Peace.

Yeah, he is trying to look like that guy who is dedicated to his defending game, but it does not fool anyone. Though, it seems he has perfected his comedy so it goes unnoticed from the dugout, which unfortunately seems to work...

He was a player that I used to appreciate a lot — that is, I used to. But now, I am tired of his diving addiction, just as I am tired of his thuggish antics. As if was not enough, I am tired of him thinking he is some kind of offensive voodoo and of him leaving spaces twice as big as le Jardin des Tuileries behind him ; no Ivan, you are not technically-wise good enough to be the Roberto Carlos of the right-side, nor you are fast enough to recover the boulevard ground you leave behind you while spending all your time in the opposition last-third. And finally, I am tired of him never trying to block the opponents' cross !! To make a long story short : I am tired of him.

He has never looked like the sharpest tool in the box, though he is looking like a grade A idiot now... Someone, do him a favour : grab a hair clipper and cut that damn piece of hair — or whatever it might be — that parasitizes the top of his skull...

To score a goal against the entity that made and call you a "Legend"... Well, that is something that Steven I-assist-against-my-team Gerrard would be proud of.

I am not really sure that it work like that. To my knowledge, the important thing is the age you have when you register to the League. So, when your club registers you to the FA before the start of the league you are 21, you thus count as a U21 player for the whole season, even if you turn 22 two days after the start of the season. Maybe it changed recently, but I am pretty sure it work like this. At least, it was the case with Oscar last year when he turned 22 in september though was counted as U21. It was also the case with Sturridge, despite being 22 years old, he was still counted as a U21 player because he was 21 when registered to the League (if I am not 100% sure about Oscar case, I am dead certain on this). And if I remind correctly, it is also why Mata was able to participate to a U21 competition despite being 23, because when he registered for the qualification, he was 21. So I understand the age taken into account is the age you have when you register to X competition ; this mean he should count as U21 the whole season...

When a government wants to control its population, the best way to do so is to fear its people by creating an external enemy. This way, people feel endangered by an outside menace, become more patriotic and unify all of themselves behind the head of State to cope against that external menace. And as a matter of fact, people forget internal problems (economic crisis, poverty, corruption, politicians careless of the people, etc...). It happens that with USSR fall, there was no longer an external menace and thus the US monopolistic class needed one. On the second hand, when you want to declare war against a state or somebody, you need a virtuous justification ; you need to declare a "humanitarian war", or to declare war to protect your people. Indeed, rarely do people accept their country to go to war if it is not for a noble cause. USA did it in 1941, they waited to be forced to enter war, in order to have the support of its people.Vietnam : they declared war to protect vietnamese people (they killed millions of civilians in the process, LOL), while in truth it was to stop communist expansion (USSR and all..).Afghanistan : they made it look that it was to kill the terrorists that have killed americans and attacked USA, and to liberate the people from the talibans, and to bring liberty to women ; while it was for political strategy and economy.Iraq, the same : it was to attack so-called terrorists and to free iraqi people from their tyran ; in fact it was for the petrol and geopolitical reasons.Libya : it was to free the people from Kadhafi. The truth is that it was for its oil. Uk and France have been stupid enough to let themselves to dirty their hands instead of the Peace Nobel price Obama. It has to be noted that Bernad-fucking-Henry fukcing he has a lot to do with that war, as he is a friend of the rebel leaders, he pushed very hard to convince France to declare war. Funnily enough, he is okay with gazan people to be murdered and while muslim children are killed by jewish soldiers, all he is talking about is antisemitisme LOL !! But this is another story.Iran and Syria, the same, but they failed.To summarize, after 2000, the US needed a virtual menace to control its people and needed to control some muslim countries (for their oil and for geopolitical reasons). Had W Bush said "we're gon' to kick some muslim asses to take their oil", he would have had no support. Instead, he said "we declare war against terrorism and the Axe of Evil" ; and in the meantime he would free women from islamic oppression (because women are very well treated in the West......) and free people from islamist-barbarian-terrorist tyrans... How could someone say no to such a noble cause ? As a matter of fact, since 2000's, the mass propaganda has made muslim people like look terrorist, barbarians and uneducated people that kills at sight in the name of Allah. So in a sens you are right, why any sane people would support terrorists (because nowadays being muslim equates to terrorist) instead of people that suffered from a genocide ? That is what propaganda does, Barbara

Do you find it surprising, coming from a Criminal, who is leading a Terror State that has done many crime of war and against the humanity all over the Earth in the last 60 years or so ? Ever since the end of the Second World War, the US are nearly in a permanent war all over the world. Here a small sample of their atrocities : 1945 : US is the first, the last and the sole country to use the atomic bomb on people targets, killing in the proccess between 130 000 (according to the (US Department of Energy) and 240 000 (according to some historian) people.1955-1975 : Vietnam war. US dropped 7 millions of tons of bomb, which is twice as much as what the Allied did during the WW2, killing something like one million civilians in the process. They massively used phosphorus bombs, which after have been recognised as war crime and/or banned from use against civilians. They also used the Orange Agent, which has been and still is devasting for the civilians — and even for the US soldiers ! Etc..1973 : they helped Augusto Pinochet to take the power. Enough said.Since 2001 they attacked Afghanistan and Irak, driving these two country and its people into chaos. not to mention Abou Ghraib, etc...Oh, and Guantanamo and all its secret prisons all over the world.Really, Obama, and any US president cannot condemn Israel. He can condemn Putin and that kind of presidents/countries, because they do not belong to the "Occident World", they are historically the bad men. But Israel belongs to that so called Occidental world ; to condemn Israel would be condemning what US is doing, right now, in Afghanistan and Irak, to condemn what they did ever since the end of the WW2. And finally, since 2001 and they declaration of war against terrorism and the "axe of evil", US have declared the war to the muslim and the arab world. So, what some dead arabs represents to that kind of governments ? Nothing. And the cunts, they do not have petrole ; so why would they "help" them. To conclude, Mohammed, yes, Obama sees the damage to the civilians infrastructures and he is well aware of that — his own army is doing the same in Afghanistan and Irak. It is just that he has no interest in defending the palestinians ; and he deplores the death of civilians in Gaza merely out of political correctness — I mean, he is the one that gives the weapons that kill them !

Hum... In his five seasons at Madrid, Cristiano has respectively scored : 26, 40, 46, 34 and 31 goals. So, apart of two seasons, his goal-scoring stats are pretty much the same as his best year in England. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that he was not really the same player after he went to Madrid. Indeed, ever since he has been granted the free-licence to concentrate on scoring goal (and to not track-back) ; a free licence that Ferguson did not grant him and that would not have. We thus can safely assume that, had he stayed in the Premier League and be granted such a liberty, he would have scored once or twice more than 40 goals in a season. As for Messi, he is the greatest player of his generation, one of the greatest player of all time and there is an ongoing debate to know whether he is the best player of all time. So we cannot really use the fact he scores a lot in La Liga to conclude that you can score for fun in that league and that defenses are outrageously weak. And anyway, as it has been already demonstrated, these two players are each years the best goal-scorers in the Champions League. As for the hat-tricks... I have found stats for the Premier League, though I have found nothing for La Liga. Seeing the high numbers of hat-tricks scored by Messi and Ronaldo, it would not be surprising that la Liga has more hat-tricks scored. So, for the debat's sake, we will assume that it is a fact. Well, as in my last sentence I have said : Messi and Ronaldo score a lot of hat-tricks, and the presumably high number of hat-tricks is down to them two. It has been demonstrated above why they both score plenty of goals ; as a matter of fact, the high number of hat-tricks in Spain cannot be attribute to its so-called poor defenses, but rather it has to be attribute to the fact that there are two great goal-scorers playing in that league. Moreover, I have demonstrated that fact in my previous post : there is the same number of goals scored each year in La Liga and in the Premier League. Perhaps there are 3 hat-tricks scored in England and 30 in Spain, but at the end of the day, hat-tricks or not, there is the same amount of goals scored ! So this is not a valid argument. Finally, the vast majority of people who follow the Premier League tends to say that smaller team in Spain are much weaker, and implicitly, are way worst when it comes to defense. I disagree with that fact. I watch a lot of spanish games through Barcelona. There are a lot of small teams that give problems, regarding the defense. These teams make it hard for Barça to score ; and they do so without parking the bus ! Small teams in England use to park the bus with tall and powerful players ; which gives a feeling a defensive solidity. At the contrary, in Spain, they do not adopt such tactics and their defenders are not mountains of muscle like here. I attribute this distorted view (i.e. spanish teams are way worse defensively than british teams) to that fact. The fact that there are as many goals scored in the two leagues tends to prove me right.

What I have just read on Amnesty International website : On an other hand, Noam Chomsky schools us that in an article he has recently written : The sad truth is that it is all calculated. To use Chomsky's words, when Israel is on "good behaviour", they instil a great terror into Palestinians. They barely let them live in human condition. Moreover, to add to that terror, Israeli imprison them behind high wall with sniper-towers. Because of that, a part of Gaza population, out of hatred caused by desperation, radicalize themselves and enter organization such as Hamas. And, unfortunately, those people fall into Israeli traps : they eventually start to shoot rockets onto their gaolers' land .... That is it, Israel government can legitimate an awful massacre. When Israel will stop its attack massacre, hundreds civilians will be killed, thousands houses destroyed and civilians will be left into worse than Bronze Age living conditions. Yet, the Hamas will have survived — worse, it will get only stronger and get more support from the people, because Gaza people will be more and more desperate from living the Hell on Earth. As a matter of fact, Hamas will once again shot rockets on Israeli cities ; the Israelite government will once again have the opportunity to justify a new massacre of the Gaza population. And this will continue untill Israel have managed to kill the last Gazan and indexed Gaza strip to the state of Israel.... On the topic of the war on terrorism by USA, Noam Chomsky used the definition of terrorism given by the US army manual : "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". He also said "Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism." .... By no mean one can justify what Hamas is doing ; but the real terrorists are not Hamas but the Israeli government — Israel is a Terror Sate. We are witnessing a cynically calculated genocide, and we have only our eyes to cry since no government do something to stop that...

This leaves me voiceless. Your country dehumanize you (you, just like your country fellow man over here) through propaganda ; tomorrow they'll hand you some M16 and you'll be the ones remorselessly killing innocent children. You are the tomorrow's Himmler, Ratko Mladic and Ariel Sharon. Jesus Christ...

Did it cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, this is because they are the best players in the world ? And for your information, Cristiano has never scored 50 goals in a season in La Liga (the nearest he got was 46) — only Messi did it, and it was just once. And both Messi and Cristiano scored more than 40 goals in a season only twice. Get your facts right. Furthermore, last season : Cristiano scored 31 goals out of 30 games ; Messi 28 out of 31 ; Suarez 31 out of 33. By the way, in 2007-08, Cristiano has scored 31 goals in the Premier League, the same amount he has scored this year in La Liga. Finally, last season, there are 1045 goals that have been scored in la Liga........ While 1052 in the Premier League. And, in la Liga, the three first team have respectively scored 77, 100 and 104 goals ; in the Premier League, 101, 102 and 71 goals. Two seasons ago 1091 in la Liga while 1063 in the Premier League. Three seaons ago, 1050 in la Liga, 1066 in the Premier League. So, at the end of the day, there is nearly no difference between the Premier League and La Liga in regards of the goals scored. That kind of argument "La Liga is an easy place to score ; the Premier League is the toughest place to score" is an argument old as Herod, and today it does no longer hold any water.

Another thing about Fabregas. Some were questioning how would he fit in a team that like to counter attack, as he is slow. What is a counter attack ? It is primarily the ability to project yourself forward the quicker possible — but it is also the ability to find yourself in a good position to score goals by eliminating in the process the more opponents you can (in order to, ideally, being one versus one against the goalkeeper). To project yourself forward quickly, it does not necessarily require to have superhuman athletic abilities. For a reminder we are talking about football ; you have to project quickly your body, but also the ball. And to do so, either you run fast with the ball at your feet à la Ramires ; or you quickly see the run of your team-mates and quickly pass them the ball. It happens that Fabregas fit exactly that very description : he is an excellent passer from deep. To weight my point : * Bayern Munich in 2012-13 has been hailed as a fabulous counter-attacking team. They had Robben and Ribéry on the wings who are fast players ; yet in the midfield, they had Schweinsteiger/Martinez/Kroos (if my memory serves my right) which are slow players, and I am not sure that Müller is extremely fast. * Same for Madrid under Mourinho, when they were successful on the counters : quick players up-front (Cristiano, Ozil, etc..) while two slow players in the middle in Alonzo and Kheidira. * Barça was/Are a possession-based team, but they also used to be successful on the counters : Messi and Pedro up-front, which are fast players ; Xavi and Sergio (and Iniesta to a lesser extent) who are slow players. * United circa 2007... They were great at the counters. They had fast players (Cristiano, Rooney, Nani) and slow players (Schols, Carrick). * The list goes on... To be successful at counter-attacks, you need fast players that make runs and get to the box the sooner ; and you need players to pass the ball to them quickly and accuratly. That is why I am convinced that Fabregas has all the tools to be successful in our counter-attack approach of the games. He is a deadly passer from deep ! And as for the runners up-front, we have them : Willian, Schurrle and Hazard (even though he has to improve at making runs ; he is fast) — you can even had Ramires to the mix, though it remains to be seen whether he would control the pass/ball ahah. It might be presumptuous, but he might be the piece of the puzzle we missed to be deadly on the counters, as we only had the runners.

Well, I am quite surprised to see how much Mata's dribbling ability is held in high regards here. Mata is not a very good dribbler. He is decent, at most good ; he can pick up a dribble here and there but that is it. This is by the way one of the reasons for which he has never been given a go with his national team... And, even if you would like to think he is a "very" good dribbler, as @James has mentioned, it is not his game and he does rarely try to dribble past players. So in the end, good or not good, the end product (since it is a term in vogue over here) is : nearly no dribbles. Cesc is definitely not as good as Iniesta when it comes to dribbling, but he is better than Mata for sure. Once again, even if from a technical stance they were on the same level, Fabregas is more aggressive in his game a more or less likes to dribbles, whereas Mata it is not part of his game. In regards with the fact that whether or not he is one-footed, and to reply to @Ze Mario... Well, I will not even bother to make an assessment regarding the talent of his right foot since it is not the question ; the question is to know whether he is over-reliant (and feels uneasy on his weak foot) of his strong foot. The answer is yes. And the fact he scored one goal with his right foot does not change anything to that fact ; Messi and Sturridge also can score and pass with their right-foot, nonetheless they still are one-footed (which seems to be a common trait of the left footed players). As for is ability to hold on the ball... Well, it is rather a weakness than a strength for him. First off all, as it has been said numerous times, physically he cannot cope with the pressure ; and he cannot get away from it through acceleration/speed, as he has none, and only decently through dribbles. This is another reason for which he is overlooked in the Spanish national team. It might be also a weakness of Fabregas, if you will, but he is significantly better in this aspect and it does not cause nearly as much problems that it does with Mata. And finally, the famous end product. Juan Mata has been many time hailed because of his stats here. In his best season here, in 31 games started (and four subs) in the League, Mata has scored 12 and assisted 12 ; the same season, out of 30 starts (and two subs) in the Liga, Fabregas has scored 11 and assisted 11. The season before : 6 scored and 13 assisted in 29(+5) games for Mata ; 9 scored and 8 assisted in 23(+5) games for Fabregas. Basically, in regards of the statistical productivity, they both are more or less on the same level. While the later being only the odd man in the starting team and never had a set position ; the former was the center of the team. And finally mark II, Mata was not versatil at all. It was even his fiercest defenders that admitted that fact ; you cannot put him on the (right) wing as he is inefficient. A contrario, Fabregas is apt to play in several positions ; sure at different extent of efficiency, but still. In the contemporary football, this quality is more and more required. It is pretty clear as to why Mourinho decided to buy someone of the likes of Fabregas. This player is direct, "aggressive", is a great passer, can dribble, can cope physically and technically to pressure, can play several positions.

I saw numerous comments raising the question as to how would Fabregas fit in a Mourinho's team if Juan Mata (and to a lesser extent de Bruyne) could not. It is to misunderstand what was the situation with Mata. Mourinho does not have solely work-rate warriors in his teams, that is not true. At Inter and Madrid, he had Sneijder and Ozil (whom he described as the best n°10 if I remind correctly) as key players — both not exactly being great contributors to the defense, to say the least (Ozil having even stamina problems...). Despite his small size, Sneijder is quite a tenacious and powerful player, and is a good, nay very good, dribbler. As for Ozil, despite being quite physically light, he is a great dribbler, has some pace and speed. The two of them are able to sustain a high-paced and intensive game, because they have the physical and technical attributes. And more importantly, they can dictate the game of their team under more or less any situation because they can, among other things, get away from their opponent because of the physical and/or technical abilities they have. On the other hand, Juan Mata has no dribbling ability. He has no pace, no speed, no acceleration. He neither can out-muscled his opponent as he is physically pretty weak. I will not even talk about his ability at headers. And finally, he has no right foot. — notice how I have not even mentionned the defensive side of the game — Basically, Mata has a very good ability to pick up passes with his left foot (especially on set-pieces situation), a very good final ball and a decent eyes for goals. Because of that, he disappears immediately when the game becomes physically strong or/and high-paced. And more importantly, as SeB demonstrated it in the past, he cannot retain possession and thus he quickly passes the ball ; which will always lead to accelerate the game — as matter of a fact, he is not suited to be the player dictating the game. In order to maximize his strengths, and to nullify his weaknesses (which are many), you have to put him in the center of the team and to give him a free pass. And unfortunately, for him, he is simply not good enough to be given such a role in a team with our ambitions. That is why Juan Mata has been sold. Had he been a complete player (hello Lukaku ), and simply put, had he been a better player, he would have been kept, regardless of his inability to participate to the defense. Now, is Fabregas a Mata, or a Sneijder/Özil ? He is not very fast, but he still remains decent in that regard. He is a very good dribbler. Physically decent. And because he is an excellent player, he is able to play serveral positions (in the pivot, as a n°10, a n°8, on the wings, as a false nine). If anything, he is (or rather will be) Mourinho's Chelsea Ozil/Sneijder ; the comparisons with Mata stop at the fact that they are both spanish, at that is all. Anyway, it is pretty obvious as to why Fabregas and not Mata, without taking into account the defensive side ! Anyway, it is pretty obvious as to why Fabregas and not Mata, without taking into account the defensive side ! Speaking of it, Fabregas has not the quality of Oscar nor Willian, but he is decent, nothing more, nothing less.. Barça fans can say what they want... as the saying goes in French "when you no longer want of your dog, you say he has the rabies" (at the exception of last year, I have nearly watched all of his games at Barça...).

You are right in what you are saying. Keeping Lukaku in this situation, does not necessarily consist in being a "betterment" for the club, at all ; and it could be quite the contrary. When a player's head is off, then it is pretty much a lost cause. It takes a player to be an excellent professional in order to give near 100% in this kind of context ; and he will never 100%, consciously or not. Now, these past three seasons, we have witnessed how much Lukaku is professional ; and humble. Firstly he vividly criticized André Villas-Boas for not playing — it is classy to shot on a dead man walking... And to be honest, in regards of the situation, giving Lukaku playing-time was certainly one of the last priorities at that time (especially since he was absolutely dreadful when playing). Then, when having to face to competition of the Wonder-Horse and the 45 years-old Eto'o — people like to include Ba, but the truth is that he would have been sold or loaned, had Lukaku stayed —, he opted for the easy way and to go out on loan. Finally, he told the world that "clubs are interested in me", and pretentiously "Chelsea know my point of view". How it will fare when he will realise that the complete striker that he is will be the second choice, at best, by a fine margin, and will have to fight for game time against the Wonder-Horse, the one and only Ladyboy ? Mourinho seeks from each of his players to give everything they have. I say Mourinho, but it is how modern football works. It happens that Lukaku does not really take part to the collective effort of his team-mate ; every time I saw him play, he was just strolling around the pitch awaiting for someone to put him through the goal. This kind of attitude does not go well with the ambitions we have. So basically, we have on our hands a player : that does not really intend to fight for his place and who is eyeing for a move away from us ; that as the tendency to bitch when he is not pampered and denied the starting position ; that seems to bigger himself and feels he is as big as the club, as he pretentiously said "Chelsea knows my point of view" (who the hell does he thinks he is to say such a thing ?) ; that does feel like working hard for the team. When you put all these variables all together, it seems more likely that keeping him will result as having a dead weight than having a "betterment" for our squad.

I have always thought that this argument of "we do not need the money" is pretty simpleton. I mean, if we do not need money, then we should call back Paris in order to partially refund them, because we do not really need these 50m euros ; etc... It is like when people proudly say "we do not sell our best players because we do not need money bla bla bla" — we did not think a second before selling Mata and Luiz. It can also be applied to rich people. They do no longer need to earn money, yet they take it... It is like this that you become wealthy. And, if tomorrow i tell you "here's the deal, I give you 200 bucks today or 100 next day, what do you choose ?" — your answer will be pretty obvious. I could give just out of my head another twenty examples, but I guess I do not need to go there. —————————— And anyway. As you say, he pretty much wants to leave our club — and before someone ask if we have talked to him to know such a thing : you do not need to be Noam Chomsky to understand that when a player start to publicly say "clubs are interested in me" (in the fashion he did), it means that at the very least he considers to go elsewhere. So, with that knowledge, the best thing for us is to look to get the more money out of him. It is not like we desperately need him and thus should say goodbye to a huge amount of money, let's say like Dortmund with the Polish.

"Liberators ?" "The LIBERATION ! By the crime army !" This poster has been published in 1944 in France by the NSDAP, following the death-sentence given to members of the "Francs-Tireurs et Partisans", a movement of armed resistance against the nazists. In a nutshell, this poster describes the Résistants as : * Having nothing to do with France — they are foreigners ; * Being of a particular religion (which was not well regarded in this context) — if not, then being from a particular party (communism) ; * Being murderers ; * Being terrorists ; * The genuine ennemy ; * People we should get ride of. Huuummm.. It reminds me of something....

It is funny that we talk about a potential attacking-midfield crisis while we praise our defenders (Terry, Cahill, Azpilicueta, etc...). It is a fact and cannot be denied that we have had a strong defense and that it was our strength (being the strongest defense in the League by far) ; though it was rather a strong defensive unit than a strong defense. Indeed, had Mourinho not adopted midway a conservative approach, our back-four would have most likely looked shaky rather than solid — and by doing so, we sacrificed our attack. And, while we condemn our attacking midfielders (especially Oscar and Willian) for our "disappointing" third place, just as much a better productivity from our attacking midfielders could have won us the League, a genuinely greater defense (i.e. the back four) could have done the same ! In the second part of the season, in four matches against West Brom, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace and Sunderland, we managed to grab only one point out of 12 available, and thus because we could not keep a cleansheet. Had we not stupidly lost our lead against West Brom, and had Terry not scored an own goal, we would have three more points and thus one point behind the League winner... And it can also be argued that we should have taken at the very least one point out of the Villa or Sunderland game... It is not to lie down all the fault upon our defenders, but it is unfair to solely condemn our attacking midfielders. It is pretty obvious that in a system heavily focused on the attack — like Loserpool, and to a lesser extent City and Arsenal — our attacking midfielders' stats would have been completely different. Before ringing the alarm and to sell them all — and to speak of a crisis —, we should wait and see how they do in a more balanced team ; a team in which you don't have to sacrifice your attack to avoid leaking goals pretty often.

Well, I am not 100% sure, but... As someone was wondering during the game "why is he on the wing while he is our slowest AM ?", it gotta be said that he is also the worst when it comes to defensive contribution. Furthermore, our pivot is not setting the world on fire — far from it. It happens that when Mata plays in the middle, there is a huge gap in the middle of the parc ; between him and the pivot ; which allow the opposition to overflow us in midfield. Thus I believe that Mourinho has played Mata down the right wing to nullify as much as possible his deficiency in defensive duties, and as a consequence to not lose the midfield battle. We also have to take into account that Azpilicueta was the right back and Ramires can give a hand on that right side (thanks to his mobility). To conclude, Mourinho did not play Mata on the right wing in order to make Mata look bad as some people were saying (*shake my head*), but rather because it was where his defensive flaws would less hurt the team — I guess...

I'll respond to you both here. I know that we cannot completely compare Mata situation to all of these names that I mentioned, since all of them were pretty old (excepted Zirkhov, Robben and Kalou that were still young). To be truthful, my point was not by any mean to say that since we let go in most cases our players for free then Mata will leave for nothing. It's quite the contrary — I was name-dropping just to stress out the fact we have pratically never tried to get any money from the players we were letting go, could it be even a symbolic amount such as one million or even 500 000 pounds. In other words, that example was only meant to argue that we would not act like Lévy did with Bale and Modric, or even Self Pity FC with the ladyboy. Now what I mean ? All in all, I am not denying that it is possible that a team puts on the table £35m or more. Such a thing is not unthinkable, and it could well happen if a team is within a panic moment, as TX pointed out. I was just responding kinda indirectly to the few people that were offended by the fact that some people were saying that Mata could not command a fee of the likes of £40m. We kinda are on the same line of thoughts although we do not present things from the same perspective ! I presume we will be agree to resume like that : * if the team that wants to buy him is in a panic mode, then we will be able to get something around £40m ; * if the team that wants to buy him can afford to not sign him and is wise enough, then that team can have him at a cut price or in an exchange deal. P.S. I mean, this summer the consensus was to not offer more than £30 m or so for Rooney because he was more or less marginalized... It is more or less the same thing for Mata, so no needs to be offended if we don't get a record fee for him.

This summer, a lot of people were thinking that he was bought only for the sake of brainlessly stockpiling AMs and/or to not let him go to Spurs. As for myself, I always thought that Mourinho was not convinced by Mata and de Bruyne by any means so he bought Willian (who was available) in order to put these three players into contention so the best choice would come up naturally. Actually, he is proving that he was bought for none of these reasons, but at the contrary because he is simply sooo good and that he fits like a glove what José is trying to implement at the club. I guess it is time to let go the "we unnecessarily spent 30 million for a spot where we were good enough instead of buying a CM" and start to claim that it is absolutely a fucking great buy.

He is truly marvellous. We scored five goals in our last two games — Oscar was involved in each of them. One goal ; two clear assists ; two "lucky" assists. And it's not all about stats — his volume of play has been simply incredible in the last two games, he was the heart of the team. I remember some days ago someone was wondering why it wasn't Hazard that got the n°11 — it is clear, Oscar walks throughout Drogba's path as the ultimate team player. He scores, he assists, he passes, he presses, he tackles and he is a drama-queen. As the matches pass, he is becoming more and more important for the team ; and he is growing a pretty good understanding with both Hazard and Willian. We really have a gem in him, I am so happy that we have him. P.S. Once again today he has proved why he is the player to which Mourinho entrusts our play.

Exactly. People get easily on their high horse when one says Mata cannot command a high fee about 40 million pounds or so. It obviously looks absurd when you are standing from the Chelsea fan's point of view, since this is a player that has been voted as the best player of our club two seasons in a row ; that for us he is somehow the star of the team that won the Champions League, the FA Cup and and Europa League ; and that we conveniently attributes him trophies such as the World Cup and the European Championship where he — actually — hardly took part. We gotta take into account that the persons that will eventually buy him are not Chelsea fans and by consequence have little care regarding the fact that he was voted twice as Chelsea player of the year by Chelsea fans ; those people most certainly give little value to that reward. No, when those people will estimate a price for him, they will take into account more pragmatic facts such as : his situation at the club (whether he is the untouchable star or marginalized) ; the weight he has in medias ; his age/potential ; is he an international or not ; etc... * First of all, he is clearly been marginalized by Mourinho, his statut within the team has changed — going from being the indispensable star to a non-indispensable squad player. Plus, it has been spread in every medias that Mata was not into José's plans. These facts will not by any means inflate his price ; a contrario, they are arguments to lower his potential price. * Mata is a quiet guy and thus barely features into the medias, expected when it is to claim that he is unsettled in the team and is not into Mourinho's plans. High fees are generally spent on players that can sell shirts, and I am not sure that Mata have a big potential in this aspect. * He is entering in his peak years and this is kinda the finish product ; thus they will not over-pay for what he might be, as it was the case for Hazard, Neymar, Lucas, etc... * He is an ainternational, yes, although he cannot break into the spanish team and that is not this summer that he will do that. And he did not really participate to Spain recent sucess. All these aforementioned points are not meant to higher his transfer fee, but at the contrary to reduce it. Finally and above all, while we are bragging shit to death that "we are not a selling club" and that "we don't sell our best players", a lot of us did forget that Chelsea is a non-profit club and that "not a selling club" means that we litterally do not sell our players, but also that when we do not want them anymore we give them. All the players we have decided to part ways with have had the possibility to go quite easely. Kalou, Malouda, Bosingwa, Alex, Anelka, Belletti, Joe Cole, Ballack, Deco, etc... went for free. Carvalho and Zirkhov went for peanuts. The club could have sold Essien for a lot of money when it was already clear that he was past it, yet we were happy enough to keep him and pay him while he could not play. We are not afraid of sending players on loan to potential title contenders ! When we did not wanted Sturridge anymore, we did not cause any trouble to let him go to a club that has robbed us 50 million fucking pounds. As far as I can remember, the only transfer involving big money was Robben... In other words, If Mourinho and the club deem Mata as surplus to requirement and have their eyes upon some player ; then they most certainly will not wait that someone put £50m on the table. The bottom line is that, there are a lot of arguments for clubs to avoid paying silly money to get him — and it is quite possible that José and Roman do not even bother to counter these arguments. That is why I can easily fashion Mata being sold as a bargain, kinda like what happened with Robben and Sneijder at Madrid, and Ibrahimovic at Barça ; or even being part of an exachange deal.

Yeah, Dieudonné has been condemned many times by courts — the same courts that refused to respond to the accusations that some muslims associations have made toward some french medias, because those medias published caricatures of Mahomet. Double standard. Say something or make fun against someone or something that happens to be jew -> you're the brand new Hitler and you shall be ostracized. Make fun of a holy man who is adored and who is sacred for millions of people -> you're held by all the politicians and medias as the hero and the champion of the so called "freedom of speech".

He did not know that this gesture was anti-semitic because it is NOT anti-semitic. There's nothing to add — except that you people should start thinking by yourself instead of believing words coming from politicians and mainstream medias who are corrupted and under influence of some lobbies. The vast majority (99%) of the persons labelling this gesture as anti semitic are doing so because some powerful-corrupted-evil men (Bernard-Henri Lévy, that son of bitch) in France have decided so (in order to discredit and marginalize Dieudonné and his opinions). Obviously, the mentally-dead people follow like sheeps that definition without bothering to try to understand by themselves.