“Ego” blamed by top pundit for Chelsea’s wasted £54m

Gary Neville has slammed Chelsea’s spending strategy once again, this time mocking the decision to spend £54m on Romeo Lavia shortly after signing Moises Caicedo for more than £100m.

He put it down to the “ego” of those making the decisions.

“They [Chelsea] went and bought Enzo, they go and buy Caicedo and then through their ego they went and bought Lavia on the final day of the transfer window for £54m and then they have to sell Conor Gallagher? They didn’t need Lavia, he’s not even played a game for them anyway,” Neville said on Sky’s Fan Debate.

As much as Neville likes taking aim at our ownership, sometimes unfairly, there’s no denying he’s got a point here. In fact, we’ve made similar points ourselves.

It’s not Lavia or the ownership’s fault that he’s been injured all year of course, but the fact that we spent such a large sum on him and now seem compelled to sell home grown Conor Gallagher makes it a strategic misstep regardless.

If Lavia goes on to be a world beater, it’s all rosy. But a full season out is no small thing. He’s starting his Chelsea career with a big hole to dig himself out of.

1 Comment

  1. Sorry, SuperFrank, but Neville has not “got a point here,” lol.

    First, Lavia has “not even played a game” BECAUSE HE’S BEEN INJURED! So that “point” is absolutely irrelevant.

    Second, when we acquired Enzo, Caicedo and Lavia we were in the process of completely retooling a midfield that was losing Kante, Kovacic and Mount. Gallagher had just come off loan at CP and had convinced absolutely NO ONE that he was ready to be a first-choice starter at that time. So, no, filling a Kante-Kovacic-Mount-sized hole was never going to be accomplished with only Enzo and Caicedo. Because nobody believed Gallagher was ready and we needed depth besides.

    Maybe it’s because Utd are floundering at the moment, but Gary Neville has become absolutely insufferable of late. Accusing Chelsea of buying Lavia as some sort of “ego” trip is just petty jealousy if you ask me. I mean it’s laughable on its face as far as having any sort of sound analysis behind it. Any pundit worth their salt would have at least done their homework before shooting their mouth off like Neville has. But he gets away with it because uncritical consumers of his drivel (like SuperFrank) don’t stop long enough to question whether what he’s saying has any basis in the reality we were facing at the time of these deals were made. And it doesn’t!

Comments are closed

Chelsea News