What's new

Conor Gallagher

guy

SC Supporter
May 31, 2007
4,517
6,193
But why would he come to us when loads of itks have said he wouldn’t go near us because him and his family are all Chelsea?
It’s not like we’d offer him more cash or even a guaranteed starting spot as if all our lot in midfield are fit or not suspended I don’t actually see where he fits in.
Interestingly, all reports point to him being on 50k a week currently, so we could double that easily for him.
 

rabbikeane

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2005
7,128
13,357
Sorry for a dumb question but I haven’t really seen a lot of him. How good is he?

Do we rate him?

From what I can tell our fan base is fairly divided about him. However, he is regular in the England squad. Many Chelsea supporters hold him as their best player this season. On Sofascore (stats driven) only Maddison and Son has higher rating this season from Spurs. On loan at Palace allowed to be attacking, he scored 8 league goals from midfield. Apparently he was one of two players Ange asked the club to sign by name last summer. He's versatile and hard working, all-rounder, from my opinion would give us bit of the same as Sarr does creating space for others and cover Porro - we noticed when Sarr was missing.
 

rabbikeane

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2005
7,128
13,357
FFP rules means that selling him for 50 allows them to spend up to 250. Academy product means they can list him as full profit, while new players signed are spread over 5 years in the FFP records.
 

Ron Burgundy

SC Supporter
Jun 19, 2008
7,971
24,500
I’m slightly torn on this one. I think he’s a pretty good player, who would likely get in our first XI and has loads of attributes that would be additive. I also think he’ll improve over time given his work ethic.

I also think he’s in a position where we’re pretty bloody strong already (I can even see Deki moving into a more central position permanently, and he would, to a degree even overlap with him in that scenario), I think he would somewhat stunt Sarr’s growth, and I can’t help thinking that there are other positions which need strengthening more.

If we get him, great. If we don’t, it’s not a crying shame. CB and wing, arguably even CF are more pressing for me.

And…there’s a few outgoings I think we need to sort too. This window could be very productive, but our new team will need to earn their stripes. Let’s see
 

marion52

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2006
1,756
2,686
That’s right, they won’t sell Reece James but they’ll 100% sell Gallagher
Reece James is injured and going to have an op to cure his ongoing hamstring problem ! (Off topic)
Gallagher is their captain- they won’t sell him !
 

Booney

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2004
2,844
3,596
People forgetting that Chelsea have a new chairman and executive structure. The grudges against Spurs may well have left with the old lot.

Plus we have secret agent Poch installed on the inside now…
 

Cambridge Spur

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2015
458
1,453
I personally don’t want him. He’d expect to start and I wouldn’t put him ahead of any of our midfield options. Plus he’s a Chelsea lad just being forced out for FFP, I just can’t warm to the idea.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
35,108
87,557
I don't think he improves us at all.

I like his workrate and his tenacity but for me it's a no.
True on the 1st team improvement.

But buying a player who is an improvement on Bissouma, Bentancur or Sarr will be very difficult.

We need a quality 4th option.

If Gallagher has the right mentality for his place in the squad, regular football but not a guaranteed starter, he could be a good option.
 

ComfortablyNumb

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2011
4,129
6,362
FFP rules means that selling him for 50 allows them to spend up to 250. Academy product means they can list him as full profit, while new players signed are spread over 5 years in the FFP records.
Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s bollocks, isn’t it?

Balancing a spend of £250M over 5 years would require them to sell an academy player for £50M every year, for 5 years, wouldn’t it?
 

Spursmatty87

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2016
1,975
5,210
Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s bollocks, isn’t it?

Balancing a spend of £250M over 5 years would require them to sell an academy player for £50M every year, for 5 years, wouldn’t it?
Yep that’s correct. They are kicking the can down the road a bit like Barca keep doing. I think Chelsea have to find £75m a year as it is to keep going.
 

mr ashley

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
3,250
8,855
Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s bollocks, isn’t it?

Balancing a spend of £250M over 5 years would require them to sell an academy player for £50M every year, for 5 years, wouldn’t it?
Well they’re trying…
Mount
Loftus cheek
Hudson odoi
Ampadu
Livramento

and as well as Gallagher they’ve made chalobah available
 

zonbon32

Girth X Length
Jun 18, 2009
353
2,295
Would give us a pretty strong cover option across the 8 roles IMO.
We've seen the drop off when Sarr & Madders haven't played this year, signing this guy would go some way to negating that. Covers ground well, pressing machine and can score goals, he won't be first choice but a pretty significant upgrade on Skipp obviously and with Europe looking likely next year it would be good to be able to field stronger teams in ECL/EL if that's where we end up.
 

guy

SC Supporter
May 31, 2007
4,517
6,193
Straight replacement for PEH in my view. He is younger, HG and more versatile. Apart from him being Chelsea, there's nothing to dislike about the deal.
 
Top