John Obi Mikel thread

TheMonster

I never said they had anything to do with Chelsea but someone with a vested interested in him joining Chelsea(Agents/Nigerian business men etc) - then again I am sure Mr A has contacts in the Moscow underworld so you never know....

growler

TheMonster wrote:

I never said they had anything to do with Chelsea but someone with a vested interested in him joining Chelsea(Agents/Nigerian business men etc) - then again I am sure Mr A has contacts in the Moscow underworld so you never know....

so you're suggesting his own agent may have called him up and threatened to top him ? what would nigerian business men have to gain ?

"you never know" well you and I certainly don't. the only one who does in Obi and I get the feeling that he's being manipulated by his agent for his own gain, got to feel sorry for the kid being in the middle of all this crap.

PHB

the only allegation of wrong doing being made by the player is that he was duped into signing for Utd. , I don't know how you can be so sure Utd are squeaky on this, its far from certain.

You can infact.
Want to know why? Cause United announced everything they did.

BTW< ****tu is no longer running with the duped story, he changed to to forged the signatures story about thee monthhs ago.
It's hard to keep up with the constant lies I know.

And, Man Utd. don't pay agents fees ? a few seconds on google shows fees being paid by Utd for Rooney and Ferdinand. So not sure where you get that one from.

Nope, they are paid for by Rooney and Ferdinand, not by United. It means the players have to give the money to them, not a fee given to them by United.
It works out cheaper for United not to do it, but agents don't like that, cause it means less money for them.

the only one who does in Obi and I get the feeling that he's being manipulated by his agent for his own gain, got to feel sorry for the kid being in the middle of all this crap.

I think that's the universal feeling everybody gets, and it really should be the entire basis for everything.
I expect him to fall for this

Headshot

growler wrote:

were these death threats (1st I heard of this btw) from chelsea staff , Mourinho himself or Roman ?

.

chelsea headhunters ????

growler

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

chelsea headhunters ????

not able to use telephones , they always bring the phone up to their ears too fast and knock themselves out.

Anyway its "Chelsea Youth" these days all the headhunters are too fat to run after anyone.

growler

PHB wrote:

Nope, they are paid for by Rooney and Ferdinand, not by United. It means the players have to give the money to them, not a fee given to them by United.
It works out cheaper for United not to do it, but agents don't like that, cause it means less money for them.

Sorry this just isn't true , from analysis of 2004 accounts : "The club also revealed that they had paid £5.5m to players' agents over the past year, excluding the £1.5m paid to Paul Stretford's Proactive agency as part of the Wayne Rooney deal. £1.13m was paid to Ronaldo's agent when he was purch! ased from Sporting Lisbon and £1.2m to Van Nistelrooy's agent in connection with his contract extension." source regarding

Rooney's agent fees wikipedia says : " The initial fee of £23m is to be paid directly to Everton Football Club over two years; the rest of the money depends on appearances and/or success at Manchester United and/or England. It is unlikely the fee will reach the maximum £27m due to the complex nature of the contract drawn up by the two clubs. A final fee in the region of £25m plus costs (mainly agents' fees) is more likely. In the club's 2004-05 accounts, Rooney's contract is recorded as having a book cost of £25.066 million as at 30 June 2005, with contingent payables of £4 million, giving a maximum final fee of £29.066 million including costs " see here

And I recall the palaver re. Fergie's son.

KdjaCL

Who "owns " him? Usually someone has rights to a player and you would wonder are his family safe? Smells of Kaladze type influencing.



kdjac

KdjaCL

PHB Utd said they stopping paying agents fees not to curb bad things in football but to be cheap. This has yet to come into effect as they havent bought anyone since they announced it a few months ago.


kdjac

TheDoc

on iregk coments bout robben.

If robben had of stayed with united, he would have played every match for them unless injured or rested, and possibly could have given united potential to win trophies.

Robben has not being a regular starter for chelsea anytime i have seen them recently.

I think people misunderstand and msotly players misunderstand Chelsea and united, there differences.

I think Mourinho has finally relaised why chelsea arnt winning every cup, imo they are a very exspensive wimbeldon. The ball is launched to drogba and its feeding of him, or launched into wide corners for robben and co to run onto.

The long debate over whos better lampard or gerrard and lampard overrated etc, lampard doesnt grip games by the nuts, and sometimes he isnt even noticed, cause the midfield is really taken out of it. Two of their 3 midfielders are just muscles, essien and makkelle have no footballing brains for passing and technique like an alonso, they jsut break all play coming towards them.

Chelsea are on their way to becoming an exciting team and a passing team, introduction of Ballack will provide a more stable and technical distributor, and if they do sign tevez and schevy, they will be using stirkers who need ball to feet and running, not aerial balls.

Why is it crespo and kezman where so rubbish looking for chelsea, and drogba, a useless footballer was the regular starter. Because chelsea play long direct football, proven by the form of both kezman and crespo away from stamford bridge scoring for fun in teams that play the ball to feet.

Statisticly yes chelsea are the best team in england, not to watch imo, i love watching the arsenals and uniteds. And imo if united had the power to pull the likes of robben,mikel,tevez or torres to united, they would be some force.

WAyne Rooney understood the difference between the two clubs and picked what best suits him, a footballing pacey side.

TBH chelsea could well jsut forget wide players, since they are rarely used and jsut pack everyone in the centre.

growler

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

Robben has not being a regular starter for chelsea anytime i have seen them recently.

I think Mourinho has finally relaised why chelsea arnt winning every cup, imo they are a very exspensive wimbeldon. The ball is launched to drogba and its feeding of him, or launched into wide corners for robben and co to run onto.

. Two of their 3 midfielders are just muscles, essien and makkelle have no footballing brains for passing and technique like an alonso, they jsut break all play coming towards them.



TBH chelsea could well jsut forget wide players, since they are rarely used and jsut pack everyone in the centre.

Definately one of the funniest posts I have ever read on Boards.

Makalele and Essien don't have footballing brains ? and you dare to compare Maka to Alonso ROTFLMAO

Robben played 31 times for Chelsea last season.

Chelsea shouldn't forget wide players because throughout the season they have been effectively using combinations of Cole / Duff / Robben to great effect. Maybe you missed all those games ? Cole and Duff both played about 30 times last season.

Chelsea do not play wimbledon style football, we have from time to time resorting to such tactics in response to opposition tactics, if the opposition were kind enough to allow Chelsea to play however they wanted then long ball, which is not our main route to goal anyway, would be unnecessary.

Rikand

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

I think people misunderstand and msotly players misunderstand Chelsea and united, there differences.

I think Mourinho has finally relaised why chelsea arnt winning every cup, imo they are a very exspensive wimbeldon. The ball is launched to drogba and its feeding of him, or launched into wide corners for robben and co to run onto.

The long debate over whos better lampard or gerrard and lampard overrated etc, lampard doesnt grip games by the nuts, and sometimes he isnt even noticed, cause the midfield is really taken out of it. Two of their 3 midfielders are just muscles, essien and makkelle have no footballing brains for passing and technique like an alonso, they jsut break all play coming towards them.

i thought you were going to explain the differences ebtween united and chelsea, not liverpool and chelsea

MrPillowTalk

Growler, Utd are far more open about fees paid to agents than the majority of big clubs including chelski.

Also do you reckon if Lampard turned around tomo and said he fancied playing for Utd and he really feels chelsea should let him go, that chelsea would just say hey no problem off you go lad.

Contracts are there to ensure players and clubs have concrete obligations, this is another clear chelsea tapping up incident, the only thing that reeks is the way that your club do business, its paramount to cheating.

Good luck to Mikel, hope he likes sitting on the bench behind Lampard and Ballack, either that or this unsettles Lampard and we pick him up

growler

MrPillowTalk wrote:

Growler, Utd are far more open about fees paid to agents than the majority of big clubs including chelski.

Also do you reckon if Lampard turned around tomo and said he fancied playing for Utd and he really feels chelsea should let him go, that chelsea would just say hey no problem off you go lad.

Contracts are there to ensure players and clubs have concrete obligations, this is another clear chelsea tapping up incident, the only thing that reeks is the way that your club do business, its paramount to cheating.

Good luck to Mikel, hope he likes sitting on the bench behind Lampard and Ballack, either that or this unsettles Lampard and we pick him up

not too surpising that they were open , they were a plc, they had to publish audited accounts. I wasn't arguing about how open they were I ws contesting PHB's assertion that they did not pay any fees to agents.

If LAmpard wanted to go to Man U ,, there is no way he would be allowed to.

I fully understand the reasons for contracts you're assuming that Utd are wholly innocent here and that evil chelsea are stealing your player, unfortunately that has not been PROVEN to be the case, in the absense of all the facts ( which I suspect will never come to light) I'm happy to assume that Chelsea are equally innocent until proven guilty. It's not paramount to cheating, both clubs are accused of wrong doing, chelsea of approaching the player after he signed for Man USA and Man U of tricking the player into signing a contract. What colour shirt you wear does not prove one sides innoncence, be a bit objective. You're being naive if you think Man U have never been involved in tapping up a player, it happens all the time in every club.

TheMonster

growler wrote:

not too surpising that they were open , they were a plc, they had to publish audited accounts. I wasn't arguing about how open they were I ws contesting PHB's assertion that they did not pay any fees to agents.

If LAmpard wanted to go to Man U ,, there is no way he would be allowed to.

I fully understand the reasons for contracts you're assuming that Utd are wholly innocent here and that evil chelsea are stealing your player, unfortunately that has not been PROVEN to be the case, in the absense of all the facts ( which I suspect will never come to light) I'm happy to assume that Chelsea are equally innocent until proven guilty. It's not paramount to cheating, both clubs are accused of wrong doing, chelsea of approaching the player after he signed for Man USA and Man U of tricking the player into signing a contract. What colour shirt you wear does not prove one sides innoncence, be a bit objective. You're being naive if you think Man U have never been involved in tapping up a player, it happens all the time in every club.

And how did they trick him? Thats the funniest slant on this I have read yet

masterK

growler wrote:

I fully understand the reasons for contracts you're assuming that Utd are wholly innocent here and that evil chelsea are stealing your player, unfortunately that has not been PROVEN to be the case, in the absense of all the facts ( which I suspect will never come to light) I'm happy to assume that Chelsea are equally innocent until proven guilty. It's not paramount to cheating, both clubs are accused of wrong doing, chelsea of approaching the player after he signed for Man USA and Man U of tricking the player into signing a contract. What colour shirt you wear does not prove one sides innoncence, be a bit objective. You're being naive if you think Man U have never been involved in tapping up a player, it happens all the time in every club.

I don't understand how Man U could trick a player into signing a contract, did David Gill pose as a fan and ask Mikel for his autograph and once he signed rip off his top to reveal a Man U shirt and shout "Ha, Ha. You're ours now".!

After the goings on with Ashley Cole, Arnesan and Gerrard it's fairly difficult to believe there has been no wrong doing on Chelseas part.

I think if the report of Utd getting £10 million are true then that is probably as good a deal they could of hoped for out of this whole saga.

growler

TheMonster wrote:

And how did they trick him? Thats the funniest slant on this I have read yet

"pressurised " then

or coerced if that is a more suitable word "despite both the player and his agent continuing to insist that he does not want to play for Manchester United and was coerced into signing the contract against his wishes, and without the presence of his advisors." source

Chardee MacDennis

PHB wrote:

In this transfer, United have been perfect though.

and how the hell do you know this? that statement is the biggest load a crap i have ever seen...

TheMonster

growler wrote:

"pressurised " then

explain the smiling picture and the quotes then - is uppose they had a gun to his head then

growler

TheMonster wrote:

explain the smiling picture and the quotes then - is uppose they had a gun to his head then

"Staying in a London hotel, Mikel stated on British television that he had been pressurised and coerced into signing the contract with United by Morgan Andersen and representatives of Manchester United. He also claimed that he had asked the clubs for a week to think about it, but that this request was refused and the clubs pressured him into signing without his advisors being present. Mikel told the British media that Chelsea were the club he genuinely wanted to sign for" source

Ask him , I don't know, nor do you, just try and be objective is all.


Hell, there are pictures of me in the Museum in OT, even pictures of me in a Barca shirt (smiling), maybe he was on a tour of OT courtesy of Chelsea to show him the kinds of stadia he would be winning in ;-)

TheMonster

surprise surprise - what was in the press was a lot of sh!te
http://home.skysports.com/list.asp?hlid=390166&CPID=8&clid=1&lid=&title=Lyn:+No+Mikel+deal+yet

Lyn: No Mikel deal yet

Lyn Oslo have refuted the latest reports which suggest Chelsea and Manchester United have reached a compromise regarding John Obi Mikel.

The Nigeria international is wanted by both Premiership clubs, with United seemingly having struck a deal 12 months ago.

Mikel claimed he was pressured into signing for The Red Devils and has stated that he wants to join champions Chelsea.

The matter is currently in the hands of Fifa, although recent reports have claimed that Chelsea have agreed to pay United £10 million for the young midfielder.

But Mikel's current club Lyn have revealed the African starlet has not been granted permission to complete a move to Stamford Bridge.

"John Obi Mikel is not all clear for Chelsea as the English media have claimed," Lyn director Morgan Andersen told TV Norge.

Mikel's agent John ****tu is also unaware of any settlement being agreed between Chelsea and United, and believes he will be the first to know when a resolution has been reached.

****tu told VG: "I haven't heard anything about this and I am usually the first one who gets contacted about such matters."

TheMonster

growler wrote:

"Staying in a London hotel, Mikel stated on British television that he had been pressurised and coerced into signing the contract with United by Morgan Andersen and representatives of Manchester United. He also claimed that he had asked the clubs for a week to think about it, but that this request was refused and the clubs pressured him into signing without his advisors being present. Mikel told the British media that Chelsea were the club he genuinely wanted to sign for" source

Ask him , I don't know, nor do you, just try and be objective is all.


Hell, there are pictures of me in the Museum in OT, even pictures of me in a Barca shirt (smiling), maybe he was on a tour of OT courtesy of Chelsea to show him the kinds of stadia he would be winning in ;-)

http://www.manutd.is/servicePixies/view.image.php?id=4755
doesn't look too unhappy here

PHB

Suprise suprise, the stories bull****.

Growler, everybody knows United are involved in dodgy transfer deals, but in this case, there is nothing against him.

Once again, you're behind the times.
The story is no longer United pressured him in, now it's that his signature was forged on an earlier contract so it doesn't matter that United pressured him in.
You gotta keep up with the stories dude, otherwise you'll never be able to support the Chelsea case.

The only real question in this is what United want to do

growler

PHB wrote:

everybody knows United are involved in dodgy transfer deals, but in this case, there is nothing against him.


it doesn't matter that United pressured him in.

are you feeling ok ?


sorry I can't keep up with the BS on this on, I am relying on this thread to keep me up to speed.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

are you feeling ok ?


sorry I can't keep up with the BS on this on, I am relying on this thread to keep me up to speed.

If you stopped trying to divert the issue and kept the thread on topic it may help.

If the guy wanted to play for Chelski he should have signed for them. Fact is he signed for United so his ass is theirs until they decide what to do with him and there's nothing Romans ill gotton millions can do about that.

growler

The Muppet wrote:

If you stopped trying to divert the issue and kept the thread on topic it may help.

If the guy wanted to play for Chelski he should have signed for them. Fact is he signed for United so his ass is theirs until they decide what to do with him and there's nothing Romans ill gotton millions can do about that.

Well, don't I feel suitably chastised, muppet :rolleyes: Since PHB had earlier seemed to suggest that Utd. were above board in their delaings I was somewhat surprised to see him admit to their dodginess, hence the tongue in cheek comment.

Maybe you didn't get a chance to read the rest of the thread, FACT IS , a major part of the reason for the controversy is that the legality of the "signing" is in question as Jon has claimed he was coerced / pressurised (or even had his signture forged ) into signing for Man Usa. Roman's alledgedly ill gotten millions are not trying to do anything about that, however if it is shown that Jon Obi was illegally coerced to sign then presumably he will be allowed to sign for the team he himself says he wishes to play for ...Chelsea. If he did want to sign for chelsea and was coerced into signing for Utd. hopefully UEFA will impose a suitable fine and transfer ban.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

If he did want to sign for chelsea and was coerced into signing for Utd. hopefully UEFA will impose a suitable fine and transfer ban.

If that be the case when it is found in a court of law (as it will be)that United did nothing wrong with this signing should Chelsea be fined and face a Transfer ban for their underhand dealings ?

growler

The Muppet wrote:

If that be the case when it is found in a court of law (as it will be)that United did nothing wrong with this signing should Chelsea be fined and face a Transfer ban for their underhand dealings ?

Chelsea can probably, at worst, be accused of tapping up a player contracted to another team, with the usual fines that go with the territory.

Man U stand accused of of coercing a young player into signing a contract or worse , forging his signature.

Which is worse and likely to incur a greater punishment ?

PHB

Chelsea can probably, at worst, be accused of tapping up a player contracted to another team, with the usual fines that go with the territory.

Actually that's not true.
Mikel has already admitted that Chelsea were giving him and his family money for about a year, which is very very strongly against the rules.
It would be like say, giving Cole money while he was at Arsenal, which is what they proposed to do before.

It will result in similar sentances, but since they have a 3 point suspended sentance, that'll probably go up to 10 in total and a fine if they are found guilty as they were warned.

Once United get Mikel completely, they will begin their case against Chelsea.

Man U stand accused of of coercing a young player into signing a contract or worse , forging his signature.

Exactly, that's quite troublesome.
Luckily, literally nobody in the world, except Chelsea fans, think there is any chance that United coerced him into signing.
Also, he ****tu's definition of coerced and the rest of the worlds different greatly.
To most people it means applying some sort of economic, physical or emotional pressure.
Not saying, 'we'd like a decision now', and then when he accepts the decision, him smiling.

As for the fake signature, that was actually done by Lyn according to ****tu, not United, so they'd probably get the penalty for this.

Chelsea ****ed this up big time and they will reap what they sowed.

astrofool

The longer this is dragged out, the more successful Chelsea will have been. Does anyone see the FA/UEFA/FIFA having the balls to do anything to Chelsea that will actually hurt them? What's gone on in Italy recently is far worse, and it's doubtful that anything real will come of it (by the Italian FA anyway).

The Muppet

growler wrote:

Man U stand accused of of coercing a young player into signing a contract or worse , forging his signature.

Which is worse and likely to incur a greater punishment ?

Is the picture of a smiling John Obi Mikel in a united shirt on the day he signed a forgery as well?

MrPillowTalk

growler wrote:

Maybe you didn't get a chance to read the rest of the thread, FACT IS , a major part of the reason for the controversy is that the legality of the "signing" is in question as Jon has claimed he was coerced / pressurised (or even had his signture forged ) into signing for Man Usa. Roman's alledgedly ill gotten millions are not trying to do anything about that, however if it is shown that Jon Obi was illegally coerced to sign then presumably he will be allowed to sign for the team he himself says he wishes to play for ...Chelsea. If he did want to sign for chelsea and was coerced into signing for Utd. hopefully UEFA will impose a suitable fine and transfer ban.

Does it not strike you as strange that he has changed the story and his reasons for not joining utd, several times as you outlined above?

Do you honestly think Man U would forge a players signature? In that case why choose Mikel, may as well forge a contract with Ronaldihnios sig on it. Common sense dictates that Obi is full of it, Man U are not whiter than white by any means in their transfer dealings but Chelsea are continually way out of line and Uefa/Fifa should strap on a pair and do something about it.

Headshot

if Mikel doesnt want to play for united let him rot in the reserves
no way should united give him to chelsea



how long is Mikel contract for ?

growler

MrPillowTalk wrote:

Does it not strike you as strange that he has changed the story and his reasons for not joining utd, several times as you outlined above?.

yes it does.

MrPillowTalk wrote:

Do you honestly think Man U would forge a players signature? In that case why choose Mikel, may as well forge a contract with Ronaldihnios sig on it. Common sense dictates that Obi is full of it, Man U are not whiter than white by any means in their transfer dealings but Chelsea are continually way out of line and Uefa/Fifa should strap on a pair and do something about it.

I doubt very much that Utd would forge a signature, as much as I doubt that Chelsea's Russian Mafiosa would make death threats against a player they wish to sign.

Show me how exactly, besides the Ashley Cole farce, that Chelsea have been continually out of line, any more than any other club ?

PHB

I assume he's talking about Spurs and their director of football.

how long is Mikel contract for ?

Well like, starting from last december, he was meant to sign a four year deal.

If we get him a year late, although I think it'll be resolved by the start of next season, he'll only have three years. Or how does that work?
Either way, I'm fairly sure United have the option of a 2 year extension, or so that was reported. If not, we might only get him for one season before we have to sell him or get him to sign a new contract.

PHB

Sure just while we're here, here are some quotes from the player himself.

30th April:

"I am pleased to get the chance to play for one of the biggest clubs in the world," explained Mikel.

"I'm looking forward to it. I am surprised that a big club like Manchester United wanted me.

"I had a contract with Lyn and not with Chelsea. I read about it in the papers, but haven't heard from them."

10th May:

"I will join Man United in January," confirmed Mikel to Kick Off.

"It's a dream come true for me.

"Yes, I don't have 75 percent of international games and that could affect my chances of getting a work permit but the club officials have assured me they will sort that out when the time comes."

"I have received messages and phone calls with threats from both Nigeria and England. I feel afraid." Mikel told Aftenposten.

13th of May:

"I signed a contract with Manchester United and I didn't do that of my own free will," Mikel exclusively told Sky Sports News.

"I was put under a lot of pressure to do that. I was denied advice from my agent and people I trust and I didn't get much time to think about that.

"I did something I did not want to do. Because of the pressure from Mr Morgan (Andersen, Lyn's sporting director) and a representative of United it became too much.

"I was pushed and I had nobody on my side so I had to do it.

"I was denied a chance to have a week to think about it and get some independent advice from people so the pressure was too much."

United fear Mikel has been in London with his agents Jerome Anderson and John ****tu in order to try and engineer a move to Stamford Bridge, but he claims to have had no contact with The Blues.

"No, I haven't," replied Mikel when asked about any Chelsea contact, although he did not rule it out in the future.

"I came into London and I have been in my hotel with my agent and haven't seen anyone or talked to anyone from Chelsea.

"I have no contact with Chelsea for now."

Guess what happened between the 10th of May and the 13th of May, ****tu.

I hope Mikel joins United, he tells the truth, so ****tu can go behind bars where he belongs.

sprinkles

I think it would be rather strange that Lyn would prefer the player to move to united rather than chelsea, I doubt they would have made less money out of a deal with chelsea tbh

PHB

I think it would be rather strange that Lyn would prefer the player to move to united rather than chelsea, I doubt they would have made less money out of a deal with chelsea tbh

They were all set to make a move to Chelsea, but then, CHelsea were apparently quite rude to them, and didn't care. WHen United heard this from Lyn, they stepped in and made the deal.

From Sky:

Norwegian outfit Lyn have told Chelsea that they only have themselves to blame for failing to land Nigerian starlet John Obi Mikel.

The Blues are said to be furious after 18-year-old Obi Mikel signed for Manchester United on a four-year deal.

Chelsea had believed they had agreed a deal for Mikel - but instead United stole in and agreed a multi-million package with Oslo-based Lyn.

Last year Chelsea had opened talks about a potential co-operation agreement, but the Blues' lacklustre approach to this seems to have soured relations and eventually cost them one of the most highly rated youngsters in world football.

"If they had respected us, things might have been different," said Lyn director Morgan Andersen.

"We don't know that, but they [Chelsea] have only got themselves to blame.

"I don't say Chelsea can't be angry about it, but the transfer is in order."

Anderson claims that Chelsea could not have come to an agreement with Mikel and if they did, then what they did was illegal.

"In case they claim to have rights to Mikel, they have done something illegal and I expect Fifa to take that very seriously," he warned.

Anderson explained that Chelsea's decision to send youth boss Gwyn Williams to Norway last year, rather than chief executive Peter Kenyon - did not sit well with Lyn.

"He [Williams] was too busy with his mobile and other things so I had to leave the meeting," said Anderson.

Chelsea did come back for Mikel last month, but it was too little too late to secure a deal.

"They have overlooked us until the last few weeks and then what they offered was not good enough," Anderson confirmed.

---

Just in relation to Fergie's attitude:
He said this in Feburary:

"To be honest, we haven't heard a thing from Fifa," he complained to Sky Sports News.

"It's worrying us. Fifa said they would rely on the court decision and the court decision was in our favour.

"We've been back to Fifa and we've heard nothing.

"He's a marvellous player, a really fantastic player.

"I hope so," he said when asked if Mikel could still wear a red shirt rather than a blue one. "I think we have the right, without question.

"I think if you were to sit that boy down, away from all the pressure he's under, all the supposed threats he's had.

"You ask him who he wants to play for - it will be Manchester United.

"I really do believe that."

sprinkles

From Football365.com:

MIKEL TO FINALLY ARRIVE AT CHELSKI
Another midfielder set to arrive at Stamford Bridge is John Obi Mikel.

After a protracted legal wrangle, Chelski are reportedly prepared to pay Mikel's Norwegian club, Lyn Oslo, over £10m for the youngster, with over half that sum going to ManYoo after he reneged on a contract with them.

'The news comes as another blow to United's hopes of breaking Chelsea’s stranglehold on English football, but, unlike their previous frustrations in being beaten to the signatures of players such as Arjen Robben, this deal at least includes a consolation in the form of a substantial transfer fee for a teenager who never kicked a ball for the club. The funds should assist them in their pursuit of Mahamadou Diarra, the Lyons midfield player,' says The Times.

'There is also the feeling at Old Trafford that, following the harrowing events of the 13 months since they agreed to sign him from Lyn, Mikel may resemble "damaged goods".'

He'd better prove worth all this bother too.

sprinkles

10 mil IMO, with only a portion going to Man U seems a lot less than he's worth, judging by what people on this forum are saying about him. Chelski bully man U out of a transfer yet again.....

andrewie

His contract is with united so why are they giving £10 million to Lyn?

I read the other day United would get £10 million and Lyn get £2 million.

gracehopper

I think United at this stage just want an end to the situation. They paid 4.6 million for him so i assume that the bulk of the 10m is going to United.

Good luck to him at Chelsea. He can sit right next to SWP for the the next 3 or 4 years.

6ix

In the near future, a resolution to the whole saga will be completed with his player registration being transferred to Chelsea for the princely sum of £12m, with Manchester United receiving £10m and the remainder going to Lyn Oslo as a sign-on fee. Mikel has been reported to have signed a three-year deal with Chelsea worth over £50,000 per week in player wages.

This was put up on his wikipedia entry which was last edited on the 28th of May.

PHB

Wow, the sources are quality,

wikipedia
ABU365

People also missed the timesonline article.

You also missed the Norweigan news station where this story originated from, and that was baseless, no quotes, no nothing.

This all came out last night at 8 from that Norweigan newspaper, you don't think by now it woulda been on a reputable news site? Might as well be football365 saying it, oh wait...

United said they were waiting for FIFA to make their ruling and I can't see why they have changed their mind. Also Obi Mikel has launched an appeal in the Norweigan courts against his initial contract with Lyn, if this was the case, wouldn't he be in a bit of a icky legal situation?
Also he initially cost United 6 million, so that'd be 4 million profit for perhaps one of the best players of the next generation?

This story makes no sense whatsoever.

p.s. United fans,
don't blame the 18 year old kid, blame the agent and Chelsea. The kid is just that, a kid, being manipulted by an agent. Once we get him to Carrington everything will be fine.

SteM

PHB wrote:

p.s. United fans,
don't blame the 18 year old kid, blame the agent and Chelsea. The kid is just that, a kid, being manipulted by an agent. Once we get him to Carrington everything will be fine.

Surely an 18 year old could understand what's going on here? It seems to me that his head is being turned by money and if that's the case it's partly down to his own greed.

I don't understand his thinking here at all. He's have a much better chance of breaking into United's midfield and playing on a regular basis than he will at Chelsea. Surely even an 18 year old can see that?

You've said a couple of times now that once we get him to Carrington he'll be fine but I've said it all along, I believe he'll end up at Chelsea. If we get £10m from them then at least we can put towards a player that really wants to join the club.

PHB

I don't understand his thinking here at all. He's have a much better chance of breaking into United's midfield and playing on a regular basis than he will at Chelsea. Surely even an 18 year old can see that?

Indeed, surely an 18 year old can see that!

Remember, he was all set to sign for United before he was kidnapped
Then he recieved death threats

It wouldn't suprise me, or many people i'd imagine, to hear he has been under duress this entire time.

BFassassin

chelski have agreed a deal £12 mill to united and £4mill to lyn oslo.
once again they get what they want by throwing their money around i hope he is in the reserves or a bench warmer for them next year.
the only good thing is we now have more money to buy our new midfielder

Chucky the tree

PHB wrote:

Wow, the sources are quality,

wikipedia
ABU365

People also missed the timesonline article.

You also missed the Norweigan news station where this story originated from, and that was baseless, no quotes, no nothing.

This all came out last night at 8 from that Norweigan newspaper, you don't think by now it woulda been on a reputable news site? Might as well be football365 saying it, oh wait...

United said they were waiting for FIFA to make their ruling and I can't see why they have changed their mind. Also Obi Mikel has launched an appeal in the Norweigan courts against his initial contract with Lyn, if this was the case, wouldn't he be in a bit of a icky legal situation?
Also he initially cost United 6 million, so that'd be 4 million profit for perhaps one of the best players of the next generation?

This story makes no sense whatsoever.

p.s. United fans,
don't blame the 18 year old kid, blame the agent and Chelsea. The kid is just that, a kid, being manipulted by an agent. Once we get him to Carrington everything will be fine.

Another gem from PHP to add to the list.

Vokes

ManU get 6mil now and the rest in 12 months time. From the BBC

Chelsea seal £16m Mikel transfer

Chelsea have agreed a transfer deal for Nigerian youngster Jon Obi Mikel.

The Premiership champions will pay a combined £16m transfer fee for Mikel, with £12m going to Manchester Untied and £4m to Norwegian club Lynn Oslo.

The agreement resolves the future of the 19-year-old, who has been the subject of a bitter dispute between the three clubs.

United have agreed "to terminate their option agreement" with Mikel, whose registration goes to Chelsea.

"Under the terms of this agreement Chelsea will pay Manchester United £12m, half payable now and half in 12 months, and Lyn £4m, half payable now, and half payable in 12 months' time," said a United statement.

United thought they had secured Mikel's transfer from Oslo after he signed a pre-contract agreement with them in April 2005.

But the Nigerian subsequently claimed he had been pressured into signing the contract and wanted to join Chelsea instead.

MrJoeSoap

PHB wrote:

Once we get him to Carrington everything will be fine.

Or you can take 12 million...

I know which one I'd choose!

DEmeant0r

Just how many players are Chelsea going to sign? Just how many players do Cheleas NEED to sign? This is getting beyond ridiculous. I'm not sure Mikel will even get much of a chance to play looking at the players he's competing with.