Hulk says it's probably time for him to leave Porto, and says playing in the English League is what he wants to do. But da Costa is pushing the 100 million buy-out clause. No effing way we are paying that much for him.
He can stay at Porto. I wasn't to overly impressed with his Olympic performance. I would really like to see what we can do with the current squad.
Glad someone else other than me thinks the same, and that was before the olympics. Still cant figure out how the hulk hype managed to value him at around 40 mil.
The current squad has just 3 different players from the squad that finished 6th last year, so I wouldn't turn down reinforcements quite so glibly. We clearly still need more work. If Hulk came at a reasonable price, I'd gladly take him, but obviously playing anything more than 25M for him is ludicrous and not going to happen. I also thought he was Brazil's best player in the second half today. That being said, he wouldn't be my first option - James Rodriguez would be cheaper and younger, though he couldn't play up front, which is one of Hulk's biggest advantages.
All this Hulk link, I think originated from agent talk & them leaking their intention to media. I always had a doubt that Porto are not going to leave him out for less money & the talk of they're ready to sell for about 40-50million euros are just rubbish, conveyed through media by Hulks managers. Should have had Moses & a rightback done & dusted by now. Leaving things for TDD is always risky, for the rest of the season.
rumors that we've bid meireles + 24M for cavani are picking up steam, good deal imo if it true... can't spend entire season with only torres and danny
actually the lastest rumours on Moses are his agent denying that there is a deal in place as for tomorrows rumour- Hulk has said that he has an annoucement as he has expressed an interest in moving to Spain or England. I will give him this much- he said that he would not be discussing his future until after the Olympics and he is at least sticking to that.
I think Romeu deserves another shot if Mikel isnt up to it ( I think Mikel is doing just fine btw) . 21 next month in a position that takes years to master , he was very impressive in a couple of games last year.
I am personally not a huge fan of Romeu but I agree. We haven't kicked a meaningful ball yet and the whole forum wants to sign a bunch of players they've never even seen.
At various points, Van Der Wiel was rumored to be our next right back. Many here, including myself, did not want. Here's some good reasons why. This has nothing to do with Jozy Altidore (well, a little bit; no one here likes him so that makes VDW look even worse)- more about how VDW is just a lousy right back (he's shirt #2). Goal 1: VDW gets tossed off the ball like a schoolchild: Goal 2: VDW is only part of the problem here. Alderweireld also gets destroyed by some clever AZ play:
WOW! Who is this Altidore? We should get him. I can see him and Mata linking up and together, they will be known as "The MataDore". We should get him just for that monicker alone!
That article is pretty terrible, since it also effectively argues that Kalou was a very good player for us.
you know, i re-read it and i couldn't find the words "very" or "good" in front of "Kalou". so this is another example of you pulling something out that isnt there. quell surprise.
Ryo Miyaichi signs on loan with Wigan this further leads me to believe it is only a matter of time with Moses I still believe that we will not "officially" sign him, or be able to use him until after the Wigan fixture
You're not very smart. That article is a response to complaints that Mikel isn't good enough, and shows that with Mikel in the side our results are better than with all but one other player. So, either the article means nothing, or the author is claiming that Mikel's record suggests he is good enough. However, the only other player who had a better record than Mikel is........Kalou (who the article also calls "underappreciated", which is funny). So, either the above article means that Mikel and Kalou were good because of these "statistics", or it means absolutely nothing. If the first, then the article says exactly what I claimed. If the second, then the article also says nothing about Mikel. In short, using the statistics in that article either means Kalou and Mikel are good, or the statistics in the article are worthless. Personally I think it's the latter, but you can't defend Mikel with this argument while claiming it says nothing about Kalou. P.S. We Ain't Got No History is a good website, but there's a very wide difference between its writers. Graham MacAree is excellent. Steven Schmidt is less so, which this article demonstrates. P.P.S. It's quelle surprise.
Who's claiming it says "nothing" about Kalou?! FFS you really can't go one post without overstating, it's amazing. The article merely suggests that contributions of either player are substantial yet not completely obvious. You are creating a false dilemma.
It's "false dychotomy", and it's actually not in this case, there's no overstating. If you're basing your argument on Mikel being good on that post, then Kalou is even better. Are you saying that? You can't rely on that post to argue Mikel is good enough for Chelsea without also automatically arguing that Klaou is more than good enough.
you guys can keep at eachother, but allow me to attempt to bridge the gap. the original point is only that Mikel has more influence on the team in a positive way than may appear to the casual observer (not insinuating anyone is not paying attention or doesn't know what they are talking about) only that it's an attempt to prove that he is a good player despite many saying he provides nothing to the team. Kalou looking better statistically in some aspects is not directly saying he's better, it just observes that despite his obvious bad play to many of us, he still had many influential goals and appearances. i don't think that's really in question, we've all known for a long time how inconsistent he could be. but he would always pop up with the important goal here or there without much playing time. his strike rate, if i remember correctly, was always rather impressive, but the casual observer could also tell that wasn't the whole story. in many ways, he was a black hole of possesion and not good enough to be a starter. statistics and performances can tell different stories. Mikel can provide a strong importance to the team, without statistically looking good, while kalou can look great statistically, yet be a very poor/inconsistent player. the original point i think was lost, and Nice, your logical argument has validity, but i do think there are more intangibles to it, while pete, i think nice is just pointing out that the article as an argument does have some holes. to be completely honest, i think you guys are just too eager to disagree.