Fernando

You sure? I thought it was 3?

We can loan easily again to Southampton. Those chumps in need of a team. So Romeu or mvg cab easily go there.

I think is best if schurrle stays as a winger cause he give us width. So this would be a very good move if it happens. Even if we don't get rid of Torres I won't care. Having two top striker with a super sub in DD would be awesome.

Can we give them a player in exchange as well? Like cech and Torres plus 25 million? But then I think they need the money to comply with FFP. Sigh.

But cavani is a choker. [emoji12]

Well if we get him for 40 million then we virtually hand back psg the 40 they payed for David luiz. Lol

One year wonder ala malouda after many years of shitness? I think that's what we are banging this time.

To be fair, I'm not even worried about Torres anymore. With Costa if he gets injured we can play Schurrle or heck Fabregas as false 9. Might be true this time, that this is what we stay.

Good job guys!

Good idea there. We could also send some players on loan. Chalobah and such right?

We have Goal line technology. And yes this is good. It's efficient and get rid of all the shenanigans that happens with players skipping the line and such.

Mata was a good player, well he still is and we miss him. But now we got Fabregas so it's all good Lukaku I always felt he was the new Heskey. So 25 million for the new Heskey is a good business from our club.

When Mourinho came back he praise the board for the work they had done. ie KDB, Lukaku, Courtois and such. Later he was also saying how he was working well with Emanolo. So it as you said, Emanolo who many hated at the beginning for his past started doing a good job and with Mourinho it's only gotten better. This just show that having good and competent people as our staff is very vital. Not just one person in Mourinho, but in other levels of structures working together as a unit.

I think that was the turning point of our club. While Torres being the worst transfer in the history of this club it also push us to change our approach to transfer dealing. So if that was the "cost" of Torres, then I say it was well worth it for how our club has changed since then.

Chelsea's Lukaku 'set for huge Everton move' https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/premier-league-reports-lukaku-set-huge-everton-deal-131336899--sow.html

He is not a Chelsea supporter but just a Belgium Fan boy. Don't bother your time with him.

Not for me, he is in the same style of Costa. I want a poacher like Dzeko, Kalou, Chicharito style. Dzeko being the best but hardest to get. There has to be someone in this world of Futbol that Mournho and the club can scout from.

Clearly not a Chelsea fan. Just someone here to talk trash against anyone that has a word against his Belgium compatriots.....

We are talking about facts hey? :blue scalf:

Okay sorry it took me some time to get back to you, had work and stuff. Nonetheless good stuff there. As per Israel didn't existed in 1940's is true. But they did existed in that land centuries ago before they was exile by different empires. Anyhow, that whole land thing is just a mess. What matters at this point is what is happening now and obviously people want a stop to it. Was reading this article in the FT and will highlight some things that I found interesting: Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister, hinted Israel might be willing to relax its seven-year-old economic blockade of Gaza under certain conditions. In a phone call on Sunday, US President Barack Obama told Mr Netanyahu he wanted to see an “immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire”. He told the Israeli prime minister that one of the objectives of a ceasefire would be to allow “Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives” but added that any long-term solution to the conflict included “the disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarisation of Gaza” Earlier in the day, Mr Netanyahu appeared on a number of US Sunday television shows to make the case that Israel was not blocking an end to the conflict. “We have accepted five ceasefires, acted upon them. Hamas has rejected every single one of them,” he told NBC. “We use missiles to protect our people, they use people to protect their missiles.” Mr Netanyahu earlier told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “economic and social relief” might be provided for the people of Gaza if Hamas and other militant groups agreed to demilitarise. Aid organisations and political analysts have long argued that social deprivation and restrictions on trade and movement have provided a fertile breeding ground for radical politics. Israel’s military temporarily interrupted its assault on Gaza for a humanitarian pause on Saturday that allowed Palestinians to return home and retrieve possessions in the hardest-hit areas along the border. Mr Netanyahu’s 10-member security cabinet agreed to extend the humanitarian lull from midnight Saturday for another day. But Hamas rejected the ceasefire, and resumed firing rockets into Israel overnight, killing an Israeli soldier in a border area in a mortar attack and bringing total Israeli military dead in the operation to 43. Israel then resumed shelling Gaza at about 10am on Sunday. The ceasefire extension offered by Israel excluded the clearing of Gaza’s tunnels. Later in the day, Gaza’s militant factions – of which Hamas is the biggest – belatedly agreed a 24-hour humanitarian truce to coincide with Eid-al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday that marks the end of Ramadan, but Israel rejected it. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a064eeca-159b-11e4-ae2e-00144feabdc0.html#slide0 The tunnels are the main reason for Israel’s ground incursion into Gaza, which was launched on July 17 after a 10-day bombing campaign. The Israeli government accuses Hamas of using the tunnels to launch attacks inside its territory and to store and launch rockets. ----------------------------------------So what I got from the article? The same thing I been saying. If I'm saying it and the leader of Israel is saying the same thing, but yet you don't believe him because hes a liar then there's a fundamental problem. Furthermore I find it interesting that the leader said he gave them not once, but 5 chances to ceasefire but Hamas rejected them all. And now on a Muslim holiday Hamas wanted to do it and Israel didn't consent....their fault on that for not taking those other 5 chances! But I think the most important thing is this what the leader is asking:if Hamas and other militant groups agreed to demilitarize Well that's what I been saying from the beginning. I will not support a nation of terrorist no matter what circumstances you might bring. I don't care about the past, how much land they took and what not. Terrorism is terrorism. The Nazi Germany tried to wipe the Jews out and they failed. But did the Jews strike back at Germany? No. So if Palestine does this, they demilitarize then the world will hold Israel to it's word.

That's the difference between a South America nation and a middle east nation. Countries took land from other countries. Hostility form and eventually peace treaty signed. And a lot has to do with our culture and religion. We have a lot of in common. Israel peace treaty with an Islamic nation, say Iran who at times called Israel the little Satan and USA the big Satan would be a disaster. Especially when some of its leader have called for the anhilation of Israel. Culture wise and their religion where they tend to have a lot of radical Islamic makes for a nightmare.

Because they believe that is the easiest way to resolve this mess. But in truth is like making a pact with the devil. It will work for 3 years or so and then it goes all to hell. I think as you said Israel want peace more then anything, but there's a lot of hate toward them that won't go away with 4 years of a treaty.

It condems Israel cause USA was trying to get a peace agreement. But as the paragraph said, it failed to address the underlying problem of Palestinian cross-border attacks. So the whole time I see Israel waiting and Palestinians militia attacking Israel. That doesn't sound like a nation that wants peace with Israel.

Okay so the west point of view is in that link you send me right? Fair enough. This is what I read there: However, U.S. efforts to preserve the regional balance of power were soon undermined by Fatah and other Palestinian guerilla organizations, which began attacking targets inside Israel. The Johnson administration tried to intercede with Fatahs Syrian patrons and to prevent Israeli retaliation against Jordan, from which most Palestinian raids were launched. U.S. officials worried that Israeli reprisals could undermine Jordans King Hussein, who had secretly agreed to keep Jordans strategically crucial West Bank a buffer zone. In November 1966, when the Israelis attacked the West Bank town of Samu , the Johnson administration voted for a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel, admonished Israeli officials, and authorized an emergency airlift of military equipment to Jordan. Here I clearly read that militia from Palestinian located in Jordan attack Israel..... Well what is that about then? Nothing?

Yeah that's what I hear from that side of the table. And then we have the other side that doesn't like Israel and hence they perceived it with a different eye. There's two different views and someone is lying. Per Ecuador, Perú took some of our land but we don't become a terrorist organization to get our territory back.