January Transfer Window 2014

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 18 Dec 2013, 7:30 pm

First topic message reminder :

I'm gonna open this up now as I contemplate watching the shower of poop I'm about to watch.

What strong rumours have we heard? What do teams need? Where do you think the money will be spent?

I shall start you off with rumours surrounding Lambert maybe considering West Ham and similarly West Ham going to Spurs cap in hand to request a loan of Defoe or Adebayor (sources not so tight haha)

by mystiroakey Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:31 pm

Chelsea = solid football

by mystiroakey Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:31 pm

Man citeh = clinical football

by Guest Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:32 pm

Mourinho's formula is tried and tested and what works for him works for him. I'm sure that if Mata was the right fit he'd play. I certainly don't think there's a clash of personalities there. Mata doesn't come across as the prickly type. He just doesn't fit the Jose mould and he won't be the last.

Mata is a fantastic player that would grace almost any team in world football..just not Chelsea.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:32 pm

socal1976 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

yep, Mourinho is terrible. If you're a fan of another team

if Chelsea were a better team with Mata playing, Mourinho would play him. We aren't, so he doesn't. Managers should win matches, not deliver "beautiful football" (whatever that means, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

Mourinho is an accomplished manager, he wins trophies. But I root for him and his tactics to fail wherever he goes. MFC I have nothing against Chelsea in fact really enjoyed watching them win the CL trophy. I don't live in England so I don't have a tribalistic distaste for other clubs. I want to watch beautiful football, if that makes me naive or whatever that is fine, but as a neutral Chelsea is just about the last top team that I want to watch. If Mourinho succeeds he will create a dozen clones of his brutal and negative football, there will be a dozen AVB types popping up in jobs across Europe. He is anti-football in my mind, nothing against Chelsea.

meh, disagree completely. Mourinho plays efficient football, he doesn't go for style over substance, but "anti-football"? That's really really going too far. Ironically in that CL run Chelsea came much closer to playing anti-football than anything we've seen this season (in the semis and the final - though the semi in the Nou Camp remains my single greatest memory as a Chelsea fan Very Happy

)

by socal1976 Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:33 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Exactly what I was going to say MFC, at the end of the day Chelsea fans want to see their team win if that comes about because of 'beautiful football' even better but 'beautiful football' without winning is pretty pointless.

Maybe to you, not to me, I began liking Arsenal because of the way they played. It is not like my life is changed if they win a trophy or don't, I watch them for entertainment. If I watched them during the Graham era I probably wouldn't have become a fan. But now I do have an emotional attachment to the team and probably would support them even if they were boring Arsenal. But to me football is about fun, joy, and beauty if the team I support wins trophies it is not like I get a medal or pay raise or anything. It is not like girls will like me more. It is meant to be entertaining and Mourinho provides the least entertainment possible with teams oozing with the ability to play lovely football.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:35 pm

FreekShow wrote:Mourinho's formula is tried and tested and what works for him works for him. I'm sure that if Mata was the right fit he'd play. I certainly don't think there's a clash of personalities there. Mata doesn't come across as the prickly type. He just doesn't fit the Jose mould and he won't be the last.

Mata is a fantastic player that would grace almost any team in world football..just not Chelsea.

certainly nothing to suggest it. Mourinho's certainly never hinted at anything, and from past experience, he would probably make it clear if something was wrong. It's just that Chelsea are a better team without Mata in it, and as such he's expendable. If we can get a very good fee for him, there's no particular reason to keep him.

by mystiroakey Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:37 pm

Man U used to play nice football.

Now they look like headless chickens with one player trying to play on his own.

Everton now are playing some beautiful stuff.

Mourinho over moyes in every possible way tbh.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:46 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

yep, Mourinho is terrible. If you're a fan of another team

if Chelsea were a better team with Mata playing, Mourinho would play him. We aren't, so he doesn't. Managers should win matches, not deliver "beautiful football" (whatever that means, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

Mourinho is an accomplished manager, he wins trophies. But I root for him and his tactics to fail wherever he goes. MFC I have nothing against Chelsea in fact really enjoyed watching them win the CL trophy. I don't live in England so I don't have a tribalistic distaste for other clubs. I want to watch beautiful football, if that makes me naive or whatever that is fine, but as a neutral Chelsea is just about the last top team that I want to watch. If Mourinho succeeds he will create a dozen clones of his brutal and negative football, there will be a dozen AVB types popping up in jobs across Europe. He is anti-football in my mind, nothing against Chelsea.

meh, disagree completely. Mourinho plays efficient football, he doesn't go for style over substance, but "anti-football"? That's really really going too far. Ironically in that CL run Chelsea came much closer to playing anti-football than anything we've seen this season (in the semis and the final - though the semi in the Nou Camp remains my single greatest memory as a Chelsea fan )

Social if you think what Chelsea are playing now is anti football you'd probably give up after watching Norwich for a few weeks!!

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:48 pm

the thing is though, once you've decided on a football team to support, for whatever reason (mine is simply that my grandparents live down the road from Stamford Bridge Wink

), and you get emotionally invested in them (as you are with Arsenal), you simply want that team to win, and don't really care too much about the style...

by mystiroakey Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:50 pm

Mourinhios style is fine.

It's just that he knows how to shut it down as well.

He needs players that have the ability for a plan b.

by socal1976 Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:50 pm

Olly wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

yep, Mourinho is terrible. If you're a fan of another team

if Chelsea were a better team with Mata playing, Mourinho would play him. We aren't, so he doesn't. Managers should win matches, not deliver "beautiful football" (whatever that means, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

Mourinho is an accomplished manager, he wins trophies. But I root for him and his tactics to fail wherever he goes. MFC I have nothing against Chelsea in fact really enjoyed watching them win the CL trophy. I don't live in England so I don't have a tribalistic distaste for other clubs. I want to watch beautiful football, if that makes me naive or whatever that is fine, but as a neutral Chelsea is just about the last top team that I want to watch. If Mourinho succeeds he will create a dozen clones of his brutal and negative football, there will be a dozen AVB types popping up in jobs across Europe. He is anti-football in my mind, nothing against Chelsea.

meh, disagree completely. Mourinho plays efficient football, he doesn't go for style over substance, but "anti-football"? That's really really going too far. Ironically in that CL run Chelsea came much closer to playing anti-football than anything we've seen this season (in the semis and the final - though the semi in the Nou Camp remains my single greatest memory as a Chelsea fan )

Social if you think what Chelsea are playing now is anti football you'd probably give up after watching Norwich for a few weeks!!

Olly that is different, Norwich are expected to pack the bus against top sides. They don't have the money they dont' have a Mata sitting on their bench. I am serious watch Real Madrid now and watch them last year when Jose coached them. He almost made Real Madrid boring in comparison. Why does pelligrini manage to have his team in a winning position on top of Chelsea in the table and not bore every neutral in the planet half to death.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:51 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the thing is though, once you've decided on a football team to support, for whatever reason (mine is simply that my grandparents live down the road from Stamford Bridge ), and you get emotionally invested in them (as you are with Arsenal), you simply want that team to win, and don't really care too much about the style...

True to some extent, but there is certainly an entertainment value to it. Best scenario would be too win 5-4 every week Very Happy

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:52 pm

Olly wrote:
Social if you think what Chelsea are playing now is anti football you'd probably give up after watching Norwich for a few weeks!!

actually watched the Norwich-Hull game the other day. Ugh, not doing that again Rolling Eyes

Both teams were awful, Norwich seemed to realise at some point just how awful Hull were, and that they weren't (seemingly) actually trying to score, so they got a little more adventurous (showing endeavour if no great deal of skill), and nabbed a goal from a corner when the Hull keeper went walkabout. Olly, what happened? I remember when Norwich first got promoted they gave Chelsea a cracking game, and I (rightfully) told one of my friends who's a fan that there was no way they'd get relegated. On the showing against Hull, I wouldn't be so confident...

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:54 pm

Olly wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:the thing is though, once you've decided on a football team to support, for whatever reason (mine is simply that my grandparents live down the road from Stamford Bridge ), and you get emotionally invested in them (as you are with Arsenal), you simply want that team to win, and don't really care too much about the style...

True to some extent, but there is certainly an entertainment value to it. Best scenario would be too win 5-4 every week

true the order goes something like:
1) win and play super football = heaven
2) win while playing efficient/boring football = delighted fans
3) lose while playing "beautiful football" = fans claim the moral highground at least
4) lose while playing dull/uninspired football = man u this year (sorry, couldn't resisit)

by socal1976 Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:55 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the thing is though, once you've decided on a football team to support, for whatever reason (mine is simply that my grandparents live down the road from Stamford Bridge ), and you get emotionally invested in them (as you are with Arsenal), you simply want that team to win, and don't really care too much about the style...

I agree with that, I don't blame you for loving the team you grew up on and who doesn't enjoy watching them win. But I am a neutral I didn't have grandparents who live next to the stadium, and Mourinho to me is a negative tactitician and an arrogant douche. And the fact that he wins with that style is even more dangerous because he encourages more managers to copy his dour style. I probably would support Arsenal if they went boring like old Arsenal, I want them to win trophies of course I do. But as a neutral I would never support a Mourinho team to have success, I would support teams that play as attractively as possible. Great and successful manager, and Chelsea is now a great club, but if you gave Wenger, Ferguson, or Guardiola those type of players and resources they would win as well and wouldn't bore the neutrals to death that is my point.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:55 pm

Mourinho knows how to win that's all there is to it, he goes about it in a certain but he's successful that's all that matters, winning is more entertaining than losing.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:56 pm

socal1976 wrote:
Olly wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Mourhino is bad for football, if he coached 1970 Brazil he would bench Pele for not tracking back. He almost managed to make Real Madrid boring while he managed them, since he left RM is about ten times more watchable, has more points this year compared to last, and is scoring boatloads more goals. Yes they added bale but lost Higuain and Ozil so they had plenty f firepower last year as well.

And what he has done to Mata is also unforgiveable because Mata was a legit player of the year candidate in the EPL last year. If you don't want him sell him so at least you don't destroy the player's career and ruin it for the fans who like to see talent play, imagine that. Chelsea should be a team scoring 100 goals like City is, City is in the thick of 4 competitions yet they don't bore me to death especially when they are on the road. Not that I like City; a team owned by a descendant of a warlord placed on thrown by colonial masters who is now the autocratic dictator of a state with a shady human rights record. But football wise they at least don't try to kill and destroy the joy in the game.

yep, Mourinho is terrible. If you're a fan of another team

if Chelsea were a better team with Mata playing, Mourinho would play him. We aren't, so he doesn't. Managers should win matches, not deliver "beautiful football" (whatever that means, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that).

Mourinho is an accomplished manager, he wins trophies. But I root for him and his tactics to fail wherever he goes. MFC I have nothing against Chelsea in fact really enjoyed watching them win the CL trophy. I don't live in England so I don't have a tribalistic distaste for other clubs. I want to watch beautiful football, if that makes me naive or whatever that is fine, but as a neutral Chelsea is just about the last top team that I want to watch. If Mourinho succeeds he will create a dozen clones of his brutal and negative football, there will be a dozen AVB types popping up in jobs across Europe. He is anti-football in my mind, nothing against Chelsea.

meh, disagree completely. Mourinho plays efficient football, he doesn't go for style over substance, but "anti-football"? That's really really going too far. Ironically in that CL run Chelsea came much closer to playing anti-football than anything we've seen this season (in the semis and the final - though the semi in the Nou Camp remains my single greatest memory as a Chelsea fan )

Social if you think what Chelsea are playing now is anti football you'd probably give up after watching Norwich for a few weeks!!

Olly that is different, Norwich are expected to pack the bus against top sides. They don't have the money they dont' have a Mata sitting on their bench. I am serious watch Real Madrid now and watch them last year when Jose coached them. He almost made Real Madrid boring in comparison. Why does pelligrini manage to have his team in a winning position on top of Chelsea in the table and not bore every neutral in the planet half to death.

Ah don't believe in all this money shabang, its 11 vs 11 at the end of the day, anything can happen. Havant and Waterlooville led at Anfield once, I remember us turning up to the Emirates and going toe to toe in a 3-3 draw with your lot, glorious times

by mystiroakey Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:58 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Olly wrote:
Social if you think what Chelsea are playing now is anti football you'd probably give up after watching Norwich for a few weeks!!

actually watched the Norwich-Hull game the other day. Ugh, not doing that again Both teams were awful, Norwich seemed to realise at some point just how awful Hull were, and that they weren't (seemingly) actually trying to score, so they got a little more adventurous (showing endeavour if no great deal of skill), and nabbed a goal from a corner when the Hull keeper went walkabout. Olly, what happened? I remember when Norwich first got promoted they gave Chelsea a cracking game, and I (rightfully) told one of my friends who's a fan that there was no way they'd get relegated. On the showing against Hull, I wouldn't be so confident...

Lol please let's not mention the palace stoke game then..

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Tue 21 Jan 2014, 11:59 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Olly wrote:
Social if you think what Chelsea are playing now is anti football you'd probably give up after watching Norwich for a few weeks!!

actually watched the Norwich-Hull game the other day. Ugh, not doing that again Both teams were awful, Norwich seemed to realise at some point just how awful Hull were, and that they weren't (seemingly) actually trying to score, so they got a little more adventurous (showing endeavour if no great deal of skill), and nabbed a goal from a corner when the Hull keeper went walkabout. Olly, what happened? I remember when Norwich first got promoted they gave Chelsea a cracking game, and I (rightfully) told one of my friends who's a fan that there was no way they'd get relegated. On the showing against Hull, I wouldn't be so confident...

Oh MFC I despair I truly truly do. We're a shambles, afraid to lose so we don't go out to win. I remember the days when we were fresh faced on the prem scene led by a young upstart manager, with a team of no names and we went to the Stamford Bridge's of the world and took on the challenge, now we go to the Stadium of Light and pray for a 0-0 draw Sad

Long gone are the days of Ho!ty hooking the ball over a despairing John Terry after a Hilario howler

by Guest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:00 am

Olly, Mike Walkers 1992 - 1994 side were lovely on the Freek's eye.

I miss the old romance.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:01 am

Also MFC what in the high hell possessed you to watch Norwich-Hull???

I'm a Norwich fan and I only went for the pre match pie. Nearly won 20 quid on a 0-0 draw as well

by Guest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:02 am

Olly wrote:Also MFC what in the high hell possessed you to watch Norwich-Hull???

Insomnia?

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:03 am

FreekShow wrote:Olly, Mike Walkers 1992 - 1994 side were lovely on the Freek's eye.

I miss the old romance.

Glad we won you some dolla last weekend Freeky thumbsup

I can pray we sack Hughton and employ a competent manager so we can return to the Norwich way soon

music

"Keep it low, splendid rush, bravo win or die, on the ball city" music

by mystiroakey Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:04 am

Palace with wright and bright.

Most people thought we were Barcelona back then..

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:04 am

Olly wrote:Also MFC what in the high hell possessed you to watch Norwich-Hull???

I'm a Norwich fan and I only went for the pre match pie. Nearly won 20 quid on a 0-0 draw as well

I'll be honest, I'm being a bit disingenuous, I only watched the lats half-hour or so. I think it was because it was the only game on at the time which was still level at that point, the rugby had finished (and the next rugby hadn't started), and I was a bit curious having read your rants about Hughton for a while on here to see if it was as bad as you were saying it was. Won't make that mistake again. Still, chin up mate, better times lie ahead Very Happy

by westisbest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 8:56 am

Read that Hoolahan has handed in transfer request, but club have said he is not leaving.

Said he wants to play elsewhere.

Just gonna continue to sit on the bench then?

If they want to keep him then play him, wasted on the bench.

by Guest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 10:17 am

Appears I was right about Jose`s mischievous thinking. Mata deal is making progress & Chelsea are willing to sell for £37m. Not sure why people thought this deal was a complete no-go. Mourinho is ruthless & will try and attempt anything to win or make life more difficult for his main rivals of City & Arsenal. United are not a rival, this Mata move could improve United in longer terms, however, Jose is thinkingof the present n the fact United have to play Chelsea`s rivals. Throw in the fact it's ridiculous money for a bench player just sweetens the deal & will allow Jose to build in the summer to create his ideal Chelsea machine for years.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 10:48 am

westisbest wrote:Read that Hoolahan has handed in transfer request, but club have said he is not leaving.

Said he wants to play elsewhere.

Just gonna continue to sit on the bench then?

If they want to keep him then play him, wasted on the bench.

Totally agree, been a total misuse of Hoolahan this season by Hughton, its a shame its come to this can't blame Wessi at all

by mystiroakey Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:00 am

It's obvious that Wes hasn't done enough to be included in the first team olly. If he had he would start......

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:03 am

mystiroakey wrote: It's obvious that Wes hasn't done enough to be included in the first team olly. If he had he would start......

Haha Mysti nice try Hug

by GSC Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:12 am

Everton fined 10k for basically tapping up Lascelles in 2010.

That'll stop them

by mystiroakey Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:13 am

Olly

10 k

what will they do!!

by westisbest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:43 am

Olly wrote:
westisbest wrote:Read that Hoolahan has handed in transfer request, but club have said he is not leaving.

Said he wants to play elsewhere.

Just gonna continue to sit on the bench then?

If they want to keep him then play him, wasted on the bench.

Totally agree, been a total misuse of Hoolahan this season by Hughton, its a shame its come to this can't blame Wessi at all

Its certainly a strange one.

He is a good player, one of your beter players?
If he does stay and Hughton continues to leave him on the bench, then its a headsgone.
Wont understand that.

And a complete waste.

Maybe Mr Lambert needs to up the anti, if he really wants him.

by **Crimey** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:48 am

You expect it will go through, just trying to squeeze more money out of Villa. If Norwich (or at least Hughton) doesn't want to use him may as well get as much for him as possible considering he's 31 so not exactly young, especially for a player in his position.

I'm just not sure where he fits into Lambert's 443.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 11:50 am

I agree would be silly to keep him if he's not going to play. That helps nobody whatsoever

Don't see us selling to Villa tho, fancy he might end up at a promotion chasing Champ side

by westisbest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:32 pm

Not sure if we will get him.

We need someone, so players like KEA never wear the shirt again.
Dont care if they're out of position, they wont be any worse.

Hopefully Hutton will be on his way out this window.
Bowery can join him.

by **Crimey** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 12:56 pm

Yeah, could come down to a matter of principle for Norwich, won't want to sell to Lambert or a relegation rival. Think Hoolahan will realise that he needs to be playing at this point in his career but the problem is I can't see Norwich selling to another PL team as those that would want him are their rivals but Hoolahan will be wary of dropping down a level since he might not get back to this level at this stage of his career.

If I was Norwich I would try and just get as much as possible out of Villa as he's good but not good enough to have a massive impact l.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 1:55 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He doesnt fit the formula. I dont dislike Mourinho's teams and football, but he knows Mata is a better player than Willian, but Willian does the work Mata won't and still possesses skill. Mourinho will forever be the man that ruined Joe Cole, just be thankful Mata hasnt conformed.

totally disagree with this, Cole became a much better player under Mourinho, it was the subsequent managers who really ruined him, they couldn't decide what his best position was, and he virtually never got a run of games. Under Mourinho he was excellent. Yes he got him working hard (as he does) but there's nothing wrong with that..

Nothing wrong with it, but it handicapped his talent and wasnt his best use

by Roller_Coaster Wed 22 Jan 2014, 1:58 pm

"I'm just not sure where he fits into Lambert's 443."

Cor - and Villa are still struggling. Maybe a switch to 444 would help?

Sorry

couldn't resist Very Happy

On Mata, I think he's good enough to adapt systems for him (particularly as Utd do seem to be in malaise). But, there is a workaround. Chelsea loan Mata to the mighty hoops down the road (QPR not Reading!), Utd do likewise with Rooney. Moyes and Mourinho see how they play together for the remainder of the season then Chelsea and Utd sit down and argue in the summer while Real come in and buy them both.

Does that work for everyone? Good, that's settled, now I'm off into Championship corner for a lie down as these mushrooms I've eaten have clearly gone to my head...

by mystiroakey Wed 22 Jan 2014, 2:27 pm

Can you post me some mushrooms please

by Guest Wed 22 Jan 2014, 3:20 pm

John wrote:Appears I was right about Jose`s mischievous thinking. Mata deal is making progress & Chelsea are willing to sell for £37m. Not sure why people thought this deal was a complete no-go. Mourinho is ruthless & will try and attempt anything to win or make life more difficult for his main rivals of City & Arsenal. United are not a rival, this Mata move could improve United in longer terms, however, Jose is thinkingof the present n the fact United have to play Chelsea`s rivals. Throw in the fact it's ridiculous money for a bench player just sweetens the deal & will allow Jose to build in the summer to create his ideal Chelsea machine for years.

Carry on from here. Mata misses training too I hear. It`s all progressing well.

As for Zaha mysti, what's the latest? Cardiff loan again?

by Fernando Wed 22 Jan 2014, 3:39 pm

It's clear Jose doesn't see United as a threat at all anymore. If he wanted to throw off Arsenal & Citeh why not just loan him?

by mystiroakey Wed 22 Jan 2014, 3:46 pm

I am in two minds over this loan move. Cardiff massive rivals to palace

I really dont want cardiff to do well though. But I also want

Spoiler:

to show Moyes up.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 3:59 pm

Fernando wrote:It's clear Jose doesn't see United as a threat at all anymore. If he wanted to throw off Arsenal & Citeh why not just loan him?

On what logic? This way they get a big fee, strengthens United against his rivals, and he'll know for a fact that United will buy quality anyway and if Chelsea are gonna sell Mata then this makes little difference. If they sell him to PSG and United buy someone else really good then United still have the quality in their team anyway.

Or maybe Mourinho is Ent and thinks it won't work with Mata at United

by Fernando Wed 22 Jan 2014, 4:04 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Fernando wrote:It's clear Jose doesn't see United as a threat at all anymore. If he wanted to throw off Arsenal & Citeh why not just loan him?

On what logic? This way they get a big fee, strengthens United against his rivals, and he'll know for a fact that United will buy quality anyway and if Chelsea are gonna sell Mata then this makes little difference. If they sell him to PSG and United buy someone else really good then United still have the quality in their team anyway.

Or maybe Mourinho is Ent and thinks it won't work with Mata at United

Why make your rivals a better team let them get on with their own business United will splurge in the summer regardless, Everyone in England bar Jose seems to acknowledge how good Juan Mata, If you compare him to the players United have been linked to can you say that any are significantly better then Juan Mata?

by J.Benson II Wed 22 Jan 2014, 4:21 pm

If Mata goes to United than Jose is taking a gamble.
It could either work a treat if Mata inspires United to pick up points against City and Arsenal and Chelsea clinch the title.
Or it could backfire badly if Oscar or Hazard get injured and Chelsea are left with little cover. They've already got rid of De Bruyne.

by **Crimey** Wed 22 Jan 2014, 4:48 pm

BBC are reporting a £35m bid from United for Mata.

by nasisillmatic Wed 22 Jan 2014, 4:55 pm

I'll be gutted if we don't make an attempt to sign him. If that was any other manager they'd be slaughtered for the treatment of Mata.

by mystiroakey Wed 22 Jan 2014, 4:57 pm

If Chelsea lose hazard in the summer with the crazy 80m bid touted.. They may seriously regret losing Mata!

by LastDamnation Wed 22 Jan 2014, 5:28 pm

inb4 psg hijack

by Sponsored content