Figures 1-0 Football

It is over the course of 130 games, so a yellow card every other game/other two games - which is no different to someone like Matic.

Pedro You're a shambles man, give it up. Are you struggling to read? I said Pedro was an example of Chelsea "doing it right" - by signing a player to play football. You're not grasping this are you.

Cabella was given frequent chances to play football for us man for crying out loud. Plus was shipped out on loan for another player to come in, whereas Cuadrado was just shipped out on loan without barely kicking a ball. What an awful example.

Quite possibly the most obvious made up story I've ever seen. This. Why would he be more annoyed over a yellow card for Serbia than for Newcastle? The Express/Chronicle are to blame for reporting this. Apparently McClaren was "fuming" due to the yellow card. It doesn't outline the reason for his booking though, does anyone know why he was booked? Probably something daft like recurrent fouls

Quite possibly the most obvious made up story I've ever seen.

Go on that website and look at the other look-a-likes... It's hilarious. Some of them couldn't look any less like the person.

This. Coleman apparently continued Speed's way of playing and did not alter much when he took over. I read an interview a while back where he basically put a majority of the success down to Speed, was quite touching. I like Coleman too, think he's massively underrated.

I'm not even saying it definitely happens, just a theory that has been patted around with ever increasing deals making it look plausible. But I'm obviously wrong... Obviously.

Why not? What is your explanation for the large amount of players that Chelsea sign (that other top 4 teams/Tottenham/Liverpool want) that then go on to make less than 10 appearances for Chelsea before being flogged off. Before you ridicule something, look into it a bit more. 'Look into it a bit more'? At best you're talking two clubs in England who would be able to do it, and between those clubs you're probably talking 10 players absolute maximum who the idea might apply to. You are essentially saying that a football club might sit down and consciously decide to waste millions of pounds on players they don't even want in order to stop the theoretical sale of said players to another club. The alternative being they've so much money they don't have to think out and research their buys so the moment someone shows something they buy them to get in ahead. When they arrive at the club it becomes obvious they're not going to work out so Chelsea sell them or loan them straight out because recouping money is also not important to them. I know which one makes the most sense aye. As opposed to the ridiculous amount of money Chelsea will earn by winning the title/CL or keeping teams like Man Utd out of the top four? The merchandise alone from supporters deciding to follow Chelsea (because they're good) rather than Man Utd will recoup most of the money wasted. By buying the player, they then have complete control over who he moves to and under what conditions. You honestly believe someone like Cuadrado was purchased in Jan, given 6 months and then sold because he wasn't good enough? Get away man. I think you will find on a majority of loans, Chelsea are still paying a majority of the players wages - so you'll find your theory quickly breaks down with that effect. If you also look at the price of the signing/price of the sale on a majority of their players, it also breaks down. Chelsea are not arsed about losing £1m, £10m or £15m, as long as they win. OK then. You've 'looked into it' I assume? List them, list the players that have been signed specifically to stop them signing for another team. Cheers. Look back on the previous page and you'll find your list. This isn't just my opinion, this is also the opinion of a Chelsea fan who I'm good friends with. There are loads of examples. Willian (very close to joining Tottenham) and Pedro (same with Man Utd) appear to be the two players that Chelsea have "stolen" from under the nose of another team and actually been successful signings. As opposed to the other 15 or so who are obviously just "poor signings" in your opinion that they wanted to move on asap. So Willian who plays pretty often and Pedro who they've just signed and looks like he'll play loads of games? Gerraway man, it's f***ing nonsense. Did you not notice that I said they are the two successful ones? Obviously when Chelsea signed Sidwell, Salah, Cuadrado, Remy, Ba etc they were all going to "play regularly" and just turned out to be bad signings who didn't perform in the 6 minutes each they were given. You're not telling me how they signed these players only to stop them going somewhere else though, I thought you'd researched this? You should also consider when talking about Mourinho that he's very much a small squad man 11-14 trusted players and unless someone forces them to play him he will stick with his favourites. That doesn't mean he can only have 14 players so they'll sign people who might make it, when they don't they sell them. You're also ignoring how small the pool of players actually is for that elite set of teams so when someone like cuadrado turns up and has a good world cup they can just gamble it works cause they've so much money. Honestly, the alternative is tinfoil hat s***. No, unlike you I am able to look at it without completely removing any possibility of being wrong. Pedro and Willian were both signed from under other teams noses, but will play regularly - however, they are the only two out of a list of many others that are signed and never given the remote chance of starting and playing regularly. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=536&teamTabs=transfers Go down the seasons and take a look yourself at the mockery of in/out Chelsea have had over the past seasons. If you can be bothered to believe that you may be wrong. As others have said, this happens regularly in other businesses - so why not football? Chelsea have the money to fund it and do not care about anything other than winning. The repetition of these types of signings is clear to see, as you will see from my list on my previous page. The key denomination is that Chelsea are not linked with these players or chasing these players until other clubs are interested. That is a key fact that cannot be ignored. I'm the first person to recognise I'm often wrong but in this case you're as wrong as wrong can be. You display a fundamental lack of understanding for the sport tbh. Okay, what a ridiculous statement to make. "I'm right but there is no evidence to back up that I am right, so you are wrong and you have no knowledge". The fact that you discredit this, in a sport that shows no moral standards and many dodgy deals says more about you then it does me.

Definitely, but Chelsea cannot buy them all can they? They can only make some purchases that they feel will cause them problems and are relatively cheaper than the others. Ie, Chelsea aren't going to buy Di Maria to stop Man Utd buying him - but they will buy Salah to stop Liverpool getting him.

As I've said before, Pedro is not an example of Chelsea doing this - Pedro is an example that on occasions Chelsea buy players to play. However, he is a rare example. Pedro & Willian against... Salah (wanted by Liverpool) - signed, no chances given, left. Loic Remy (wanted by Liverpool/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, offered around to leave van Ginkel (wanted by Spurs) - signed, no chances given, left on loan to Stoke Moses (wanted by Liverpool) - signed, no chances given, sent on loan to nearly every/anyone Demba Ba (wanted to Liverpool/Arsenal/Man Utd) - signed, no chances given, left De Bruyne (wanted by Man City/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, left Raul Merieles (wanted by Man City/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, left Sidwell (wanted by Man Utd) - signed, no chances given, left. You've listed what, ten examples stretching about a decade there and all of your "wanted by" s*** is totally made up as well. Ten examples because I have more to do in my life than sit scrutinising every deal, these were just the most obvious. And if you take out Sidwell (which I added based on someone elses comments on here) the other 9 deals are in the past 4 seasons.

As I've said before, Pedro is not an example of Chelsea doing this - Pedro is an example that on occasions Chelsea buy players to play. However, he is a rare example. Pedro & Willian against... Salah (wanted by Liverpool) - signed, no chances given, left. Loic Remy (wanted by Liverpool/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, offered around to leave van Ginkel (wanted by Spurs) - signed, no chances given, left on loan to Stoke Moses (wanted by Liverpool) - signed, no chances given, sent on loan to nearly every/anyone Demba Ba (wanted to Liverpool/Arsenal/Man Utd) - signed, no chances given, left De Bruyne (wanted by Man City/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, left Raul Merieles (wanted by Man City/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, left Sidwell (wanted by Man Utd) - signed, no chances given, left.

Why not? What is your explanation for the large amount of players that Chelsea sign (that other top 4 teams/Tottenham/Liverpool want) that then go on to make less than 10 appearances for Chelsea before being flogged off. Before you ridicule something, look into it a bit more. 'Look into it a bit more'? At best you're talking two clubs in England who would be able to do it, and between those clubs you're probably talking 10 players absolute maximum who the idea might apply to. You are essentially saying that a football club might sit down and consciously decide to waste millions of pounds on players they don't even want in order to stop the theoretical sale of said players to another club. The alternative being they've so much money they don't have to think out and research their buys so the moment someone shows something they buy them to get in ahead. When they arrive at the club it becomes obvious they're not going to work out so Chelsea sell them or loan them straight out because recouping money is also not important to them. I know which one makes the most sense aye. As opposed to the ridiculous amount of money Chelsea will earn by winning the title/CL or keeping teams like Man Utd out of the top four? The merchandise alone from supporters deciding to follow Chelsea (because they're good) rather than Man Utd will recoup most of the money wasted. By buying the player, they then have complete control over who he moves to and under what conditions. You honestly believe someone like Cuadrado was purchased in Jan, given 6 months and then sold because he wasn't good enough? Get away man. I think you will find on a majority of loans, Chelsea are still paying a majority of the players wages - so you'll find your theory quickly breaks down with that effect. If you also look at the price of the signing/price of the sale on a majority of their players, it also breaks down. Chelsea are not arsed about losing £1m, £10m or £15m, as long as they win. OK then. You've 'looked into it' I assume? List them, list the players that have been signed specifically to stop them signing for another team. Cheers. Look back on the previous page and you'll find your list. This isn't just my opinion, this is also the opinion of a Chelsea fan who I'm good friends with. There are loads of examples. Willian (very close to joining Tottenham) and Pedro (same with Man Utd) appear to be the two players that Chelsea have "stolen" from under the nose of another team and actually been successful signings. As opposed to the other 15 or so who are obviously just "poor signings" in your opinion that they wanted to move on asap. So Willian who plays pretty often and Pedro who they've just signed and looks like he'll play loads of games? Gerraway man, it's f***ing nonsense. Did you not notice that I said they are the two successful ones? Obviously when Chelsea signed Sidwell, Salah, Cuadrado, Remy, Ba etc they were all going to "play regularly" and just turned out to be bad signings who didn't perform in the 6 minutes each they were given. You're not telling me how they signed these players only to stop them going somewhere else though, I thought you'd researched this? You should also consider when talking about Mourinho that he's very much a small squad man 11-14 trusted players and unless someone forces them to play him he will stick with his favourites. That doesn't mean he can only have 14 players so they'll sign people who might make it, when they don't they sell them. You're also ignoring how small the pool of players actually is for that elite set of teams so when someone like cuadrado turns up and has a good world cup they can just gamble it works cause they've so much money. Honestly, the alternative is tinfoil hat s***. No, unlike you I am able to look at it without completely removing any possibility of being wrong. Pedro and Willian were both signed from under other teams noses, but will play regularly - however, they are the only two out of a list of many others that are signed and never given the remote chance of starting and playing regularly. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=536&teamTabs=transfers Go down the seasons and take a look yourself at the mockery of in/out Chelsea have had over the past seasons. If you can be bothered to believe that you may be wrong. As others have said, this happens regularly in other businesses - so why not football? Chelsea have the money to fund it and do not care about anything other than winning. The repetition of these types of signings is clear to see, as you will see from my list on my previous page. The key denomination is that Chelsea are not linked with these players or chasing these players until other clubs are interested. That is a key fact that cannot be ignored.

Why not? What is your explanation for the large amount of players that Chelsea sign (that other top 4 teams/Tottenham/Liverpool want) that then go on to make less than 10 appearances for Chelsea before being flogged off. Before you ridicule something, look into it a bit more. 'Look into it a bit more'? At best you're talking two clubs in England who would be able to do it, and between those clubs you're probably talking 10 players absolute maximum who the idea might apply to. You are essentially saying that a football club might sit down and consciously decide to waste millions of pounds on players they don't even want in order to stop the theoretical sale of said players to another club. The alternative being they've so much money they don't have to think out and research their buys so the moment someone shows something they buy them to get in ahead. When they arrive at the club it becomes obvious they're not going to work out so Chelsea sell them or loan them straight out because recouping money is also not important to them. I know which one makes the most sense aye. As opposed to the ridiculous amount of money Chelsea will earn by winning the title/CL or keeping teams like Man Utd out of the top four? The merchandise alone from supporters deciding to follow Chelsea (because they're good) rather than Man Utd will recoup most of the money wasted. By buying the player, they then have complete control over who he moves to and under what conditions. You honestly believe someone like Cuadrado was purchased in Jan, given 6 months and then sold because he wasn't good enough? Get away man. I think you will find on a majority of loans, Chelsea are still paying a majority of the players wages - so you'll find your theory quickly breaks down with that effect. If you also look at the price of the signing/price of the sale on a majority of their players, it also breaks down. Chelsea are not arsed about losing £1m, £10m or £15m, as long as they win. OK then. You've 'looked into it' I assume? List them, list the players that have been signed specifically to stop them signing for another team. Cheers. Look back on the previous page and you'll find your list. This isn't just my opinion, this is also the opinion of a Chelsea fan who I'm good friends with. There are loads of examples. Willian (very close to joining Tottenham) and Pedro (same with Man Utd) appear to be the two players that Chelsea have "stolen" from under the nose of another team and actually been successful signings. As opposed to the other 15 or so who are obviously just "poor signings" in your opinion that they wanted to move on asap. So Willian who plays pretty often and Pedro who they've just signed and looks like he'll play loads of games? Gerraway man, it's f***ing nonsense. Did you not notice that I said they are the two successful ones? Obviously when Chelsea signed Sidwell, Salah, Cuadrado, Remy, Ba etc they were all going to "play regularly" and just turned out to be bad signings who didn't perform in the 6 minutes each they were given.

Why not? What is your explanation for the large amount of players that Chelsea sign (that other top 4 teams/Tottenham/Liverpool want) that then go on to make less than 10 appearances for Chelsea before being flogged off. Before you ridicule something, look into it a bit more. 'Look into it a bit more'? At best you're talking two clubs in England who would be able to do it, and between those clubs you're probably talking 10 players absolute maximum who the idea might apply to. You are essentially saying that a football club might sit down and consciously decide to waste millions of pounds on players they don't even want in order to stop the theoretical sale of said players to another club. The alternative being they've so much money they don't have to think out and research their buys so the moment someone shows something they buy them to get in ahead. When they arrive at the club it becomes obvious they're not going to work out so Chelsea sell them or loan them straight out because recouping money is also not important to them. I know which one makes the most sense aye. As opposed to the ridiculous amount of money Chelsea will earn by winning the title/CL or keeping teams like Man Utd out of the top four? The merchandise alone from supporters deciding to follow Chelsea (because they're good) rather than Man Utd will recoup most of the money wasted. By buying the player, they then have complete control over who he moves to and under what conditions. You honestly believe someone like Cuadrado was purchased in Jan, given 6 months and then sold because he wasn't good enough? Get away man. I think you will find on a majority of loans, Chelsea are still paying a majority of the players wages - so you'll find your theory quickly breaks down with that effect. If you also look at the price of the signing/price of the sale on a majority of their players, it also breaks down. Chelsea are not arsed about losing £1m, £10m or £15m, as long as they win. OK then. You've 'looked into it' I assume? List them, list the players that have been signed specifically to stop them signing for another team. Cheers. Look back on the previous page and you'll find your list. This isn't just my opinion, this is also the opinion of a Chelsea fan who I'm good friends with. There are loads of examples. Willian (very close to joining Tottenham) and Pedro (same with Man Utd) appear to be the two players that Chelsea have "stolen" from under the nose of another team and actually been successful signings. As opposed to the other 15 or so who are obviously just "poor signings" in your opinion that they wanted to move on asap.

Also backing Bale to score and Wales to win - 9/4. If Wales win, Bale will more than likely score.

Holland's odds today are excellent due to their recent poor performances. Holland, Azerbaijan and Croatia -1 today - 98/1 with William Hill

Why not? What is your explanation for the large amount of players that Chelsea sign (that other top 4 teams/Tottenham/Liverpool want) that then go on to make less than 10 appearances for Chelsea before being flogged off. Before you ridicule something, look into it a bit more. 'Look into it a bit more'? At best you're talking two clubs in England who would be able to do it, and between those clubs you're probably talking 10 players absolute maximum who the idea might apply to. You are essentially saying that a football club might sit down and consciously decide to waste millions of pounds on players they don't even want in order to stop the theoretical sale of said players to another club. The alternative being they've so much money they don't have to think out and research their buys so the moment someone shows something they buy them to get in ahead. When they arrive at the club it becomes obvious they're not going to work out so Chelsea sell them or loan them straight out because recouping money is also not important to them. I know which one makes the most sense aye. As opposed to the ridiculous amount of money Chelsea will earn by winning the title/CL or keeping teams like Man Utd out of the top four? The merchandise alone from supporters deciding to follow Chelsea (because they're good) rather than Man Utd will recoup most of the money wasted. By buying the player, they then have complete control over who he moves to and under what conditions. You honestly believe someone like Cuadrado was purchased in Jan, given 6 months and then sold because he wasn't good enough? Get away man. I think you will find on a majority of loans, Chelsea are still paying a majority of the players wages - so you'll find your theory quickly breaks down with that effect. If you also look at the price of the signing/price of the sale on a majority of their players, it also breaks down. Chelsea are not arsed about losing £1m, £10m or £15m, as long as they win.

For example... Salah (wanted by Liverpool) - signed, no chances given, left. Loic Remy (wanted by Liverpool/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, offered around to leave van Ginkel (wanted by Spurs) - signed, no chances given, left on loan to Stoke Moses (wanted by Liverpool) - signed, no chances given, sent on loan to nearly every/anyone Demba Ba (wanted to Liverpool/Arsenal/Man Utd) - signed, no chances given, left De Bruyne (wanted by Man City/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, left Raul Merieles (wanted by Man City/Arsenal) - signed, no chances given, left

Why not? What is your explanation for the large amount of players that Chelsea sign (that other top 4 teams/Tottenham/Liverpool want) that then go on to make less than 10 appearances for Chelsea before being flogged off. Before you ridicule something, look into it a bit more.

I don't even think he looks remotely like Pardew, the only similarity is the white hair.

Aye paid £23 million for him in January and loaned him out six month later . Is that Denman in your avatar ? And didn't really give him a chance to get in the side in the 6 months either. I still feel that Chelsea buy players to stop other teams buying them and getting more competitive, they then let them rot on the bench/in the reserves and loan them out to a foreign team later down the line. Cuadrado and Salah being pointers of this.

Liverpool have been an average side for years and years. Them finishing 2nd is the equivalent season of us finishing 5th. I just despise how they feel that they should be 4th or above every season. They're squad is good enough to finish 6th - 10th and that's the fact of the matter. I also hate how nearly every pundit on TV is a Liverpool fan or ex-player, as that adds to the irritation of having to put up with everyone saying "this is their year" after one win.

Lets face it, Rooney cannot take the blame in his England performances when the players playing around him have all been poor and quite frankly, shit in major tournaments. Rooney is not going to score 40 goals in major tournaments if he gets fuck all service. The England team has been poor all round for years, not just Rooney. Rooney will get undue stick because people don't like him for whatever reason.

Would love Wales, N. Ireland and Ireland to qualify - all four of us going to the Euros and leaving the Scots at home! Massive game for Wales today, think they'll win it as well.