Disco Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Because their desire to leave is stronger than their actual ability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OoOGazOoO Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Didn't realise Cuadrado had gone on loan to Juve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Didn't realise Cuadrado had gone on loan to Juve. Aye paid £23 million for him in January and loaned him out six month later . Is that Denman in your avatar ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Didn't realise Cuadrado had gone on loan to Juve. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. It's not that unlikely, it was common practice in the music business. Labels would sign bands similar to a big band that they already had and thrn never release anything by them so there was no competition. It's called parking iirc and not unusual in other businesses either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Chelsea haven't signed and "thrown away" any player that could have made a difference to any of their true rivals. The only one that appears to be good enough is, guess that, currently playing for one of their true rivals (De Bruyne). They just have a horrible transfer policy because they don't give a f*** about the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 No one will ever make me believe that Chelsea signed Steve Sidwell for honest reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I aint sure whether all are signed due to that purpose but I did remember Salah was very closed to joining Liverpool before Chelsea stepped in. Salah was not given much playing time afterwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 No one will ever make me believe that Chelsea signed Steve Sidwell for honest reasons. Could be wrong but wasn't he signed when that prick from Manyoo came in as chief exec and they started the noise about reigning in their spending? Again in this case which title or CL challenger were they stopping him going to? Unless you're taking the piss, which I think you are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 No one will ever make me believe that Chelsea signed Steve Sidwell for honest reasons. Could be wrong but wasn't he signed when that prick from Manyoo came in as chief exec and they started the noise about reigning in their spending? Again in this case which title or CL challenger were they stopping him going to? Unless you're taking the piss, which I think you are. I'm not, he was wanted by Man United and Liverpool (and us) iirc. It's not that implausible, it's business and it definitely happens in other businesses, so why not football? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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 fucking nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 No one will ever make me believe that Chelsea signed Steve Sidwell for honest reasons. Could be wrong but wasn't he signed when that prick from Manyoo came in as chief exec and they started the noise about reigning in their spending? Again in this case which title or CL challenger were they stopping him going to? Unless you're taking the piss, which I think you are. I'm not, he was wanted by Man United and Liverpool (and us) iirc. It's not that implausible, it's business and it definitely happens in other businesses, so why not football? Because they don't have unlimited squad places to piss away on people they never intend playing. Sidwell is an example of a shitty football/commercial decision imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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 shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Except it's not though, I've already told you that it happens in other businesses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Never heard anything as ridiculous as the 'buying players to stop other clubs getting them' chelp. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Mourinho has made a mess of Chelsea's right wing. Suddenly somebody like Pedro becomes available who fits the bill of a Mourinho player and can play there, so they outbid the competition. What's fishy about that? There's always gonna be competition to sign good players, doesn't mean the buying clubs are signing them to prevent others from buying them. I don't think there's a counscious "let's steal all the players" tactic by Chelsea because it's just not feasible. They just don't make a proper assessment of a lot of their signings because they don't give a shit about the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Except it's not though, I've already told you that it happens in other businesses. Other businesses that pay +20m and then the same in wages to stop personnel going elsewhere? Not a chance man, other businesses are not comparable, it's fucking utter nonsense. You used Steve Sidwell as an example too "Aye, we'd better get Steve locked in before anyone else or we might have to sign Gerrard with our unlimited money" Staggering stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.4aa9ec90d527219f46f7e95dffaeb522.png)
Recommended Posts