58 minutes ago, Brutos said:

 

Stopped listening once he mention obama

This dude is talking out is ass what does Obama and centre-right have to do with football 

He isn't actually talking about Obama it's what he does, he is talking about someone else I think Sep Blatter. He also calls Mourinho Merdinho and he calls pep the credit card man

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by pacquiao

I think we need to look at the bigger picture and try an emulate what United are doing.
They don't care about quality and value, they only care about dabbing.
We need a player that will dab. 
Michy has disappointed in that area, despite all the chances he got on the pitch.
Maybe he just isn't dabbing enough in training. 

9 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

Hold on now, is ambition the word? I suppose we no longer have 'win the CL at any cost' ambition (which is what City's owners now have) we used to have. So you're right it may not be the same. That's a far cry from saying we lack ambition though. We're not willing to spend 200m every summer and I don't find much wrong with that nor do I think it's because of the stadium, Roman won't be paying for that.

I don't think we should ever be aiming for just top 4 and neither do the club I'm sure. I don't think any club can be expected to continually add ever season without clearing the decks especially under a new manager

I did not say we LACK ambition. I questioned if we had the SAME ambition as 2004. I also did not mention spending £200 million, my point was that our negotiating leaves a lot to be desired. We have lost 3 wingbacks to Man City, a position that is glaryingly obvious we need to strengthen in. With all the transfers out of Chelsea, our net spend is very low, so why not pay what Juve want for Sandro.  

6 hours ago, DonAntonio said:

There is always a price you can buy what ever player you want whenever you want if you pay enough and it's as simple as that... 

Always is going too far, but this bit of what you say is obvious.

 

6 hours ago, DonAntonio said:

...The key to a negotiator is knowing what that limit is that's just too good to say no, and not paying any more than that, guessing that figure within a couple of million...

This is where you go, and keep going, wrong. Juve don't want to sell, they don't need to sell but, if forced to accept that they must, then their price won't be set as a number. It will be set as an idea. An idea backed by the security that even if they dither too long, reject one too many bids, and cause Chelsea to walk away; they keep the player. That outcome would be presented to the world as a win for The Old Lady, and would allow them to paint themselves as heroes to the fans. Their negotiating idea, "Get as much as we possibly can out of the bar stewards."

The only time Juve can be completely certain that Chelsea have bid as much as they are going to is about lunchtime on deadline day. You can't just pay a price which does not exist.

A reasonable guess at the current situation is that Sandro is interested in the move, perhaps for the money, perhaps for other reasons too, but that he's not interested enough to agitate for it. There is therefore no pressure on Juve and they can let their idea run it's course.

15 hours ago, Deino said:

I guess paying 222m for a Neymar was considered childish and ridiculous too a few days ago but that one got done anyway.

It's the attitude of posters who assume a very complicated problem has a very simple answer which is ridiculous. It is the belief, implicit in so many posts, that we internet bandits know better than the professionals how to negotiate 8, and now 9, figure transfer deals which is ridiculous.

In any case Neymar did have a price so a club could choose to pay it. The point many just refuse to see is that, until Juve decide to sell, they won't have a price. They will play the game for sure, and encourage Chelsea to bid sillier and sillier amounts, but they will not name figure, or even have one in mind. How do you pay a price which doesn't exist?

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by OhForAGreavsie

49 minutes ago, Osgood is Good said:

I did not say we LACK ambition. I questioned if we had the SAME ambition as 2004. I also did not mention spending £200 million, my point was that our negotiating leaves a lot to be desired. We have lost 3 wingbacks to Man City, a position that is glaryingly obvious we need to strengthen in. With all the transfers out of Chelsea, our net spend is very low, so why not pay what Juve want for Sandro.  

I said you were right our ambition isn't the same, how could it be? It's a night and day difference between the club now and in 2004. 

I assumed spending was part of your gripe because I view negotiating prowess as different than ambition. I agree we should pay up for Sandro but if they won't sell him what can we do other than bid crazy money for him as PSG have just done for Neymar? Who knows if he even wants to come here? Walker and Danilo choose City over us, thats out of our control aside from getting those bids in significantly earlier. 

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Always is going too far, but this bit of what you say is obvious.

 

This is where you go, and keep going, wrong. Juve don't want to sell, they don't need to sell but, if forced to accept that they must, then their price won't be set as a number. It will be set as an idea. An idea backed by the security that even if they dither too long, reject one too many bids, and cause Chelsea to walk away; they keep the player. That outcome would be presented to the world as a win for The Old Lady, and would allow them to paint themselves as heroes to the fans. Their negotiating idea, "Get as much as we possibly can out of the bar stewards."

The only time Juve can be completely certain that Chelsea have bid as much as they are going to is about lunchtime on deadline day. You can't just pay a price which does not exist.

A reasonable guess at the current situation is that Sandro is interested in the move, perhaps for the money, perhaps for other reasons too, but that he's not interested enough to agitate for it. There is therefore no pressure on Juve and they can let their idea run it's course.

I kind of get what you're saying but "get as much as we can out of these bar stewards" has a tipping point and that figure is what we need to find, they know there is a limit to what we will bid, they wil take the piss but kow if they do it too much we walk away, so if they feel we have given an offer too good to say no and if they reject hoping for more, we walk away, they will accept, there is a figure like that that both sides will recognise, if we bid 70-75 million they wont say no, it doesn't make sense for them to say no, with some clubs they put a price so big they want to scare you off, with juve they have shown they are always willing to sell if it if financially attractive.  

1 minute ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

I said you were right our ambition isn't the same, how could it be? It's a night and day difference between the club now and in 2004. 

I assumed spending was part of your gripe because I view negotiating prowess as different than ambition. I agree we should pay up for Sandro but if they won't sell him what can we do other than bid crazy money for him as PSG have just done for Neymar? Who knows if he even wants to come here? Walker and Danilo choose City over us, thats out of our control aside from getting those bids in significantly earlier. 

Ambition in 2004 was mainly win the league and CL. Agreed the club is different from 2004, but our ambition should not be the same now ?. really ?.

Well I would like Chelsea to win the CL again as well as the league, which would require signing top quality players to improve the squad. As I mentioned we have bought and sold, leaving our net spend very low in comparison, so why not throw a crazy bid at Sandro (£60-70 million) we can't get every player at a lower price, sometimes you have to pay what is required for top quality. Man City amongst others have shown this.

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

It's the attitude of posters who assume a very complicated problem has a very simple answer which is ridiculous. It is the belief, implicit in so many posts, that we internet bandits know better than the professionals how to negotiate 8, and now 9, figure transfer deals which is ridiculous.

In any case Neymar did have a price so a club could choose to pay it. The point many just refuse to see is that, until Juve decide to sell, they won't have a price. They will play the game for sure, and encourage Chelsea to bid sillier and sillier amounts, but they will not name figure, or even have one in mind. How do you pay a price which doesn't exist?

Sometimes, I think the negotiating team would do better if they took a look at transfers by stepping back a bit and look at the big picture. When the season ended, there were varying rumours of Sandro costing £52m. There was and will always be a price for each commodity and Juve asked that. But our negotiating team loves playing the bargain game for every player and what it accomplishes is introducing emotional factors into negotiations. They said 52 but we'll buy at 47 or whatever hypothetical number, to us it may seem like a good value but it antagonizes the selling club delaying the time needed for that club to look at replacements and negotiate other deals. Juve has a good scouting system, they'll know who to bring but in looking for bargains and steals, we delayed that negotiation. 

They're all adults, they'll feel that we disrespected them because of the quality of the player and the importance of him to the team. The same issue when Arsenal bid 40m+1 for Suarez, the sheer audacity of it is what makes a selling club be turned off by that.

Your argument would work had we matched the fee said to be quoted in the first place. They'll have enquired it and a figure must have been quoted or else Juve won't be coming out with statements like "It's up to the player to decide or whatever", they'll say "We will not let him go" if they were really not considering the bid. Juve will sell if they match a price but they want to maintain their image as well but if our team went about it not being serious at all by bidding lower than the quoted fee, it makes the job of them rejecting it much easier. It's even worse now that City have inflated the market for fullbacks and with the time left and the poor showing our wingbacks had done in the pre-season, it only serves to give the selling club more power. They're not desperate to sell but they will and they have done that numerous times in the past all it takes is for us to approach them seriously and if they said no then that's it but this negotiating team doesn't seem to do that at all. We don't approach things seriously enough after a PL title win. Look at the summers of 2016 and 2014, the negotiating came in and paid the fee at the first time of asking for Kante, Fabregas, Diego Costa, Luiz and Alonso. 

When push comes to shove, this negotiating team always crumble and just chuck money at it anyway so why bother dragging out negotiations for key areas in the first place?

And before you say Allegri came out and said Sandro is not for sale, Juve doesn't operate like that. What matters is what Agnelli and Marotta say in the matter or else Conte would still be a manager there. 

So lets agree to disagree on this matter

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by Deino

Is it just me, or do we think it is a bit naïve of Chelsea to go to Juve to buy one of their top players to play for the manager that left them?

Would any club be happy to do that?

25 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

Is it just me, or do we think it is a bit naïve of Chelsea to go to Juve to buy one of their top players to play for the manager that left them?

Would any club be happy to do that?

Yeah, it is. But it's good that we can have that sort of conversation rather than just dreaming about it like 14 other clubs in the PL.

Juve just sold a cornerstone of their defence to a historic rival that capitalized during their collapse, they're not happy about that either but they did it anyway

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by Deino

Some reports that we're still after him and we are planning to bid once again. 

 

6 minutes ago, IliyaKrostin said:

Some reports that we're still after him and we are planning to bid once again. 

 

Because we are, Chelsea have always been confident of getting him, I am certain he will be a Chelsea player before August 31st 2017

3 minutes ago, pacquiao said:

Because we are, Chelsea have always been confident of getting him, I am certain he will be a Chelsea player before August 31st 2017

Were you about as certain when you chose that profile picture 

HOLY MOLY GUYS!
DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP BUT...
There is a rumour that's just sprang to life that Bonucci's transfer to AC Milan could fall through due to some bank problems or whatever, now I don't want to get people's hopes up but if this is true, the odds will surely rise for signing Alex Sandro if Juve end up keeping Bonucci 

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by TomCFC85

1 hour ago, TomCFC85 said:

Were you about as certain when you chose that profile picture 

Yes my profile picture is in honour of my all time favourite Lukaku performance when he got 36% pass accuracy against West Ham 

59 minutes ago, TomCFC85 said:

HOLY MOLY GUYS!
DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP BUT...
There is a rumour that's just sprang to life that Bonucci's transfer to AC Milan could fall through due to some bank problems or whatever, now I don't want to get people's hopes up but if this is true, the odds will surely rise for signing Alex Sandro if Juve end up keeping Bonucci 

Wow. This is a major twist. Bonucci has already said a lot of things about Juventus. It will be awkward.

I read that too, I'm pretty sure the chinese billionaire has the 35 million, it will go through,  p.s. why the f**k didn't we buy him..

4 minutes ago, DonAntonio said:

I read that too, I'm pretty sure the chinese billionaire has the 35 million, it will go through,  p.s. why the f**k didn't we buy him..

He didn't want to move country due to his family situation. 

1 minute ago, Chelsbear said:

He didn't want to move country due to his family situation. 

Fair enough 

Day 9
03/08/2017
Roses are Red
Chelsea's window is slow
Have we signed Alex Sandro yet?
No. 

1 minute ago, TomCFC85 said:

Day 9
03/08/2017
Roses are Red
Chelsea's window is slow
Have we signed Alex Sandro yet?
No. 

Ha, I like the way you're trying to add a little spicy to these updates.  Maybe tomorrow you could use a Cast away/Horror type theme?

1 minute ago, DarkMata said:

Ha, I like the way you're trying to add a little spicy to these updates.  Maybe tomorrow you could use a Cast away/Horror type theme?

Haha yeah I'd like to do something different each day, make it fresh.
What did you have in mind by the Horror type theme? 

1 minute ago, TomCFC85 said:

Haha yeah I'd like to do something different each day, make it fresh.
What did you have in mind by the Horror type theme? 

Not sure it just reminds me of a diary you'd pick up in a game like Resident Evil showing the day by day decline of the inhabitants.  Maybe something along the lines of - Day 10 Still no sign of Sandro, things seem to be going from bad to worse.  The people in here are acting strange, fighting each other, I'm not sure they're even human anymore.

26 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Not sure it just reminds me of a diary you'd pick up in a game like Resident Evil showing the day by day decline of the inhabitants.  Maybe something along the lines of - Day 10 Still no sign of Sandro, things seem to be going from bad to worse.  The people in here are acting strange, fighting each other, I'm not sure they're even human anymore.

I like that, I'll probably do it on Saturday, I've got something planned for tomorrow