But hey this is Chelsea and don't get too weird about it because we've also seen absurd transfers from Mudryk before so why feel weird when they dare to pay a high price for Cole Palmer 
He is indeed still one of the pretty good young players for Manchester City especially when he became the winner in the European Super Cup which made his name a little glimpsed.
The deal happened very quickly and it seems that Chelsea did not want to waste time in the remaining time they have at this time especially since the transfer season will be closed in a few days so that even this big offer was immediately agreed by Chelsea.
Chelsea are known for their hugh spending on young players who ate yet to deliver in their perspective clubs. Spending £45million on Cole Palmer is a ridiculous price for a young player who's still developing and gaining experience in football. I guessed Todd Boehly knows what he needs and he's ready to function good moves for the blues, he's ultimate aim is to strengthened the squad, make Stamford Bridge a home for streak winnings and lifting of significant titles, all this doesn't come by a twinkle of an eye, energy should be settled and mapping out crucial plans should be executed. He is indeed still one of the pretty good young players for Manchester City especially when he became the winner in the European Super Cup which made his name a little glimpsed.
The deal happened very quickly and it seems that Chelsea did not want to waste time in the remaining time they have at this time especially since the transfer season will be closed in a few days so that even this big offer was immediately agreed by Chelsea.
On the other hand, let's be real. You can't just give the team money and expect them to get along. Don't you remember how bad it hurt to lose to West Ham? This shows that spending money doesn't mean you'll win, at least not right away. I have to say, though, that it's very unfair of us to criticize Boehly's plan while some of us salivate over Brighton's loan deal with Barcelona for Ansu Fati. No, they aren't the same, but I think you understand what I mean
Lol, if I had a merit to give you would have received one for your Hugh Hefner analogy!
I definitely think you are correct that more ingredients are need than just money. While I sometimes think that there is only so much a coach can do when the team sucks, I do believe that Chelsea or PSG with the money they invested or are still willing to invest, would be way better than they have been with Guardiola sitting on their bench. I really believe that. He has this little extra to keep his players pumping at full efficiency and maximum effort. It's a very rare thing that one of his teams ever fell apart during a game. And I think he has a much better understanding of how to build a squad compared to most of the other coaches. Would you agree or do you think Chelsea and PSG would have been all the same with Guardiola coaching them (all else equal)?
