Jype

A guy first insults someone's intelligence and only 15 minutes later quotes a month old article by tribalfootball regarding a transfer rumor. Don't know what to say... Hazard's going nowhere. Mourinho has absolutely no plans to sell him, the player himself seems happy to stay and PSG aren't allowed to have a net spend of more than €60m this summer, most of which they already spent on the capture of David Luiz so they would need to have a massive clear-out if they wanted to buy Hazard who's definitely worth €60-70m at least.

Just got an assist.

Yeah, I too think Pogba would be considered HG because Lukaku will most likely be too and even in his case he will only have been training in England 36 months in August this year, which is three months after his 21st birthday. I was just commenting that it could be the other way around too because the wording in the HG rule is bullshit. The way things are now we always need to make our own assumptions and read between the lines on how the 36 months is calculated, how loans affect meeting the HG requirements etc. Surely it wouldn't take them much effort to write up a few clarifying sentences in the rulebook and perhaps have a couple of examples so everyone can understand them. Then again, this is the FA we're talking about here...

"A home-grown player will be defined as one who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of the Season during which he turns 21)." Could be either way, really. Pogba turned 21 in March so "the season during which he turned 21" could be 2013/14 because he already turned 21 before the season ended, or it could be 2014/15 which would allow him to get the remaining few months of training in England and thus qualify as a homegrown player. The rules are really confusing IMO.

Could be a very decent signing, kind of like Flamini at Arsenal. Luiz has already left and it is looking more and more likely that Lampard and Mikel will be on their way out as well so we could really use a player like Tiago as a squad option. Matic / MvG / Ramires / Tiago plus some high profile CM signing would be a very good selection of midfielders. Don't really see why it would hurt the chances of our youngsters either because it would only be for a year, two max. Would understand people complaining if we got some 25-28 year old squad player instead of trusting the youngsters but a 33-year-old Tiago would hardly make a difference in the long term chances of Chalobah / Ake / RLC / whoever.

I know it's cumulative but I thought the 36 months would have to be done by the player's 21st birthday and after that it's too late?

Not sure about that. Checked wikipedia and it says there he joined Man United in October 2009 and like we all know he left for Juve in June 2012, which makes his stay in England less than 36 months.

Are you by any chance blind, or have you just not seen him play?

Seems totally legit...

None of those players are on more than £40k a week, could be even less. Southampton are paying somewhere around the £60-70k a week region to their best paid players so matching for example Bertrand's current deal would be easy for them if they wanted to. Also, with the new broadcasting deal plus the sales (Shaw, Lallana?) they're getting loads of extra money so Southampton can afford to start paying more in both transfer fees as well as wages, they already started last year with getting the likes of Dani Osvaldo for a club record fee and big wages.

Mata, KdB and Luiz bought for £50m total and sold a while later surplus to requirements for £95m. Not bad, not bad at all.

Bluemoon are in meltdown over this, 150 new pages in Yaya's topic today alone.

£1k a week is ridiculous because why the fuck would anyone want to pursue a career as a professional athlete, which is by no means an easy road to take and most people who try won't make it, if they could just study and earn the same amount from working a regular job? Being a professional athlete requires one to be fully committed to what they're doing and that usually means neglecting their education, personal relationships etc. at a young age and after their career is over they'd have nothing if they only received enough money to make ends meet so I can't see why anyone would want to go down that road if it didn't at least pay well. Also, due to football being so popular around the world we are talking about billions of euros per year in sponsorships, broadcasting contracts etc. so I think it's only fair that the players who make it all happen get a piece of it. Same goes for actors, musicians and anyone else in a multi-billion industry, if they're good enough at what they do I consider them to have earned it because most of them sure as hell have worked their asses off to get where they are. That being said £220k a week is too much for anyone, no matter who you are, and I find it ridiculous that players are never happy with what they earn and are always demanding for more but that's just the reality these days. If you can't accept it, maybe you should start boycotting the whole game because you are part of the problem if you pay money for the football channels, buy club merchandise etc.

Sure if you believe Cole to be the best option out of the three then fair enough, I got to respect that opinion even though I don't agree. For me, both Baines and Shaw have been showing much better form for a couple of years now and especially with Cole's performances at Chelsea leading to him being benched for a good six months or so while the other two were earning praise week-in week-out in the PL I considered Cole being left out a no-brainer. Lampard is included because he is no doubt the best choice for his position and unlike with Cole's situation that isn't even up for debate. His club form hasn't exactly been too good either but if he's up against Cleverley for the place in the team then it's really much easier to call him up than getting Cole who was competing with two of the best left-backs in the league. I think James Ward-Prowse might have been a good shout if the plan was to take a youngster in midfield like Hodgson did with Shaw in defense, but maybe this summer is a little too early for JWP.

Being good offensively is much more than having assists. If you watched Southampton you'd agree that Shaw has been good in the attacking end of the pitch whereas Cole has not really been bombing forward for a few years now. Even when Cole was better offensively in his prime he never got much assists because his crossing was shit even then, but it was all about the link-up between him and the attacking players in the team. For Cole's place Hodgson had two great alternatives in Baines and Shaw but which younger player would you say should have been taken in Lampard's place if the plan was to integrate younger players in the team? Cleverley?

He's not going to play unless Baines gets injured and England will hardly be going all the way at this World Cup in any case so why not give some valuable experience of being involved in a major tournament (training, preparation etc. plus of course the friendlies before the WC) to a guy who will be their first choice left-back for next 10-15 years? Cole's selection in the squad would have been understandable but his omission even more so. If he had played as first-choice for us he would have at least had a chance of going but he deservedly lost his place to a player in much better form and could never take it back again so I can't really see why this is being made into such a big deal. If anything, I would question Hodgson's choices if he had taken someone on board based on their old merits and completely ignored who deserves to go based on their form this season.

Well, I just think it's a bit funny that 99% on here would have taken Baines or Shaw at Chelsea ahead of Cole any day these past two seasons but now it's somehow the wrong decision to leave him out of the World Cup. Yes, he is a leader which is important in a tournament like the World Cup and yes, he can still be reliable when called upon but he rightly lost his place to Azpilicueta this season and having not played much I consider it more than understandable that he was left out. It's not Mourinho's fault for not playing him enough to make the World Cup squad because Jose's priorities lie with Chelsea, not England, and for Chelsea it was much better both for the present as well as for the future that Azpilicueta played as much as he did.

Why can't I post a rational reply to your non-sense without you taking offense?

Cole is not in the World Cup squad because he's just not good enough anymore, not because Mourinho didn't play him. Baines and Shaw have both been better than Cole for at least two seasons now and if even the vast majority of Chelsea fans rate both of those guys higher than Cole, then what the hell do you expect the England manager to do? Include Cole in the squad because he was good some years back, or take Baines who would have been first choice anyway and also Shaw who will get invaluable experience of going to a major international tournament which will help him a lot next time around when he will most likely be first choice for them? Like I said, Mourinho is the only reason Cole was still at the club this season. Maybe he thought he's still good for something but as soon as he realized his decline has been more severe than he had expected he didn't play him anymore. If Jose had just accepted what the board were planning on doing last year, Cole would already have fucked off to Monaco last year and most likely would still not be in the England squad. Also, I would argue that Azpilicueta's development into one of the best full-backs in the world at the age of 24 is far more important from Chelsea's point of view than giving Ashley Cole one last shot at going to the World Cup with England...

Courtois : "In football you need to be lucky, and I seized the opportunity to be a Chelsea player. I'm ready to face my destiny." Getting ready to come back, good to hear.

You already are.

And you do? Please, tell me more.

The only reason Cole was still here in the first place was because of Mourinho. Without Jose's request the board would have let him go last year due to there being some bad blood between some of the old guard and the board ever since the players revolted against AVB. Villas-Boas later turned out to be a clueless mug so in this case I suppose the players were right to make his situation uncomfortable but they still lost the trust of the board that season and rightly so because the way AVB got treated was a disgrace, mostly because the club had spent so much money to get him in charge and many believed he at least deserved a chance which in the end he was never given. This time last year Mourinho got the board to agree new deals with both Lamps and Cole but Ash didn't do anything to deserve another hefty contract, quite the opposite really because he lost his place early in the season to a player playing out of his natural position, so from a footballing perspective it's an easy decision to let him go. On an emotional level it's more difficult to say goodbye to a long serving fan favorite such as Cole but the financial reality these days is that the club can't afford to offer a +100k a week contract to a player who contributes fuck all on the pitch. Don't really understand where you're getting the "thanks Chelsea but fuck you" part from. He seems genuinely happy to have been at the club for 8 years and is now thanking everyone who made his time at Chelsea a pleasant one. Did you consider Drogba to have said fuck you to the club as well two years ago?

Yep, a 50k / week pay rise ought to keep him happy. He can consider it a late birthday present.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/20/yaya-toure-leaving-manchester-city-agent?CMP=twt_gu Yaya Toure thinking about leaving City because no one at the club wished him a happy birthday last week. This has got to be the most hilarious thing I have ever read.