He's right, you don't always get what you want.

But not getting Stones and signing a second rate player like Papy was taking the piss.

If we keep going after unobtainable players you have to question the wisdom of investing so much time and resources into pursuing them in the first place.

Just because you don't always get what you want doesn't mean you shouldn't have a plan B. 

 

Also, what about Vidal and Costa? They were available and he didn't notice. They're exactly what we need right now - much more than Stones.

 

Honestly, I just want this mug gone. The sooner the better.

you are wrong and completely barking ............

Fixed it.

...not getting Stones and signing a second rate player like Papy was taking the piss.

 

If we had signed no one, people would have been livid because we didn't get a defender even though we needed one. It seemed pretty clear that Everton wasn't going to sell, so we should've been more active in looking for an alternative. Or perhaps there were none available... (no high profile defenders)

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by Maksimov

Just because you don't always get what you want doesn't mean you shouldn't have a plan B.

Also, what about Vidal and Costa? They were available and he didn't notice. They're exactly what we need right now - much more than Stones.

Honestly, I just want this mug gone. The sooner the better.

Well Costa is a wide midfielder and we won the title at a canter with Hazard and Willian on the flanks plus brought in Pedro and Kennedy so I think it's harsh to say that was an obvious weak area especially since we added someone of Pedro's quality.

The central midfield I agree with, we were asking for trouble by not addressing it since the cracks started to appear after Christmas in the Cesc/Matic combination. Mikel and Ramires were both never going to be good enough while RLC is raw and untested.

----edit----
 

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by Maksimov

Well Costa is a wide midfielder and we won the title at a canter with Hazard and Willian on the flanks plus brought in Pedro and Kennedy so I think it's harsh to say that was an obvious weak area especially since we added someone of Pedro's quality.

The central midfield I agree with, we were asking for trouble by not addressing it since the cracks started to appear after Christmas in the Cesc/Matic combination. Mikel and Ramires were both never going to be good enough while RLC is raw and untested.

 

Really? You bring the 'we won the league with [insert]' argument? Does that still work for you?

Really? You bring the 'we won the league with [insert]' argument? Does that still work for you?

Erm did you not see the part about the midfield?

Costa wasn't a requirement since we brought in Pedro and added Kennedy and Traore too the mix.

Unless you think this is Champ manager and you can just have 5-6 top class wide men and keep them all happy.....

Fact was we had a championship winning squad that needed freshening up in certain areas, the wide position did get addition and of a very high standard so I'm struggling to see what you are on about with Costa....

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by Chelsbear

Also a bit of common sense - if Eva is demoted for helping Hazard when he claimed to be injured then Emenalo should be exiled to the moon for messing up at least one season with his lack of football acumen.

At 42 and yet acting so childishly. A shame

Erm did you not see the part about the midfield?

Costa wasn't a requirement since we brought in Pedro and added Kennedy and Traore too the mix.

Unless you think this is Champ manager and you can just have 5-6 top class wide men and keep them all happy.....

Fact was we had a championship winning squad that needed freshening up in certain areas, the wide position did get addition and of a very high standard so I'm struggling to see what you are on about with Costa....

 

Kennedy and Traore aren't good enough (yet), while Pedro, well, could be better. Costa turned out to be a big hit for Bayern, making them forget about Robben. I'd expect a technical director to see that. He didn't.

 

Edit: Just to make it clear, it is not just a question of whether he brought someone in at all, but more importantly who he brought in. Sure, we have Traore, Kennedy and Pedro and yet we can't string together a decent attack against Stoke. I'd venture a guess that we would be better off with Costa.

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by PythonLu

Kennedy and Traore aren't good enough (yet), while Pedro, well, could be better. Costa turned out to be a big hit for Bayern, making them forget about Robben. I'd expect a technical director to see that. He didn't.

 

No one can say for sure that Costa would've been a big hit in Premier League or more specifically a big hit at Chelsea. Costa is now playing for a winning team. That's not something you can say about Chelsea.

 

And who knows... Maybe he wasn't available TO US for one reason or another.

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by Maksimov

If we had signed no one, people would have been livid because we didn't get a defender even though we needed one. It seemed pretty clear that Everton wasn't going to sell, so we should've been more active in looking for an alternative. Or perhaps there were none available... (no high profile defenders)

It's just so bizarre that we went for the polar opposite of what John Stones is as the alternative.

It made us look armature in our transfer dealings this summer.

This isn't freaking football manager. How does anyone know we didn't try to sign Costa or Vidal. They chose a bigger and better club, simple.

Regarding the Costa wasn't required because of Pedro.

Don't forget Pedro was a last minute panic buy. That, to me, clearly shows that we didn't pass up Costa because we were going for Pedro but that they didn't think a player in that position was needed until after the season had already started. That's a transfer failure with a last second attempt at a quick fix, not a situation of prefering another player the whole time while recognizing the need.

Reading through some of these posts are unbelievable. On one hand Emanalo is to blame for openly trying to sign stones (although there is no real evidence of this). On the other hand he's being blamed for not signing 2 players that went to Bayern (yet again we don't know what goes on behind the scenes). Very strange that Emanalo is being used as a scapegoat. If we were riding high this conversation wouldn't be in progress.

Sorry mate I disagree, it was Terry then Cahill who spoke about him in the media

Oh you mean when the reporters asked them directly about Stones joining Chelsea? Hmmm wonder how those reporters knew exactly what question to ask.....

He told the Daily Telegraph: “We understand as a

club this is football and you don’t always get

what you want – and that is not to suggest that

we didn’t get what we want. We understand that as long as we have done things right and made the right effort there is no need to have regrets. A couple of years ago it was well documented we tried to get [Wayne] Rooney. We didn’t get Rooney and we still finished second (eh, actually we finished third but no problem,we sometimes forget these little details unless we don't care about the club, right Forever Carefree?) and started strongly, so there is no correlation between whether we had a big transfer window or not. What is important to understand is that as a club we work as a unit to try to get things done and get it done the right way. We didn’t get Stones, not because we didn’t want him but because Everton didn’t want to sell Stones.”

You must have read my post. Bless your heart sir.

Yes, we didn't get Rooney and finished third..... but if we had a proper striker that season, we'd of won the title. So I would say there is a correlation, SAF would agree.

Btw, Everton didn't want to sell Rooney, Fellaini, Lescott, Arteta, Rodwell...well you get my point, right?

What did everyone expect Emanalo to do exactly???

Sign Stones for 65mil and sign Pogba for 80m with 350k a week wages?????

That's the only way we were signing them. Anything to please Jose right

I expect him to understand the climate he needs to operate in. I think just about any poster on this board would know that offering Everton a bid that could appear derisory just weeks before the window closed would lead to certain failure, especially when it's fairly public. I won't rehash the details as its already been done in this thread.

Probably could of had Stones at less than our final bid had we opened with a stronger bid and done so with more respect ( like giving them time to find a replacement and secure deals before everyone Jacks up a premium because they know they need a replacement and got a big payout). This 65mil is nonsense. Of course a poor negotiation leads to higher prices.

Numerous top notch midfielders moved for far less. It wasn't Pogba or bust.

Edit: Well, it shouldn't have been Pogba or bust.

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by Barry Bridges

What top notch midfielders moved for far less?? Ones we had a realistic chance of signing. Someone like Vidal wasn't realistic

"but IF we had a proper striker that season, we'd

of won the title."

Big iF that, don't you think?

you are not going to see it in the press ..........but I can say with complete certainty what was discussed over 18 months year ago between both parties ,,,,,,,,,,,,and Emenalo started and initiated the dialogue

Id love to see the evidence of us interested in Stones 18 months ago. Makes you wonder why we didnt just buy him then?

Just because you don't always get what you want doesn't mean you shouldn't have a plan B.

Also, what about Vidal and Costa? They were available and he didn't notice. They're exactly what we need right now - much more than Stones.

Honestly, I just want this mug gone. The sooner the better.

Hey I got this suggestion for you to look into. Why don't you buy the club and then get rid of him.

"but IF we had a proper striker that season, we'd

of won the title."

Big iF that, don't you think?

I don't think so. Only player to get double digit goals in the league was Hazard. 5 of 6 losses were by one goal and 7 draws. That's a potential 19 points that could of been won with just one more goal. Only needed 5 more to win the league. You don't think a top striker would of have been able to make that difference?

We had a top forward for about half the season(injury/bans/form) and still took the league last season. That to me makes it a little "if" that the title would of been won the year prior had that position been sorted properly.

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by Barry Bridges

Regarding the Costa wasn't required because of Pedro.

Don't forget Pedro was a last minute panic buy. That, to me, clearly shows that we didn't pass up Costa because we were going for Pedro but that they didn't think a player in that position was needed until after the season had already started.

 

This is based on the assumption that Costa would've wanted to join Chelsea if Chelsea made an offer. This is something we just don't know. Maybe Costa didn't want to join Chelsea or Shaktar didn't want to sell Costa to Chelsea. Or maybe Costa had already agreed to join Bayern, so even if Shaktar would've been willing to sell him to us, they couldn't because they'd already agreed to sell him to Bayern.

 

Or... Maybe Chelsea thought they'd get another player, but didn't and then went for Pedro because he was available.

 

I don't believe that Chelsea were sleeping until the very end of the transfer window, then panicked and bought Pedro because they hadn't tried to sign anyone and then suddenly realised that they needed to sign someone. I think it's far more plausible to assume that Chelsea had been negotiating for other players and Pedro was the one that they got in the end.

100% would of agreed a year ago but after the CB debacle this summer, to me,  it reeked of last minute attempts to patch holes that were refused to be recognized by the board (or whom ever) until after the season had already started.

This is based on the assumption that Costa would've wanted to join Chelsea if Chelsea made an offer. This is something we just don't know. Maybe Costa didn't want to join Chelsea or Shaktar didn't want to sell Costa to Chelsea. Or maybe Costa had already agreed to join Bayern, so even if Shaktar would've been willing to sell him to us, they couldn't because they'd already agreed to sell him to Bayern.

 

Or... Maybe Chelsea thought they'd get another player, but didn't and then went for Pedro because he was available.

 

I don't believe that Chelsea were sleeping until the very end of the transfer window, then panicked and bought Pedro because they hadn't tried to sign anyone and then suddenly realised that they needed to sign someone. I think it's far more plausible to assume that Chelsea had been negotiating for other players and Pedro was the one that they got in the end.

 

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/douglas-costa-i-can-achieve-everything-i-want-chelsea-mourinho-best#:Pvs0JKZqqTL4oA

 

Quote: 'I’d be really interested in moving to Chelsea'