mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 In a world with Jorge Mendes and Bebe, I can definitely see clubs buying players for dishonest reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I think it's bullshit too, tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I think it's bullshit too, tbf. It's insane man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. ...and I've made loads of points as to why it thinking it's definitely bullshit is naive, but it's fine, you're not even open to it being possible despite the points made, so there's no point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. ...and I've made loads of points as to why it thinking it's definitely bullshit is naive, but it's fine, you're not even open to it being possible despite the points made, so there's no point. But you're not open to it not being possible I can conceive that in a very few limited situations it may happen but that's it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. ...and I've made loads of points as to why it thinking it's definitely bullshit is naive, but it's fine, you're not even open to it being possible despite the points made, so there's no point. But you're not open to it not being possible I can conceive that in a very few limited situations it may happen but that's it. You can't be open to having a closed mind on something you don't know for certain man you knacker. I'll take that and run with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 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. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. ...and I've made loads of points as to why it thinking it's definitely bullshit is naive, but it's fine, you're not even open to it being possible despite the points made, so there's no point. But you're not open to it not being possible I can conceive that in a very few limited situations it may happen but that's it. You can't be open to having a closed mind on something you don't know for certain man you knacker. I'll take that and run with it. You've lost your fucking shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Honestly, if Chelsea were so hellbent in fucking up, say, Liverpool they would have gone and met Suárez release clause. Like they give a damn about Liverpool anyway. None of the players mentioned in the discussion would have significantly strengthened Chelsea's rivals, and Spurs and Liverpool aren't Chelsea's rivals. I think people are looking at a poor transfer policy and trying to see malice where there's just too much money. I'll repeat myself, ManCity and ManU have bought countless players that have barely played and I don't see this accusation being thrown at them. That's what rich clubs do, they throw money at stuff. And when it fails they throw more money at it. Seriously, look at ManU these past two seasons. And why would Chelsea sell them Mata if they were so adamant of preventing rivals from getting good players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Honestly, if Chelsea were so hellbent in fucking up, say, Liverpool they would have gone and met Suárez release clause. Like they give a damn about Liverpool anyway. None of the players mentioned in the discussion would have significantly strengthened Chelsea's rivals, and Spurs and Liverpool aren't Chelsea's rivals. I think people are looking at a poor transfer policy and trying to see malice where there's just too much money. I'll repeat myself, ManCity and ManU have bought countless players that have barely played and I don't see this accusation being thrown at them. That's what rich clubs do, they throw money at stuff. And when it fails they throw more money at it. Seriously, look at ManU these past two seasons. And why would Chelsea sell them Mata if they were so adamant of preventing rivals from getting good players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Chelsea are simply trying to invert the football pyramid in the UK which a ban on all loans and squad size restrictions would fix instantly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Honestly, if Chelsea were so hellbent in fucking up, say, Liverpool they would have gone and met Suárez release clause. Like they give a damn about Liverpool anyway. None of the players mentioned in the discussion would have significantly strengthened Chelsea's rivals, and Spurs and Liverpool aren't Chelsea's rivals. I think people are looking at a poor transfer policy and trying to see malice where there's just too much money. I'll repeat myself, ManCity and ManU have bought countless players that have barely played and I don't see this accusation being thrown at them. That's what rich clubs do, they throw money at stuff. And when it fails they throw more money at it. Seriously, look at ManU these past two seasons. And why would Chelsea sell them Mata if they were so adamant of preventing rivals from getting good players? I've thrown exactly the same accusation at Man United, Man City and Bayern Munich tbf, it's a big club thing rather than a Chelsea thing. More a case of monopolising players and having them all, knowing they won't play them but have the money to and it means that other clubs can't have them if they do. I don't think it's any kind of conspiracy theory level stuff. There are plenty of players bought by the big clubs where you knew from the outset would never ever play and it's a known business tactic used elsewhere, so why not in football? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 So it appears we're all in agreement that players are never signed only on the basis of stopping them playing for someone else. Took longer than I'd have liked but still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 There is no way Chelsea are buying players just so others can't man, way over reading into things Even though its fucked up that they spend like 20m + on a player only to loan out six months later, they are a hugely successful football club so its all irrelevant really. Unless you're a Newcastle fan who worries about balancing the books... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 It is a bit suspicious how they come out of nowhere and gazump other clubs for players like Willian & Pedro tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts