15 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

We technically never even made a bid.

You gotta be in it to win it.

imho we never needed Garnacho, Lopez or Simons. But need has never stopped us before. Simons seems like agood player, but we have this bloke Cole Palmer who is much better.

I have never seen him play but I watched an analysis video on YouTube and it seemed like he could be a mirror image of Cole Palmer, so now I'm devastated. Tantrum incoming.

21 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

What absolute dogsh*t, they're just trying to make themselves look good, but everybody knows they have been made fools of and have been undone by Spuds of all teams.

In a matter of hours, they paid 40m for Garnacho and lost Simons to Spuds, they should be embarrassed. This is on the same level as losing out on Kounde and Raphinha to Barcelona.

60M for Simons never made any sense for us. We needed competition at left wing and this is what Garnacho brings. We could not have risked going into the season with only Gittens as the only natural left winger.

I genuinely think the board would have signed Simons as a bargain opportunity had the price was fit for that. He's never played left wing, nor right wing, he is a 10 and we have Palmer and Estevao there. 60M for a bench player would have been silly. Some people say he could have started in place of Enzo Fernandez, but that is even sillier to think about. Enzo Fernandez plays as a number 10 only on the attacking phase when the full back inverts, otherwise he is an "8". To start with both Palmer and Simons as central midfielders would be like starting with Palmer and Estevao in the middle, Neto and Gittens/Garnacho on the wings and Caicedo the lone defensive midfielder, which would only happen against lesser sides, otherwise there is no steel in that midfield.

1 minute ago, petre ispirescu said:

60M for Simons never made any sense for us. We needed competition at left wing and this is what Garnacho brings. We could not have risked going into the season with only Gittens as the only natural left winger.

I genuinely think the board would have signed Simons as a bargain opportunity had the price was fit for that. He's never played left wing, nor right wing, he is a 10 and we have Palmer and Estevao there. 60M for a bench player would have been silly. Some people say he could have started in place of Enzo Fernandez, but that is even sillier to think about. Enzo Fernandez plays as a number 10 only on the attacking phase when the full back inverts, otherwise he is an "8". To start with both Palmer and Simons as central midfielders would be like starting with Palmer and Estevao in the middle, Neto and Gittens/Garnacho on the wings and Caicedo the lone defensive midfielder, which would only happen against lesser sides, otherwise there is no steel in that midfield.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. You don't offer a player a contract if you're not interested in signing him. It's been clear that we wanted to bring him in once Nkunku and Jackson were sorted. It was exactly the same with Garnacho. We needed to get Nkunku out first to bring Garnacho in. Jackson would have been next, which would have cleared the path for Simons. I'm not buying all of this last minute revisionist stuff.

There's a reason why this Fermin Lopez stuff has come up in recent days, they must have caught wind of Tottenham's imminent approach to Leipzig. They're basically scrambling to find a replacement.

Ownership isn't shy in agreeing terms with the player despite having zero intentions in paying the club's transfer fee.

Gvardiol

Veiga

Tyler Adams

Ugarte

Maignan

54 minutes ago, Sunspear_88 said:

Sounds like absolute woke nonsense. lol. They are a fecking London rivals, not our friends. And what relationship? We've not dealt with them on business matters in recent years as far as I'm aware, so this makes zero sense.

If we didn't want to sour relationships, surely we've been soured by the fact of them approaching him? We've been little bro'd by Spurs of all teams lmao

37 minutes ago, petre ispirescu said:

60M for Simons never made any sense for us. We needed competition at left wing and this is what Garnacho brings. We could not have risked going into the season with only Gittens as the only natural left winger.

I genuinely think the board would have signed Simons as a bargain opportunity had the price was fit for that. He's never played left wing, nor right wing, he is a 10 and we have Palmer and Estevao there. 60M for a bench player would have been silly. Some people say he could have started in place of Enzo Fernandez, but that is even sillier to think about. Enzo Fernandez plays as a number 10 only on the attacking phase when the full back inverts, otherwise he is an "8". To start with both Palmer and Simons as central midfielders would be like starting with Palmer and Estevao in the middle, Neto and Gittens/Garnacho on the wings and Caicedo the lone defensive midfielder, which would only happen against lesser sides, otherwise there is no steel in that midfield.

Neto's best position is on the left btw

1 hour ago, Scott Harris said:

What absolute dogsh*t, they're just trying to make themselves look good, but everybody knows they have been made fools of and have been undone by Spuds of all teams.

In a matter of hours, they paid 40m for Garnacho and lost Simons to Spuds, they should be embarrassed. This is on the same level as losing out on Kounde and Raphinha to Barcelona.

Make themselves look good how though? They never bid or even decided to bid, can’t look bad when you don’t try.

What more than likely happened is that we were holding out for good value, Spurs came in and paid the full amount therefore we weren’t bothered due to having more than enough firepower already in the squad. Chances are we have done our scouting and will see if we can get our valuation of a player elsewhere. This is very similar to the Olise and Palmer situation a couple of years ago. Much less so because for Olise we even bid… for Xavi it has been an “ehhh” attitude.

9 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

If we didn't want to sour relationships, surely we've been soured by the fact of them approaching him? We've been little bro'd by Spurs of all teams lmao

Never bid to have been little bro’d. More like go ahead and have the leftovers.

Edited August 29, 2025Aug 29 by Clown Lake

2 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

Make themselves look good how though? They never bid or even decided to bid, can’t look bad when you don’t try.

What more than likely happened is that we were holding out for good value, Spurs came in and paid the full amount therefore we weren’t bothered due to having more than enough firepower already in the squad. Chances are we have done our scouting and will see if we can get our valuation of a player elsewhere. This is very similar to the Olise and Palmer situation a couple of years ago. Much less so because for Olise we even bid… for Xavi it has been an “ehhh” attitude.

Didn't you accuse me of moving the goalposts before?

If we had signed Simons after Jackson left, you would have gone along with what everybody knew was happening and said we were just waiting to get those deals done before signing him. Now that Tottenham have beaten us to the signing, you're pretending that we weren't that interested. We weren't holding out for good value, you ain't going to get a better deal than £50m for Simons. We signed Garnacho the moment the deal for Nkunku went through, we would have done exactly the same with Simons once Jackson left. This has been the plan for a month now, so pretending otherwise is just a massive cope.

20 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Neto's best position is on the left btw

Right or left, it does not matter, there is a plethora of them (and quality ones) at the club. Simons would have played in the 10 role, where Palmer is untouchable. 60M for his back-up would have been silly knowing that Estevao could also fill that role, too.

6 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Didn't you accuse me of moving the goalposts before?

If we had signed Simons after Jackson left, you would have gone along with what everybody knew was happening and said we were just waiting to get those deals done before signing him. Now that Tottenham have beaten us to the signing, you're pretending that we weren't that interested. We weren't holding out for good value, you ain't going to get a better deal than £50m for Simons. We signed Garnacho the moment the deal for Nkunku went through, we would have done exactly the same with Simons once Jackson left. This has been the plan for a month now, so pretending otherwise is just a massive cope.

I posted on the Jackson page that I think he is staying. I still think so and this may be an indicator of that. Never said we were pretending, we never pulled the trigger. We were holding out for value and when Spurs bid high, we moved on. Similar tactics to car auctions if you need a reference on what I am saying.

1 hour ago, Clown Lake said:

I posted on the Jackson page that I think he is staying. I still think so and this may be an indicator of that. Never said we were pretending, we never pulled the trigger. We were holding out for value and when Spurs bid high, we moved on. Similar tactics to car auctions if you need a reference on what I am saying.

I think this is likely. We were interested, thought there was some value there, but then as the window moved on, and the price seemed to rise, we moved on to other targets.

We were looking at a deal around £45m + add ons. Leipzig wanted more, and Spurs agreed to pay it. Hence we walked away.

Much prefer walking away than paying over the top for someone who I never really wanted much anyway!

He is a good player and will almost certainly improve Spurs. I was surprised we were even interested in him given his age (28). There would have been little to no chance of recouping any of the 60m fee quoted so the asset managers probably didn't fancy it.

1 minute ago, forbzy said:

He is a good player and will almost certainly improve Spurs. I was surprised we were even interested in him given his age (28). There would have been little to no chance of recouping any of the 60m fee quoted so the asset managers probably didn't fancy it.

He is 22 I think...not 28

9 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I think this is likely. We were interested, thought there was some value there, but then as the window moved on, and the price seemed to rise, we moved on to other targets.

We were looking at a deal around £45m + add ons. Leipzig wanted more, and Spurs agreed to pay it. Hence we walked away.

Much prefer walking away than paying over the top for someone who I never really wanted much anyway!

Probably didn't want Nkunku, George, Jackson, or Sterling going the other way as part of the deal.

28 minutes ago, forbzy said:

He is a good player and will almost certainly improve Spurs. I was surprised we were even interested in him given his age (28). There would have been little to no chance of recouping any of the 60m fee quoted so the asset managers probably didn't fancy it.

Signed for Spuds.

Close the thread.

That Matt Law tweet regarding we didn't want to destroy the relationship we've mended with Spurs by hijacking this deal must be the biggest load of waffle I have ever read.

Edited August 29, 2025Aug 29 by Sconnie Blue

After the Gittens/Wirtz/Sesko sh*tshow, I'm cautious of current Bundesliga players

21 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

That Matt Law tweet regarding we didn't want to destroy the relationship we've mended with Spurs by hijacking this deal must be the biggest load of waffle I have ever read.

2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

That Matt Law tweet regarding we didn't want to destroy the relationship we've mended with Spurs by hijacking this deal must be the biggest load of waffle I have ever read.

And Spurs didn’t give sh*t about stealing in on the last minute?

6 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

That Matt Law tweet regarding we didn't want to destroy the relationship we've mended with Spurs by hijacking this deal must be the biggest load of waffle I have ever read.

The board are taking us fans for idiots if that’s what they’re briefing Matt Law.

Spurs paid £51m in the end, it’s been all smoke and mirrors from the Chelsea board throughout this whole Simons saga.

14 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Didn't you accuse me of moving the goalposts before?

If we had signed Simons after Jackson left, you would have gone along with what everybody knew was happening and said we were just waiting to get those deals done before signing him. Now that Tottenham have beaten us to the signing, you're pretending that we weren't that interested. We weren't holding out for good value, you ain't going to get a better deal than £50m for Simons. We signed Garnacho the moment the deal for Nkunku went through, we would have done exactly the same with Simons once Jackson left. This has been the plan for a month now, so pretending otherwise is just a massive cope.

It looks like we have many blueco fans here.

As you said it is pretty obvious what is happening. We basically have a deal for Garnacho n Simon but we need to move Nkunku n Jackson. It is pretty straight forward.

Edited August 30, 2025Aug 30 by Bob stark

Spurs are obsessed with hijacking, it happens to them too often. They probably feel like they have a small victory today. For our part we have been looking at this fella for a while and have for whatever reason chosen not to progress in a timely manner. I believe if we had wanted him he would have been issued a squad number by now.

No big deal but a bizarre comment from our lot regarding a relationship with Spurs.

Im sure this can be played out as "he only wanted Spurs" in due course just to confirm the deluded nature of these buffoons (Spurs not our owners).