CFC_RFC_TID!

lol

This aged well.

if my read my posts you might be somewhat more enlightened, but after years of reading your one sentence sniders and having contributed not one single salient point over your many, many tiresome posts, i am firmly aware of the fact that reading what others have to say is not something you actively engage in. over and out.

its a forum for discussion, and this merits discussion. the crux of the issue for me is the fact that we let him go on a two year loan and seemingly are unable to recall him. as mentioned previously, this has been discussed on this forum before and reported in the press that we do not have a recall clause. if we do, and choose to bring him back, great. the point of the discussion is that should we not have an option to bring our player back, then something is far, far wrong, and again begs the question as to who is making these decisions. this forum has gone to sh*t. bickering, bitching, f**kery from the usual suspects. its f**king dire and its no wonder the decent posters have packed their bags and f**ked off. utter garbage.

you've entirely missed the point, as usual.

the trouble is that by all accounts we cannot bring him back at a time of our choosing as it is a two year deal. this is why im utterly flummoxed as to why people think that this is a non-story. i think that this just highlights our absolutely rudderless policy of farming prospects out without any long term strategy or plan. who the f**k loans out one of our supposedly brightest defensive prospects on a two year deal with no break clause? this isnt the first time the two year with no break has been highlighted, and indeed on another thread on here it was mentioned and universally agreed as fact. bizarre that ripmourinho is saying there is "no substance" to the article. the whole f**king substance is the fact that its a two year loan, then states that conte must be coming here because he's resigned as italy manager and has "mentioned the premier league". must be bullsh*t though.

evidence that would suggest conte is coming here. what evidence? he's leaving italy after the euros and we need a manager? you are making assumptions, yet criticising stories which are based on the same presumptions of fact. Christensen has a two year loan deal which we are apparently trying to cut short. there is no break clause in the deal, it is a two year agreement. does that therefore not constitute a similar degree of "evidence" that you refer to in order to make an informed supposition regards his future? you've totally contradicted yourself. Christensen is playing first team football, and is now highly regarded throughout europe with rumours of barcelona sniffing about and showing an interest. if common sense is being applied here, as you appear to be doing regards conte, then you cant have it both ways. there's little doubt in my mind that christensen holds no desire to return to a chaotic chelsea where his position may potentially be overlooked, when he could stay in germany, play in either the EL or maybe CL depending on their finish to the season, and continue to develop. Im astonished that this is being touted as trash simply because it doesnt sit with the blue-tint-firm. remotely negative story? crap. positive story? oh there must be some truth in it. give me a break.

So we can say the same about conte then? That could just be made up bullsh*t by a journo?

Why would there be quotes? Why any time when it's remotely negative is it automatically deemed sh*te? There are NO quotes regarding conte coming here yet everyone takes it as gospel that it's a done deal, yet a player who has quite possibly made comments to his agent with the intention of them reaching chelsea is considered garbage, because there's no quotes? I know a number of people who work in the press and can tell you for an absolute FACT that they have their sources. "Sources close to the player" generally means agent, or mate. Rags like the mirror and the express will often pull rumours together from various outlets throughout Europe and draw their own conclusions, but any half reputable publication will have done their homework, and I'd class the guardian in there as a relatively reputable source Suits too many on here to dismiss things like this just because it doesn't chime with their own pro chelsea agenda. Seen it time and time again on here. Mata leaving: NO CHANCE IT'S ALL sh*tE. Lukaku leaving: repeat. Mourinho being Sacked: groundhog day. Instead of simply dismissing it as sh*te, it would be nice if you could actually contribute something to a forum which has deteriorated significantly in recent months. For me, this deal is indicative of our car crash situation at present, allowing a prospect like christensen to go out on a two year loan with no break clause. Who is making these decisions? And can you blame him for wasting to stay and play regular first team bundesliga football instead of returning to chelsea to warm a bench and then be sold in January? I can't. But there's no quotes anyway, so let's file this one under nonsense because dkw says so. Admin close the thread. Cheers

Make of it what you will. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/30/chelsea-andreas-christensen-gladbach-loan

This forum has changed.

What did you have for dinner?

The circus called and they need their clown back.

Sounds totally believable.