Eden Hazard signs for Chelsea........ Or does he? *shifty eyes*

Meglamonia

Hope it's not true :P

Paully D

Man.UnitedLad wrote: »

@LinsayBBC : Cannot fully verify source but being told Eden Hazard has chosen Manchester United and will sign on or before Monday. Fee believed to be roughly £31.5 million (€40 million). #mufc #bbc #hazard

And here's more proof that all the big clubs challenging for the title are the same. They spend money to do so. It's not just Manchester City.

Cracking signing by the way.

daithijjj

Lord TSC

Man City

That Twitter account also goes on to say other players (Nasri, for instance) have "agreed to terms" with United before joining City instead, so once again, until it's offical, then we shouldn't say it's a done deal...

TonyD79

Paully D wrote: »

And here's more proof that all the big clubs challenging for the title are the same. They spend money to do so. It's not just Manchester City.

Cracking signing by the way.

Utd have net expenditure of 13 million between 2006-2011. City have a reasonable figure of 380 million. Dont you think it's taken alot of money for City to become a "big" club?

CSF

Chelsea

TonyD79 wrote: »

Utd have net expenditure of 13 million between 2006-2011. City have a reasonable figure of 380 million. Dont you think it's taken alot of money for City to become a "big" club?

City aren't a big club. They're a good team.

eagle eye

TonyD79 wrote: »

Utd have net expenditure of 13 million between 2006-2011. City have a reasonable figure of 380 million. Dont you think it's taken alot of money for City to become a "big" club?

I find that hard to believe, are you including the summer of 2011?

karma_

CSF wrote: »

City aren't a big club. They're a good team.

Bollox, City have always been a big club.

TonyD79

karma_ wrote: »

Bollox, City have always been a big club.

Samantha Brick comes to mind here

CSF

Chelsea

karma_ wrote: »

Bollox, City have always been a big club.

*checks your profile to clarify 100% that you are in fact a City fan*

Professional Griefer

Chelsea

karma_ wrote: »

Bollox, City have always been a big club.

Really? I would have thought at max decent sized, especially when United/Madrid/Liverpool/etc are considered to be big clubs.

Sgt Pepper 64

Ix Deadmau5 wrote: »

Really? I would have thought at max decent sized, especially when United/Madrid/Liverpool/etc are considered to be big clubs.

City are like a medium hamburger in a Macdonalds drive through - they got SUPER SIZED !!

CSF

Chelsea

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

City are like a medium hamburger in a Macdonalds drive through - they got SUPER SIZED !!

Chelsea too.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

CSF

Chelsea

Aquila wrote: »

As a matter of interest CSF who do you support in the footy?

Shelbourne, and before you ask no I don't think we're a big club in Europe.

cson

TonyD79 wrote: »

Utd have net expenditure of 13 million between 2006-2011. City have a reasonable figure of 380 million. Dont you think it's taken alot of money for City to become a "big" club?

Real dropping £80m on Ronaldo did a lot to help that.

CSF

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

Real dropping £80m on Ronaldo did a lot to help that.

When City buy and develop (or nurture an academy starlet) to be worth that amount of money then we can justify the knocking of that off their net spend too.

Red Crow

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

TonyD79 wrote: »

Utd have net expenditure of 13 million between 2006-2011. City have a reasonable figure of 380 million. Dont you think it's taken alot of money for City to become a "big" club?

Real dropping £80m on Ronaldo did a lot to help that.

Why is that brought up? Clearly he was worth that. Its one of the most ridiculous arguments ever. He's the second best player in the world.

Looking back it was a cheap deal for Real Madrid.

'Skews the figures' etc. What a load of crap. The guy is exceptional and will finish close to being the best player to ever grace a football pitch. He was worth a lot more.

Redzer7

Chelsea

Eli Manning wrote: »

Why is that brought up? Clearly he was worth that. Its one of the most ridiculous arguments ever. He's the second best player in the world.

Looking back it was a cheap deal for Real Madrid.

'Skews the figures' etc. What a load of crap. The guy is exceptional and will finish close to being the best player to ever grace a football pitch. He was worth a lot more.

No footballer is worth 80 million IMO. Prices are way too inflated.

cson

I'm not using it to make any point; merely noting that being the vendor of the worlds most expensive player does a lot to help your net spend line.

Ronaldo has more league goals than he has made appearances so certainly it represents good value from a Real Madrid perspective.

City's academy ain't too bad either CSF; Richards, SWP, Ireland and Sturridge all turned out to be good players.

And I'm not even wheeling out the heavy ammo to make that point either; its the same academy that produced Glenn Whelan. /argument :cool:

CSF

Chelsea

Redzer7 wrote: »

No footballer is worth 80 million IMO. Prices are way too inflated.

Prices are worth the going market relative to previous transfers before that, relative to the amount of money being pumped into the game.

There is no arbitrary amount that a player is or is not worth.

Red Crow

Chelsea

Redzer7 wrote: »

Eli Manning wrote: »

Why is that brought up? Clearly he was worth that. Its one of the most ridiculous arguments ever. He's the second best player in the world.

Looking back it was a cheap deal for Real Madrid.

'Skews the figures' etc. What a load of crap. The guy is exceptional and will finish close to being the best player to ever grace a football pitch. He was worth a lot more.

No footballer is worth 80 million IMO. Prices are way too inflated.

That's not relevant at all. Its what is paid for footballers so that's the figures we work off.

CSF

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

I'm not using it to make any point; merely noting that being the vendor of the worlds most expensive player does a lot to help your net spend line.

Ronaldo has more league goals than he has made appearances so certainly it represents good value from a Real Madrid perspective.

City's academy ain't too bad either CSF; Richards, SWP, Ireland and Sturridge all turned out to be good players.

And I'm not even wheeling out the heavy ammo to make that point either; its the same academy that produced Glenn Whelan. /argument :cool:

I wasn't taking a swipe at City's academy. Just saying that United earned the money to spend by selling the world's greatest player (**** off Messi lovers). Sell to buy is usually how a good net spend is achieved.

Mikeyt086

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

Real dropping £80m on Ronaldo did a lot to help that.

Absolutely hate this. Should it just not count? Why? Because we bought a skinny step-over merchant for 12m and 6 years later sold the current holder of the Ballon D'Or for a £68m profit?

Mr Alan

Chelsea

No, it should definitely count.

But it was an exceptional transaction & that should also be noted.

cson

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

Absolutely hate this. Should it just not count? Why? Because we bought a skinny step-over merchant for 12m and 6 years later sold the current holder of the Ballon D'Or for a £68m profit?

See here.

cson wrote: »

I'm not using it to make any point; merely noting that being the vendor of the worlds most expensive player does a lot to help your net spend line.

Ronaldo has more league goals than he has made appearances so certainly it represents good value from a Real Madrid perspective.

I'm not knocking it ffs.

You United fans are so precious.

cson

Mr Alan wrote: »

No, it should definitely count.

But it was an exceptional transaction & that should also be noted.

Thank you.

Red Crow

Chelsea

Mr Alan wrote: »

No, it should definitely count.

But it was an exceptional transaction & that should also be noted.

Everything in football is exceptional. In terms of net spend it should not be counted as without the Ronaldo money perhaps United would not have signed some players they have. Bebe was exceptional should we exclude that as it was dodgy?

Some people haven't a clue what net spend actually means. The argument was that United have earned to spend and City haven't. Simple as tbh.

The Ronaldo argument is one of those things in football a kin to the hatred for Robbie Keane in Ireland; Retarded.

Red Crow

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

Absolutely hate this. Should it just not count? Why? Because we bought a skinny step-over merchant for 12m and 6 years later sold the current holder of the Ballon D'Or for a £68m profit?

See here.

cson wrote: »

I'm not using it to make any point; merely noting that being the vendor of the worlds most expensive player does a lot to help your net spend line.

Ronaldo has more league goals than he has made appearances so certainly it represents good value from a Real Madrid perspective.

I'm not knocking it ffs.

You United fans are so precious.

Now you generalise. Very astute. You know an argument is a load of bollocks when someone starts stupid generalisations.

Will I Amnt

cson wrote: »

I'm not knocking it ffs.

You United fans are so precious.

How is it precious??
People will pull you up on things they feel are not right,otherwise we could all spout as much bullshìt as we wanted to.

Warper

CSF wrote: »

I wasn't taking a swipe at City's academy. Just saying that United earned the money to spend by selling the world's greatest player (**** off Messi lovers). Sell to buy is usually how a good net spend is achieved.

Ronaldo was sold for £80m, then Messi would be worth £150m. Then again no one can afford him/he wouldnt want to leave Barca unlike money-hungry Ronaldo who only cares about himself. Thank god Messi is around today otherwise it would be non-stop Ronaldo fanboys saying he is the best ever.

Liam O

Warper wrote: »

Ronaldo was sold for £80m, then Messi would be worth £150m. Then again no one can afford him/he wouldnt want to leave Barca unlike money-hungry Ronaldo who only cares about himself. Thank god Messi is around today otherwise it would be non-stop Ronaldo fanboys saying he is the best ever.

As opposed to what you do with Messi?

cson

Let me knock it down as simply as I can for you;

1. I remarked that Real Madrid spending £80m on Cristiano Ronaldo helped the net spend figure of Manchester United. There was no opinion given here, simply a statement and something that's a fact as Rafa would say.

2. I subsequently qualified this by outlining what I meant in further detail.

Yet some of you still couldn't grasp it, hence my precious comment because, well, you are being precious thinking I'm aiming a dig at your club. I'm not and I wasn't.

There's no generalisation there, there's no bull**** there. Just a fact some of you have taken up as a swipe and gotten your knickers in a twist over.

Red Crow

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

Let me knock it down as simply as I can for you;

1. I remarked that Real Madrid spending £80m on Cristiano Ronaldo helped the net spend figure of Manchester United. There was no opinion given here, simply a statement and something that's a fact as Rafa would say.

2. I subsequently qualified this by outlining what I meant in further detail.

Yet some of you still couldn't grasp it, hence my precious comment because, well, you are being precious thinking I'm aiming a dig at your club. I'm not and I wasn't.

There's no generalisation there, there's no bull**** there. Just a fact some of you have taken up as a swipe and gotten your knickers in a twist over.

How does it help the net spend when we probably have spent more because we received 80 million from Madrid?

Explain this please.

Mr Alan

Chelsea

Liam O wrote: »

As opposed to what you do with Messi?

There's one very important difference.

Messi is the best ever.

Redzer7

Chelsea

Warper wrote: »

Ronaldo was sold for £80m, then Messi would be worth £150m. Then again no one can afford him/he wouldnt want to leave Barca unlike money-hungry Ronaldo who only cares about himself. Thank god Messi is around today otherwise it would be non-stop Ronaldo fanboys saying he is the best ever.

He's playing for the Spanish champions. If your saying he went for the money then you my friend are deluded.

The_Kew_Tour

Chelsea

Warper wrote: »

Ronaldo was sold for £80m, then Messi would be worth £150m. Then again no one can afford him/he wouldnt want to leave Barca unlike money-hungry Ronaldo who only cares about himself. Thank god Messi is around today otherwise it would be non-stop Ronaldo fanboys saying he is the best ever.

A rubbish statement if there ever was one.

cson

Eli Manning wrote: »

How does it help the net spend when we probably have spent more because we received 80 million from Madrid?

Explain this please.

Are you serious? Do I need to give you a maths lesson on this?

Any figure received >£0.01 [lets call it X] helps your net spend as it offsets what goes out in spending [lets call it Y].

X - Y will give you the net spend.

Therefore as we can see from above, it is quite logical to assume that the £80m fee received for Ronaldo, being greater than £0.01, helped the net spend of Manchester United over whatever time period you wish to use.

---

Ordinarily I'd rise above such bolloxology but I feel like indulging myself tonight seeing as we've started labelling genuine explanations "a load of bollocks".

Red Crow

Chelsea

cson wrote: »

Are you serious? Do I need to give you a maths lesson on this?

Any figure received >£0.01 [lets call it X] helps your net spend as it offsets what goes out in spending [lets call it Y].

X - Y will give you the net spend.

Therefore as we can see from above, it is quite logical to assume that the £80m fee received for Ronaldo, being greater than £0.01, helped the net spend of Manchester United over whatever time period you wish to use.

---

Ordinarily I'd rise above such bolloxology but I feel like indulging myself tonight seeing as we've started labelling genuine explanations "a load of bollocks".

You clearly don't understand. Simply, it's one of the most retarded arguments in football. Obviously the £80 Million altered the net spend figure. But so does selling Cathcart for £300,000. Every cent/pence used in transfers alters the figure.

But because United sold a Ballon D'Or winner, it skews the figures - Ridiculous. Obviously it alters the figures, as does every transfer, but it's retarded to insinuate that United have spent a lot more and the Ronaldo transfer 'skews' that figure. If that's the case it could be easily argued that United would not have had to spend as much had they not sold one of the best players to play football at the time.

Some people just don't get it.

RasTa

Most pointless debate ever?

Although it did give Warper an excuse to come in with some Ronaldo bashing.

massdebater

So, erm, Eden Hazard.........

chupacabra

Chelsea

Hazard to QPR. Heard it from my mates dog.

greendom

Chelsea

chupacabra wrote: »

Hazard to QPR. Heard it from my mates dog.

Does your dog read The Times ? You need to tell him that A-R-S-E-N-A-L does not spell QPR.

Yakult

massdebater wrote: »

So, erm, Eden Hazard.........

Who now?

ician

I DON'TTTTTTTT CAREEEEEEEEEEEEE ANYMORE.

Boskowski

Who is this guy that he has his own thread with poll and 350 posts in it? Is he a new Messi or something or does he just have a very astute agent?

LuckyLloyd

CSF wrote: »

City aren't a big club. They're a good team.

They are now one of the biggest clubs in the world and look set to stay that way so long as the current owners keep the taps running. Would you dare to suggest that Chelsea "aren't a big club"?

Giggsy11

Boskowski wrote: »

Who is this guy that he has his own thread with poll and 350 posts in it? Is he a new Messi or something or does he just have a very astute agent?

Two times French league player of the year at the age of 21, and most imporantly he shares his birthday with me. If that is not important to deserve own thread, I dont know what can.

Will I Amnt

City are well on their way to being a big club but they're not there yet.
Big clubs imo are measured firstly by success and fanbase and maybe then wealth.

I wouldn't call City a big club in the same way I wouldn't call Anzhi a big club.

AnCapaillMor

Chelsea

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They are now one of the biggest clubs in the world and look set to stay that way so long as the current owners keep the taps running. Would you dare to suggest that Chelsea "aren't a big club"?

More like clubs on steroids, yes they're big at the moment but take away the sugar daddys and some of the stars and after a year a lot of fanbase will be looking elsewhere.The thing with united\liverpool\madrid\barca is they'll always have a huge following regardless of how they do, liverpool is going throuh a pretty bad patch and you can't throw a stone without hitting a supporter, the same with united in the 80's and early 90's. To me that defines a big club. Maybe after a few years if they're lucky enough to have roman and oil dude stay on they might get to the stage.

So anyway this Hazard guys good yeah?


Edit just adding it reminds of newc and blackburn back in the 90's, you'd see a few newc and BB tops going around town, you only see the odd newc top now.