Fox 4 Life Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 Is this a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 So has he signed yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzell Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 1 hour ago, AjcW said: Yh just all reports saying FIFA rejected as it was past midnight... Well if they did reject the extension then what a major fvck up from us. I mean even Chelsea needed the extension to wrap up the Drinkwater deal. Absolute shambles from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 8 minutes ago, Babylon said: Pretty sure we refused to pay the release clause / asking price of £20m+ for Musa in the January didn't we, then went back for him in the summer and got him for less. Clear to me if I'm remembering correctly that we weren't just happy to pay anything. Don't let facts get in the way of Chrysalis and others slating the club/Rudkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuge Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 And we're all arguing over hypothetical situations. Get a grip. Let's be honest, everyone knows f**k all. Jesus wept. Literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 4 minutes ago, Chrysalis said: I am not the one saying we "will" go bankrupt" The 20 million "would" be losses. Neither of the above two are true. Slimani and musa were deals done fairly quickly, clearly they were done in a different manner. For a start both transfers we didnt sell a player first to make way for them, I dont need to speculate there, I just look at the ins and outs of that summer. Again you posted without thinking, slow down, think boy. If you making 36 million on profit for a season, then how does spending 20 million bankrupt you? Nobody has said we will go bankrupt but if we just threw away £20m on two transfers (and there have been 6 or so in this window alone so just how much extra would you have cost the club?) but it all adds up meaning in a couple of years we're in debt and become a selling club again. You're the one who doesn't seem to be thinking ahead, or remembering the past. Less of the patronising please. Because you'd lose us £20m just on DD/Silva, how much extra would you thoughtlessly throw away on other players you wanted to buy and sell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealingfox Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 How the hell would technically owning both players for a grand total of 10 minutes whilst we sent off the Drinkwater papers have left us bankrupt or in breach of FFP? We should have made sure the ink was dry on Silva and everything was confirmed before sending off anything to do with Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirminghamFox Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 What does a silva medalist and a priest have in common? They both came in a little behind.... 14 seconds to be precise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamafox Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 14 seconds is nothing compared to 14 minutes. Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 10 minutes ago, Gerard said: You would certainly think that there would be a clause pending on international clearance. It seems crazy not to have stipulations. Seems crazy to release a player before getting his replacement... so who the hell knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 2 minutes ago, BirminghamFox said: What does a silva medalist and a priest have in common? They both came in a little behind.... 14 seconds to be precise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCP4Ever Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 6 minutes ago, Fox 4 Life said: The fact Sporting have previous experience with this scenario tells me they are a little more to blame than we have been led to believe. Either way it's a ****ing shambles. That's a fair point, except for the fact that it was a different board back then, and that failed because of a number of reasons, miscommunication being a key one. Honestly, I don't think it matters whose fault it is. I'd wager it was everyone, from Sporting to Leicester to Chelsea to Drinkwater. The number of things that have to be done, signed, notarized, etc are extensive when it's one transfer, so when there's a finite number of people trying to finish two deals at the same time, it's normal that things take longer, and mistakes can happen. In the end, assigning blame isn't going to get him registered faster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbogre Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Hundreds Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 100% applauding at 14 seconds on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 Just now, Turbogre said: I hope he succeeds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 3 minutes ago, ealingfox said: How the hell would technically owning both players for a grand total of 10 minutes whilst we sent off the Drinkwater papers have left us bankrupt or in breach of FFP? We should have made sure the ink was dry on Silva and everything was confirmed before sending off anything to do with Chelsea. It wouldn't and nobody is suggesting that. Just making the argument that's it's quite possible signing Silva and NOT getting rid of DD could potentially mean we ended up breaking rules. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't... but when there are more obvious things to bash the club over in this, suggesting we fecked up by not just signing the bloke and sodding the potential consequences seems a bit silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les-tah Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 1 minute ago, Turbogre said: stopping him doing his trade. should say its makin him suicidal and depressed how he cannot play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 2 minutes ago, Turbogre said: Go on laaaaaaaaa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 100% applauding at 14 seconds on Saturday.Hazard will be netting his first from a Drinkwater assist on 14 seconds. You'll just make yourself look like a Chelsea fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealingfox Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 1 minute ago, Babylon said: It wouldn't and nobody is suggesting that. Just making the argument that's it's quite possible signing Silva and NOT getting rid of DD could potentially mean we ended up breaking rules. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't... but when there are more obvious things to bash the club over in this, suggesting we fecked up by not just signing the bloke and sodding the potential consequences seems a bit silly. Why would we not have gotten rid of Drinkwater? The deal was agreed. There were no potential consequences. If Chelsea had missed the deadline it would have been no skin off our noses, just as Sporting are free and easy about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papasmurf Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 35 minutes ago, Chrysalis said: Money isnt everything. It seems many on here think its more important to haggle for maximum profits than to build a squad, unreal. Too much time playing football manager? Did you miss the administration years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 Quote Fifa say Leicester’s final paperwork did not arrive until 14 seconds after the deadline in the early hours of Friday morning, despite Leicester insisting they sent it just before the cut-off. http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/fifa-urged-show-common-sense-433142 So if it was sent two weeks before hand (and that can be proved) and it is received fourteen seconds after the deadline that is also invalid? It is not about when it is received surely but when it was sent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 18 minutes ago, SCP4Ever said: Nice sentiment, but sometimes, the offer is too good to refuse, no matter when it's submitted. Besides, that doesn't prevent clubs triggering the release clause in the contracts. Sure, nothing can be done about release clauses. I think you have to be pro-active though. We used to be a pro-active club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 18 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Perfect. Now all we need is a time machine to take us back to 10pm last Thursday and we're back in business. Haha, I'd just settle for us learning from this and not getting caught up in it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Boos Up Posted 6 September 2017 Share Posted 6 September 2017 I'd like a club statement, even if it's just to say we are discussing some registration difficulties with FIFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.