youlots

But don't you see - that would be exactly the wrong approach to take. The classy thing to do is always to be gracious & let bygones be bygones: it's only football for f**k sakes. In any case - if I have read Conte at all thus far - it would simply not be in his nature to act like that and nor would I be pleased if he did.

Have to agree with this. Although I wasn't at the game (for obvious reasons) I did watch it live down here. I thought ourlot were incredibly classy throughout the game in respect to Jose & just loved the irony when the Jose chants started after we'd put them to the sword - had a good chuckle & thought at the time that surely Jose must appreciate it too. At the end of the game Jose had, in turn, a golden opportunity to be classy in return but he stuffed it. All he had to do was smile & be gracious to Conte & say to him that we were too good on the day. Surely it has occurred to Jose (of all people) since the game that touchline managerial flamboyance is to be savoured and I hope for him that he has at least acknowledged to himself his hypocrisy in that regard. Anyway, the king is dead, long live king Conte etc etc.

I have an issue with the new version of the site: it would seem that there is a clock running whenever you're logged in. In recent days I have written some lengthy posts after which I go to post same only to find that my username has been timed out. You can then imagine the frustration where one has to go through the whole process again. So what is the clock time period? Perhaps you could let us know. Another issue albeit less important is that on the old site, you could always see at the bottom of any particular open thread as to which posters were viewing same. Now you can't which I think is a shame - especially in circumstances where there is a discussion taking place.

Oh Hitchens...ffs. What did Evans do wrong?!? Well for starters, he admitted that he sought to obtain the key to the locked door so as to enter the bedroom in which the woman slept. Now why in all honesty do you think he did that? Do you suppose, for example, he wished to gain access to the room so as to speak with her & gain her wisdom on footballing matters as they pertained to him? Perhaps he wished to obtain her political views? You state that "her story seemed very suspect": in what regard exactly? her evidence was that she could not remember. How is that suspect exactly when you are extremely intoxicated? The fact is that the jury did not have enough evidence to even properly consider the issue of consent due to the fact that the woman in question cannot remember what took place at the time. And for ffs: the jury adjudged him not guilty - it didn't find him "innocent" at all - there is a tantamount difference. So - do us a favour - don't bother us with cheap & totally inaccurate polemic in future. And grow up.

For what exactly?!? Getting drunk & lying down on a bed behind a locked door?!? The more things change.....

Further to that I'd have thought that Conte would find it decidedly odd if there was no acknowledgment/applause for Mourinho either before, during or after the game. Perhaps it's just me but just can't understand those among us who have to constantly bleat or whine about Jose - he's the enemy now blah blah blah - it's so f**kin' tiresome & boorish - I mean how hard is it to be respectful? Not very hard at all as it turns out & it's decidedly un-classy not to be so even for those among us who have "issues" ala Mourinho.

Yep. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to collect a bob from all of those posters who, over the last 18 months, continually asserted (and still do albeit that there's far fewer of em' these days) that we had such a great squad & that it was all Mourinho's fault?

Well...it wasn't your post I quoted was it? However, and notwithstanding that, obviously some posters including you will remain unhappy regarding some transfers - surely that's the case at any club is it not? What is your point exactly in relation to the op - ie. do you agree with the op's opinion that Mourinho is solely to blame for the success and/or failure of out transfers for the whole of the period that Emenalo has been technical director at the club?

So....you've chosen one transfer out of dozens over the material period. And regards a player who at the time had issued an ultimatum after playing a handful of games. Doesn't really add to the discussion does it?

Coxy - a very good & balanced response to the op. Qaz - a few thoughts: (i) Ordinarily I couldn't give a toss about poster's spelling but it's Emenalo not Emenelo isn't it? (ii) I think it would have been useful by way of preface to set out a comparison table of our nett spend for each season over the last 5 to 6 years don't you think & then to link it to our results for each season & possibly to then link it to the nett spends of our competitors over the same period; (iii) You say at one point (& entirely reasonably imo) that we can't be sure as to whom was ultimately responsible for each & every transfer at the club during the period you've chosen to look at but then proceed on the assumption that Mourinho was whilst here in his 2nd tenure due to Emenalo offering to resign as technical director when the former was re-hired. As far as I'm aware, that offer was declined by the board was it not? So, if Emenalo continued as technical director during Mourinho's 2nd stint (which he did & does to this day), don't you think it's reasonable to assume that he continued to have some input into our transfers? If not, what did his role as technical director comprise? If it is the case that he continued to have some role in the transfer team (which surely he must have) then wouldn't it have been more honest to conclude - as has Coxy - that no one individual is to blame for the success and/or failure of our transfers over the last 5 to 6 years? To say, as you do, that "Jose f**ked us" (ie. solely to blame) & to express a view that Emenalo should not be accorded any blame whatsoever, is rather myopic isn't it? (iv) Finally, and as you state, your analysis has been conducted in total hindsight - now obviously hindsight has it value but I have to say that selective hindsight/cherrypicking rarely has any value whatsoever when it is used predominantly as a tool to found a rather specious conclusion - ie. that Mourinho is solely to blame.

Yes - this has been rather obvious to some of us for a long time. Plaudits to you for not only recognizing this but having the honesty to post about it. I wonder if others who were so enthusiastic on here about having Fabregas start this game will match your honesty.

well....quite a puffed up post. I would've thought it axiomatic that the board's aim this season is for us to make the top 4 given last season: seems reasonable enough to me - it follows that the board members and myself must, in your view, be stupid idiots. Righto..... The best squad in the league?!? I disagree, but as I'm a stupid idiot in your view I doubt you care. City to go kaput?!? Well...I think you'll find that most on here believe that City has by far and away the best squad.....obviously idiots the lot of us. How is that solid defense at Stoke going? whoops a daisy. We have the best defence?!? that gave me a laugh. All in all a very entertaining post from you.

So.....when faced with 5 at the back, you're idea is to crowd the front mid. You really don't have a clue do you?

Willian is and has been a very useful player for us & I think most of us are very appreciative of his work ethic & contribution since he's been with us & long may it continue. However, notions that he could, if given the chance & in some imagined way, become a midfield play-maker of the ilk of Iniesta or Silva are completely unrealistic. He simply doesn't have the spatial awareness, close control or passing abilities of either of those players and he never will.

You didn't "rate" Mourinho either. To say that Conte is "timid" is a rather obtuse characterization to make and is not borne out if one looks at the whole of his managerial career & especially now given that he is very new to the EPL (which of course is a much faster league than Serie A) and in circumstances where he has inherited an unsettled defense. How can he be criticised for our utter profligacy during the 1st half of this fixture or the incompetence (or worse) of the refereeing at crucial moments during the 2nd? Unless and until you answer those questions with a degree of objectivity, I think it's fair to say that most posters on this board will continue to not "rate" you. What say you to that?

Soc - thx for posting that opinion piece from WAGNH - a provocative but thoughtful piece as are the comments that follow it - one comment on the piece particularly struck me & aligns with my thoughts on the current defence imbroglio which is why Conte doesn't want to start Fab in certain games. Anyway, this fella/sheila's (TheInsideJob) rather apposite comments on the on-going saga are as follows: "You have made one assumption in your article which is RA is willing to sanction fees of 70Mil 80Mil pounds for the likes of K2. I’m pretty sure people like Maria has got to refer to RA if the player we intent to buy has a price above a defined threshold. In the case of K2 I’m also pretty sure RA pulled the plug on the deal and I agree with RA. While there is a dire need to upgrade of CB options it makes no sense to pay figures north of 50Mil Pounds for a player of K2’s skill level. 50Mil Pounds is already a ridiculous number to pay. Our reluctance to spend really big on players appears to me like RA having learned his lesson after getting his fingers burnt badly with the Shevchenko and Torres deals. That is 80Mil pounds just in transfer fee and we plus wages that is north of a 100Mil Pounds money down the drain. A 100Mil Pounds. That is a lot of money. The kind of money that will enable you and me to retire and leave out the rest of our lives in comfort. On the John Stones deal, wasn’t it an Everton based reporter who first made our pursuit public? It wasn’t Chelsea that made this public IIRC. I’m also not sure if we kind of pissed Everton off in the negotiations. Everton was asking for 50Mil Pounds. We said we could pay up to 40Mil Pounds? I don’t think that is unfair on Chelsea’s part. Of course then Everton made a public statement about how we are a big bad horrible club. Everton and Martinez were the only guys making public statements throughout the entire time we were after Stones. They would of course say that in public to show their fans that they can hold onto their important players from big clubs like Chelsea. I suspect Everton promised John Stones that if he stayed one more year they would let him go the next year if another big bid came in. Man City were willing to pay what Everton was asking for and so Everton decided to let him go. We learned our lesson. We applied what we learned with the K2 deal. They asked for 30, 40, 50 and then 60Mil Euros. We matched their asking price right from the start up to 50Mil Euros. The difference was Napoli was taking us on a magic carpet ride and K2 and his agent was using Chelsea to broker a better deal for him self. The John Stones saga and the K2 sagas are different. If Napoli was willing to sell we would have got the deal done 8 weeks ago. I’m sure of that. I also suspect there was no real desire on K2’s part to join us. He never pushed for a move. John Stones at least put in a transfer request. Where I agree with you is the lack of back up options once it became clear that the K2 deal was not going to happen. We knew that Mustafi was available. The club did not rate him so we never made any attempt to buy. The wisdom of that decision will become apparent in the next 10 to 12 weeks. Maksimovic is a strange one. The players wants to leave and he has forced the club into selling him. Why are we not going in for him I don’t know. I’m not privy to the background negotiations so I cannot really answer that question. Is he going to move to Napoli and therefore that would free up K2 to sign for us? Is there indeed truth in the reports that Maksi only wants to go to Napoli and does not want to come to Chelsea. Things will become clearer in the next 48 hours. For me personally, I have made peace with the idea that we are not going to sign any CB this transfer window and it will be even harder to do that in the January window. So any CB signings will be a surprise for me." by TheInsideJob on Aug 30, 2016 | 5:46 AM I'm likewise resigned & I think that we must take this opportunity & this season to blood/rotate - have some bloody faith - in our youth as far as the defence is concerned. JT has this season alone to mentor/teach these kids.

I agree. I could be wrong but my recollections are that Cesc has had a bigger influence on games in the PL for us when brought on later usually because he is by then, not surprisingly, given more space/time on the ball. It would be interesting to see some stats on his assists time-wise in games & no doubt Conte has all those. I don't know why some constantly whinge/bemoan the fact that he's not started against teams set up to defend/counter from the off. It makes eminent sense to not start him against those teams.

touche

cleaner, sharper & rather calming - well done just one beef - on firefox (& google I expect) everytime I go to a new thread topic a pop-up box appears asking me whether I wish to receive notifications. It's annoying.

My only surprise with this is that Klopp didn't state this at the start of his tenure at the club. And furthermore, it would please me no end if other clubs followed suit in respect to any Murdoch publications and/or broadcasting. The reasons are too numerous to mention.

Not at all. Read the club statement. He has merely wished her well & thanked her for her time at the club.

that amount wasn't my quantum takeaway at all and was probably much much less. My understanding is that the "open" offer of 1.2 was made some time ago (ie months) by the club & that the offer lapsed of its own accord. Of significance concerning that amount is that there is absolutely no way the Tribunal would (had she won) made an award of that amount to her. And so leading up to the hearing, the club and its lawyers must have felt rather comfortable in terms of its position regarding the ultimate outcome of the litigation whilst Carneiro & her team would have felt increasingly uncomfortable. And so it played out. In an act of desperation less than 2 weeks before the hearing, Carneiro and her team, no doubt realizing that the club's offer should have been accepted, filed new evidence from her in an attempt to bolster her claims (& most probably as an attempt to have the club renew its earlier offer and/or accept a late counter-offer). That was a critical mistake since the filing & reliance by her on this "new" (somewhat hyperbolic) evidence opened significant new doors to the club in respect to her cross-examination & indeed the club's lawyers made much of that fertile new ground in its opening submissions on the 1st day of the hearing. And of course, the other point of note as the hearing progressed was that the language expert testimony as to what was said - ie. was it son or daughter, seemed to me to be pretty open and shut that it was the former and/or that the Tribunal would find as much. And so, Carneiro & her team, in consequence of this & faced with the prospect of some very damaging cross-examination of her to follow, then...."blinked" ie. settled. In litigation in these circumstances the vernacular attached to such mid-trial settlements in the trade are the "coward's settlement" or "the desperate settlement". Rest assured - she ultimately took much much less than the 1.2 in order to avoid what would have been a disaster for her.

Twas. Not even nominated by the Academy for best foreign language film in '77 (most probably because Hopper had burnt so many in Hollywood) who also erred in awarding the oscar to the wrong film: should of gone to Bunuel for the masterful That Obscure Object of Desire. Anyway - TAF - Hopper as Fabregas perhaps & Ganz as the nobbled Falcao?

I have to say this is more dissembling on your part really: for some one that upholds freedom of expression as 'important' as you do & at one and same time seeks to critique what was clearly a figurative use by me of the material word in the context is cherry-picking, pure and simple. And let's be honest: you have done so in an attempt at deflection of my criticism of those, including you, who use such terms as 'inappropriate' or 'unseemly' or 'classless' or 'non-caring'. What the original poster sought to do was to be critical of any relatives bringing compensation claims expeditiously. That is a fair summation you would have to admit. I took exception to that & also took exception to your comment which was materially of the same view. You now concede, not before time it must be said, that there are substantive reasons for such expedition. But after doing so, you once again retreat from that concession by recourse to further softeners - the use of 'seemly' or 'feels....too soon': tell me this - what on earth has your interpretation of moral time-lines in the given context have to do with the issue? Surely it is only a matter for those claimants & for them alone as to when they choose to proceed. And why should they bear any sort of criticism for doing so immediately especially in circumstances where you readily admit that there are important reasons why they should do so? You suggest that a delay of 'a few days' will have little impact. Tell me: do you think you should write to the claimants or their solicitors and let them know that, if it's all the same to them, if they wouldn't mind holding off from filing their plaints for a few days in order that you'll feel more comfortable about the whole thing? I think that finally closes the gate on your moral superiority does it not?

Oh come now: the original poster's question was not innocently put & left at that - it was a rhetorical conceit to which he then supplied his own answer. The answer he gave to such a conceit produced the heresy. Further, and given your legal experience I'm even more surprised & I might add, dismayed by your original post if anything.