relegation problems all season. Out of that squad we have added a decent young Spanish lad and look to have sold Lacroix (but close to replacing him with a lad that is potentially even better)
Sage has no experience of the Premiership (neither did Glasner)
As for the Main stand redevelopment I think financially there is never a good time to spend that kind of money but thats one of the good things about having three billionaires on the board. I know people will scoff and say they haven't spent big up to now why would thety if we got into trouble? Answer, only an idiot would not spend a modest sum to protect their investment if they felt it necessary. These men are not idiots.

 

[Willo]

The current squad was good enough to win a European trophy and stay away from any serious relegation problems all season. Out of that squad we have added a decent young Spanish lad and look to have sold Lacroix (but close to replacing him with a lad that is potentially even better)
Sage has no experience of the Premiership (neither did Glasner)
As for the Main stand redevelopment I think financially there is never a good time to spend that kind of money but thats one of the good things about having three billionaires on the board. I know people will scoff and say they haven't spent big up to now why would thety if we got into trouble? Answer, only an idiot would not spend a modest sum to protect their investment if they felt it necessary. These men are not idiots.

Absolutely correct, however Glasner arrived at our club on the back of 10 years in management and was successful at Wolfsburg and Eintracht Frankfurt leading to the latter to a European Trophy.
Sage has limited managerial experience and that in Ligue 1 which is not viewed as challenging as the Bundesliga. I accept that Sage was successful with Lens last season.