Tosin & Mudryk deals with Chelsea

[Finney Is Back]

Come on mate, there is almost zero upside here?

- Why are we helping Chelsea, for no real gain for us?
- Tosin, even if he is marginally better than Danso (I don't think so), is still an unknown for us, Danso was one less thing to worry about in a season of extreme change. And he comes with Chelsea baggage.
- Mudryk is done, he was a brick Timo Werner at his best, know he hasn't played competitive football since 2024 (people on this board are on about Deki/Kudus/Maddison never getting back to their best, this guys best wasn't good enough and he's isn't getting there)

So
- The club has failed to control the manager (this was a moment to keep balance in the relationship, sorry we didn't get our first or second choice, we try again in Jan)
- We brought toxicity into the club (this conversation is highlighting it) at a point we really don't need it
- We help Chelsea
- We sign a stupid option to buy for a garbage player at a ludicrous price (so media gets to laugh at us more)

The fan base would have been 100% happier with fudging Hardy & LWB in the squad over these two.

Danso asked to go, Toisin is perhaps a better fit for De Zerbi (better passer) and we’ll make a net profit on the two deals, nothing to hate here IMO.

Mudryk hasn’t been out injured like the others you mentioned,, so coming back is less of a question mark. At his best he was a player that Arsenal bid about £60m for and Chelsea paid £80m for. I think he’s fine as 2nd/3rd cover until Odobert is back. Doing this allows us to try again in Jan if we want.

Why do you care so much whether or not we ‘help Chelsea’? Personally I only care about Spurs.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Danso asked to go, Toisin is perhaps a better fit for De Zerbi (better passer) and we’ll make a net profit on the two deals, nothing to hate here IMO.

Mudryk hasn’t been out injured like the others you mentioned,, so coming back is less of a question mark. At his best he was a player that Arsenal bid about £60m for and Chelsea paid £80m for. I think he’s fine as 2nd/3rd cover until Odobert is back. Doing this allows us to try again in Jan if we want.

Why do you care so much whether or not we ‘help Chelsea’? Personally I only care about Spurs.

I thinking coming back after serving 2 years of a 4 year ban for taking performance enhancing drugs (this wasn't a recreational case) is significantly worse than coming back from an injury. Especially as he's not been allowed access to facilities in that time

 

[SteveAWOL]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Finney Is Back]

I thinking coming back after serving 2 years of a 4 year ban for taking performance enhancing drugs (this wasn't a recreational case) is significantly worse than coming back from an injury. Especially as he's not been allowed access to facilities in that time

Do you think he’s been sat around eating fish and chips and watching the Game of Thrones box set repeatedly?

 

[Raziel]

Danso asked to go, Toisin is perhaps a better fit for De Zerbi (better passer) and we’ll make a net profit on the two deals, nothing to hate here IMO.

Mudryk hasn’t been out injured like the others you mentioned,, so coming back is less of a question mark. At his best he was a player that Arsenal bid about £60m for and Chelsea paid £80m for. I think he’s fine as 2nd/3rd cover until Odobert is back. Doing this allows us to try again in Jan if we want.

Why do you care so much whether or not we ‘help Chelsea’? Personally I only care about Spurs.

The club has been extremely toxic for 2+ years now, the stadium atmosphere is on the edge, we can't win a game at home for anything. The good transfer window brought excitement, chance to reset the fans, get everyone behind the team (and owners), this does not help, last move of window sets the tone.

Helping Chelsea is a bad move
- One it means the same toxic fan base is not going to welcome these players
- We are competing with them (or at least trying to) at top end of table, helping their squad and/or taking wages off the book for two players that (at best) don't move the needle for us? (that solves problems for them, which in turn likely makes them more competitive to us)

And I agree with @Gutter Boy here, 2 years out with no real competitive training, no way he's anywhere near level we need.

And I get you and I disagree on most things, but this is a huge mistake for very little upside, if we were buying two of their best players, you could see why, but we have effectively bought their Dragusin & Johnson (and that's being disrespectful to Johnson). It resurfaces concerns re manager and owners as well.

 

[El Dante]

People keep saying Mudryk is a no lose gamble. They are wrong. What Mudryk is is a gamble. We needed that extra attacking player. So instead of spending money on a top level talent that has proved as such over the last couple of seasons, we took a risk on a player that hasn’t played in two seasons.

That it is a loan means it is less of a risk financially as far as transfer fees are concerned. BUT it is a risk in other ways. If Mudryk fails, we will likely finish lower than we would have had we signed an established top level winger.

Mudryk is a punt. Maybe he pays off. I hope that he does. But that’s a wait and see.

 

[Raziel]

People keep saying Mudryk is a no lose gamble. They are wrong. What Mudryk is is a gamble. We needed that extra attacking player. So instead of spending money on a top level talent that has proved as such over the last couple of seasons, we took a risk on a player that hasn’t played in two seasons.

That it is a loan means it is less of a risk financially as far as transfer fees are concerned. BUT it is a risk in other ways. If Mudryk fails, we will likely finish lower than we would have had we signed an established top level winger.

Mudryk is a punt. Maybe he pays off. I hope that he does. But that’s a wait and see.

Is it a wait and see? what are the odds that a questionable player who hasn't played competitive football in 2 years can make an impact?

I think it's worse than your scenario, I think we would have been better off with almost any other move, play Moore/LWB, buy a prospect for <10M from a league in Europe/South America, keep the powder dry until January, basically anything.

And what is this guys reception going to be, you think he's going to get cheered on the pitch? and what happens when he inevitably looks like brick because he hasn't played in two years?

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Do you think he’s been sat around eating fish and chips and watching the Game of Thrones box set repeatedly?

No one thinks that but there is clearly a getting back up to speed moment here at play, it happens when players leave for a summer let alone take 2 years out.

No one hopes this deal doesn't work, people are just rightfully sceptical

I don't subscribe to the idea that a failed loan does not impact, everything impacts especially when you sign someone on the hope that they add something and then they don't.

Lets see, but this one looks like Spurs of old that everyone hated

 

[glasgowspur]

Come on mate, there is almost zero upside here?

- Why are we helping Chelsea, for no real gain for us?
- Tosin, even if he is marginally better than Danso (I don't think so), is still an unknown for us, Danso was one less thing to worry about in a season of extreme change. And he comes with Chelsea baggage.
- Mudryk is done, he was a brick Timo Werner at his best, know he hasn't played competitive football since 2024 (people on this board are on about Deki/Kudus/Maddison never getting back to their best, this guys best wasn't good enough and he's isn't getting there)

So
- The club has failed to control the manager (this was a moment to keep balance in the relationship, sorry we didn't get our first or second choice, we try again in Jan)
- We brought toxicity into the club (this conversation is highlighting it) at a point we really don't need it
- We help Chelsea
- We sign a stupid option to buy for a garbage player at a ludicrous price (so media gets to laugh at us more)

The fan base would have been 100% happier with fudging Hardy & LWB in the squad over these two.

With Chelsea "business model" I don't really see what us giving them £7m is much of a help.
They are currently looking at £120m+ from city.

Where is the toxicity, from the stands, because we are signing Chelsea players?
If so the problem is not players, the coach or board, it's the small minded support.

 

[yiddo37]

Do you think he’s been sat around eating fish and chips and watching the Game of Thrones box set repeatedly?

Oi leave me out of it!!

 

[glasgowspur]

People keep saying Mudryk is a no lose gamble. They are wrong. What Mudryk is is a gamble. We needed that extra attacking player. So instead of spending money on a top level talent that has proved as such over the last couple of seasons, we took a risk on a player that hasn’t played in two seasons.

That it is a loan means it is less of a risk financially as far as transfer fees are concerned. BUT it is a risk in other ways. If Mudryk fails, we will likely finish lower than we would have had we signed an established top level winger.

Mudryk is a punt. Maybe he pays off. I hope that he does. But that’s a wait and see.

It's better a loan we can jettison at the end of the season than buy a player way down the list that we are stuck with for three years.

 

[Bishop]

People keep saying Mudryk is a no lose gamble. They are wrong. What Mudryk is is a gamble. We needed that extra attacking player. So instead of spending money on a top level talent that has proved as such over the last couple of seasons, we took a risk on a player that hasn’t played in two seasons.

That it is a loan means it is less of a risk financially as far as transfer fees are concerned. BUT it is a risk in other ways. If Mudryk fails, we will likely finish lower than we would have had we signed an established top level winger.

Mudryk is a punt. Maybe he pays off. I hope that he does. But that’s a wait and see.

I wouldn't have chosen Mudyrk but it's a little unfair to sort of describe the deal as the club being cheap. They wanted to sign a ready made, ready to go player in Ndiaye but the deal couldn't happen. They've now had to pivot at short notice to someone else, there aren't an unlimited number of players to go for. At this stage it was possible Mudyrk or no one.

 

[Finney Is Back]

No one thinks that but there is clearly a getting back up to speed moment here at play, it happens when players leave for a summer let alone take 2 years out.

No one hopes this deal doesn't work, people are just rightfully sceptical

I don't subscribe to the idea that a failed loan does not impact, everything impacts especially when you sign someone on the hope that they add something and then they don't.

Lets see, but this one looks like Spurs of old that everyone hated

I’d say this is still less of a risk than coming back from a 20 month injury lay off. The difference here is that the player has still used all of his muscles.

Here is an AI overview of his 20 months out….

Suspension

• • Private Routine: Barred from Chelsea's Cobham training ground during his provisional suspension, Mudryk maintained a strict fitness regimen working alone with private trainers.
  • Work Ethic: Teammates noted he worked continuously to stay sharp, with defender Tosin Adarabioyo describing his dedication during the layoff as training like a "freak".
  • Player's Perspective: Mudryk later described the lengthy layoff as feeling like an "18-month pre-season" before his doping case was resolved and he was cleared to return to Chelsea FC team training in July 2026.

 

[El Dante]

I wouldn't have chosen Mudyrk but it's a little unfair to sort of describe the deal as the club being cheap. They wanted to sign a ready made, ready to go player in Ndiaye but the deal couldn't happen. They've now had to pivot at short notice to someone else, there aren't an unlimited number of players to go for. At this stage it was possible Mudyrk or no one.

I haven’t described the club as being cheap. My main point was that the deal is a risk. There are many saying that the deal isn’t that.

I understand that we screwed up the Ndiaye deal so Mudryk was all that’s left.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I haven’t described the club as being cheap. My main point was that the deal is a risk. There are many saying that the deal isn’t that.

I understand that we screwed up the Ndiaye deal so Mudryk was all that’s left.

Do you think we screwed up that deal or it was just that City came in for him and he chose them over us?