8 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

Why would you ask that?

Because it is was completely ludicrous statement to make.  People with a lot of wealth will never allow personal feelings to effect decisions that could impact their finances?  You can't be serious.

4 hours ago, dkw said:

Hes obviously right about the Costa thing though, he was agitating for a move from that summer and tried to get sold to Madrid. Conte probably wasnt blameless but it all came down to Costa wanting to leave.

I agree and have posted quite bluntly that Costa wanted out before Conte ever arrived so I don't put any of that on Conte even if some of the details could have been handled better, but why would he include a striker in his plans that's been asking to leave for years now?..... but the notion that "NO-ONE would make a decision potentially costing millions of pounds based on a personal like or dislike of another person" is so wrong I didn't know if they were just getting carried away with this debate or if they genuinely thought that.

1 hour ago, Barry Bridges said:

Because it is was completely ludicrous statement to make.  People with a lot of wealth will never allow personal feelings to effect decisions that could impact their finances?  You can't be serious.

But that isn't what I said.  I said that top managers making tactical decisions that could ultimately cost them their jobs and their million pound salaries did not make team choices based on the fact that they didn't like someone's haircut or the car they drove or the way they always f**ked up the punch-line of a joke.  Anyone who thinks that a football manager picks a player based solely on whether they would actually like to go down the pub with them is a total twat.  Similarly, anyone who thinks that a football manager would deprive his team of the best player in the world solely because he doesn't "like" him is stupid.  Nothing else.

Quote

I agree and have posted quite bluntly that Costa wanted out before Conte ever arrived so I don't put any of that on Conte even if some of the details could have been handled better, but why would he include a striker in his plans that's been asking to leave for years now?..... but the notion that "NO-ONE would make a decision potentially costing millions of pounds based on a personal like or dislike of another person" is so wrong I didn't know if they were just getting carried away with this debate or if they genuinely thought that.

I can't remember which tosser brought up Costa, but in no reality at all was the decision to sell Costa "personal" or because of Conte's dislike.  Whoever said that needs to grow the f**k up. 

 

Barry, you are normally such a sensible poster I am seriously concerned that some tosser has hacked your account.  Maybe in low-level junior management at the local McDonalds, the manager will hire or fire someone based on his personal likes or dislikes.  At any serious level of business that is just not the case.  If anyone can give me a single example of a recognised, international top-level management executive in any walk of life, not just football, doing so, I will grovel and apologise.  I doubt that will be necessary.  I suspect that most of the people claiming that world-wide senior executives do so have the same experience of any level of management as they do of professional football, nothing but what they see on the telly.

Edited February 20, 20188 yr by yorkleyblue

1 hour ago, yorkleyblue said:

But that isn't what I said.  I said that top managers making tactical decisions that could ultimately cost them their jobs and their million pound salaries did not make team choices based on the fact that they didn't like someone's haircut or the car they drove or the way they always f**ked up the punch-line of a joke.  Anyone who thinks that a football manager picks a player based solely on whether they would actually like to go down the pub with them is a total twat.  Similarly, anyone who thinks that a football manager would deprive his team of the best player in the world solely because he doesn't "like" him is stupid.  Nothing else.

I can't remember which tosser brought up Costa, but in no reality at all was the decision to sell Costa "personal" or because of Conte's dislike.  Whoever said that needs to grow the f**k up. 

 

Barry, you are normally such a sensible poster I am seriously concerned that some tosser has hacked your account.  Maybe in low-level junior management at the local McDonalds, the manager will hire or fire someone based on his personal likes or dislikes.  At any serious level of business that is just not the case.  If anyone can give me a single example of a recognised, international top-level management executive in any walk of life, not just football, doing so, I will grovel and apologise.  I doubt that will be necessary.  I suspect that most of the people claiming that world-wide senior executives do so have the same experience of any level of management as they do of professional football, nothing but what they see on the telly.

Sean Parker and Mark Zuckerburg getting rid of Eduardo Saverin. Only watched The Social Network film but that seemed to stem from personal dislike?

Oh really?  Hollywood is your source of reality?  You know how stupid that sounds, right?  Did Tom and Jerry teach you everything you know about conflict resolution?

38 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Sean Parker and Mark Zuckerburg getting rid of Eduardo Saverin. Only watched The Social Network film but that seemed to stem from personal dislike?

There are literally millions of such examples. Anyone who thinks personal sentiments dont affect management and judgement is just being daft (not sure on purpose or just by nature).

As for costa, he did want to leave before conte came in, but the end of costa's tenure, conte clearly wanted him gone irrespective of costa trying to get back in or not. The whole text-gate, the way the situation was taken care of.

26 minutes ago, didierforever said:

There are literally millions of such examples.

Name one that wasn't animated by Disney

11 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

Oh really?  Hollywood is your source of reality?  You know how stupid that sounds, right?  Did Tom and Jerry teach you everything you know about conflict resolution?

You do realise films can be based on real life events? No need to be so condescending. The real life events of the Facebook break up are quite well documented if you want to stop being so stubborn and have a look. 

1 hour ago, RIP Mourinho said:

You do realise films can be based on real life events? No need to be so condescending. The real life events of the Facebook break up are quite well documented if you want to stop being so stubborn and have a look. 

We need to stop interacting.  You lost what tiny amount of credibility you ever had by jumping into a conversation between the grown-ups saying "You're wrong because I saw a film once."

I'll leave it there.

19 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

We need to stop interacting.  You lost what tiny amount of credibility you ever had by jumping into a conversation between the grown-ups saying "You're wrong because I saw a film once."

I'll leave it there.

You can read about the Facebook 'break up' online if you'd like. Maybe broaden your horizon and then apologise to everyone like you said you would when proven wrong? 

Better yet you can have an absolute melt down like you did last night on the matchday thread. Embarrassing from such a calm person that doesn't let the internet generation bother them. 

On ‎02‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:51, yorkleyblue said:

But that isn't what I said.  I said that top managers making tactical decisions that could ultimately cost them their jobs and their million pound salaries did not make team choices based on the fact that they didn't like someone's haircut or the car they drove or the way they always f**ked up the punch-line of a joke.  Anyone who thinks that a football manager picks a player based solely on whether they would actually like to go down the pub with them is a total twat.  Similarly, anyone who thinks that a football manager would deprive his team of the best player in the world solely because he doesn't "like" him is stupid.  Nothing else.

I can't remember which tosser brought up Costa, but in no reality at all was the decision to sell Costa "personal" or because of Conte's dislike.  Whoever said that needs to grow the f**k up. 

 

Barry, you are normally such a sensible poster I am seriously concerned that some tosser has hacked your account.  Maybe in low-level junior management at the local McDonalds, the manager will hire or fire someone based on his personal likes or dislikes.  At any serious level of business that is just not the case.  If anyone can give me a single example of a recognised, international top-level management executive in any walk of life, not just football, doing so, I will grovel and apologise.  I doubt that will be necessary.  I suspect that most of the people claiming that world-wide senior executives do so have the same experience of any level of management as they do of professional football, nothing but what they see on the telly.

First let me state that I think you are viewing this issue too plainly but I will elaborate on this as I can assure you that I can speak to having both personal and professional experiences of seeing this in addition to hearing many many stories with quite a few actually verified. 

I've seen corporate insolvency files where successful companies worth tens of millions and even hundreds of millions get run into the ground over personal decisions.  This has been "negative personal decisions", two people ruining the business over personal feelings (can be disputes over money, have a current file where a business seems to have been intentionally tanked because one principal was wealthy with multiple other successful ventures but also had a wife who slept with the other principal of this specific venture and the one individual knew he could financially ruin his adulterous business partner by tanking the one venture they shared.  While this action would certainly impact his finances, he could tank it and still be very wealthy/liquid.  I can't comment on the legal action that occurred after, but I can verify 100% that a successful and viable business was intentionally tanked and the person doing it knew it would be costing them millions and potentially more).

However this also includes "positive personal decisions" where one business owner had turned a small trades outfit into a very successful and thriving operations and transferring from a small to medium business employing hundreds and hundreds of people but they filled many of the important new positions with friends and family....who often weren't very well qualified..... and didn't fire them when it was clear they weren't up to the tasks.....and instead fired the non-family and friends who pointed this out but actually were good at the jobs...and often hired more friends and family.  I mean, makes no sense firing competent people who can help your business thrive while keeping people who are incompetent whoa re making your business lose money... bet then again, who wants to fire their adult child who was planning a career at said business? Who wants to fire their wife's mother?  Who wants to risk firing person they've been cheating on their spouse with? 

I suspect with one name you'd agree with me. You think Donald Trump wouldn't make a decision that could cost him millions based on personal feelings? I'd be curious to hear your answer on this.  Speaking of billionaires and foolish decisions.....

On ‎02‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 14:08, yorkleyblue said:

Name one that wasn't animated by Disney

I think the tale of these two will fit your description of international top-level management executives, I mean both are multi-billionaires and one owned Marvel.  I won't ask for any apologies or groveling, however it certainly is an interesting tale and solid proof that our financial "betters" are certainly as prone to stupid personal decisions as anyone else, albeit with much higher stakes.

Perlmutter vs Peereboom. Sounds like a court case but really its two billionaires who've spent millions already and opened themselves to liabilities that could range from tens to hundreds of millions. Oh sorry, it actually is actually a defamation case in front of the courts where the settlement is rumored to possibly reach near the half a billion mark.  Yes, billion. With a nice fat B. I haven't follow this closely for quite a while and I don't know if it's been resolved yet but I suspect not.

Now what could get two billionaires to act in a way that they'd risk losing such an absurd amount of money the rest of us would have to win the lottery jackpot 10 times in a row to ever posses? Well, they just really hate each other.  Why?  I sh*t you not, because they have winter homes in the same complex in Florida and one wanted to open the local tennis pro's contract to a public bidding process and the other one didn't....as far as I know, neither of them even really play tennis LOL. 

That's right, one could be out of pocket (worst case scenario, but still a scenario they might face because they let their personal feelings get the better of their judgment) up to $400million dollars because of a silly personal dispute which, most likely, if it had happened with someone who just didn't irk them the same way, they'd probably have laughed off and never thought twice of.  Here's a decent write-up of the actually kind of amusing yet sad story by the CBC (not always a fan of their work) http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/sh/og1dB3kAlj/harold-peerenboom-perlmutter-marvel-florida-feud/

Simply put, @yorkleyblue, your premise is very reasonable on the surface and I would agree on it as a rational concept when speaking of rational minds.  However, when personal feelings get involved and in certain circumstances, very rational people can start making very irrational decisions.  And while you might not knowingly enter a course of action where you're personal feelings cost you excessively, you might just find you allow your "emotional" side to make decisions that lead down a path where the consequences end up being quite drastic.

Back to the more specific context on hand.  A manager might not intentionally say "Im not playing the best option(s) because I do not like them" (though I would argue you might be surprised just how many would do exactly this) but they might subconsciously let that dislike cloud their judgment and undervalue the best option because of their personal feelings.  I think it's fair to use John Terry and Rafa Benitez as proof.  Benitez came in and all of a sudden JT was past it, not worth playing.  If I recall correctly, almost completely frozen out of the team despite being one of the best CBs ever to play in the BPL.  Yet 2 seasons later Terry is playing every minute of a title winning campaign, unofficially the best CB in the BPL (maybe even Europe) and officially on the BPL team of the season.  Have to say, hard to explain this as anything other than a manage not using the best available player and most likely a decision rooted in personal rather than professional factors.  Maybe Rafa wanted to own the dressing room and clearly, not happening with a JT who is  Leader, Legend, Captain unless he became No, Longer, Needed?  With AVB  and his highline I could see it as a tactical reason (a bad decision but logically based), I don't recall Rafa using a system where JT wouldn't work due to his lack of pace.

Now, to the financial aspect (and Im going to keep this short now) please allow me to make the obvious cases very briefly.  1) It's not the managers money.  2) When speaking of managers money, at CFC getting fired actually increases the money they get (pay out and right into another high paying job, as I believe is the case with all CFC sackings). 3) As mentioned in part 2, it doesn't really hurt the future potential earnings of managers. 4) Selling a player you dislike and perhaps don't rate as highly as you should, typically gives you more money to spend on the players you rather have. In this area, the best interests of the manager and the best interests of the club aren't necessarily aligned (this can happen with bonuses for management if implemented incorrectly, where one department's management in incentivized via how performances bonuses are structured to actually act in way that isn't in the best interest of the overall organization). 

Now, if specifically on Mourinho, then consider one could argue he has already gambled quite highly with his finances.  Poking an opponent in the eye?  I suspect an owner could probably dismiss an employee without compensation for committing a criminal act not only whilst on the job, but while representing their employer in front of a global audience.  So to me, Mourinho himself has already proven he will gamble millions on personal decisions/feelings.  It might have been heat of the moment, but that's all it takes to alienate a best player in the dressing room say the way SAF did when he threw a boot at the head of Beckham which, correct me if I'm wrong, was the breaking straw that led Beckham to go to Real Madrid and by god, if you don't think that decisions cost MUFC financially (the transfer is/was peanuts compared to what having Beckham in your team's shirt offers financially). 

It's not often someone will consciously throw away millions due to personal feelings, but even that happens.  It's not uncommon at all for personal decisions to subconsciously/inadvertently lead to similar results through a more complicated and nuanced fashion (we really could spend hours talking on this without even getting into the deep psychological stuff, especially as the people you refer tend to have different personalities/mentalities than the average, part of what leads them to reach the heights they do in business).  As a rule of thumb I agree with you, people don't like throwing money away.  Yet when personal feelings etc arise, rationality can often go out the window.  People frequently cut of their nose to spite their face.... and never forget that if you'd spent the equivalent of a cup of coffee to get one over someone you dislike (and this is likely most people if you get them in a mood) that for many of the people you describe, a few million is to them what a cup of coffee is to us.  It's a nothing amount in terms of how it impacts them and what better to spend money on than to gain personal satisfaction or to take down an opponent/someone you dislike? 

Edited February 24, 20188 yr by Barry Bridges
Because I post without good proof reading and Im not even remotely good at editing my own writing

9 hours ago, Barry Bridges said:

First let me state that I think you are viewing this issue too plainly but I will elaborate on this as I can assure you that I can speak to having both personal and professional experiences of seeing this in addition to hearing many many stories with quite a few actually verified. 

I've seen corporate insolvency files where successful companies worth tens of millions and even hundreds of millions get run into the ground over personal decisions.  This has been "negative personal decisions", two people ruining the business over personal feelings (can be disputes over money, have a current file where a business seems to have been intentionally tanked because one principal was wealthy with multiple other successful ventures but also had a wife who slept with the other principal of this specific venture and the one individual knew he could financially ruin his adulterous business partner by tanking the one venture they shared.  While this action would certainly impact his finances, he could tank it and still be very wealthy/liquid.  I can't comment on the legal action that occurred after, but I can verify 100% that a successful and viable business was intentionally tanked and the person doing it knew it would be costing them millions and potentially more).

However this also includes "positive personal decisions" where one business owner had turned a small trades outfit into a very successful and thriving operations and transferring from a small to medium business employing hundreds and hundreds of people but they filled many of the important new positions with friends and family....who often weren't very well qualified..... and didn't fire them when it was clear they weren't up to the tasks.....and instead fired the non-family and friends who pointed this out but actually were good at the jobs...and often hired more friends and family.  I mean, makes no sense firing competent people who can help your business thrive while keeping people who are incompetent whoa re making your business lose money... bet then again, who wants to fire their adult child who was planning a career at said business? Who wants to fire their wife's mother?  Who wants to risk firing person they've been cheating on their spouse with? 

I suspect with one name you'd agree with me. You think Donald Trump wouldn't make a decision that could cost him millions based on personal feelings? I'd be curious to hear your answer on this.  Speaking of billionaires and foolish decisions.....

I think the tale of these two will fit your description of international top-level management executives, I mean both are multi-billionaires and one owned Marvel.  I won't ask for any apologies or groveling, however it certainly is an interesting tale and solid proof that our financial "betters" are certainly as prone to stupid personal decisions as anyone else, albeit with much higher stakes.

Perlmutter vs Peereboom. Sounds like a court case but really its two billionaires who've spent millions already and opened themselves to liabilities that could range from tens to hundreds of millions. Oh sorry, it actually is actually a defamation case in front of the courts where the settlement is rumored to possibly reach near the half a billion mark.  Yes, billion. With a nice fat B. I haven't follow this closely for quite a while and I don't know if it's been resolved yet but I suspect not.

Now what could get two billionaires to act in a way that they'd risk losing such an absurd amount of money the rest of us would have to win the lottery jackpot 10 times in a row to ever posses? Well, they just really hate each other.  Why?  I sh*t you not, because they have winter homes in the same complex in Florida and one wanted to open the local tennis pro's contract to a public bidding process and the other one didn't....as far as I know, neither of them even really play tennis LOL. 

That's right, one could be out of pocket (worst case scenario, but still a scenario they might face because they let their personal feelings get the better of their judgment) up to $400million dollars because of a silly personal dispute which, most likely, if it had happened with someone who just didn't irk them the same way, they'd probably have laughed off and never thought twice of.  Here's a decent write-up of the actually kind of amusing yet sad story by the CBC (not always a fan of their work) http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/sh/og1dB3kAlj/harold-peerenboom-perlmutter-marvel-florida-feud/

Simply put, @yorkleyblue, your premise is very reasonable on the surface and I would agree on it as a rational concept when speaking of rational minds.  However, when personal feelings get involved and in certain circumstances, very rational people can start making very irrational decisions.  And while you might not knowingly enter a course of action where you're personal feelings cost you excessively, you might just find you allow your "emotional" side to make decisions that lead down a path where the consequences end up being quite drastic.

Back to the more specific context on hand.  A manager might not intentionally say "Im not playing the best option(s) because I do not like them" (though I would argue you might be surprised just how many would do exactly this) but they might subconsciously let that dislike cloud their judgment and undervalue the best option because of their personal feelings.  I think it's fair to use John Terry and Rafa Benitez as proof.  Benitez came in and all of a sudden JT was past it, not worth playing.  If I recall correctly, almost completely frozen out of the team despite being one of the best CBs ever to play in the BPL.  Yet 2 seasons later Terry is playing every minute of a title winning campaign, unofficially the best CB in the BPL (maybe even Europe) and officially on the BPL team of the season.  Have to say, hard to explain this as anything other than a manage not using the best available player and most likely a decision rooted in personal rather than professional factors.  Maybe Rafa wanted to own the dressing room and clearly, not happening with a JT who is  Leader, Legend, Captain unless he became No, Longer, Needed?  With AVB  and his highline I could see it as a tactical reason (a bad decision but logically based), I don't recall Rafa using a system where JT wouldn't work due to his lack of pace.

Now, to the financial aspect (and Im going to keep this short now) please allow me to make the obvious cases very briefly.  1) It's not the managers money.  2) When speaking of managers money, at CFC getting fired actually increases the money they get (pay out and right into another high paying job, as I believe is the case with all CFC sackings). 3) As mentioned in part 2, it doesn't really hurt the future potential earnings of managers. 4) Selling a player you dislike and perhaps don't rate as highly as you should, typically gives you more money to spend on the players you rather have. In this area, the best interests of the manager and the best interests of the club aren't necessarily aligned (this can happen with bonuses for management if implemented incorrectly, where one department's management in incentivized via how performances bonuses are structured to actually act in way that isn't in the best interest of the overall organization). 

Now, if specifically on Mourinho, then consider one could argue he has already gambled quite highly with his finances.  Poking an opponent in the eye?  I suspect an owner could probably dismiss an employee without compensation for committing a criminal act not only whilst on the job, but while representing their employer in front of a global audience.  So to me, Mourinho himself has already proven he will gamble millions on personal decisions/feelings.  It might have been heat of the moment, but that's all it takes to alienate a best player in the dressing room say the way SAF did when he threw a boot at the head of Beckham which, correct me if I'm wrong, was the breaking straw that led Beckham to go to Real Madrid and by god, if you don't think that decisions cost MUFC financially (the transfer is/was peanuts compared to what having Beckham in your team's shirt offers financially). 

It's not often someone will consciously throw away millions due to personal feelings, but even that happens.  It's not uncommon at all for personal decisions to subconsciously/inadvertently lead to similar results through a more complicated and nuanced fashion (we really could spend hours talking on this without even getting into the deep psychological stuff, especially as the people you refer tend to have different personalities/mentalities than the average, part of what leads them to reach the heights they do in business).  As a rule of thumb I agree with you, people don't like throwing money away.  Yet when personal feelings etc arise, rationality can often go out the window.  People frequently cut of their nose to spite their face.... and never forget that if you'd spent the equivalent of a cup of coffee to get one over someone you dislike (and this is likely most people if you get them in a mood) that for many of the people you describe, a few million is to them what a cup of coffee is to us.  It's a nothing amount in terms of how it impacts them and what better to spend money on than to gain personal satisfaction or to take down an opponent/someone you dislike? 

Phew

1. Conte is not at fault for the Costa situation, I actually don't think he did anything remotely wrong in the whole ordeal.

2. I think it's definitely fair to say executives with a lot of cash and decisions can definitely make biased decisions on an emotional whim. But I don't see why on earth that's even a valid point, with all the evidence you really arrive to that conclusion? It's pretty clear Costa didn't want to be here before Conte even arrived, to arrive at a conclusion that it was definitely some personal beef between Conte and Costa is quite bizarre really. 

On ‎02‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 03:00, Slojo said:

1. Conte is not at fault for the Costa situation, I actually don't think he did anything remotely wrong in the whole ordeal.

2. I think it's definitely fair to say executives with a lot of cash and decisions can definitely make biased decisions on an emotional whim. But I don't see why on earth that's even a valid point, with all the evidence you really arrive to that conclusion? It's pretty clear Costa didn't want to be here before Conte even arrived, to arrive at a conclusion that it was definitely some personal beef between Conte and Costa is quite bizarre really. 

If you're referring to me, I've stated multiple times that Costa wanted away from CFC before Conte even arrived and I don't blame Conte for telling a player who screams "I want to go back to Madrid!" that "he isn't in my plans".   Costa had a hissy fit because he was finally getting what he'd been crying for and wanted to push it over the final line.

7 minutes ago, Barry Bridges said:

If you're referring to me, I've stated multiple times that Costa wanted away from CFC before Conte even arrived and I don't blame Conte for telling a player who screams "I want to go back to Madrid!" that "he isn't in my plans".   Costa had a hissy fit because he was finally getting what he'd been crying for and wanted to push it over the final line.

No wasn't aimed at you Barry, I actually agreed with your point, in my first sentence. I was mostly talking to DidierForever and a bunch of others who think the Costa situation was his fault. 

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by Slojo

15 hours ago, Slojo said:

No wasn't aimed at you Barry, I actually agreed with your point, in my first sentence. I was mostly talking to DidierForever and a bunch of others who think the Costa situation was his fault. 

The debate was not if costa was conte's fault or not, but actually on the aspect of "personal preference". Someone on here made a comment that personal bias is completely non-existent and a case of fairytales and anyone who thinks that managers or any multi million company heads make decisions based on personal feelings are so and soo... 

As for Costa, I do feel some of it was Conte's fault. Take Sanchez for example. He was still available for arsenal. The costa situation could have been managed way better than how it actually was. Same can be said about Luiz too. I dont think he has been "injured" since what, Novemeber, i think.

Scored twice and won the game for Dortmund.

Good fit for that system. I'd expect Dortmund to sign him this summer. Don't see him having a future here, doesn't suit our style of play. 

Edited March 11, 20188 yr by Famous CFC

Depends on next manager though doesn't it...clearly Conte does t rate him for some reason but next guy might

He is yet another example of why the club should consult the manager before buying players. If the club had sought Conte's input at the time, I'm sure he would have seen that Bats wouldn't be his type of striker. Yes, Conte wasn't officially manager yet, but they must have had some agreement in place, and could have sought his opinion. It boggles the mind how we continue to spend huge sums of money on mediocre players or players who don't suit the manager's style. 

On 06/03/2018 at 06:18, didierforever said:

The debate was not if costa was conte's fault or not, but actually on the aspect of "personal preference". Someone on here made a comment that personal bias is completely non-existent and a case of fairytales and anyone who thinks that managers or any multi million company heads make decisions based on personal feelings are so and soo... 

As for Costa, I do feel some of it was Conte's fault. Take Sanchez for example. He was still available for arsenal. The costa situation could have been managed way better than how it actually was. Same can be said about Luiz too. I dont think he has been "injured" since what, Novemeber, i think.

Costa's form dipped after January after the initial rumours. Who is to say he wouldn't pull the same say hit he did to Mourinho in the next season. He had to go and Conte was right for telling him to piss off. Costa was a child who tried to drag the clubs name through the dirt because of his own petulant behaviour.

Luiz is dropped because he isn't good enough and whenever he plays this season the defence goes to sh*t. 

On 11/03/2018 at 20:03, TheSage said:

He is yet another example of why the club should consult the manager before buying players. If the club had sought Conte's input at the time, I'm sure he would have seen that Bats wouldn't be his type of striker. Yes, Conte wasn't officially manager yet, but they must have had some agreement in place, and could have sought his opinion. It boggles the mind how we continue to spend huge sums of money on mediocre players or players who don't suit the manager's style. 

You make a good point. I don't doubt that Batshuayi is a very good striker, i have always thought it since we signed him, but we need to make a decision. We either back the manager with players that suits his system, or we bring a coach in that can fit these players into their system. Salah, De Bruyne, Mata, all good players that were sold because they didn't suit the manager we had in place at the time, i don't want to keep seeing this happen.

Giroud definitely suits our system a lot more than Batshuayi ever did. Imo it was the right move, but I don’t know why it took so long.

Im surprised we chose to stick with Batshuayi at start of the season, we knew he wouldn’t see much game time as long as Conte is here.

Glad to see he’s doing well in Germany anyway.

On 11/03/2018 at 20:03, TheSage said:

He is yet another example of why the club should consult the manager before buying players. If the club had sought Conte's input at the time, I'm sure he would have seen that Bats wouldn't be his type of striker. Yes, Conte wasn't officially manager yet, but they must have had some agreement in place, and could have sought his opinion. It boggles the mind how we continue to spend huge sums of money on mediocre players or players who don't suit the manager's style. 

But it works both ways, the manager is not always right. I reckon last summer if the board asked Conte which one of Kante or Nainggolan he would of chosen Nainggolan, and i think we would all agree that Kante is better.

Michy scores again. Cheeky near post flick from a corner 

Wait until you see Batman's latest for Dortmund. Wow.