Bernard Woolley Of course, but only for the same reason everyone else. Ridiculously inflated fees that are only memorable because the players otherwise wouldn't be. No doubt it was funny business there, but the circumstances aren't the same. They were two players who were sold for fees beyond what would be considered reasonable for those of a similar standing. Neither Garnacho nor Rogers really fall into that bracket. Rogers fee is a bit ridiculously admittedly, but it's not as out of step as Maatsen/Kellyman.
QuincyAbeyie There's no immediate net benefit to Chelsea for non-footballing reasons, they're still taking a greater financial hit to their accounts by signing Rogers. They could realistically sell Garnacho for a similar fee to anyone else.
