Deadline Day Drama

[CFCCAN]

Now the dust has settled a bit we can take a step back and have a broader overview.  Sure we didn't get any marque signings per-se, but Morata looks the business. Caballero, Christensen, Drinkwater,Bakayoko, Zappacosta and Rudiger are decent players by any stretch of the imagination and they are not 30+ year olds, except Caballero perhaps; and with the players we already had I would suggest that there is an improvement in terms of quality and technical ability.

I think the only downside is that if we are still in all competitions towards the end of the season we may be a bit tired and thin on the ground....but the good news is there is another transfer window in January, so really the group we have only have to survive a few more months before we bring in fresh blood if required 

[Scottish_mike]

12 minutes ago, CFCCAN said:

Now the dust has settled a bit we can take a step back and have a broader overview.  Sure we didn't get any marque signings per-se, but Morata looks the business. Caballero, Christensen, Drinkwater,Bakayoko, Zappacosta and Rudiger are decent players by any stretch of the imagination and they are not 30+ year olds, except Caballero perhaps; and with the players we already had I would suggest that there is an improvement in terms of quality and technical ability.

I think the only downside is that if we are still in all competitions towards the end of the season we may be a bit tired and thin on the ground....but the good news is there is another transfer window in January, so really the group we have only have to survive a few more months before we bring in fresh blood if required 

This is spot on. Plus if we really need to we can always recall some of the fringe players.

 

Oh and it isnt that bad look at arsenal 

[doctorblue]

What has been interesting is that this window has shown that the board are clearly committed to developing our own players and not simply buying established ones...and I'm fine with that...

[lchk]

1 hour ago, Osgood is Good said:

The difficulty now with signing players, is all clubs have money and the choice for even average players is much larger. In regards to your "post mortem" comment, do you have any experience in running a business/company ?.

I do run my own business.  I recognise that more English clubs have money.  However, there is always the continent to look for better value and that's how Zappacosta was unearthed via Conte's network.  There are plenty more where that came from.  I watch the Serie A and there are plenty of gems waiting to be plucked at not-too expensive prices and the clubs there are more willing to sell. 

[Osgood is Good]

5 minutes ago, lchk said:

I do run my own business.  I recognise that more English clubs have money.  However, there is always the continent to look for better value and that's how Zappacosta was unearthed via Conte's network.  There are plenty more where that came from.  I watch the Serie A and there are plenty of gems waiting to be plucked at not-too expensive prices and the clubs there are more willing to sell. 

You do run your own business ?. That surprises me as your "post mortem" comment in my opinion, is a throw away comment made by someone without any experience of owning a business. I say that as I have also owned my own business for 23 years employing 27 people, presently.

I agree that there are "plenty of gems" outside of England, however were we not short of HG players ?. I fail to see how Oxlade Chamberlain's or Barkley's reluctance to join us is a "comedy skit". From reading between the lines, neither were happy at sitting on the bench, however I could be way off the mark, as none of us know the exact details. 

I just don't get the meltdown on here, and as a you are a business owner, you should know that things frequently don't go to plan.

[lchk]

3 minutes ago, Osgood is Good said:

You do run your own business ?. That surprises me as your "post mortem" comment in my opinion, is a throw away comment made by someone without any experience of owning a business. I say that as I have also owned my own business for 23 years employing 27 people, presently.

I agree that there are "plenty of gems" outside of England, however were we not short of HG players ?. I fail to see how Oxlade Chamberlain's or Barkley's reluctance to join us is a "comedy skit". From reading between the lines, neither were happy at sitting on the bench, however I could be way off the mark, as none of us know the exact details. 

I just don't get the meltdown on here, and as a you are a business owner, you should know that things frequently don't go to plan.

A post mortem is not an unusual practise, particularly for a consulting firm like mine.  It's my turn to be surprised that you don't do it as a business owner.  For us, we evaluate each and every failed major bid or project to look for ways to improve and avoid mistakes being repeated in the future.  One thing I do not tolerate is repeated mistakes.  If you look at Marina's record, she has pulled the same transfer stunts every time since she joined the club.  Chasing after big name players to failure and haggling over second choice players on the final day and even beyond the transfer dateline.  She may not have any personal KPIs beyond keeping the net spend down but for my business, it's a highly competitive one and we cannot afford to have people running through the same failed scenarios which would lead to a tender loss of a competitor or a cancelled project.  This would crimp our cash flow and affect the livelihoods of my employees and suppliers.  

Losing squad players to the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham is a big laugh.  They aren't going to those clubs as automatic first choices either.  

There is no meltdown here.  It calls for a review of how the club conducts its transfer business and to make final day bids for squad fillers while losing them to lesser rivals by rejecting the champions is definitely a worrying thing.  

[strider6004]

Of course we do not know what she has been told to within the confines of the boardroom. For all we know RA might be happy though I suspect she has failed to deliver the best outcome through over zealous negotiating. Personally happy we got a couple of decent players to add to the squad though believe we might have done better.

[lchk]

4 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

Of course we do not know what she has been told to within the confines of the boardroom. For all we know RA might be happy though I suspect she has failed to deliver the best outcome through over zealous negotiating. Personally happy we got a couple of decent players to add to the squad though believe we might have done better.

The club could definitely could have done better i.e. Oxlade-Chamberlain and Llorente.  Barkley I am not too sure but we will see in January next year.  Marina being an overly aggressive negotiator will only backfire on the club when it comes to acquiring top quality players that are also being sought after by other clubs.  That's why we will never see the likes of Sandro and others of his calibre ever joining the club.  Nobody likes to deal with hard asses and if she thinks all other clubs need to bow to her demands - tough luck for her and especially for Chelsea.  Personally, if a potential low balls me and I have other better paying customers, I would rather not do business with the Low baller.  Chances are the low baller client would also have other negative traits that would make the entire engagement a painful one. 

[Blue Ballet]

8 minutes ago, lchk said:

A post mortem is not an unusual practise, particularly for a consulting firm like mine.  It's my turn to be surprised that you don't do it as a business owner.  For us, we evaluate each and every failed major bid or project to look for ways to improve and avoid mistakes being repeated in the future.  One thing I do not tolerate is repeated mistakes.  If you look at Marina's record, she has pulled the same transfer stunts every time since she joined the club.  Chasing after big name players to failure and haggling over second choice players on the final day and even beyond the transfer dateline.  She may not have any personal KPIs beyond keeping the net spend down but for my business, it's a highly competitive one and we cannot afford to have people running through the same failed scenarios which would lead to a tender loss of a competitor or a cancelled project.  This would crimp our cash flow and affect the livelihoods of my employees and suppliers.  

Losing squad players to the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham is a big laugh.  They aren't going to those clubs as automatic first choices either.  

There is no meltdown here.  It calls for a review of how the club conducts its transfer business and to make final day bids for squad fillers while losing them to lesser rivals by rejecting the champions is definitely a worrying thing.  

I read an interesting article by Danny Somebloke in today's Standard that had a slightly different slant on the whole thing from the point of view of a professional player with long standing personal experience in the football business. He talked of the way players often think about which club to accept or reject , as opposed to the business you are clearly very experienced in. Danny Somebloke talked about the personal side of things, noting in doing so that footballers may look like commodities but are in fact human and operate outside the scope of blue sky thinking at board room level, and instead may actually have very personal reasons for choosing to work at a particular club or with a particular manager. The article actually focuses on Arsenal but does have a wee snippet concerning the reason Chamberlain may have chosen Liverpool over us, for example. I'm pretty sure though that the sentiments expressed could be extrapolated across a whole range of other instances in which our club fails to have a player sign for what we know to be the only club in the world, with the only manager in the world, and all the money in the world,  that any intelligent footballer would ever consider signing for - Chelsea. I'll just leave it here for you to take a glance at............. https://www.standard.co.uk/author/danny-murphy

[Osgood is Good]

4 minutes ago, lchk said:

A post mortem is not an unusual practise, particularly for a consulting firm like mine.  It's my turn to be surprised that you don't do it as a business owner.  For us, we evaluate each and every failed major bid or project to look for ways to improve and avoid mistakes being repeated in the future.  One thing I do not tolerate is repeated mistakes.  If you look at Marina's record, she has pulled the same transfer stunts every time since she joined the club.  Chasing after big name players to failure and haggling over second choice players on the final day and even beyond the transfer dateline.  She may not have any personal KPIs beyond keeping the net spend down but for my business, it's a highly competitive one and we cannot afford to have people running through the same failed scenarios which would lead to a tender loss of a competitor or a cancelled project.  This would crimp our cash flow and affect the livelihoods of my employees and suppliers.  

*Losing squad players to the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham is a big laugh.  They aren't going to those clubs as automatic first choices either.  

There is no meltdown here.  It calls for a review of how the club conducts its transfer business and to make final day bids for squad fillers while losing them to lesser rivals by rejecting the champions is definitely a worrying thing.  

I doubt if Chelsea or any other club for that matter conduct an investigation into every failed bid for every player !. It might be a fit for your company, but it should be brought to your attention that "one size does not fit all"

I'm in a completely different business, so your surprise is borne from not qualifying my field first !.

*OX went to Liverpool because he didn't want to play RWB for Chelsea and he is a Liverpool fan, Llorente went to Spurs because apparently we didn't even bid for him. How is that laughable ?.

We are not the only club now to offer exorbitant wages or transfer fees, Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Barcelona also got rejected by players. I don't get the meltdown because we didn't get those players

I'm glad we dodged several bullits, Barkley, Oxlade, to name but 2.

 

[lchk]

5 minutes ago, Osgood is Good said:

I doubt if Chelsea or any other club for that matter conduct an investigation into every failed bid for every player !. It might be a fit for your company, but it should be brought to your attention that "one size does not fit all"

I'm in a completely different business, so your surprise is borne from not qualifying my field first !.

*OX went to Liverpool because he didn't want to play RWB for Chelsea and he is a Liverpool fan, Llorente went to Spurs because apparently we didn't even bid for him. How is that laughable ?.

We are not the only club now to offer exorbitant wages or transfer fees, Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Barcelona also got rejected by players. I don't get the meltdown because we didn't get those players

I'm glad we dodged several bullits, Barkley, Oxlade, to name but 2.

 

And in return, why did you accuse me of not behaving like a business owner due to the fact that I conduct post mortems for failed bids?  You don't know my business either!!  Conducting post mortems may or may not be what Chelsea does but I would certainly advocate it in light of transfer activities since Marina joined. 

How do you know those are the reasons Oxlade-Chamberlain rejected Chelsea? One post before this, you admitted you don't know the details.  Llorente was already on Conte's radar since January of this year especially since Batshuayi isn't favoured by the manager.  Losing deals to lesser rivals is laughable.  Particularly to Liverpool and Tottenham.  Those clubs you mentioned get rejections but certainly not for squad players to smaller rival clubs.  I hope Barkley joins in January and if he does, you would probably change your tune.

 

[doctorblue]

Interesting to see that Poxy Chamberlain can't even make the CM berth for England...Southgate sees him as a wide player...

 

 

[lchk]

24 minutes ago, Blue Ballet said:

I read an interesting article by Danny Somebloke in today's Standard that had a slightly different slant on the whole thing from the point of view of a professional player with long standing personal experience in the football business. He talked of the way players often think about which club to accept or reject , as opposed to the business you are clearly very experienced in. Danny Somebloke talked about the personal side of things, noting in doing so that footballers may look like commodities but are in fact human and operate outside the scope of blue sky thinking at board room level, and instead may actually have very personal reasons for choosing to work at a particular club or with a particular manager. The article actually focuses on Arsenal but does have a wee snippet concerning the reason Chamberlain may have chosen Liverpool over us, for example. I'm pretty sure though that the sentiments expressed could be extrapolated across a whole range of other instances in which our club fails to have a player sign for what we know to be the only club in the world, with the only manager in the world, and all the money in the world,  that any intelligent footballer would ever consider signing for - Chelsea. I'll just leave it here for you to take a glance at............. https://www.standard.co.uk/author/danny-murphy

Nobody will ever know why Oxlade-Chamberlain selected Liverpool instead of Chelsea but if he did so for personal and emotional reasons, that's not an unusual occurrence whether it's in Football or any other line of business for that matter.  There are some folks who wish to work for a particular boss and would quit their jobs to work under him if he leaves the current establishment.  Others would do so because they feel they can excel by being a big fish in a small pond.  There are countless other reasons.  However, the main factor that a player would want to play for a particular club and like most other jobs in the world as well is due to pay packets.  

[Blue Ballet]

1 minute ago, lchk said:

Nobody will ever know why Oxlade-Chamberlain selected Liverpool instead of Chelsea but if he did so for personal and emotional reasons, that's not an unusual occurrence whether it's in Football or any other line of business for that matter.  There are some folks who wish to work for a particular boss and would quit their jobs to work under him if he leaves the current establishment.  Others would do so because they feel they can excel by being a big fish in a small pond.  There are countless other reasons.  However, the main factor that a player would want to play for a particular club and like most other jobs in the world as well is due to pay packets.  

So we essentially aren't offering enough money? And Chamberlain's decision to accept 120 grand as opposed to 180 grand is an exception to the rule?

I strongly suspect that CFC does indeed review all its procedures and hold inquests over what may or may not have failed in its corporate approach to dealing with clubs and players. The subtext of my comment was the judgement of someone outside the business of both football and CFC is a judgment founded on not a lot. And the future employment of a CFC staffer is hardly an area about which any of us can have much to say that amounts to a bag of Werthers Originals.:)

[EmeraldBlue]

^^^
Now don't devalue Werthers please[emoji58]

[Osgood is Good]

29 minutes ago, lchk said:

And in return, why did you accuse me of not behaving like a business owner due to the fact that I conduct post mortems for failed bids?  You don't know my business either!!  Conducting post mortems may or may not be what Chelsea does but I would certainly advocate it in light of transfer activities since Marina joined. 

How do you know those are the reasons Oxlade-Chamberlain rejected Chelsea? One post before this, you admitted you don't know the details.  Llorente was already on Conte's radar since January of this year especially since Batshuayi isn't favoured by the manager.  Losing deals to lesser rivals is laughable.  Particularly to Liverpool and Tottenham.  Those clubs you mentioned get rejections but certainly not for squad players to smaller rival clubs.  I hope Barkley joins in January and if he does, you would probably change your tune.

 

In regards to your "post mortems", hopefully you understand the term "one size does not fit all".

In regards to Oxlade, he himself said he DID NOT want to play RWB, he himself has admitted being a Liverpool fan. Hopefully you get where I got it from, and no I don't have exact details but I have the ability to make an educated assumption.

As for Llorente, we apparently did not put in a bid, so how is that being rejected and losing out to Spurs ?. 

In regards to Barkley, an overrated player and I do not want him at all. You can't seriously think he has enough for a top 4 club ?. If Oxlade and Barkley are the level of player you are happy with, then we are going to need to agree to disagree and I certainly am not going to lose sleep or change my tune over those two. 

[Osgood is Good]

27 minutes ago, lchk said:

Nobody will ever know why Oxlade-Chamberlain selected Liverpool instead of Chelsea but if he did so for personal and emotional reasons, that's not an unusual occurrence whether it's in Football or any other line of business for that matter.  There are some folks who wish to work for a particular boss and would quit their jobs to work under him if he leaves the current establishment.  Others would do so because they feel they can excel by being a big fish in a small pond.  There are countless other reasons.  However, the main factor that a player would want to play for a particular club and like most other jobs in the world as well is due to pay packets.  

You said it was laughable that we lost Oxlade to Liverpool. Now in your context above you state...... "but if he did so for personal and emotional reasons, that's not an unusual occurrence whether it's in Football or any other line of business for that matter".

So if he chose Liverpool for personal reasons as you mentioned, why would you then say in another post only a few minutes ago, losing deals to lesser clubs is laughable, and the board should carry out a post mortem. Sorry but you can't be on both sides of the fence.

[Richard P]

Just watched England for 45 mins against Malta!! Dread to think what they all cost, but English players are stupidly over priced.

[just]

6 hours ago, Osgood is Good said:

The difficulty now with signing players, is all clubs have money and the choice for even average players is much larger. In regards to your "post mortem" comment, do you have any experience in running a business/company ?.

It's more than that. The goal posts have moved. Roman is a relative pauper compared to a number of our competitors. PSG are owned by an oil rich nation. We can't compete with them financially. We need to get smarter and faster in our transfer dealings but we show no signs of learning that lesson. United and Mourinho have shown us how it should be done in this transfer window.

[Osgood is Good]

35 minutes ago, just said:

It's more than that. The goal posts have moved. Roman is a relative pauper compared to a number of our competitors. PSG are owned by an oil rich nation. We can't compete with them financially. We need to get smarter and faster in our transfer dealings but we show no signs of learning that lesson. United and Mourinho have shown us how it should be done in this transfer window.

I agree the goal posts have moved, and we know how to get business done early, and agree again, we are not 'gung ho' anymore.

Man Utd just threw money at it again, as we used to. Look at Lukaku, 75m + add ons up to 90m + Rooney 20 - 25m + paying Rooney's contract 7 - 8 m + 12m agent fee, in total he will cost around 120m. It's not difficult to get Lukaku with that crazy amount.

Agreed we are not in the elite financially, but we are not poor. I am certainly not bashing the board, as I feel we done OK in the market this summer, but it could have been better because the funds are there. The way in which our spending has been reigned in, along with the streamlining of the squad/wages, gives me a gut feeling that we may be looking to attract investors in the near future. It's my gut feeling, I could be completely wrong

Edited September 1, 2017 by Osgood is Good

[lchk]

7 hours ago, Osgood is Good said:

In regards to your "post mortems", hopefully you understand the term "one size does not fit all".

In regards to Oxlade, he himself said he DID NOT want to play RWB, he himself has admitted being a Liverpool fan. Hopefully you get where I got it from, and no I don't have exact details but I have the ability to make an educated assumption.

As for Llorente, we apparently did not put in a bid, so how is that being rejected and losing out to Spurs ?. 

In regards to Barkley, an overrated player and I do not want him at all. You can't seriously think he has enough for a top 4 club ?. If Oxlade and Barkley are the level of player you are happy with, then we are going to need to agree to disagree and I certainly am not going to lose sleep or change my tune over those two. 

One size does not fit all is your claim.  It is my suggestion that the club should re-look at how they conduct their transfers.  Unless you think that's not important.

And Liverpool promised him a central midfield position?  If that is true, the Board is at fault here.  Bidding on the final days for a player whom they knew would not want to play at the position offered beggars belief as to why they would do so in the first place.  

What is your source that there was no bid for Llorente?  It's been reported that Conte has had a keen interest in him since January.  

I believe that Barkley has a sufficient level of technical skill and physique to play in midfield for the club.  He does have a weakness in his hesitancy at the final end of the pitch but that can ironed out with guidance.  I definitely hope the Board bids for him again in January.  

[lchk]

7 hours ago, Osgood is Good said:

You said it was laughable that we lost Oxlade to Liverpool. Now in your context above you state...... "but if he did so for personal and emotional reasons, that's not an unusual occurrence whether it's in Football or any other line of business for that matter".

So if he chose Liverpool for personal reasons as you mentioned, why would you then say in another post only a few minutes ago, losing deals to lesser clubs is laughable, and the board should carry out a post mortem. Sorry but you can't be on both sides of the fence.

I see you left out the main reason why people switch jobs and that is MONEY.  

Whatever the reasons are, Chelsea still lost out to Liverpool in a deadline day transfer bid.  Absolutely comedic.  Liverpool the ones that everyone else laughs at for their antics and theirs fans for living in the past.  End of.  I see no reason to prolong this debate as nobody is going to change their minds.

[PedroMendez]

4 hours ago, lchk said:

One size does not fit all is your claim.  It is my suggestion that the club should re-look at how they conduct their transfers.  Unless you think that's not important.

And Liverpool promised him a central midfield position?  If that is true, the Board is at fault here.  Bidding on the final days for a player whom they knew would not want to play at the position offered beggars belief as to why they would do so in the first place.  

What is your source that there was no bid for Llorente?  It's been reported that Conte has had a keen interest in him since January.  

I believe that Barkley has a sufficient level of technical skill and physique to play in midfield for the club.  He does have a weakness in his hesitancy at the final end of the pitch but that can ironed out with guidance.  I definitely hope the Board bids for him again in January.  

The board conducted its timings such that we had and were able to pick up our back up option, Zappacosta, who apart from not being English is likely to be a better WB, before the end of the deadline. Bidding late and spending Wednesday trying to convince the Ox to choose us did not hamper their ability to get the required deals done, so whats the issue with trying?

Yes if we had no contingency plan it would have been a disaster but we obviously had one in place.

Llorente is another one which I can not agree is a mistake by the club. 
Personally having watched most of Swansea's games last season and having been to a few of the games, he isn't at a level where he should be at a top club. 
Whilst yes Llorente scored some important goals last season, his overall play was such that I personally think he would have struggled to get back into the starting 11 ahead of Abraham and Ayew, who have a much more dynamic partnership than any thing Llorente can offer. If he is struggling to get into the Swansea team is he really good enough to be here?
Especially given that I am sure the board knew that Costa was not going to be sold in this window and would be with the squad until January.
 

However I do think and I am sure the board will review their dealings and activity this summer, and I am sure this is something they do after every transfer window. Despite the fact I'm sure the transfer team will think they could have done better calling it a post mortem in what was actually quite a successful window seems a bit weird.

We have managed with a great deal of success to find what look to be some very fruitful and high level loans for some of our players in deep need of playing time.
We have sold for very reasonable fees a lot of our older fringe players that were surplus to requirement.
And we have brought in a lot of quality. Morata, Bakayoko, Rudiger, Christensen, Zappacosta and Drinkwater is a very strong window. 

The 2 issues I would have are selling Matic to United (Roman doesn't seem to have a problem with selling to rivals) and leaving it late in the window to finish off our transfer business.

All though having said that if we had picked up Zappacosta in July and the Ox became available towards the end of the window I imagine there would have been a fair few on here complaining about why we hadn't waited.            

[lchk]

50 minutes ago, PedroMendez said:

The board conducted its timings such that we had and were able to pick up our back up option, Zappacosta, who apart from not being English is likely to be a better WB, before the end of the deadline. Bidding late and spending Wednesday trying to convince the Ox to choose us did not hamper their ability to get the required deals done, so whats the issue with trying?

Yes if we had no contingency plan it would have been a disaster but we obviously had one in place.

Llorente is another one which I can not agree is a mistake by the club. 
Personally having watched most of Swansea's games last season and having been to a few of the games, he isn't at a level where he should be at a top club. 
Whilst yes Llorente scored some important goals last season, his overall play was such that I personally think he would have struggled to get back into the starting 11 ahead of Abraham and Ayew, who have a much more dynamic partnership than any thing Llorente can offer. If he is struggling to get into the Swansea team is he really good enough to be here?
Especially given that I am sure the board knew that Costa was not going to be sold in this window and would be with the squad until January.
 

However I do think and I am sure the board will review their dealings and activity this summer, and I am sure this is something they do after every transfer window. Despite the fact I'm sure the transfer team will think they could have done better calling it a post mortem in what was actually quite a successful window seems a bit weird.

We have managed with a great deal of success to find what look to be some very fruitful and high level loans for some of our players in deep need of playing time.
We have sold for very reasonable fees a lot of our older fringe players that were surplus to requirement.
And we have brought in a lot of quality. Morata, Bakayoko, Rudiger, Christensen, Zappacosta and Drinkwater is a very strong window. 

The 2 issues I would have are selling Matic to United (Roman doesn't seem to have a problem with selling to rivals) and leaving it late in the window to finish off our transfer business.

All though having said that if we had picked up Zappacosta in July and the Ox became available towards the end of the window I imagine there would have been a fair few on here complaining about why we hadn't waited.            

The Board could have bought both Zappacosta and Oxlade-Chamberlain - it need not be a binary decision.  The issue is trying to convince Oxlade-Chamberlain to join the club  and if the suggested reason that he rejected Chelsea because he didn't want to play at right back  then it is a major issue as the club left it so late and had no idea of such a prerequisite.  

Llorente was a preferred choice of Conte (I believe Zappacosta is too) and just with that, I support this signing although if it was me, I would prefer a younger option.  Abraham is out on loan and Llorente is a short-term option and has bags of experience while offering a different option in being a target man so what's the problem?  As Marina has been conducting transfer business in this way ever since she joined the club, I very much doubt any reviews, post mortems, whatever you want to call it are being done except for probably pounds and pence.

I wouldn't call this a successful window as a marque player (Sandro), no backup striker of Conte's  choice and the points you mentioned above.  It's just a tad disappointing and could be far better.  

   

[Osgood is Good]

9 hours ago, lchk said:

I see you left out the main reason why people switch jobs and that is MONEY.  

Whatever the reasons are, Chelsea still lost out to Liverpool in a deadline day transfer bid.  Absolutely comedic.  Liverpool the ones that everyone else laughs at for their antics and theirs fans for living in the past.  End of.  I see no reason to prolong this debate as nobody is going to change their minds.

If it was a case of money for Oxlade, then he stitched himself up, by accepting 120k at Liverpool instead of $180k at Arsenal

And going with your theory that it is "absolute comedic" losing a player to a lesser club, that would be the same tag for Real Madrid, losing Morata to a lesser club, Chelsea.

No nobody is going to change their minds whilst you are sitting on both sides of the fence

On one hand you are saying it is "absolute comedic" (which is a pathetic statement) and in another post you are saying that it is understandable if he chose for personal reasons. And agreed there is no point prolonging this as it is impossible to debate something when one is speaking out both sides of their mouth. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Osgood is Good