TRon Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He forced his way out of Hoffenhiem to West Ham, at West Ham he made sure he had a relegation release clause, at us he made sure he had a release clause if anyone doing better than us came in, I firmly believe that he will have a release clause at Chelsea if they fail to get into the CL, or fail to win a trophy. I doubt it. He forced his way out of all said clubs precisely so he could make this "dream" move. Massive wages on a decent length contract is exactly what he's been looking for. His goals over two seasons in the premiership have earned him that move. If he hadn't done the business none of those moves would ever have come off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorin Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I thought it was £40 a week but it seems it has been £20 so totally understandable he leaves, I just hope we got the best out of him... even though still winging it, it seems Cisse stroke back, so let's see how it all pans out (although I highly doubt we'll have any replacement). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I thought it was £40 a week but it seems it has been £20 so totally understandable he leaves, I just hope we got the best out of him... even though still winging it, it seems Cisse stroke back, so let's see how it all pans out (although I highly doubt we'll have any replacement). I'd leave any job if I was only getting 20 quid a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'm praying his knee pops. Did well for us but one of lifes greedy fucks much like Anelka. I only wish I could sponsor the stretcher that carries him out of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh74 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Does this mean the money we get for Ba covers the fee for Debuchy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't resent him leaving but I guess he'll disappear somewhere on the Chelsea bench and we won't hear much about him until he starts making noise about leaving for more playing time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 With Torres having been shit for the best part of his time with Chelsea (and well before), I really don't think Ba is just there as a bench filler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Newcastle striker Demba Ba has agreed to join Chelsea on a three-and-a-half-year contract, Sky Sports sources understand. The Senegal international is undergoing a medical with Rafa Benitez's side after a release clause was triggered in his Newcastle contract once Chelsea offered £7million for him. Ba was left out of the Magpies' squad for their 2-1 home defeat to Everton on Wednesday, with manager Alan Pardew admitting afterwards that he was on his way to Stamford Bridge. A deal between the Premier League rivals appears close to being finalised after the player agreed personal terms, with Benitez keen to add to his attacking options to ease the burden on Fernando Torres. Ba joined Newcastle on a free transfer from West Ham in June 2011 and after impressing last season he has already scored 13 goals this campaign. "It's done. He will go to Chelsea with our blessing," Pardew told Sky Sports ahead of their defeat by Everton. "He has done fantastic for us and it's not a bad thing, all the uncertainty is now done and we can move on. "The ball was always in Demba's court. But this club is bigger than any player for sure." Chelsea officials held initial discussions with Ba's representatives earlier this week but had been unable to reach an agreement. Newcastle released a statement which read: "Newcastle United can confirm Chelsea Football Club has made an official offer for Demba Ba which has triggered the release clause in the player's contract. "The club has given the player permission to speak to Chelsea FC and therefore he will not be included in the squad for tonight's game with Everton Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Was it a decision by Pardew not to play Ba yesterday (understandable maybe if he wasn't right mentally due to the Chelsea situation), or because he was under offer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing fucking Shola Ameobi in his place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing f***ing Shola Ameobi in his place. It's pretty obvious from Pardew's comments that the club couldn't wait to draw a line under the whole thing. For the first 20 minutes or so, our players looked completely amped, and I genuinely thought Everton were in for a backlash thumping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I think it was the right call tbf. Playing Shola was the mistake, and a fucking massive one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Obviously i'm not privy to what goes on in lead up games but surely it can't be that hard to move Cisse to the middle and bring Sammy or someone else on the right. Some of the chances Shola missed, Cisse would have certainly scored and his movement is a billion times better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing f***ing Shola Ameobi in his place. honestly don't know what happens once the release clause is triggered, no idea if we'd have any say in the matter after that, if he wanted to go speak to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing f***ing Shola Ameobi in his place. It's pretty obvious from Pardew's comments that the club couldn't wait to draw a line under the whole thing. For the first 20 minutes or so, our players looked completely amped, and I genuinely thought Everton were in for a backlash thumping. That may be the case, but if it then means having to play Shola for the full 90 minutes plus extra time when we've known for years he's only effective for 30 at the most I think we've cut our nose to spite our face. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Obviously i'm not privy to what goes on in lead up games but surely it can't be that hard to move Cisse to the middle and bring Sammy or someone else on the right. Some of the chances Shola missed, Cisse would have certainly scored and his movement is a billion times better. i was fucking shocked to see him on the line up, should have expected it but really didn't. Cisse Obertan Marveaux Anita Tiote Bigi was (foolishly) expecting/hoping for something like that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He'll be a starter for Chelsea by the end of the season. Torres is finished. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing f***ing Shola Ameobi in his place. It's pretty obvious from Pardew's comments that the club couldn't wait to draw a line under the whole thing. For the first 20 minutes or so, our players looked completely amped, and I genuinely thought Everton were in for a backlash thumping. That may be the case, but if it then means having to play Shola for the full 90 minutes plus extra time when we've known for years he's only effective for 30 at the most I think we've cut our nose to spite our face. Fuck that! Since when did losing Ba to injury or to Chelsea have to mean playing Shola for 90 minutes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing f***ing Shola Ameobi in his place. It's pretty obvious from Pardew's comments that the club couldn't wait to draw a line under the whole thing. For the first 20 minutes or so, our players looked completely amped, and I genuinely thought Everton were in for a backlash thumping. That may be the case, but if it then means having to play Shola for the full 90 minutes plus extra time when we've known for years he's only effective for 30 at the most I think we've cut our nose to spite our face. f*** that! Since when did losing Ba to injury or to Chelsea have to mean playing Shola for 90 minutes? You need to read what I wrote. I'm not saying playing Shola for 90 minutes was the correct decision at all, but that is what actually happened, so my question is if that was in pardew's mind, why did we not try our utmost to have a player whose registration we own on the pitch playing for us, unless we weren't allowed, in which case that's fair enough in itself, although it still shouldn't have resulted in Shola playing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Because they had given him permission to speak to chelsea yesterday, no doubt he was in London. Could those talks not have taken place today if we wanted them to? I'm just flabbergasted that we decided not to play him when he's still ours, yet didn't want to change the gameplan and ended up playing f***ing Shola Ameobi in his place. It's pretty obvious from Pardew's comments that the club couldn't wait to draw a line under the whole thing. For the first 20 minutes or so, our players looked completely amped, and I genuinely thought Everton were in for a backlash thumping. That may be the case, but if it then means having to play Shola for the full 90 minutes plus extra time when we've known for years he's only effective for 30 at the most I think we've cut our nose to spite our face. f*** that! Since when did losing Ba to injury or to Chelsea have to mean playing Shola for 90 minutes? You need to read what I wrote. I'm not saying playing Shola for 90 minutes was the correct decision at all, but that is what actually happened, so my question is if that was in pardew's mind, why did we not try our utmost to have a player whose registration we own on the pitch playing for us, unless we weren't allowed, in which case that's fair enough in itself, although it still shouldn't have resulted in Shola playing. Aye i know what you meant. The question was directed at the manager not at your post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPalAl Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Sacked his agent? Wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea told him in order to get the deal done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Sacked his agent? Wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea told him in order to get the deal done. Which one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who is sick of hearing about this shit now? He's gone lets move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Latest Twitter trollop is the he sacked his agent because he's 'not happy' to be leaving Newcastle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now