Have to sell some of the 40 players they have on loan.
It was generally reported that they were in the clear financially after selling Hakimi and getting a couple of other decent sized contracts off the books, so I suspect it was more the latter. Conte gone, a great source of chances in Hakimi gone, question marks over Erikson…you can see a striker worrying about what it would like the following season. You can also imagine a sense of concern that other in demand players like Barella might have been on the verge and trying to make your own move after them would make it that much harder to convince inter to let you go.
It’s not a great circumstance to find your next good move so you can understand how he might have jumped at something that seemed great and then only a few months later be second guessing it, especially given that Inter are still doing well.
Reece James has torn a hamstring
Neco. 40M.
Fixed for a more accurate valuation 
That’s the difference between us and Chelsea in a nutshell, we have to make do they just buy someone new.
Read this somewhere:
“The only thing Lukaku has over Giroud is pace and he uses most of that to chase his own bloody first touch.”
Brutal 
Chelsea Football Club have welcomed the CPS ruling the term ‘Rent boy’ is now classed as a homophobic slur and anyone using it is liable to prosecution.
As ever, the irony and hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.
Sounds like a good move.
Never knew what it stands for but apparently, it is not only a homophobic slur:
I will have to take you through history before answering your question. So bear with me.
Firstly a “rent boy” is a popular colloquialism for a male prostitute. Rumour has it that sometime in the 1980s, a police raid at the dawn of the morning revealed a Chelsea hooligan lying in bed with a male prostitute or a “rent boy”.
At that time the notorious Chelsea hooligan firm called the Chelsea Headhunters had a popular chant named 'Chelsea Aggro". After the incident was read in the tabloids, rival fans, mainly the supporters of clubs from Manchester & Liverpool replaced the word ‘Aggro’ with ‘rent boys’. Ergo, the chant ‘Chelsea rent boys’.
Another reason why the chant was popularised by rival fans was because the Earl’s Court area in London, near Stamford Bridge, was a spot to pick up male prostitutes, apparently.
And since Roman Abramovich took over the club in 2003, the club has had a massive influx of money and they have been heavily investing in world-class players since then. Chelsea FC as a whole, do not have the same glorious past of clubs like Manchester United or Liverpool. So rival fans hypothesize that the money is the only motivation for a player who wants to join Chelsea. Therefore any player who could have opted for a more traditional club but instead joins Chelsea, is branded a ‘rent boy’.
Recently many LGBT supporter groups have been protesting for the banning of the chant as they believe it projects homophobic sentiments
Having said that, scousers are there to insult in every way and form as they can …
That may be so and I have no problem with it.
The irony being Chelsea have a fanbase that is as vile, disgusting and racist as any other clubs’ in this country.
I look forward to Chelsea Football Club condemning their own supporters whenever they next transgress, be it on the Paris underground or the away end at Anfield.
Call them racist cunts then.
No reason to think they won’t
High profile incident that was all over the news, couldn’t really do anything else.
Like I said, be it on the Paris underground or the away end at Anfield. Their silence has been deafening for decades, I wont hold my breath.
They’ve actually spent most of the last year introducing a new anti-racism campaign.
Could and should have been done a lot more a lot sooner, but that goes for most clubs to be fair.
I find it strange that it’s considered a homophobic slur. The phrase specifically says a male prostitute, not a gay male prostitute. I always considered the phrase as explained in the article above, in that you are prostituting yourself solely for the money (rent). I find the insult part as being seen as a prostitute, the sexuality of the prostitution seems secondary. Maybe it’s just me, if I’m a gay prostitute or straight prostitute, the insult is surely the prostitute part?
There’s a good article here which explains it pretty thoroughly
Nice explanation, just don’t buy it. It seems to have, over the years, morphed into something that it wasn’t intended to be. I don’t sing it, so it doesn’t matter to me personally. I don’t particularly think it’s a chant (non orientation version) is adequately insulting enough for that lot. I have always loved English football, particularly Liverpool, because of the songs about ourselves, don’t really care that much about songs directed towards other teams. I can also appreciate/tolerate the chants that aren’t specifically directed towards ethnicity or marginalized groups, eg, he’s got a big fat head (ok), he’s a fat **** waiter (bad).
As someone has already alluded to, scouse chants seem to be fair game, so some consistency please.