• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mykhailo Mudryk

ShipOfGoldblum said:
It’s not going to be that binary, though, is it?

The question next year is more likely to be whether he is competent enough as a back-up to whoever the starting LW is by then.
Click to expand...

Either way, I don’t really see the problem - we have him for a season now. Let’s hope he does well and that we sign him. Let’s see come June whether he’s worth signing or not, why worry about that now?
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Love the 'talent ain't enough' tattoo... probably not the best words to have on display when you're up on a doping charge :)
Click to expand...

It does make you question his intelligence. Who has that scrawled on their neck like that?? Oh well. Thankfully football is more about physical attributes and instinct!

The obvious question: was he good because of the drugs and without them he plateaus and becomes pretty ordinary? If this is the case, we'll just send him back. I know many are offended by this, but Messi without the Hormone injections wouldn't be the same player. Meldonium isn't as powerful a drug it aids endurance and energy levels rather than muscle growth. Duracell bunny, keeps you running, giving you that edge. It can also be psychosomatic, giving you belief you are better subconsciously.

Quite plausible Mudryk was taking Meldonium whilst playing in Ukraine. Will be interesting to see how he does. We probably have nothing to lose on this, with Chavs paying some of his wages or a low/no loan fee. Very little risk for us really.
 
Daisuk said:
Either way, I don’t really see the problem - we have him for a season now. Let’s hope he does well and that we sign him. Let’s see come June whether he’s worth signing or not, why worry about that now?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the transfer fee could be renegotiated. If the loan terms are good, what do we lose? Very little. We could even loan him again next season if he does well and only has eyes for us and RDZ. Lots of options for the club in truth. It is more about whether he can perform now.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The £75m clause makes it binary though.

He's gonna need to look like Doue for us to pay that.
Click to expand...

I don’t think he will need to look Doue level. We paid £75m for Savio and he’s hardly looked Doue level has he?

If Mudryk thrives for us, delivering excitement, goals and assists, and significant in those three, then we will pay the money for him and he will be our first choice.

The one awkward point could be if he has a better second half to the season. Not crazy wow but enough to think he may have stepped up. Then do we pay £75m for what could be a 3-4 month form period?

Either way I hope that he amazes everyone and makes £75m the deal of the year.
 
billyiddo said:
I think the 75m buy clause really tips the balance of this deal to being a poor one. If he shows himself to be a good player we'll have to pay a premium to keep him - having been the ones who have done the work to get him firing - if we choose not to buy him in that instance we've essentially built up a Chelsea asset for them to either use or make a sizeable book profit on.

Whoever negotiated this one needs their position reviewed
Click to expand...
It's the opposite of that - it's trying before you buy.
For reference - Ndombele is currently a free agent.
 
I sincerely hope the loan fee is minimal and we're not paying his full wage. He seems like a pretty unsavoury character on top of never having done anything in the league.

A few choice comments from a Cheatski board after he was banned from an online video game earlier this year:

"It’s him or Lukaku for our worst transfer ever"
"Can't the board loan him to the Ukrainian army?"
"I simply don't understand the subset of you who desperately hope he comes good. He's been terrible on the pitch and terrible off it - there's literally nothing redeemable about this clown."
"I think most of us just want him to be good so that when the ban is over, we loan him out and then sell him for a nonzero fee"
"He was always an awful player for us aside from the debut vs Liverpool"
"Everytbing felt off about this guy from the second he signed. The bizarre posts about Arsenal when he was at Shahktar, the weird unveiling he had. Strange guy"
"Turned out to be fudging useless to top it all off"
"Worst transfer in Chelsea history."
"Mudryk is the toxic combination of arrogance and stupidity. I hope to hear a “mutual termination agreement” soon"
"Such an unlikable person. Hope he never wears our jersey ever again. fudging embarassment."
"The worst player we’ve had at this club. How there are some fans that still try to back him is beyond me."
"Bro was ass on the field, he's an ass off the field. Loan him to the MLS where he'll still be ass."
"In a world where Ukrainians can do no wrong we found the one."
 
I'm not overly concerned. Probably just a spot of old-fashioned fraud. With the nonsense we've seen recently, he could defy the stats, do very well and we might have to buy him for £75m and then sell them a few Beyoncé tickets and a box of Cream Eggs for £55m. The lad is pacey, has a few tricks and once upon a time he had more assists than our whole squad in one season. Okay, it was only about 5 but hey ho. Think 'cover'...
 
Daisuk said:
If he’s a hit, we get him, if he’s brick, we send him back. I don’t see the issue. Clearly a very talented player. Blossomed under RDZ before, can do it again. Has extreme speed and is a very good dribbler.

I’m quite excited about him. Hope people in the stands support him.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
It is really simple and binary.
If he performs well enough to show he's worth £75m, we pay that.
If he doesn't then we pay for someone else.
 
kendoddsdadsdog said:
I sincerely hope the loan fee is minimal and we're not paying his full wage. He seems like a pretty unsavoury character on top of never having done anything in the league.

A few choice comments from a Cheatski board after he was banned from an online video game earlier this year:

"It’s him or Lukaku for our worst transfer ever"
"Can't the board loan him to the Ukrainian army?"
"I simply don't understand the subset of you who desperately hope he comes good. He's been terrible on the pitch and terrible off it - there's literally nothing redeemable about this clown."
"I think most of us just want him to be good so that when the ban is over, we loan him out and then sell him for a nonzero fee"
"He was always an awful player for us aside from the debut vs Liverpool"
"Everytbing felt off about this guy from the second he signed. The bizarre posts about Arsenal when he was at Shahktar, the weird unveiling he had. Strange guy"
"Turned out to be fudging useless to top it all off"
"Worst transfer in Chelsea history."
"Mudryk is the toxic combination of arrogance and stupidity. I hope to hear a “mutual termination agreement” soon"
"Such an unlikable person. Hope he never wears our jersey ever again. fudging embarassment."
"The worst player we’ve had at this club. How there are some fans that still try to back him is beyond me."
"Bro was ass on the field, he's an ass off the field. Loan him to the MLS where he'll still be ass."
"In a world where Ukrainians can do no wrong we found the one."
Click to expand...
I assume, for Chelsea fans to hate his off-field activities, that he's a quiet fella who volunteers at homeless shelters and donates to charities.
Do they cite specifics?
 
monkeybarry said:
It's the opposite of that - it's trying before you buy.
For reference - Ndombele is currently a free agent.
Click to expand...

What i have described is try before you buy? Only in this instance it comes with a hefty price tag if he shows himself to be good. Given his situation that price tag really should have been much better set from our perspective. 30m +/-.

He'd have not been given a chance to play if we hadn't come in and his already low value would have sunk even further. Yet we've agreed to a 75m buy clause if he turns out good - laughable


Edit:
We'd have probably been better off buying him at his current value, which must be virtually nothing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back