OhForAGreavsie

True enough.

Ancelotti quoted as saying Varane going nowhere. Of course that's what they usually say but all logic suggests this must be the truth.

These days of yore. Pure poetry, like your style!

Having spent 18 months or so screaming that we should sign this player, I'm suddenly developing cold feet. I did not see all of Reus's performances between his return and most recent injury setback but he was far from sharp in those I did see. If my assessment that he was off the pace is correct there could be many perfectly reasonable explanations for a lack of sharpness when a player returns after such a long lay off. Especially when he's coming into a struggling side. Still, I have to admit that what I saw was worrying enough to make me wonder if the injuries have cost him something.

Yep not a place of happy memories for a German Chelsea fan. Still, after Belo Horizonte, maybe the memories of Yokohama have been soothed just a little bit.

As has been said, Oscar has had many, many games which are below the required standard. It would not be correct for anyone to say that he is the worst ten in the business but I don't believe anyone is saying that. The opinion I and others are expressing is that he is not good enough for the level Chelsea hope to achieve. Finding a ten who is good enough will improve us in the same way we were improved by the upgrade from Mikel to Matic.

I hope they were late!

I thought there were a few errors Barbara. I don't remember any well enough to describe them but I do remember noticing as they happened. In fact at one point my summary would have been that Luis was not having a good game, but he picked up.

He certainly did enough to earn another start.

There is no doubt in my mind that Oscar is currently the best option we have for his position. That however is a problem we must solve.

Hello Robguima, Got to say I'm with didierforever on this. My view is that Oscar is not good enough for a club with our ambitions full stop, but he was especially horrible in the first half. During that period it seemed to me that virtually nothing he tried to do came off. I don't think however that today has much relevance to the debate about Oscar's future. Everybody has bad days. Today was Oscar's turn for a really bad one, that's all. The real discussion about Oscar reminds me of the Mikel conversations that used to go on. People argued back and forth about Mikel's worth and there were accusations that his doubters didn't notice all of his ugly but vital contributions. Those conversations more or less stopped when Matic returned and showed up Mikel's limitations for what they are. For me it is urgent that we upgrade Oscar. When we get a genuinely good 'ten' that fit's Jose's system, I think it will be even more clear that Oscar has not been contributing enough when he is in possession. I also don't see that he is bound to improve. In fact I'd say that he is bound not to improve but time will tell so no sense arguing it either way I guess. Lastly there are stats in this thread highlighting Oscar's defensive contribution but let's not forget that a significant portion of the defending we needed to do today flowed from Oscar's appalling play. Granted he was better in the second half but his overall grade would still be very, very low in my opinion. To be the player we need Oscar's grade should be consistently very high. It isn't.

Thank you for your good wishes.

If I was elsewhere and I found something with which I wanted to take issue I'd have done so but this is where I am and your post is what I read. Having done that, I took issue with what you seem either to find funny or a matter for levity. Meanwhile, how could I be responsible for what you do? I'm afraid you have to bear that burden yourself.

You aren't responsible for what Jimmy Carr does, only for what you choose to do or not to do.

Many, many years ago I was travelling back from a night game at QPR. I was on the upper deck of a bus and the conductor (told you it was a long time ago) was Jewish. One lad, a Chelsea fan, thought it was funny to chirp up with the hissing sounds and the breathe deeply comments. The conductor was mortified and fearful. Who knows what terrors may have been visited on his family or even what horrors the man might have seen himself. The stupid little boy who was causing offence was a little younger than me. Like me, he was on his own so when I told him to shut up, he did. I was bigger than him but I don't think that's why he quit. That type of behaviour was all too common in the shed and the North Bank in those days. I'm pretty certain he was just repeating some learned behaviour. I don't think he had ever been challenged about it before or been exposed to its effects. I think he stopped because it suddenly dawned on him that it wasn't just something to be laughed at, but was something that mimicked a wickedness. A wickedness which created countless real victims and left a lifetime of indelibly evil memories in its wake. But you are correct, if you want to joke about the chief perpetrators of that wickedness it is your right to do so.

Freedom of speech is much in the news. Unless that freedom includes the right to offend then it is no freedom at all but, come on, this? Maybe I'm getting too old but I am never going to find levity in any allusion to the Schutzstaffel, whether or not that allusion is intended.

I apologise for my earlier comment in which I described this post as 'nonsense'. Choulo was right and I was wrong.

Sorry.

Welcome Amjd. I hope that you get to fulfill your wish one day.

Just to be clear it's not only applicable when Europa League players move to Champions' League clubs, it also works the other way round too. No player is allowed to represent more than one club in the same competition but each club is allowed to play a maximum of 1 player who has previously appeared for a different club in a different UEFA competition during that season.

I acknowledge that City, who initially used the term loan to describe the move, have stopped doing so and that it is reasonable for Choulo and others to read that as confirmation of their point of view. On the question of Lamps status with Chelsea fans I'm not personally too bothered but I'm desperate that he should not be booed on 31st January. He is a legend of our club and if he should be booed it would send an appalling message about Chelsea fans. If people don't want to cheer him then fine but please no booing. Personally I never believed Frank was as good a player as his reputation suggests and I never loved him the way most CFC fans do, or did anyway. I think that makes it easier for me not to be too angry with him now. When Scholes retired from international football the United man cited certain England players playing selfishly for themselves as one of his reasons for quiting. I always thought Frank was one of the people Scholes meant. I have no evidence to support that opinion but selfishness was often a complaint I made against Frank myself.

I found it by going to fifa.com and searching Lampard.

FIFA themselves say that NYC have given the contract extension their blessing. Strange if it's nothing to do with them. Other than that, we're talking round in circles so perhaps it's time to agree to disagree.

Paperwork a. What on Earth would cause either of us to think that City would have started the paperwork on the last day? Much more likely that this would have happened earlier. b. Paperwork has been done it a matter of hours before now, never mind a whole day. Salary a. City announced early on, in response to criticism that the deal was an FFP ruse, that they were paying Frank's salary in full so NYC will not have been paying it. b. Presumably the contract will have been written such that Frank's NYC salary would begin, and would appear in the books, during the next MLS season. Loan/Free Agent a. The fact that the deal was announced as a loan is at least one reason for believing it was a loan. b. I acknowledge that the deal could have been a free agent signing but that would leave us to believe that NYC were prepared to enter a multimillion pound agreement with Frank and then give away any control over what he does in the mean time while waiting for the new MLS season. While NYC were busy selling tickets and sponsorships on the understanding that Frank would be part of their future squad, legally, Frank would have been free to head over to the park for Sunday football with his mates. That's a massive risk for NYC that could see their plans scuppered. In those circumstances NYC would almost certainly been able to get out of any financial commitment to Frank but what about their own background deals? In my view any lawyer who allowed NYC to sign so lax an arrangement would be an idiot. I'd bet everything you own that they'd have taken control of Frank's registration. Nothing else makes any sense.

His contract with City & his registration are two different things. The requirement that his re-registration should be in place before he plays against Sunderland does not mean he could not have played against them. It means just what it said, he needed to to registered and since he played, clearly he was. From a practical standpoint that just means that all the necessary paperwork, signed off by all interested parties, needed to be filed with The FA and FIFA, and clearance received from FIFA, by close of play on 31/12/2014. That must have been what City were waiting for before confirming his availability. As for the date of his NYC contract, I have no reason to doubt the stated date of 01/08/2014 especially since logic dictates that it should be that date rather than a later one. Having made a big financial commitment to the Lampard deal, it would make sense for New York to take control of his playing options by lodging his registration with FIFA as soon as the window opened. I say it makes sense but in truth nothing else makes any sense. At all.