pHaRaOn

Even in his shitty season (2015/16) he scored 16 goals. Drogba has scored more than 16 only in 2 out of 9 season he spent at the club. You can argue about theirs personalities, that's fine (even if first years of Drogba were pretty similar to first years of Costa; Drogba even criticezed team in the press, which Costa never did), but Costa was terrific player and goalscorer and bad half of the season doesn't change that.

We do. Only City paid agents (not so much) more than Chelsea between February 2016 and January 2017. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/04/07/premier-league-clubs-paid-record-174-million-agents-one-year/

Why we should be? He's slow, immobile defensive midfielder without outstanding qualities. Top-clubs are not playing with players like him.

Lol. People still believe in "long term" at top-clubs.

He's suspended.

That's not true. It was said a million times even by Lukaku himself.

Huh? November 2016: Chelsea boost with Diego Costa [and Thibaut Courtois] keen to sign new deals http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/11/23/chelsea-boost-diego-costa-thibaut-courtois-close-signing-new/ That's from club' mouthpiece Matt Law. Some spanish outlets reported the same thing.

So, after Conte stated that Costa won't stay at Chelsea and for him this "situation is closed", now the club expecting Costa "to put himself back in contention for selection"? Who will select him when the manager clearly said that he don't want Costa? This and Matic situation are getting really embarrassing.

Happened only once - Man United 1992/93 (they lost first 2 games and then draw third. Despite being 10th in November they still managed to won the league).

Last season Chelsea played 4 competitive games without Eden - 4 wins.

He left as a free agent. So there's can't be any clauses.

Intentionally or not, this words has been badly taken out of context. Costa' lawyer are not saying that Diego doesn't want to return. He pointed out that the "unfair" behavior of Antonio Conte makes his return "impossible". And words "a message which has been communicated various times to those in charge there" are refering to "he will not play for any other club which is not Atletico Madrid". Club' decision to keep him away from squad are only confirming it. Conte' words about "For me the situation is closed" are only confirming it.The club closed the doors for Costa, not other way around. Player can be isolated from the squad for a certain period of time for whatever reasons, but not for a whole season. That's the point. Thing is, this situation won't go to the court simply because club wouldn't bench him for a whole season as they don't have grounds for this. And he didn't forced club to sign any replacement for him. A months before we signed Morata, Costa publicly stated that he prefers to stay at Chelsea. Albelda' case are absolutely different from "let him rot in reserves for a whole season". Albelda already played 18 games before Koeman decided to axe him. So there's no point to refer to it. Anyway, thanks for civilised conversation.

Yes, player can demand/ask/request to be sold to a specific team. No, Chelsea are not obligated to meet his demand or to accept offer that doesn't meet club' asking price. Then there's 3 situations: A: Costa accept that and continue to play for Chelsea. Both sides are right. B: Costa refusing to stay and to play for Chelsea. Costa is wrong. C: Chelsea are forcing Costa out to another club and denies him the right to play for Chelsea. Chelsea are wrong.

You can't just bench a player for a whole season only because he asked for a transfer, lol. He asked for a move to Atletico without refusing to play for Chelsea if that move won't happen. Is there any violations in that? Of course there's not. He's ready to fulfill his contractual obligations. Chelsea do not have any legal custody to completely ostracize Costa from a first-team for a whole season. The only exception would be if Costa is happy to do that, but it doesn't look like the case. I'm not "conveniently ignored" it. That's just de-jure wrong, because club can't simply force him out to somewhere he doesn't want to go and then be like "well, we gave you a chance to leave, but on our terms". "Either eat shit or stay hungry". That's a infant behaviour. Of course Chelsea also can't be forced to accept low offer. If Atletico' offer are not acceptable for Chelsea, then situation should be not different from previous summer - refuse it and continue as it is. There wouldn't be any precedents if Chelsea tell Costa to report back to Cobham and make him work his ass off. If he's refusing to do so, well, then, obviously, he's wrong and he's responsible for the consequences. Then any possibility of contract termination from Costa' side would be completly out of the question. But as it stands, Chelsea told him to stay away from the training ground. Again, it doesn't matter as long as he's ready to play for Chelsea. Did he refused or refusing right now to play for Chelsea? No, there's no any reports about that, i.e he's ready to fulfill his contractual obligations. I'm not exalting Costa on a moral pedestal in this siuation. But any move would happen only if both parties are satisfied with terms. Otherwise, they both should honor contract.

I never said about "right now". That's why I quoted after words "let this cunt rot with the U23s till next summer and". Again then, "playing the odd league game" is not "rot with the U23s till next summer". You just can't ostracize player completely for a season.

You can't use player in whatever way you like only because he's on contract. That's a mutual contract that works both way. Player have obligations to the club the same way as the club have obligations to player. If there's no such cases yet, it doesn't mean that there's no such rule. Maybe that's the reason why clubs just don't benching a player with a long-term (>1 year) contract for a season. You can only refute this rule by giving an example. Van Dijk example is complete opposite. Southampton don't want to sell him and player want to leave. If Van Dijk will refuse to play, it would be breach of contractual obligations by him. As per yet, Diego doesn't refused to play for Chelsea. Club just don't want him to play.

For God's sake. I already twice posted excerpt from FIFA rules that clearly stated that you can't just bench first-team player for a year without consequences, beause then he'll have a full right to terminate contract.

No, they can't. This is not slavery. Players have their rights too.

Yes, it is. On ground of FIFA rules. Article 15. "An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than ten per cent of the offi cial matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause".

Yes, Florent Malouda, who then left next summer for free.

And then his agent will fill up a formal complaint and he'll legally terminate Diego' contract, so Chelsea would receive nothing.

Say what you want, but that's a match made in heaven.

I've watched N'Zonzi and I don't know how can you state that he's "much better" in offensive phase of the game. At what exactly he's better?

Nzonzi and Dier are worse all-round players than Matic. They wouldn't take Manchester United any further than Nemanja will. Nzoni are pretty good at defending but he's barely making any difference in opposition half.