he will regret not bidding for Drognaldohimovicoure more imo
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez. Absolute farce that summer. If we had its near impossible to imagine we wouldn't have won the league this year. All cos we didn't wanna pay an extra 10 million
He probably did consider a bid.
Any specific time he could have got him?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez.
......
Making a £50m bid for Suarez would in all probability have been successful, bidding £40m + £1 was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How? It should have activated the clause to let us talk to him.
Liverpool broke the conditions of Suarez's contract, and were very vocal about it as well. Bidding over the clause makes no sense.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez.
......
Making a £50m bid for Suarez would in all probability have been successful, bidding £40m + £1 was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How? It should have activated the clause to let us talk to him.
Liverpool broke the conditions of Suarez's contract, and were very vocal about it as well. Bidding over the clause makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Andre's Samba Scarf (U6253)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez.
......
Making a £50m bid for Suarez would in all probability have been successful, bidding £40m + £1 was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How? It should have activated the clause to let us talk to him.
Liverpool broke the conditions of Suarez's contract, and were very vocal about it as well. Bidding over the clause makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What other club would have done such a thing. Our board should have been savvy enough to know the realistic outcome.
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 27 seconds ago
As I said, if you made a respectable offer it probably would have been successful, your offer made FSG mug you off so yes, it was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the offer met the clause. Legally they had no right to 'mug us off'.
We should have been allowed to talk to Suarez on the back of the bid, and then after that be in a position to negotiate with Liverpool if we got positive feedback from Suarez.
It would have been idiotic to bid over the clause as an initial bid.
What other club would have done such a thing. Our board should have been savvy enough to know the realistic outcome.
=========
Every club.
What club bids over a clause? Makes no sense.
It is you being naive.
Liverpool would not sell to us at any price, and they made that very clear. They broke the contract Suarez had to deny us the right to speak to him.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the beautiful bit in this article is this:
"It's been great for Luis, it's been great for us. We have three gentlemen up front Suárez, [Raheem] Sterling, and [Daniel]Sturridge, [they] are young, I think those three could be together for a long time."
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the beautiful bit in this article is this:
"It's been great for Luis, it's been great for us. We have three gentlemen up front Suárez, [Raheem] Sterling, and [Daniel]Sturridge, [they] are young, I think those three could be together for a long time."
---------------------------------------
well they still have sturridge but benteke and origi next to him.
dont they still own balotelli?
Wenger should regret........
not growing and adapting as a manager,
not bothering to analyse his past failures,
not demanding more from himself or his player's,
accepting trophy less season's,
losing his self respect for money,
losing the respect of maintaining his winning legacy,
giving the supporter's and club he supposedly loves a second rate service for almost a DECADE,
short changing the fans and club with endless pathetic transfer windows,
his capacity to consistantly fail, even with the greatest team's in club history,
his monumental, endless and hollow sound bites,
his dreadful lack of game management,
his knack of making the same mistakes season after season on and off the pitch,
his NINE season's of trophy-less mis-management,
his propensity to sign ONE top class player to appease fan's but never enough to have a team good enough to challenge for the top trophies,
his propensity to do just enough to secure Champions League qualification but nothing more,
his endless excuses for his abysmal failure's,
his annoying voyeurism in other club's affairs,.....
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on,..........
WENGER OUT !!!
I'm not sure Wenger is far wrong when he says this is the stongest squad we've had since the invincibles. You could make arguments for 07/08 and 10/11 but I always felt with those sides that you were going to get let down by the back 5. I said in the summer, had we signed a second defensive midfielder, I would have been very happy with our squad going into the season.
What I blame Wenger for is not being able to manage his side properly. Mostly glaringly, until yesterday we've been playing a system for the last 3 months that depends entirely on a player who has been unavailable for that whole time, i.e. Cazorla.
Wenger had not changed the system (until yesterday), and had seemingly not instructed the players how they should be playing it - either that or he doesn't know. As a result even when winning games we have not been comfortable, and when losing them we've exposed the back four and looked feeble. That's what I blame Wenger for.
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the beautiful bit in this article is this:
"It's been great for Luis, it's been great for us. We have three gentlemen up front Suárez, [Raheem] Sterling, and [Daniel]Sturridge, [they] are young, I think those three could be together for a long time."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'What we've found is that contracts don't seem to mean a lot'
Hence the clause was irrelevant
In John Henrys opinion. If Suarez wanted to join us, and we had any indication of this, both parties would be well in their right to take Henry and Liverpool to court.
Fact is Suarez wanted to go to Spain, and thus a long drawn out court case was not in our interest. Nor was bidding more - as neither Liverpool wanted to sell to us nor Suarez wanted to join us.
"It doesn't matter how long a player's contract is, he can decide he's leaving. We sold a player, Fernando Torres, for £50m, that we did not want to sell, we were forced to.
"Since apparently these contracts don't seem to hold, we took the position that we're just not selling.'
With more pressure Suarez could have forced the move. We know he wanted to join us.
Not sure why people assume a £50m bid would have been succesful.
Liverpool saw as as rivals, even lesser of a team than themselves. Why would they improve us by selling us their best player.
The player was not forcing a move to Arsenal, they didn't need the money. And if £40m is an insult an extra £10 wouldn't suddenly change their minds.
We clearly remember things differently.
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/562274/Luis-Suarez-Arsenal-move-Liverpool-biting-ban
We know he wanted to join us.
======
No he didn't. He wanted to use us to get a move to Spain.
Maybe we would have had to pay £60m but it could have happened. Anyway its all irrelevant. Chelsea know how to buy a player who isnt for sale. We have never once done it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Robert Lewandowski
Page 1 of 4
posted on 6/3/16
he will regret not bidding for Drognaldohimovicoure more imo
posted on 6/3/16
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez. Absolute farce that summer. If we had its near impossible to imagine we wouldn't have won the league this year. All cos we didn't wanna pay an extra 10 million
posted on 6/3/16
He probably did consider a bid.
Any specific time he could have got him?
posted on 6/3/16
Man U 😂😂
posted on 6/3/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/3/16
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez.
......
Making a £50m bid for Suarez would in all probability have been successful, bidding £40m + £1 was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How? It should have activated the clause to let us talk to him.
Liverpool broke the conditions of Suarez's contract, and were very vocal about it as well. Bidding over the clause makes no sense.
posted on 6/3/16
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez.
......
Making a £50m bid for Suarez would in all probability have been successful, bidding £40m + £1 was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How? It should have activated the clause to let us talk to him.
Liverpool broke the conditions of Suarez's contract, and were very vocal about it as well. Bidding over the clause makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 6/3/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/3/16
comment by Andre's Samba Scarf (U6253)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why the feck did we not sign Higiuin or Suarez.
......
Making a £50m bid for Suarez would in all probability have been successful, bidding £40m + £1 was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How? It should have activated the clause to let us talk to him.
Liverpool broke the conditions of Suarez's contract, and were very vocal about it as well. Bidding over the clause makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What other club would have done such a thing. Our board should have been savvy enough to know the realistic outcome.
posted on 6/3/16
comment by Idontlikemondays (U6377)
posted 27 seconds ago
As I said, if you made a respectable offer it probably would have been successful, your offer made FSG mug you off so yes, it was a stupid thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the offer met the clause. Legally they had no right to 'mug us off'.
We should have been allowed to talk to Suarez on the back of the bid, and then after that be in a position to negotiate with Liverpool if we got positive feedback from Suarez.
It would have been idiotic to bid over the clause as an initial bid.
posted on 6/3/16
What other club would have done such a thing. Our board should have been savvy enough to know the realistic outcome.
=========
Every club.
What club bids over a clause? Makes no sense.
posted on 6/3/16
Don't be so naive.
posted on 6/3/16
It is you being naive.
Liverpool would not sell to us at any price, and they made that very clear. They broke the contract Suarez had to deny us the right to speak to him.
posted on 6/3/16
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
posted on 6/3/16
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the beautiful bit in this article is this:
"It's been great for Luis, it's been great for us. We have three gentlemen up front Suárez, [Raheem] Sterling, and [Daniel]Sturridge, [they] are young, I think those three could be together for a long time."
posted on 6/3/16
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the beautiful bit in this article is this:
"It's been great for Luis, it's been great for us. We have three gentlemen up front Suárez, [Raheem] Sterling, and [Daniel]Sturridge, [they] are young, I think those three could be together for a long time."
---------------------------------------
well they still have sturridge but benteke and origi next to him.
dont they still own balotelli?
posted on 6/3/16
Wenger should regret........
not growing and adapting as a manager,
not bothering to analyse his past failures,
not demanding more from himself or his player's,
accepting trophy less season's,
losing his self respect for money,
losing the respect of maintaining his winning legacy,
giving the supporter's and club he supposedly loves a second rate service for almost a DECADE,
short changing the fans and club with endless pathetic transfer windows,
his capacity to consistantly fail, even with the greatest team's in club history,
his monumental, endless and hollow sound bites,
his dreadful lack of game management,
his knack of making the same mistakes season after season on and off the pitch,
his NINE season's of trophy-less mis-management,
his propensity to sign ONE top class player to appease fan's but never enough to have a team good enough to challenge for the top trophies,
his propensity to do just enough to secure Champions League qualification but nothing more,
his endless excuses for his abysmal failure's,
his annoying voyeurism in other club's affairs,.....
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on,..........
WENGER OUT !!!
posted on 6/3/16
I'm not sure Wenger is far wrong when he says this is the stongest squad we've had since the invincibles. You could make arguments for 07/08 and 10/11 but I always felt with those sides that you were going to get let down by the back 5. I said in the summer, had we signed a second defensive midfielder, I would have been very happy with our squad going into the season.
What I blame Wenger for is not being able to manage his side properly. Mostly glaringly, until yesterday we've been playing a system for the last 3 months that depends entirely on a player who has been unavailable for that whole time, i.e. Cazorla.
Wenger had not changed the system (until yesterday), and had seemingly not instructed the players how they should be playing it - either that or he doesn't know. As a result even when winning games we have not been comfortable, and when losing them we've exposed the back four and looked feeble. That's what I blame Wenger for.
posted on 6/3/16
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the beautiful bit in this article is this:
"It's been great for Luis, it's been great for us. We have three gentlemen up front Suárez, [Raheem] Sterling, and [Daniel]Sturridge, [they] are young, I think those three could be together for a long time."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'What we've found is that contracts don't seem to mean a lot'
Hence the clause was irrelevant
posted on 6/3/16
In John Henrys opinion. If Suarez wanted to join us, and we had any indication of this, both parties would be well in their right to take Henry and Liverpool to court.
Fact is Suarez wanted to go to Spain, and thus a long drawn out court case was not in our interest. Nor was bidding more - as neither Liverpool wanted to sell to us nor Suarez wanted to join us.
posted on 6/3/16
"It doesn't matter how long a player's contract is, he can decide he's leaving. We sold a player, Fernando Torres, for £50m, that we did not want to sell, we were forced to.
"Since apparently these contracts don't seem to hold, we took the position that we're just not selling.'
With more pressure Suarez could have forced the move. We know he wanted to join us.
posted on 6/3/16
Not sure why people assume a £50m bid would have been succesful.
Liverpool saw as as rivals, even lesser of a team than themselves. Why would they improve us by selling us their best player.
The player was not forcing a move to Arsenal, they didn't need the money. And if £40m is an insult an extra £10 wouldn't suddenly change their minds.
posted on 6/3/16
We clearly remember things differently.
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/562274/Luis-Suarez-Arsenal-move-Liverpool-biting-ban
posted on 6/3/16
We know he wanted to join us.
======
No he didn't. He wanted to use us to get a move to Spain.
posted on 6/3/16
Maybe we would have had to pay £60m but it could have happened. Anyway its all irrelevant. Chelsea know how to buy a player who isnt for sale. We have never once done it.
Page 1 of 4