| Renato Sanchez 19:46 - Aug 25 with 131757 views | BenJ94 |
Swans 7/2 to sign him (presumably on loan) on sky bet. Surely got to be Bull? Or a sign of clement finally using his contacts? |  | | |  |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:37 - Sep 1 with 1974 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:29 - Sep 1 by Nirvana |
No one on here ever said Llorente wouldn't get sold.
No one on here ever said Renato Sanches was coming to Swansea.
Glad that's settled. |
Thought you were leaving this debate?
Its funny that you run away when things get tough and as soon as someone misunderstands and asks for clarification as they clearly are not aware of the debate you are referring to, you come back bold as brass from behind your rock.
How about this. Stay here and lets trash this one out, I have ammunition coming out of my ears.
You want to do this? Or are you doing your usual "you have the last word".... "Ok this is my last word now"... "Ok im back again but wont be posting again".... "Ok one more, this is my last word".
Trash it out you troll. Lets discuss this Sanches deal and all you have said. Lets go back and visit this Llorente deal and all you said. Lets got back and visit this Viera deal and all you said.
Shall we go on that journey? Say the word Nivvy and we can do it to our hearts content. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 10:39]
|  |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:39 - Sep 1 with 1960 views | jack247 |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:33 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
No I wholeheartedly disagree. You cannot take part of my post and attribute it to another.
I said we would not be paying £10m for a loan fee without the chance for resale value. That was the quote. And hugely important, and stand by it. We just simply wouldn't do it.
As it turns out, the reports at the time which were stating the deal being a loan to buy were incorrect. (I cannot control the media).
It turns out we paid £6m (some reports even said £2m). I am sure the figure will come out in the wash, what will be certain however is that we will not be paying £10m, quote me on that.
In terms if resale, I have said many times that we can soend this kind if money without resale. It has never ever been my point that we can never sign anyone without it (I can find a quote if you like) and that is why this is the minor of all minor points (i think a 2 post exchange on the whole Samches debate that has been rumbling on for weeks, it is the definition of minor).
Not minor for Nivvy of course because he is holding in to such small mercies as he tries to dig out of the hold he has dug himself in, but minor enough in the grand scheme of the debate all summer which was of course whether someone of Sanches' stature can be attracted to this club.
£6m is a small outlay. Resale is about recycling the majority. This has always been my point and repeated countless times. We just have the forum jester dancing around trying to look for an angle to deflect the absolute massive sh*storm of things he has got wrong this summer and currently and bizarely this is one such thing. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 10:41]
|
The only part I'm disagreeing with is that not having an option to buy is a 'minor' detail. You can argue that all you like. If we did have it, it would fit hand in glove with what you've been saying all summer. |  | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:43 - Sep 1 with 1953 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:39 - Sep 1 by jack247 |
The only part I'm disagreeing with is that not having an option to buy is a 'minor' detail. You can argue that all you like. If we did have it, it would fit hand in glove with what you've been saying all summer. |
I agree with you. But I am not saying it is minor to the deal, it would be amazing if we could have had that.
I am saying it is minor to the debate in hand. This Sanches thing has been going on for weeks. In terms of the loan deal being permenant, it was a 2 post exchange based on external reports. In terms of the debate (thats the key), it is a minor detail. | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:50 - Sep 1 with 1917 views | jack247 |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:43 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
I agree with you. But I am not saying it is minor to the deal, it would be amazing if we could have had that.
I am saying it is minor to the debate in hand. This Sanches thing has been going on for weeks. In terms of the loan deal being permenant, it was a 2 post exchange based on external reports. In terms of the debate (thats the key), it is a minor detail. |
Right. I'm partially agreeing with you now, I'm not sure which exchange you are referring to, it may not be relevant to that and yes, we agree it would have been a hell of a coup if we could have bought him.
I think it's still relevant regarding your viewpoint over the summer though. My interpretation of that was we shouldn't be going for 28 year olds like Viera, we should be looking for players like Sanches at the same sort of price, principally because they have huge sell on values. Signing him on loan, however great that may be, doesn't validate your point. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:53 - Sep 1 with 1907 views | TheResurrection |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:15 - Sep 1 by costalotta |
You gotta laugh.
Minor, major, lucky or unfecking lucky it doesn't really matter as you were off the mark on that point. From my POV and reading your previous posts I'd say it was a pretty major point for you given the way your u wrote it and banged on about resale values etc. I happen to agree with that sentiment but there was no option, there never was. You tried to sell that there was which is part of your trying to look like your a fountain of knowledge....a know it all! I admit I enjoyed reading to about the way the odds shifted with respect to some of the deals, I agreed with some of it. Bottom line is Though you don't know half as much as you think you know. |
There was nothing wrong with what E20 wrote, nothing.
A huge loan fee isn't what anybody at the Club would want. They would, however, be very happy with a clause to buy. I doubt whether anyone on here knows the finer details of the deal anyway yet are widely shouting their mouth off. The fact it was mentioned early on suggests on times there's no smoke without fire. Maybe Bayern don't want the world to know particular detail.
The £10m isn't accurate either, it's half that and there's a good chance this deal makes perfect sense taking into consideration his earnings which would be a lot less than Siggy or Gomis would've been on.
This could be seen as a true investment on the return of the Premier League money of next season. |  |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:57 - Sep 1 with 1888 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:50 - Sep 1 by jack247 |
Right. I'm partially agreeing with you now, I'm not sure which exchange you are referring to, it may not be relevant to that and yes, we agree it would have been a hell of a coup if we could have bought him.
I think it's still relevant regarding your viewpoint over the summer though. My interpretation of that was we shouldn't be going for 28 year olds like Viera, we should be looking for players like Sanches at the same sort of price, principally because they have huge sell on values. Signing him on loan, however great that may be, doesn't validate your point. |
Ok then. Best thing to do is break it down into 3 parts as 3 seperate debates are being condensed i to one by someone desperate to try and not look like a chump. Understandably those that have not been following his rambled debates will be slightly confised by them.
1) The overall debate regarding Sanches was simply that we should be going after players of that ilk. He is pulling on a Swans jersey next week. Thats all there is to it, regarding that. We can attract these players and should absolutely be trying to get them.
2) Re-sale debate (which was largely a seperate debate) was based on Viera (and such like) and spending £27m (the majority of the Gylfi money) on someone with little resale. I have always said we can also spend smaller amounts on players with little resale (important part I have stressed many times), this loan deal would constitute that.
3) As for this Sanches thread, I said we would not be paying £10m loan fee if it were not accompanying the chance for future resale. I stand by that. I dont think we would. Hence why the loan deal is reported to be £2m - £6m, and not the £9m that AC Milan were going to pay for the loan with option to buy. At the time of writing the reports were wrong (£9m loan fee) which led me to believe their reports regarding it being a loan to buy were correct. It turns out the fee was less, as was the clause - so it is fine on all counts. (This was a tiny lart of this debate, miniscule).
Don't get hoodwinked by this cretin 247. Everything he has ever written is in black and white. When taken in context and in the correct debate (amazingly) he doesnt have a leg to stand on - on any front. He knows this. Hence the smileys. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:00]
| |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:02 - Sep 1 with 1865 views | TheResurrection |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:50 - Sep 1 by jack247 |
Right. I'm partially agreeing with you now, I'm not sure which exchange you are referring to, it may not be relevant to that and yes, we agree it would have been a hell of a coup if we could have bought him.
I think it's still relevant regarding your viewpoint over the summer though. My interpretation of that was we shouldn't be going for 28 year olds like Viera, we should be looking for players like Sanches at the same sort of price, principally because they have huge sell on values. Signing him on loan, however great that may be, doesn't validate your point. |
There's a world of difference between a 28 year old for 30m or a wonder kid on loan for 7 (seven) times LESS!!!! | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:03 - Sep 1 with 1861 views | Nirvana |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:37 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
Thought you were leaving this debate?
Its funny that you run away when things get tough and as soon as someone misunderstands and asks for clarification as they clearly are not aware of the debate you are referring to, you come back bold as brass from behind your rock.
How about this. Stay here and lets trash this one out, I have ammunition coming out of my ears.
You want to do this? Or are you doing your usual "you have the last word".... "Ok this is my last word now"... "Ok im back again but wont be posting again".... "Ok one more, this is my last word".
Trash it out you troll. Lets discuss this Sanches deal and all you have said. Lets go back and visit this Llorente deal and all you said. Lets got back and visit this Viera deal and all you said.
Shall we go on that journey? Say the word Nivvy and we can do it to our hearts content. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 10:39]
|
You've been put in your place countless times this summer and made to look a right obsessed fool, Dimi (you fast typer, you). Allow me, one more time.
- Sanches - I said our club couldn't lure him here on a PERMANENT basis, never said we couldn't loan him. I, like everyone else in football, didn't think it likely. And you yourself said you weren't talking about Sanches "specifically" but players like him. You also said we should have bought him "before the Euros", ya know, when he was worth £30m already. Or did you mean when he was playing for Benfica B? Not even taking into account we could never sign someone of his caliber that young anyway. It has been the word on the street ever since Clement took over that we should be bringing in young talent on loan from the top clubs he's worked for. Like Tammy, a loan for Sanches is nice. But it's certainly not what you were banging on and on about not even two days ago. All caps, remember? It's quoted above if you don't: "PERMANENT". Is your memory seriously that shot? Jesus.
- Llorente - I never said he wouldn't be sold, I felt it likely all along because our owners aren't turning down money for a 32-year old striker. I said that numerous times. I shared my personal opinion that I didn't WANT him to be sold, completely different story. I also said he would be sold for £12.5m and you replied with something like "yeah you just pulled that number out of your 'arse' to suit your argument", remember now? You said he'd likely be sold for "possibly even £20m". Bless your fragile heart.
- Viera - I have said all along I thought it doubtful our club would ever spend £27m on any player, no matter who. And I was right. Again, it is my personal OPINION that he is certainly worth it, and most on here (and all of football) would agree. Viera was second in La Liga (behind Lionel ffukkingg Messi) in chances created, he's pretty damn good. And, of course, the club submitted a €25m bid for Viera, the most we've ever bid for anyone, that was promptly rejected. Clearly someone at the club agreed wholeheartedly about my assessment of Viera, they were ready and willing to drop a huge sum on him. His wife is pregnant and the climate in the Canaries is the best in the world, literally. We were never going to get him, and I said that from the beginning. I HOPED we would, completely different story.
So, is that good enough for you "trash" boy?
(EDIT: This is what being "put in your place" looks like, Dimi. Take notes.) [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:09]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Renato Sanchez on 11:06 - Sep 1 with 1837 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:53 - Sep 1 by TheResurrection |
There was nothing wrong with what E20 wrote, nothing.
A huge loan fee isn't what anybody at the Club would want. They would, however, be very happy with a clause to buy. I doubt whether anyone on here knows the finer details of the deal anyway yet are widely shouting their mouth off. The fact it was mentioned early on suggests on times there's no smoke without fire. Maybe Bayern don't want the world to know particular detail.
The £10m isn't accurate either, it's half that and there's a good chance this deal makes perfect sense taking into consideration his earnings which would be a lot less than Siggy or Gomis would've been on.
This could be seen as a true investment on the return of the Premier League money of next season. |
Correct. He is using two seperate debates.
It is a bit like saying we need to sign a goalscorer after Llorente departs and then saying, "ahhh but we signed Sanches immediately after, who is not a known goalscorer so you are wrong" ignoring the fact we also signed Bony afterwards.
The resale debate was never, ever, about loan deals. It was about spending record amounts of money on a single player that would prove a black hole for future transfer warchests. The fact we signed an English player with a premium for £16m who is 26 suggetss that we indeed went down the resale route when breaking our transfer record.
To attribute that debate to this loan deal is extremely disingenuous and is the last throws of a dying man. | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:14 - Sep 1 with 1801 views | costalotta |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:06 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
Correct. He is using two seperate debates.
It is a bit like saying we need to sign a goalscorer after Llorente departs and then saying, "ahhh but we signed Sanches immediately after, who is not a known goalscorer so you are wrong" ignoring the fact we also signed Bony afterwards.
The resale debate was never, ever, about loan deals. It was about spending record amounts of money on a single player that would prove a black hole for future transfer warchests. The fact we signed an English player with a premium for £16m who is 26 suggetss that we indeed went down the resale route when breaking our transfer record.
To attribute that debate to this loan deal is extremely disingenuous and is the last throws of a dying man. |
You've lost the plot and seem to be not understanding what I wrote or what younyourself wrote.
Which was basically calling you up on the 'option to purchase' not strikers, or loan deal versus purchase. It was a simple calling out of you stating the deal included a purchase option at the conclusion of the loan period. Which I doesn't. I cannot make any it any simpler for you than that.
You will try and worm away from that by blaming others or that you were following (orders) reports but it is what it is. |  | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:14 - Sep 1 with 1801 views | Nirvana |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:06 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
Correct. He is using two seperate debates.
It is a bit like saying we need to sign a goalscorer after Llorente departs and then saying, "ahhh but we signed Sanches immediately after, who is not a known goalscorer so you are wrong" ignoring the fact we also signed Bony afterwards.
The resale debate was never, ever, about loan deals. It was about spending record amounts of money on a single player that would prove a black hole for future transfer warchests. The fact we signed an English player with a premium for £16m who is 26 suggetss that we indeed went down the resale route when breaking our transfer record.
To attribute that debate to this loan deal is extremely disingenuous and is the last throws of a dying man. |
Haha, "last throws of a dying man" that should be your autobiography, remember Dimi??
And as your friend Lisa from London has pointed out quite eloquently, Clucas has very little "re-sale value".
You've lost control of your little house of cards, Dimi, it's all crashing down now. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:16 - Sep 1 with 1785 views | costalotta |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:53 - Sep 1 by TheResurrection |
There was nothing wrong with what E20 wrote, nothing.
A huge loan fee isn't what anybody at the Club would want. They would, however, be very happy with a clause to buy. I doubt whether anyone on here knows the finer details of the deal anyway yet are widely shouting their mouth off. The fact it was mentioned early on suggests on times there's no smoke without fire. Maybe Bayern don't want the world to know particular detail.
The £10m isn't accurate either, it's half that and there's a good chance this deal makes perfect sense taking into consideration his earnings which would be a lot less than Siggy or Gomis would've been on.
This could be seen as a true investment on the return of the Premier League money of next season. |
Nah, that's not what i was saying which was he called the deal with an option to purchase. I was merely calling that out as wrong as it didn't happen. Simples. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:16 - Sep 1 with 1783 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:03 - Sep 1 by Nirvana |
You've been put in your place countless times this summer and made to look a right obsessed fool, Dimi (you fast typer, you). Allow me, one more time.
- Sanches - I said our club couldn't lure him here on a PERMANENT basis, never said we couldn't loan him. I, like everyone else in football, didn't think it likely. And you yourself said you weren't talking about Sanches "specifically" but players like him. You also said we should have bought him "before the Euros", ya know, when he was worth £30m already. Or did you mean when he was playing for Benfica B? Not even taking into account we could never sign someone of his caliber that young anyway. It has been the word on the street ever since Clement took over that we should be bringing in young talent on loan from the top clubs he's worked for. Like Tammy, a loan for Sanches is nice. But it's certainly not what you were banging on and on about not even two days ago. All caps, remember? It's quoted above if you don't: "PERMANENT". Is your memory seriously that shot? Jesus.
- Llorente - I never said he wouldn't be sold, I felt it likely all along because our owners aren't turning down money for a 32-year old striker. I said that numerous times. I shared my personal opinion that I didn't WANT him to be sold, completely different story. I also said he would be sold for £12.5m and you replied with something like "yeah you just pulled that number out of your 'arse' to suit your argument", remember now? You said he'd likely be sold for "possibly even £20m". Bless your fragile heart.
- Viera - I have said all along I thought it doubtful our club would ever spend £27m on any player, no matter who. And I was right. Again, it is my personal OPINION that he is certainly worth it, and most on here (and all of football) would agree. Viera was second in La Liga (behind Lionel ffukkingg Messi) in chances created, he's pretty damn good. And, of course, the club submitted a €25m bid for Viera, the most we've ever bid for anyone, that was promptly rejected. Clearly someone at the club agreed wholeheartedly about my assessment of Viera, they were ready and willing to drop a huge sum on him. His wife is pregnant and the climate in the Canaries is the best in the world, literally. We were never going to get him, and I said that from the beginning. I HOPED we would, completely different story.
So, is that good enough for you "trash" boy?
(EDIT: This is what being "put in your place" looks like, Dimi. Take notes.) [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:09]
|
You can say "put in your place" until the cows come home Nivs. But its still clear you have dine nothing to further your point, you just look like the desperate troll I and others have labelled you as for months.
First point.... No, you said someone was SPOT ON, when they said "We wont even get Sanches here on loan". Now to be spot on, by definition, you are correct on all fronts. Well Nivs.... You were wrong.
Second point... No, before the euros means before the euros. It does not mean a timeframe before the euros which vaguely supports your claim. It means before. He has not always been worth £30m.
Thirdly.... No, I did not bang in about anything. It was two posts repeating we would not be spening £10m on a loan with no option of future resale - I was right, we didnt spend £10m due to the fact there was no re-sale.
Fourth.... No, I have been telling you all summer Llorente will be off. You have been kicking and scremeing that he shouldnt go. I to,d you he simoly has to and your lack of finance knowledge leads tou to believe that. You were wrong.
Fifth... No, I dont think I have ever had a debate with you regarding hiw much Llorente would go for. Ever. Quote me. This is another deflection tactic to move away from you crying all summer that Llorente shouldnt go. He should, and has - you were wrong.
Sixth... No. You said Clement was "looking forward to Viera" and the only reason we would not get him is because Las Palmas wanted to keep him. You were wrong. We didnt sign him because we did not think he was worth it. He had a release clause, if we wanted him, we would have triggered it.
There is an awful lot of "no" comments there. Enjoy them.
You have shown yourself up and if anyone reads any if your posts with respect again I will be stunned.  | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:17 - Sep 1 with 1778 views | jack247 |
| Renato Sanchez on 10:57 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
Ok then. Best thing to do is break it down into 3 parts as 3 seperate debates are being condensed i to one by someone desperate to try and not look like a chump. Understandably those that have not been following his rambled debates will be slightly confised by them.
1) The overall debate regarding Sanches was simply that we should be going after players of that ilk. He is pulling on a Swans jersey next week. Thats all there is to it, regarding that. We can attract these players and should absolutely be trying to get them.
2) Re-sale debate (which was largely a seperate debate) was based on Viera (and such like) and spending £27m (the majority of the Gylfi money) on someone with little resale. I have always said we can also spend smaller amounts on players with little resale (important part I have stressed many times), this loan deal would constitute that.
3) As for this Sanches thread, I said we would not be paying £10m loan fee if it were not accompanying the chance for future resale. I stand by that. I dont think we would. Hence why the loan deal is reported to be £2m - £6m, and not the £9m that AC Milan were going to pay for the loan with option to buy. At the time of writing the reports were wrong (£9m loan fee) which led me to believe their reports regarding it being a loan to buy were correct. It turns out the fee was less, as was the clause - so it is fine on all counts. (This was a tiny lart of this debate, miniscule).
Don't get hoodwinked by this cretin 247. Everything he has ever written is in black and white. When taken in context and in the correct debate (amazingly) he doesnt have a leg to stand on - on any front. He knows this. Hence the smileys. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:00]
|
Don't worry, I'm not getting hoodwinked by anyone. I've disagreed with Nirvana on Bony this morning. I agree with some of the other stuff he writes. I've also agreed and disagreed with you often. I'd imagine I'll continue to do so.
As for those points, 1 and 2 were not as separate as that. The point that kicked all this off was that we should be going for players with potential (i.e. Sanches before he went to Bayern), rather than 28 year olds if we were going to be spending £25-30m on them. This was because of resale as well as the on pitch benefit we would get for a few years.
In fairness, you did quite often say that there is nothing wrong with signing players without much resale value, as long as they were relatively cheap. Sanches on loan fits with this.
Completely agree we should be looking to sign players like him, on loan is better than not at all. I'm not sure it justifies the 'Renato fukkkinggg Sanches' digs though, because when his name was originally brought up it was in a completely different context.
Also agree a £9/10m loan fee would have been nuts for the deal we got. May well have been something we would have done if it came with an option to buy.
Edit - final point and it's pretty trivial, but I agree about the smileys. They weaken posts rather than strengthen them. A decent point doesn't need a crutch. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:19]
| | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:17 - Sep 1 with 1776 views | Nirvana |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:14 - Sep 1 by costalotta |
You've lost the plot and seem to be not understanding what I wrote or what younyourself wrote.
Which was basically calling you up on the 'option to purchase' not strikers, or loan deal versus purchase. It was a simple calling out of you stating the deal included a purchase option at the conclusion of the loan period. Which I doesn't. I cannot make any it any simpler for you than that.
You will try and worm away from that by blaming others or that you were following (orders) reports but it is what it is. |
Absolutely, Costalotta.
He knows what he's doing, though, there's no misunderstanding.
My initial post was only quoting him essentially, putting his obsessed bbullshitt in his face, and he has taken this off in every other direction hoping to distract from his massive fail on this.
Typical Dimi, though, you got to hand it to him. No shame, no humility. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:19 - Sep 1 with 1766 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:16 - Sep 1 by costalotta |
Nah, that's not what i was saying which was he called the deal with an option to purchase. I was merely calling that out as wrong as it didn't happen. Simples. |
I did not call anything, I based my comment on what was being reported and understood at the time that we would not be soending £10m on a loan deal with no resale. The reports were wrong and the loan deal was half that, which probably makes sense as to why there is no resale.
That part of the debate was but a crumb in the whole Sanches debate saga. But I appreciate you attemoting to have his back, my God he has needed it today more than ever.  | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:22 - Sep 1 with 1748 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:17 - Sep 1 by jack247 |
Don't worry, I'm not getting hoodwinked by anyone. I've disagreed with Nirvana on Bony this morning. I agree with some of the other stuff he writes. I've also agreed and disagreed with you often. I'd imagine I'll continue to do so.
As for those points, 1 and 2 were not as separate as that. The point that kicked all this off was that we should be going for players with potential (i.e. Sanches before he went to Bayern), rather than 28 year olds if we were going to be spending £25-30m on them. This was because of resale as well as the on pitch benefit we would get for a few years.
In fairness, you did quite often say that there is nothing wrong with signing players without much resale value, as long as they were relatively cheap. Sanches on loan fits with this.
Completely agree we should be looking to sign players like him, on loan is better than not at all. I'm not sure it justifies the 'Renato fukkkinggg Sanches' digs though, because when his name was originally brought up it was in a completely different context.
Also agree a £9/10m loan fee would have been nuts for the deal we got. May well have been something we would have done if it came with an option to buy.
Edit - final point and it's pretty trivial, but I agree about the smileys. They weaken posts rather than strengthen them. A decent point doesn't need a crutch. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:19]
|
So we agree on all fronts.
Its funny what happens when you break down a trolls desperate murmurs. | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:25 - Sep 1 with 1732 views | jack247 |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:22 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
So we agree on all fronts.
Its funny what happens when you break down a trolls desperate murmurs. |
Did you read it fully?
We certainly don't agree on all fronts | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:26 - Sep 1 with 1730 views | Nirvana |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:17 - Sep 1 by jack247 |
Don't worry, I'm not getting hoodwinked by anyone. I've disagreed with Nirvana on Bony this morning. I agree with some of the other stuff he writes. I've also agreed and disagreed with you often. I'd imagine I'll continue to do so.
As for those points, 1 and 2 were not as separate as that. The point that kicked all this off was that we should be going for players with potential (i.e. Sanches before he went to Bayern), rather than 28 year olds if we were going to be spending £25-30m on them. This was because of resale as well as the on pitch benefit we would get for a few years.
In fairness, you did quite often say that there is nothing wrong with signing players without much resale value, as long as they were relatively cheap. Sanches on loan fits with this.
Completely agree we should be looking to sign players like him, on loan is better than not at all. I'm not sure it justifies the 'Renato fukkkinggg Sanches' digs though, because when his name was originally brought up it was in a completely different context.
Also agree a £9/10m loan fee would have been nuts for the deal we got. May well have been something we would have done if it came with an option to buy.
Edit - final point and it's pretty trivial, but I agree about the smileys. They weaken posts rather than strengthen them. A decent point doesn't need a crutch. [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:19]
|
Agreed, 247.
And res and Dimi are the two most prominent smiley users, so take that up with them. I was using them quite ironically, you can look over both our posts to see who needs that "crutch".
But yes, Dimi is flailing around incoherently, he knows he's been found out. Even texted his white knight res to come in and save him, haha.
I don't really give a sshitt what these guys think, by the way, they are the ones who talk about me everyday, stalk my posts, obsessively argue on and belittle the threads I create. These are just facts, they are both obsessed with me clearly. I'd prefer to not have any contact with them anymore, but they can't let me go. They like me too much. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:29 - Sep 1 with 1721 views | EasternJack |
It's £4M loan fee and £2.5M contribution to his wages. £6.5M total
As far as I know there isn't a buy clause.
These signings - even loan at this stage - help us get back the quality that Laudrup built. It adds to our reputation and attractiveness - and hopefully translates into a step up in league position. Gaining Euro qualification this year is the key to having any discussion on retaining our loan players and building on that quality. |  |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:29 - Sep 1 with 1720 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:14 - Sep 1 by Nirvana |
Haha, "last throws of a dying man" that should be your autobiography, remember Dimi??
And as your friend Lisa from London has pointed out quite eloquently, Clucas has very little "re-sale value".
You've lost control of your little house of cards, Dimi, it's all crashing down now. |
Yes I remember my fabulous put down yes. Nice imaginative plagiarism there. I guess when you are struggling plagiarism is always the fall back eh Nivvs. Hiw are those blogs by the way?
Lisa is a fantastic poster and have enjoyed reading her outting you in your place, I have not seen her suggest Clucas has very little resale value. This is something I wholeheartedly disagree on, he is a 26 year old English player in a premium position of central midfield. He has bags of sell on value. We certainly will not lose money on Clucas, bookmark that.
Yes crashing down all around me. We have broken our transfer record on a 26 year old english player with bags of resale, Llorente sold due to obvious financial restraints, no Viera or older signings fir big money and Rennnnato fucckiiing Sanccccches in our line up. Oh the pain.  [Post edited 1 Sep 2017 11:30]
| |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:30 - Sep 1 with 1720 views | jack247 |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:26 - Sep 1 by Nirvana |
Agreed, 247.
And res and Dimi are the two most prominent smiley users, so take that up with them. I was using them quite ironically, you can look over both our posts to see who needs that "crutch".
But yes, Dimi is flailing around incoherently, he knows he's been found out. Even texted his white knight res to come in and save him, haha.
I don't really give a sshitt what these guys think, by the way, they are the ones who talk about me everyday, stalk my posts, obsessively argue on and belittle the threads I create. These are just facts, they are both obsessed with me clearly. I'd prefer to not have any contact with them anymore, but they can't let me go. They like me too much. |
I probably should leave you guys to it. I don't want to take sides or get involved in your argument. I'll debate points with anyone, but I'm not interested once it gets personal.
I do agree with a lot of what E20 said. Not all of it. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:31 - Sep 1 with 1712 views | costalotta |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:19 - Sep 1 by E20Jack |
I did not call anything, I based my comment on what was being reported and understood at the time that we would not be soending £10m on a loan deal with no resale. The reports were wrong and the loan deal was half that, which probably makes sense as to why there is no resale.
That part of the debate was but a crumb in the whole Sanches debate saga. But I appreciate you attemoting to have his back, my God he has needed it today more than ever. |
Ok. | | | |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:35 - Sep 1 with 1686 views | E20Jack |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:26 - Sep 1 by Nirvana |
Agreed, 247.
And res and Dimi are the two most prominent smiley users, so take that up with them. I was using them quite ironically, you can look over both our posts to see who needs that "crutch".
But yes, Dimi is flailing around incoherently, he knows he's been found out. Even texted his white knight res to come in and save him, haha.
I don't really give a sshitt what these guys think, by the way, they are the ones who talk about me everyday, stalk my posts, obsessively argue on and belittle the threads I create. These are just facts, they are both obsessed with me clearly. I'd prefer to not have any contact with them anymore, but they can't let me go. They like me too much. |
I have come to the conclusion that Nivvy is mentally ill. Genuinelly.
He has read 247's post (which agrees with me on every major point) and agrees with it.
Then goes on to say we are obsessed with him and we stalk his posts.... Yet he was immediately on this thread this morning trying to get our attention and even found me on another thread and to,d me to come here.
If there wasnt a computer screen between us I would genuinelly be a bit unnerved. He has all the hall marks of a creepy serial killer with posters of Jonathan Viera on his wall, rocking back and fore in the corner of the room he has in his mums house repeating "I was wrong about everything, wrong about everything, wrong about everything, but he is only on looooooan".
Nivvy tea is ready. | |
| |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:36 - Sep 1 with 1685 views | TheResurrection |
| Renato Sanchez on 11:16 - Sep 1 by costalotta |
Nah, that's not what i was saying which was he called the deal with an option to purchase. I was merely calling that out as wrong as it didn't happen. Simples. |
That's what was first reported though. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
