22 Jun 2026 15:17:45
Looks like we have sold Maresca to the 115 club for €20mil.
22 Jun 2026 15:56:35
In my opinion, not enough. I would rather report them to the governing bodies.
22 Jun 2026 16:03:07
Money talks, Tom, plus they have enough on their plate with their 115 charges.
22 Jun 2026 16:39:37
Bill, money often talks, but I repeat, in my opinion it's not enough.
Further to your post, I certainly don't feel in any way sorry for City. They broke the rules, the judgement should have been made ages ago, and I hope they get exactly what they deserve. A substantial points deduction, multiple transfer window bans and an eye watering fine.
22 Jun 2026 16:52:51
And they have to give us Haaland on a free transfer.
23 Jun 2026 06:57:39
Bill, we were nicely on track for a top 4 finish when Man City tapped up Maresca, unsettled us as a club, and set the seeds for a disastrous second half of the season. With Maresca at the helm, we may well have achieved Champions League football this season, which is worth around £40 million, so that is the bare minimum we should demand in compensation.
23 Jun 2026 07:18:16
If as reported, the compensation paid to us is £20m, then I'm not happy, but I will be happy next season when we are back challenging for the Premiership. ?
23 Jun 2026 08:25:28
Tom, fingers crossed indeed. That will depend on signings 3 or 4 in the right positions and getting rid of at least half a dozen players. That said, I have a smidgen of hope which might be increased by a good transfer window.
23 Jun 2026 10:47:09
I suspect the 'tapping up' was wanted by Maresca and City knew that all too well. After all, he knows all the people there, and there will surely have been earlier informal discussions. But Chelsea were right to go after City for approaching someone - whether head coach or player - under contract, and we have never made anyone stay who wanted to leave, which Maresca obviously did.
So, personally, I blame Maresca as much as City for what happened, and the run of bad form started when he had lost focus/interest in CFC, and points were dropped accordingly. So, yes, if he had been honorable and fully committed to the club, we may well have got top 4/5 and Champions League football. But he wasn't, and let's put the myth of St Enzo M, the potential saviour, to bed and realise that this was just a pretty sorry, typical football ego/perceived better opportunity saga.
Yes, I was shocked and dismayed by his departure, having begun to warm to someone I had initially thought of as a bit of a cold fish and who didn't get us playing v attractive football. But in that final of the CWC he did get the tactics spot on, and I loved his passionate running down the touchline after Estevao's very late winner v Liverpool. But the fact is that he, as much as City, stabbed us in the back. EM could have told them that he had a contract to honour, even if he did have transfer disagreements with flaky BlueCo SDs. Or that's my view, and probably the last time I will post about this!
23 Jun 2026 14:05:08
Not sure why you are defending Man City for tapping up our head coach J. I stick to my argument that, without them doing that, we would have got top 4 and probably won a pot as well. They should pay £40 million in compensation.
23 Jun 2026 14:16:02
It takes two to tango!
23 Jun 2026 14:29:35
It does, Jimbo, but when you have pointed out to your sporting directors the deficiencies in the squad, and they ignore you, and your same sporting directors start gate crashing the dressing room, and your same sporting directors instruct the medical team to tell you when to substitute a player, you are probably feeling a tad pissed off, so when a rival taps you up and offers candy and promises, there was likely only one outcome.
As I have repeatedly said, the sporting directors were at fault, and I'm amazed that they are still around, to be honest, but Man City still acted as predators and should still pay £40 million.
23 Jun 2026 15:03:09
Greenaway, in my experience, there is a clause in virtually every fixed-term contract that states the duty of an employee if he or she is approached by a third party offering alternative employment.
A fixed-term contract will almost certainly have a clause saying the employee has a fiduciary duty to inform the employer if they initiate a discussion with another company.
If a company induces an employee to breach his contract, both the employee and the offending company can be liable for damages, although it is rare for the employee to be prosecuted.
It may well be that Maresca felt aggrieved towards the SDs or owners, but he still has a fiduciary duty to tell his contracted employer that he wishes to talk to another company.
It is reported that the meetings between Maresca and City were supposed to be secret. In my eyes, they are both guilty.
23 Jun 2026 15:23:06
Tom, it has been well documented that Maresca told the club he had been approached by Man City and Juventus, therefore filling his contractual obligation. I have mentioned this before. He also said to the club he would stop talking to them if they backed him with his wishes for the squad and, apparently, have a payrise.
The sporting directors said no. This is all old hat now, and has been discussed and discussed and discussed. The thread is about compensation, and my point is about £40 million, but as Bill said right at the start it has been agreed at £17.2 million.
23 Jun 2026 16:44:15
Greenaway, we must be reading different reports because as I understand it, he was caught and confronted by the club having secret meetings with representatives from City.
Actually, pretty dumb on his part, because he could have easily asked his agent/representative to discuss any potential opportunity without breaking his contract or City potentially inducing him to breach his contract.
23 Jun 2026 17:16:48
Tom, Maresca was very happy last summer until Levi Colwill got injured. He saw Levi as the Ccb who could bring the ball out from the back and help break the lines. When Levi got injured, Maresca asked for a replacement and wanted someone experienced with the same skill set. He thought, after his achievements, he would be backed, but the sporting directors said no, and that is where it all started to go wrong. It is fairly well documented. We have discussed this over and over again, and the bottom line is it is done.
Maresca went, and the rest is history, whether you feel the sporting directors are to blame, which is my firm view, or whether you feel Maresca is to blame, which is yours and others views, and this is what makes this banter site so good. We are all allowed a view, but Bill's post is all about compensation due, and, taking your viewpoint that both Maresca and Man City are equally to blame, then the £17.2 million is probably a great result for Chelsea. We might have got nothing.
23 Jun 2026 17:21:11
Dunno, Greenway, doesn't seem like Maresca showed the devout Christian behaviours you love so much in the way he left.
23 Jun 2026 17:40:20
Greenaway, yes, my view is Maresca and City are both culpable. I also think the reported EUR20m is not enough compensation.
I haven't got a clue what a person's religion, or if they were born in the East End, has to do with anything, but ho hum!!
23 Jun 2026 18:26:18
I dunno either, Tom, maybe our mate Greeny can tell, as it seems to matter to him.
23 Jun 2026 18:47:11
What is the point? I honestly think it's sometimes just ridiculous.
23 Jun 2026 20:13:56
Yes, the whole thing is ridiculous. I'm not fussed about Maresca going, and it makes a change for us to get compo for a departure rather than paying out huge sums to coaches who have failed. Time to put this to bed and concentrate on next season.
23 Jun 2026 20:37:45
I agree, Jimbo, take what we can and move on.