Re: 85million pounds spent on two players.....

by iNFINITY9910 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:32 am

Haha.. most likely.. as much as Mata is awesome for us atm.. Aguero would have done the same or even better.

by Kick Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:00 am

But, but, but Mata? Sad

by baresi Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:08 am

RedEyesWhiteBeard wrote:
baresi wrote:In all cases it doeas'nt add up to 85m mentioned. Does it?

what do you mean? 35+50=85........

hahaha I think my problem is I havent been smoking it latey. Man it gives an entirely new dimension.

by rsinatra Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:32 am

torres, huge mistake so far.. good thing they got their hands on mata.

carrol, overpriced

by REWB Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:30 pm

RedOranje wrote:
iNFINITY9910 wrote:He will be back.. he has time!

Chelsea finds the replacement for LFC, Carroll, and NUFC gives a price tag of 35m for him.

Chelsea buys Torres for 50m, gives the money to LFC. LFC just has to re-transfer the money to NUFC cos Chelsea did all the transfer stuff for them... Is that what happened? Is it even legal for Chelsea to buy players for Pool ?

Just curious.
Basically. The negotiations happened between Chelsea and Newcastle. Had Chelsea NOT agreed a fee for one of our targets (Carroll, Llorente, etc) we would not have let Torres leave.

how do you know that? do you work at liverpool? you're telling me liverpool wouldnt have accepted a 50million bid from chelsea.... Suspect

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:52 pm

RedEyesWhiteBeard wrote:
RedOranje wrote:
iNFINITY9910 wrote:He will be back.. he has time!

Chelsea finds the replacement for LFC, Carroll, and NUFC gives a price tag of 35m for him.

Chelsea buys Torres for 50m, gives the money to LFC. LFC just has to re-transfer the money to NUFC cos Chelsea did all the transfer stuff for them... Is that what happened? Is it even legal for Chelsea to buy players for Pool ?

Just curious.
Basically. The negotiations happened between Chelsea and Newcastle. Had Chelsea NOT agreed a fee for one of our targets (Carroll, Llorente, etc) we would not have let Torres leave.

how do you know that? do you work at liverpool? you're telling me liverpool wouldnt have accepted a 50million bid from chelsea....

It's not like they would have been able to do anything had we made a 50m bid. Release clause was activated and Torres wanted to leave.

by BeautifulGame Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:26 pm

english_jewel wrote:
RedEyesWhiteBeard wrote:
RedOranje wrote:
iNFINITY9910 wrote:He will be back.. he has time!

Chelsea finds the replacement for LFC, Carroll, and NUFC gives a price tag of 35m for him.

Chelsea buys Torres for 50m, gives the money to LFC. LFC just has to re-transfer the money to NUFC cos Chelsea did all the transfer stuff for them... Is that what happened? Is it even legal for Chelsea to buy players for Pool ?

Just curious.
Basically. The negotiations happened between Chelsea and Newcastle. Had Chelsea NOT agreed a fee for one of our targets (Carroll, Llorente, etc) we would not have let Torres leave.

how do you know that? do you work at liverpool? you're telling me liverpool wouldnt have accepted a 50million bid from chelsea....

It's not like they would have been able to do anything had we made a 50m bid. Release clause was activated and Torres wanted to leave.

Yes we would have been able to do everything because there was no release clause.The release clause would have been activated only the next summer if we didnt reach top 4.

Not sure were u get this nonsense of buy out clause i dont know.Certainly not from decent sources.

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:38 pm

BeautifulGame wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
RedEyesWhiteBeard wrote:
RedOranje wrote:
iNFINITY9910 wrote:He will be back.. he has time!

Chelsea finds the replacement for LFC, Carroll, and NUFC gives a price tag of 35m for him.

Chelsea buys Torres for 50m, gives the money to LFC. LFC just has to re-transfer the money to NUFC cos Chelsea did all the transfer stuff for them... Is that what happened? Is it even legal for Chelsea to buy players for Pool ?

Just curious.
Basically. The negotiations happened between Chelsea and Newcastle. Had Chelsea NOT agreed a fee for one of our targets (Carroll, Llorente, etc) we would not have let Torres leave.

how do you know that? do you work at liverpool? you're telling me liverpool wouldnt have accepted a 50million bid from chelsea....

It's not like they would have been able to do anything had we made a 50m bid. Release clause was activated and Torres wanted to leave.

Yes we would have been able to do everything because there was no release clause.The release clause would have been activated only the next summer if we didnt reach top 4.

Not sure were u get this nonsense of buy out clause i dont know.Certainly not from decent sources.

Maybe I'm wrong, but type 'Torres release clause' in Google and look at all the multiple articles from January 2011 saying that Chelsea need just bid 50m to get Torres. They say Torres had put that in his contract last summer, and they give no information that the release clause would not be able to be activated at that time, rather they say the opposite.

by RedOranje Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:39 pm

They were all speculation. Just like the talk about Reina having one at 20m.

There was no viable release clause in January.

by Abramovich Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:12 pm

RedOranje wrote:
iNFINITY9910 wrote:He will be back.. he has time!

Chelsea finds the replacement for LFC, Carroll, and NUFC gives a price tag of 35m for him.

Chelsea buys Torres for 50m, gives the money to LFC. LFC just has to re-transfer the money to NUFC cos Chelsea did all the transfer stuff for them... Is that what happened? Is it even legal for Chelsea to buy players for Pool ?

Just curious.
Basically. The negotiations happened between Chelsea and Newcastle. Had Chelsea NOT agreed a fee for one of our targets (Carroll, Llorente, etc) we would not have let Torres leave.

Wow if this is true then holy affraid

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com