Agreed, I think the deal will be along those lines. I would add a third, we must keep Remy. I certainly don't want Falcao as a replacement, it would be too much of a risk.

A guy on The Bleachers Report made an interesting point..
"Anterior cruciate ligament injuries are always tricky, and it usually takes a significant amount of time before athletes regain their explosiveness. In the case of Falcao, his quickness inside the box and timely runs are a huge part of his game, so it's vital he regains full use of his knee."

It could be that Falcao just wasn't given enough time to recover. Yes, I'm clutching at straws, but if he's just coming as a replacement for Drogs it's not a massive gamble for one season.

I heard that too, that he needed a year. However he was absolutely dreadful at United, not even a shot on target for months.

Much wore than Torres ever was.

'Mikel preparing for Chelsea exit'

Stop teasing. He'll still be here when I'm 90.

Chelsea has an excellent medical team so perhaps they can help get him back to fitness.
As a replacement for the Drog, it's not a massive gamble is it.

For all I've said about him in the past, I'd be sad to see him go.
He was one of our "immovable objects" in those difficult games when we won the Champions League, solid as a rock. But he's always been too slow for the PL in my opinion.

If Falcao coming in is at the expense of Remy leaving, I'm going to be pissed. Remy has scored some vital goals for us in Costa's absence and this is exactly what we need in a second striker. Only Costa and Hazard have managed to hit double digit goals in all competitions this season (21 and 19, respectively) therefore it would be incredibly stupid for us to weaken our attacking options on the notion that Falcao, a 29 year old striker who rushed his ACL recovery, can come good again.

Costa, Remy and Falcao? They're all a bit similar in terms of style, and it's not inconceivable that at some point in the season, they could all be injured at the same time. A better bet imo for a third striker would be someone who stays injury free for the most part and is strong physically. Not convinced that Benteke would be able to link well with very quick wingers like Hazard and Willian though. Lukaku would have been the same. Just not quite quick enough.

Mourhino needs to be careful imo.

He played well at the end of the season and has a lot of experience. He knows what it takes to win. Imo, the key with players who are no longer first choice is keeping them motivated and ensuring that when they do play, they are ready and 100% up for it. Think Anelka

Yes, I agree. The rumours of Remy leaving for West Ham or Palace seem to have gone quiet for now, so hopefully they were unfounded. He appeared to be happy enough last season coming off the bench, so I don't see why he should suddenly want to up and leave. But there were even rumours of Costa being unhappy/homesick and looking to go back to Spain..there's so much rubbish going around.

Very much agree with this. We shouldn't bring in Falcao, even on loan it would end up being money down the drain. I'd keep Remy and take a punt on Charlie Austin. Realistically we're not going to be able to bring in a worldie as back-up for Costa, but I think we'd be pretty well stocked with those three.

I would like to see arsenal having to cough up a good player if they want to sign cech,

Walcott would be great for us.

Looks like some (small) movement on the redevelopment of the Bridge, All season ticket and members are being invited to attend a consulting event at the end of the month

Yeah, got the email. Its one hell of development job which apparently would mean 3 years playing elsewhere.

Wembley or Twickenham maybe?

3 years
No way in this day and age should it take that long!!!
It"s the redevelopment of a football stadium, not a postal area of West London.

But that's what it near enough is.

Due to the small amount of space available it was always going to be a very different job (with a tube line and a cemetery around us just being one issue). It was never going to just a normal redevelopment job. Not so long ago I don't think it was even possible to do what they are going to do

It will be a terrible three years away

No images of the new stadium as yet neither.

Since the consulting event has not taken place yet (if we get them it will more likely be at that or just before it) and it's still a number of weeks away that's not really a surprise

How long did Wembley and The Emirates take ??

I don't know why Twickenham always gets mentioned. It won't be there

baffling signing for chelsea, his performances at united were embarrassing, spent more time slipping over and falling on his arse then troubling defences. at the level he showed at united he would struggle to score goals in league 1 let alone the premier league, and I don't see how his level will improve sitting on the bench as a back-up. he's not an impact player off the bench so I don't even see the point of having him on the bench, I would much rather bring on Remy late in a game to use his pace. i actually rate remy, very good striker when fit, great pace and good finisher, i don't see what you need falcao for at all but whatever, he's your problem now...

Baffling for sure. Costa and Remy both have their own fitness issues, so you'd think we'd want to avoid bringing in someone else who's struggling to recover from cruciate damage.

But they had to start from scratch, while all we will be doing is adding 18,000 seats.
I cannot possibly see how that can take 3 years.

That's way to simplistic. I guess until we have seen the plan it's hard to comment
but it's not a case of knocking down a stand to rebuild it.
It's a new development, I believe.

If that's all that needed to be done it would have been done ages ago. Our location and surrounding area makes it a lot more complex