Other clubs' transfers

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

That list is easily countered by all the quality players ManCity/Arsenal/ManU have signed without Chelsea batting an eyelid. Certainly better that Steve Sidwell.

 

And there's also loads of players that City and ManU have bought that haven't been given the time of the day. That's what rich clubs do.

 

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.

 

"That's what rich clubs do" sums it up. This whole thing is a new level of nonsense.

 

Chelsea don't sign Salah to stop Liverpool, they sign him because he might force his way into the team and if he doesn't what does it matter because Mourinho only plays 11-14 players anyway

[Guest firetotheworks]

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

 

20m+? Where have you pulled that one from? I'm talking more about players along the lines of Steve Sidwell and Scott Parker in terms of being players that were never going to make it at Chelsea but had just had outstanding seasons and were in demand, but wouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

 

I dunno why you have this arrogance about it when it actually already happens in other businesses in exactly the same way and other clubs like Man City, Man United and especially Bayern Munich do it all the time. They buy players and don't play them, we know they won't play and the only advantage gained is that the other teams don't have them.

 

I'm not saying it's something that definitely happens, but there's a lot of smoke there. Calling it 'tin hat stuff' when football is an incredibly cynical business where we've seen stranger things happen is naive imo.

[mrmojorisin75]

So out of interest when Real or Barca pay big money for a Spanish prosect who had a good season are they only doing it up keep them away from the other?

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

[hithere]

 

Can never remember Sidwell being linked with Man Utd.

 

Remember ourselves being linked with him & Ben Haim at that time and being gutted they went there.

 

Ben Haim...

 

*shudder*

[Figures 1-0 Football]

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

[Guest firetotheworks]

It's fine though because despite it being a known tactic in a multitude of businesses, mojo doesn't believe it so it definitely doesn't happen.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

 

Can never remember Sidwell being linked with Man Utd.

 

Remember ourselves being linked with him & Ben Haim at that time and being gutted they went there.

 

Ben Haim...

 

*shudder*

Another good example, wasn't that around the Kenyon and Sidwell period? Good defender for Bolton let's have him for fuck all on massive wages.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

It's fine though because despite it being a known tactic in a multitude of businesses, mojo doesn't believe it so it definitely doesn't happen.

 

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.

[hithere]

 

 

Can never remember Sidwell being linked with Man Utd.

 

Remember ourselves being linked with him & Ben Haim at that time and being gutted they went there.

 

Ben Haim...

 

*shudder*

Another good example, wasn't that around the Kenyon and Sidwell period? Good defender for Bolton let's have him for f*** all on massive wages.

 

Just seeing his name brought flashbacks to when we had him on loan...

 

But aye it was.

[Guest firetotheworks]

So out of interest when Real or Barca pay big money for a Spanish prosect who had a good season are they only doing it up keep them away from the other?

 

No, because again I didn't mention big money, but for a smaller amount, it's possible yes. 100% of the time? No. As 100% of the reason? No. That doesn't mean that I don't think it comes into it though. These are teams with pretty much limitless resources man.

 

Teams like that want any advantage that they can get and having a monopoly on players lets them do that, how's that so hard to believe?

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

Had on. The burden of proof is not on me. You're the one suggesting there's wholesale shonkiness at the heart of British football and can provide nothing but innuendo and hyperbole to back it up.

 

But aye KI reckons it happens in other businesses so you're both probably right in your own minds.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf, I'm merely pointing out the things that suggest that it's not just possible, but in certain scenarios (with examples of given) fairly likely.

[mrmojorisin75]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise.

 

And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is.

 

Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that.

 

Prove otherwise.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

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.

[mrmojorisin75]

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.

Pedro

 

You're a shambles man, give it up.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise.

 

And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is.

 

Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that.

 

Prove otherwise.

 

Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this?

 

I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

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.

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.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

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.

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.

 

I said Chelsea and Cuadradro was no different to us and Cabella. You then said Cabella was shipped out for Thauvin but Cuadrado was "just shipped out on loan" without being given a chance. The chance part is irrelevant, Cuadradro was shipped for Pedro just as Cabella was shipped for Thauvin.

 

I can read.

[mrmojorisin75]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise.

 

And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is.

 

Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that.

 

Prove otherwise.

 

Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this?

 

I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny.

So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such?

 

Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise.

 

And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is.

 

Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that.

 

Prove otherwise.

 

Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this?

 

I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny.

So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such?

 

Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them.

 

So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas?

 

Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing?

[mrmojorisin75]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise.

 

And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is.

 

Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that.

 

Prove otherwise.

 

Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this?

 

I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny.

So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such?

 

Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them.

 

So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas?

 

Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing?

I think they sign them to meet quotas and be potentially good backup to their first choices. Not to stop other teams getting them.

 

That's the crux of this. It's pretty fucking obvious to me tbh.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Hmm, no. It does happen in other businesses. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply either when it's a theory or a suggestion. You're the one that has the concrete 'it's definitely bullshit' outlook. Saying that it's possible considering the evidence available isn't the same as saying that it definitely happens. You were the one with the 'tin hat' stuff at it being suggested tbf.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise.

 

And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is.

 

Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that.

 

Prove otherwise.

 

Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this?

 

I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny.

So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such?

 

Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them.

 

So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas?

 

Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing?

I think they sign them to meet quotas and be potentially good backup to their first choices. Not to stop other teams getting them.

 

That's the crux of this. It's pretty fucking obvious to me tbh.

 

I don't get why you think them cynically buying players to meet quotas is any different to them cynically buying players to stop other teams from threatening their place at the top of the table. I'd say Bayern Munich are worse than this than Chelsea tbh. Nigh on every single time a player performs well in the Bundesliga, Bayern will sign them and then not play them. It's just the big teams having the monopoly on players, it's not a mad theory.

[Ketsbaia]

In a world with Jorge Mendes and Bebe, I can definitely see clubs buying players for dishonest reasons.

[Disco]

Monaco, Valencia, Man Utd, Zenit and Chelsea are pretty at the behest of Mendes, it's totally bent.

 

RE: Ben Haim, was his agent not Abramovich's mate Pini Zahavi? Again totally bent.