Adrien Silva - Terms Agreed

[Ian Nacho]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

They didnt break any rules.

 

Breaking the spirit of rules is not breaking rules.

I said bend the rules.....

[inckley fox]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Maybe we did give Chelsea a deadline. Maybe they missed it by 14 seconds, and maybe we just accepted it cos we're reasonable human beings who wanted Danny Drinkwater to get the dream move he deserved!

 

If you wanna talk about blame then tell me what Adrien Silva has done to deserve a 19 game ban?

You'd have to ask the Leicester admin people who are responsible for it. It's a bit embarrassing to see so many people blaming FIFA for their deadlines, or Sporting, or Chelsea, or Drinkwater or whoever else. We prioritised letting a player go over bringing in a replacement. Behind the scenes, we did the same last year with our scouting network. These are red lines for ambitious clubs and we either learn from it - and fast - or accept that we'll end up with what our inefficiency deserves.

 

And what sort of club would do the right thing by Chelsea and their new midfielder at our expense, just because we thought it was the decent thing to do? The guy had signed a five year deal less than twelve months ago. We'd hardly screwed him over. If there was a deadline it should have been abided by. But the real issue is the ordering of our priorities.

[SCP1906]

1 minute ago, Dan LCFC said:

If Sporting Clube de Portugal = Sporting Lisbon then Leicester City FC = Leicester Forest

 

Portuguese Cvnts:  Sport Lisboa e Benfica

British Cvnts: Nottingham Forest FC

[RoboFox]

15 minutes ago, SCP1906 said:

Leicester Forest can't loan him if it wants Silva to play this season.
A player can only play in two Clubs in one season.

Adrien Silva already played in Sporting Porto this season. If he goes on a loan he can't play for Leicester Forest this season.

Fixed.

 

[5waller5]

32 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

why did we wait for seconds and not send it hours earlier is the question?

 

It seems we prioritised getting danny over the line before silva, its only money which we got plenty off, it should not have been a requirement to get danny over the line first. Likewise we clearly spend too much getting deals agreed, over haggling to save pennies.

 

I think it's easy to say we prioritised other stuff - ultimately it's a hectic few hours of trading and the time runs out - Happens at all of our work places from time to time - but 14 seconds generally doesn't matter (unless you're the time keeper for a space shuttle launch maybe).

[Chrysalis]

Just now, Ian Nacho said:

I said bend the rules.....

they didnt bend any rules.

[SCP1906]

Just now, RoboFox said:

Fixed.

 

 

....  :

 

Just now, SCP1906 said:

If Sporting Clube de Portugal = Sporting Lisbon then Leicester City FC = Leicester Forest

 

Portuguese Cvnts:  Sport Lisboa e Benfica

British Cvnts: Nottingham Forest FC

 

[Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, 5waller5 said:

 

I think it's easy to say we prioritised other stuff - ultimately it's a hectic few hours of trading and the time runs out - Happens at all of our work places from time to time - but 14 seconds generally doesn't matter (unless you're the time keeper for a space shuttle launch maybe).

Its very easy to say it, how can you explain how danny wasnt late but silva was?

 

The only answer is we sent danny documents first.

 

From that the next question is why did we prioritise danny's transfer over silva's.

 

The problem is you dont like the answer.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

If we have seriously prioritised the financial gain from Drinkwater's sale over getting a replacement in (which is seriously short-sighted in itself) then maybe I was totally delusional in thinking there was ambition at this club.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. If we'd signed this chap and Drinkwater hadn't been sold we'd be stuck with paying the very expensive wages of 2 player on top of the transfer fee until January at least. Not only that other clubs would know we were desperate to get rid of 1 of them in january and could play hardball over the fee.

 

These things sometimes happen. I don't know why everyone has to always look for someone to blame.

[Dan LCFC]

Just now, SCP1906 said:

If Sporting Clube de Portugal = Sporting Lisbon then Leicester City FC = Leicester Forest

 

Portuguese Cvnts:  Sport Lisboa e Benfica

British Cvnts: Nottingham Forest FC

To be honest it doesn't help when there's another Sporting (Gijon) that we signed a player off too.

 

It's similar to people calling Inter Milan that name.

[onekeithweller]

This situation will have to be resolved by FIFA. It is not acceptable that an innocent footballer is denied the right to play his sport for four months because a transfer between clubs has been finalised but his international clearance has not been approved. This will be overturned in any court of law. FIFA need to take a sensible stance and fine the club(s) responsible for not meeting the deadline and let Silva play. 

[Ian Nacho]

1 minute ago, SCP1906 said:

If Sporting Clube de Portugal = Sporting Lisbon then Leicester City FC = Leicester Forest

 

Portuguese Cvnts:  Sport Lisboa e Benfica

British Cvnts: Nottingham Forest FC

Isn't Leicester Forest a rugby club?  

[Great Boos Up]

1 hour ago, Fox 4 Life said:

Probably because we cannot prove when we sent it, if it was a simple as we submitted at 11:59:57 and they received at 12:00:14 and we could prove it, it would have been sorted by now.

Well that could be the simple scenario and Fifa asked for the PC to check. However Rudkin is still deleting his browser history.

[SheppyFox]

Fine Leicester imo, buy our way out of it.

[Fox Ulike]

2 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

You'd have to ask the Leicester admin people who are responsible for it. It's a bit embarrassing to see so many people blaming FIFA for their deadlines, or Sporting, or Chelsea, or Drinkwater or whoever else. We prioritised letting a player go over bringing in a replacement. Behind the scenes, we did the same last year with our scouting network. These are red lines for ambitious clubs and we either learn from it - and fast - or accept that we'll end up with what our inefficiency deserves.

 

And what sort of club would do the right thing by Chelsea and their new midfielder at our expense, just because we thought it was the decent thing to do? The guy had signed a five year deal less than twelve months ago. We'd hardly screwed him over. If there was a deadline it should have been abided by. But the real issue is the ordering of our priorities.

 

All good points. But none of which answer the question I asked. The question which I think over-rides every other consideration:

 

What has Adrien Silva done to deserve a 19 game ban?

[Viva]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

Outgoings are different.

 

Its simple I will explain again.

 

1 - You set a deadline of 2 weeks before end of window for outgoings, adfter that has passed you dont sell the player period, understand so far?  If you dont understand then dont read on.

2 - You allocate time for haggling of inbound player,s e.g. one hour, after that time you either pay up whats on offer or move onto another target.

Oh you sound such a clever boy. It's so simple then isn't it.

We could have sold Drinkwater for £20m, Mahrez for £32m and had our trousers properly pulled down. Or turned down the £35m offer for Drinkwater and kept a very unhappy player. We did the right thing and had the replacement lined up if a suitable bid came in. If not he stays. 

 

People that think all transfers should be completed early in the summer are not living in the real world. 

[Chrysalis]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. If we'd signed this chap and Drinkwater hadn't been sold we'd be stuck with paying the very expensive wages of 2 player on top of the transfer fee until January at least. Not only that other clubs would know we were desperate to get rid of 1 of them in january and could play hardball over the fee.

 

These things sometimes happen. I don't know why everyone has to always look for someone to blame.

You mean like how we stick with paying silva's wages.

 

It is simple, you just said the answer, our priority was getting the money for drinkwater.

[Chrysalis]

Just now, Viva said:

Oh you sound such a clever boy. It's so simple then isn't it.

We could have sold Drinkwater for £20m, Mahrez for £32m and had our trousers properly pulled down. Or turned down the £35m offer for Drinkwater and kept a very unhappy player. We did the right thing and had the replacement lined up if a suitable bid came in. If not he stays. 

 

People that think all transfers should be completed early in the summer are not living in the real world. 

We could have sold drinkwater for 20 million, and kept mahrez, and signed silva, how does that sound?

 

Do we look clever now by not able to sign a player?

[Dan LCFC]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. If we'd signed this chap and Drinkwater hadn't been sold we'd be stuck with paying the very expensive wages of 2 player on top of the transfer fee until January at least. Not only that other clubs would know we were desperate to get rid of 1 of them in january and could play hardball over the fee.

 

These things sometimes happen. I don't know why everyone has to always look for someone to blame.

These things are preventable. We've clearly known for weeks that Drinkwater was off. It shouldn't have all been left this late from all ends. Drinkwater himself would surely have understood if we had stopped his move until we had confirmed his replacement.

 

It's unacceptable. Sorry I'm not just 'oh well'ing this. It's potentially hit our season hard and this was supposed to be a recovery from that shambles last year.

[Webbo]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

You mean like how we stick with paying silva's wages.

 

It is simple, you just said the answer, our priority was getting the money for drinkwater.

Are we paying his wages? I'd imagine any deal would be subject to international clearance.

[Viva]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

We could have sold drinkwater for 20 million, and kept mahrez, and signed silva, how does that sound?

 

Do we look clever now by not able to sign a player?

Sounds like a ridiculous price to sell one of your best players. 

[5waller5]

3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Its very easy to say it, how can you explain how danny wasnt late but silva was?

 

The only answer is we sent danny documents first.

 

From that the next question is why did we prioritise danny's transfer over silva's.

 

The problem is you dont like the answer.

 

I honestly don't care about the answer tbh! I guess they wanted to ensure that they got money in before spending it .... seems sensible .... but also to ensure we didn't have two wages for the same starting spot.

 

It could have even been as simple as the Chelsea side were ready first with their paperwork so it was ready to complete first.

[Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Viva said:

Sounds like a ridiculous price to sell one of your best players. 

 

Does it matter?

 

Maybe you are vichai or a king power shareholder who knows

 

I couldnt give a toss if vichai gets 20 million, I only care about the club.

[Webbo]

Just now, Dan LCFC said:

These things are preventable. We've clearly known for weeks that Drinkwater was off. It shouldn't have all been left this late from all ends. Drinkwater himself would surely have understood if we had stopped his move until we had confirmed his replacement.

 

It's unacceptable. Sorry I'm not just 'oh well'ing this. It's potentially hit our season hard and this was supposed to be a recovery from that shambles last year.

We didn't know, we guessed but Chelsea hadn't bid an acceptable fee. They might have signed someone else. We're talking millions of pounds, you don't risk that kind of money willy nilly.

[ozvaldo]

what a **** up.