20 Jun 2026 20:13:19
Chelsea and Manchester City are close to reaching a financial settlement worth over £10m for Enzo Maresca, with negotiations between Chelsea and Man City over the final details ongoing.
Chelsea have all the evidence that Man City tapped Maresca up and are willing not to use it if the settlement figure is paid.
This is quite a shift in the way Blue. co are now becoming more ruthless.
Top business people learn quickly, reset and go again, it has already happened with the change in direction of squad building and the appointment of Alonso as manager.
Forget project 2030, this might just be project full on.
21 Jun 2026 14:50:40
I think £10m is letting City off the hook. I would be looking for a minimum £10m plus a lot extra (another £20m) if it was an obvious illegal approach.
21 Jun 2026 18:53:10
Tom, strange that you say "It's obvious..." when you usually say "I don't really know." I'm taking your stance; I don't really know what went on with Maresca and City, and I don't really care. Presumably, we will get some money, but it's all pretty trivial; we have much bigger fish to fry.
21 Jun 2026 19:30:49
Jimbo, it is "obvious." The Club found out that Maresca was having secret talks with City. Not a single person from City had asked Chelsea for permission to speak to Maresca.
You might not care, but I certainly do care, and I believe a lot of other fans care. To be honest, part of me says f*** the money, just report City to the governing bodies.
You are correct, unlike a lot of posters, I usually state "I'm only guessing" or "I don't know for sure." I was once told by the player himself that he was going to sign a contract extension, only for that player to sign for another club a few weeks later. Most fans are only "guessing." I like to admit it.
21 Jun 2026 20:15:55
Tom, you obviously know a lot more about what happened than anyone else. If there is a settlement, there will be a Non Disclosure Agreement. You obviously have it in for City. If they are found guilty, they should indeed be appropriately punished.
However, let's not forget our breaches: true, we came clean, but that is the only mitigation: pot: kettle. Tom, I said I don't care: I don't speak for other supporters, and never have.
21 Jun 2026 20:45:48
Jimbo, you constantly bring up our breaches and I always say the same thing. The club should always cooperate fully with any potential breach, and if found guilty, accept the punishment after any appeal process is considered or completed.
It is not only City that imposes NDA's on any contractual settlement, but NDA's are now in general use across a wide range of industries. My guess is, if we do reach an agreement with City, then an NDA will be signed by both clubs.
I am not a fan of NDA's, particularly in the area of illegal contact or inducement to breach a contract. The courts in this country take a very dim view of inducement to breach contracts, and have issued severe penalties to companies, and even banned offending directors involved in such behaviour as being company decision makers.
That is another reason, sadly, why, if an agreement between the clubs is reached, an NDA will be signed.
21 Jun 2026 21:23:00
Tom, NDAs are used for cover ups and are anti-democratic. I mention our breaches because you keep going on about City and you don't know the outcome of the process. We self- reported and fully cooperated with the authorities and rightly were given credit in the sanctions.
However, we did breach the rules which is beyond argument because of our admissions. That is my point about pot:kettle. After the conclusion of the FA investigation we can move on and concentrate on football.
21 Jun 2026 21:40:21
Just to clarify. I am not a fan of NDA agreements because they are misused by money companies and individuals, but I have to also acknowledge that an NDA agreement can be necessary for other reasons, including real security risks.
I have consistently said, when and if found guilty of any rule breach, accept the punishment (after any appeal) and move on without bleating.
While I don’t know the punishment that City will receive if found guilty for one or all of their 115 charges, I have zero doubt they will be found guilty.
As far as the illegal approach to Maresca is concerned, they are guilty in my opinion, and I think most fans would be in agreement on that score. If a substantial fee is not paid to Chelsea, I hope we do report them for tapping up, but my guess is a fee will be agreed and an NDA signed. We will all be then left guessing as to how much money City have paid to stop us reporting them.
21 Jun 2026 22:05:25
Tom, you have zero doubt about City being found guilty: obviously you are in the know. I agree there must have been something untoward regarding Maresca and City, otherwise there wouldn't be negotiations: whether or not it breached rules, I don't know.
As I said, I don't care. I posted many times that I didn't think Maresca could take us to the highest level and wasn't that fussed when he left. That said, I wasn't prepared for the disaster of the appointment of Rosenoir.
21 Jun 2026 22:21:24
I doubt there is a football fan in the whole of England who doesn't think City are guilty of some, if not all, of the 115 charges against them.
I repeat, yet again, this is my opinion, but I am totally convinced of my opinion. Of course, if I am wrong and a joke "not guilty on all counts" judgement does happen, it certainly will not be the first time I have made a mistake.
As far as you not caring about Maresca and any illegal approach, that is up to you, but again I think a substantial percentage of Chelsea fans do care about this issue. I also think the majority of fans believe City should pay a substantial fee to Chelsea. If they do not, they should be reported to the football governing bodies.
21 Jun 2026 22:44:42
Tom, as I keep saying, I speak for myself and not the majority of Chelsea supporters, unlike you. As for the City case, you are probably right, most football fans think City are guilty. However, what is indisputable is that none of them have seen the evidence or heard the legal arguments: I am a great believer in due process. My "guess", without any knowledge of the evidence etc., is that City will be found guilty of some charges and others will be dismissed. That is just a gut feeling based on absolutely no knowledge of the evidence in the case. I do agree that it needs a resolution for the sake of football, but I fear it will go on and on.
21 Jun 2026 22:59:48
Jimbo, I have consistently said that this is my opinion. I do not speak for other supporters or any supporters groups.
I am convinced that the vast majority of fans believe City are as guilty as sin, and that a significant percentage of Chelsea fans care about an illegal approach to a serving Chelsea manager.
I repeat, if I am wrong, I will apologise.
21 Jun 2026 23:16:29
Tom, if there was an approach to Maresca which breached the rules, they should pay compensation. My Chelsea mates don't give a monkeys about this issue. As I said, we have more important issues to concentrate on rather than 10 or 20 million pounds from City. Take the money. Next season may give an indication of how the club goes forward for the future. This issue is a trivial distraction to the bigger picture: not worth a mention IMO.
22 Jun 2026 03:45:42
We obviously have very different mates. Some of my mates are like Greenaway, and seriously angry about Maresca leaving, particularly mid-season. Some of them want substantial compensation or a governing body punishment.
For me, breaking the rules is very much part of the "bigger picture" and, as I repeatedly say, deserves their punishment. If you and your mates think otherwise, then so be it.