Hazard resigns

My point was that Aguero may not have joined City at that time if they could not offer CL football. If you cannot offer that, you struggle to attract top players.

And how is that relevant in this context?

Went off tangent I agree, but I was dealing with Wilson and Superb's points.

what exactly is your argument, as this is a Hazard new contract article, oh wait he ll be off to madrid soon, one little point he not a mercenary and he s not fed up with the team and its failings

these lot have

Henry, nasri, adebayor, clichy, van persie, Song, fabregas, viera, or was it the stadium

sorry pal we dont do it like that and we wont and you cant even argue that

and what do you mean by saying we dont have players to sell

in terms of players bought and sold and still in profit then surely any money coming in will means millions of profit, ie new tv deal, cl money, might be wrong here but c'mooooooooooooooon son

comment by Say My Name (U18558)
posted 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 9 minutes ago
Hazard has resigned from Chelsea?

Will he be pimping himself out to the highest bidder again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are confusing him with Falcao
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd seriously doubt that....Falcao has been utter dogshat

I was initially responding to Wilson's point that Chelsea don't have to sell like Arsenal. I made the point that Arsenal ended up selling players like Nasri etc because they wanted a better chance of trophies and better money went with it, but it also helped with the stadium debt. Hopefully that selling will slow down now. We could not have bought a Sanchez a few years ago.

Where did I say Hazard would be off to Madrid ? I was simply saying that Chelsea were selling players like Mata, Luiz, Lukaku to comply with FFP and that those number of fringe as opposed to 1st team players you could sell on big money have diminished. Ramires and Oscar perhaps. I gave credit to Chelsea for getting fantastic deals for those players. I only responded to a comment about Arsenal.
.

comment by GUNNERBEGOOD (U10646)
posted 2 minutes ago
I was initially responding to Wilson's point that Chelsea don't have to sell like Arsenal. I made the point that Arsenal ended up selling players like Nasri etc because they wanted a better chance of trophies and better money went with it, but it also helped with the stadium debt. Hopefully that selling will slow down now. We could not have bought a Sanchez a few years ago.

Where did I say Hazard would be off to Madrid ? I was simply saying that Chelsea were selling players like Mata, Luiz, Lukaku to comply with FFP and that those number of fringe as opposed to 1st team players you could sell on big money have diminished. Ramires and Oscar perhaps. I gave credit to Chelsea for getting fantastic deals for those players. I only responded to a comment about Arsenal.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We sold those three for two reasons

Very stupid money was offered
Jose didn't rate them

Seems he was right

Yes and fantastic business it was.

arsenal didn't end up selling, the players wanted to leave, fed up of not winning anything

you did imply that we would have to see our top players to fund a stadium, which is what arsenal did right, had to correct you that we don't operate like you and wont operate like you

We operate on a win win basis. i can most guarantee that while we expand the bridge it wont affect the team at all.

unless you talking about playing in a different stadium, the yes this might affect the team, but i say NO as we do this every other week and still win