Demba Ba

[YouNameIt 1,511]

As long as his contract is appearance based I honestly dont give a fuck about what his wages will be.

[Muzchap 8,966]

As long as his contract is appearance based I honestly dont give a fuck about what his wages will be.

No way he will go with that

His current contract is 40k week basic with 20k game fee, so normally 60k week.

We offered 80k - he wants more

20k week increase, over £1 million a year pay-rise! Like WTF - what 'sane' person wouldn't snap that up!!!

If he's too stupid to see the benefit and to be in a team challenging for trophies, then perhaps he ain't CFC material after all.

That's not me on my high horse - just flabbergasted at some people's greed and idiocy, on top of the £1 million per year, he's also getting £2 million cash from Newcastle and no doubt a decent signing on bonus and millions in fees to his 'agents/family' - now if that ain't taking the piss don't know what is?

Also, we need to remember, every professional player is insured, if he's uninsurable, then it's a massive, massive risk. As somebody else said this guy is one tackle away from a wheelchair...

Can anyone hand on heart honestly say that isn't a possibility with Chelsea's history of strikers :(

[AndersonBLUE 819]

He's looking for the best contract and future for himself, all footballers do it, so nothing against Ba really is it.

[Damo810 5]

Theres asking for a pay rise and theres being ridiculous. The rumours of 120K per week are crazy if true. 85-95K would be the limit for me, although he's second highest scorer in the league those wonky knees could go at any time. If he went 50:50 on an appearance based wage of 90K I'd take him.

He could be quality for us, but theres also the very real chance everything goes tit's up in his first training session of a four year contract.

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

Theres asking for a pay rise and theres being ridiculous. The rumours of 120K per week are crazy if true. 85-95K would be the limit for me, although he's second highest scorer in the league those wonky knees could go at any time. If he went 50:50 on an appearance based wage of 90K I'd take him.

He could be quality for us, but theres also the very real chance everything goes tit's up in his first training session of a four year contract.

Why would he go 50-50 on an appearance based wage when he could easily go 100-0 on an appearance based wage at any club that wants him? His knee hasn't fucked up yet but as I've said in the David Villa thread if it were between Ba and Villa, Villa would be a better option because the knee thing isn't there. Who says his knee will fuck up though?

[Damo810 5]

Why would he go 50-50 on an appearance based wage when he could easily go 100-0 on an appearance based wage at any club that wants him? His knee hasn't fucked up yet but as I've said in the David Villa thread if it were between Ba and Villa, Villa would be a better option because the knee thing isn't there. Who says his knee will fuck up though?

100% as in he'll only get payed when he appears? Why would he agree to that? If his knee goes he'll have no weekly wage coming in?

If it's 100% as in he gets no appearance recognition, well why on earth would we agree to that? If his knee goes we're paying 100K+ per week to a useless player.

A 50-50 or similar split gives both parties the best of both worlds. The club isn't giving huge amounts (when you look at player wages as a whole) to a useless player and Ba keep a weekly income.

Theres no certainty with his knee, thats why we're having this discussion, he had a botched surgery and know has structural problems within his knee, why do you think he failed two medicals and Newcastle got him on a pay as you play deal in the same way City did with Hargreaves.

Would only take Villa on loan, declining player coming back from injury, sound familiar? Like a cross between Sheva and Torres maybe? His recent stats are worse than Torres'. Far better players about for similar money.

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

100% as in he'll only get payed when he appears? Why would he agree to that? If his knee goes he'll have no weekly wage coming in?

If it's 100% as in he gets no appearance recognition, well why on earth would we agree to that? If his knee goes we're paying 100K+ per week to a useless player.

A 50-50 or similar split gives both parties the best of both worlds. The club isn't giving huge amounts (when you look at player wages as a whole) to a useless player and Ba keep a weekly income.

Theres no certainty with his knee, thats why we're having this discussion, he had a botched surgery and know has structural problems within his knee, why do you think he failed two medicals and Newcastle got him on a pay as you play deal in the same way City did with Hargreaves.

Would only take Villa on loan, declining player coming back from injury, sound familiar? Like a cross between Sheva and Torres maybe? His recent stats are worse than Torres'. Far better players about for similar money.

His recent stats are worse than Torres? That's not right because in the first 7 games after his leg break, he'd scored 5 times. Thats not worse than Torres. Thats him also playing on the wing too. Villa = still one of the best CFs around just lost time with being played on the wing and being injured.

[Damo810 5]

His recent stats are worse than Torres? That's not right because in the first 7 games after his leg break, he'd scored 5 times. Thats not worse than Torres. Thats him also playing on the wing too. Villa = still one of the best CFs around just lost time with being played on the wing and being injured.

These are from another forum..

17 goals & 2 assists in his last 44 games.

Hardly inspiring. Like I said, buying a declining player just returning from injury sounds stupid given our history, and the fact we won't give Ash or Frank certain contracts because they are over 30. I love our board.

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

These are from another forum..

17 goals & 2 assists in his last 44 games.

Hardly inspiring. Like I said, buying a declining player just returning from injury sounds stupid given our history, and the fact we won't give Ash or Frank certain contracts because they are over 30. I love our board.

Hes barely a declining player, what gives any sign hes a declining player?

He just needs to be used in his proper position, same with Zlatan at Barca. Zlatan left and flourished because he was played in his proper position, would be the same with Villa. To say Villa's a declining player because he suffered a leg break is a ridiculous thing to say.

[Damo810 5]

Hes barely a declining player, what gives any sign hes a declining player?

He just needs to be used in his proper position, same with Zlatan at Barca. Zlatan left and flourished because he was played in his proper position, would be the same with Villa. To say Villa's a declining player because he suffered a leg break is a ridiculous thing to say.

What usually a sign a players in decline? Hmm age? he's 31, older than Torres. He'd want what, a 2 or 3 year deal with a tidy wage packet? He's still not scoring like he used to either. The above stats show that clearly. Zlatan hardly just went and Flourished elsewhere either, he scored plenty at Barca, 16 in 23 according to ESPN. That completely outweighs Villa's 17 in 44 don't you think?

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

What usually a sign a players in decline? Hmm age? he's 31, older than Torres. He'd want what, a 2 or 3 year deal with a tidy wage packet? He's still not scoring like he used to either. The above stats show that clearly. Zlatan hardly just went and Flourished elsewhere either, he scored plenty at Barca, 16 in 23 according to ESPN. That completely outweighs Villa's 17 in 44 don't you think?

Well Villa scored 17 Barcelona goals quicker than Torres scored 17 Chelsea goals didn't he? Villas record at Barca is still decent. Look at his Spain record though, top goalscorer in their history, if that doesn't shout "quality" at you then fuck knows what does!

Villas hardly declining with age, his game was never about pace. Was always about clever movement and being clinical in front of goal. Always will be, he could play at a top level unto hes 36-37 because hes similar to Del Piero in the way that his game was never about speed. Thinking Villa's declining because hes getting old is ridiculous. Does that mean Lampard and Cole have declined? Maybe Lampards not the 20 goal a season MF but hes still good. Coles not as young but still the best or second best LB in the world. Age is just a number.

[Kieran. 6,317]

Well Villa scored 17 Barcelona goals quicker than Torres scored 17 Chelsea goals didn't he? Villas record at Barca is still decent. Look at his Spain record though, top goalscorer in their history, if that doesn't shout "quality" at you then fuck knows what does!

Villas hardly declining with age, his game was never about pace. Was always about clever movement and being clinical in front of goal. Always will be, he could play at a top level unto hes 36-37 because hes similar to Del Piero in the way that his game was never about speed. Thinking Villa's declining because hes getting old is ridiculous. Does that mean Lampard and Cole have declined? Maybe Lampards not the 20 goal a season MF but hes still good. Coles not as young but still the best or second best LB in the world. Age is just a number.

Both Lampard and Cole have declined significantly..

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

Both Lampard and Cole have declined significantly..

But they still have a lot to offer, Cole is still imo the finest LB in the PL and possibly the world. Lampard would make a good rotation player despite being 35.

Anyway the thing I don't get is though, why do people think just because Villa's 31 that it doesn't mean he won't score goals for fun in a team where hes the focal point of the attack? Hes hardly declined, just getting back to 100% match fitness and back to form...

[Damo810 5]

Well Villa scored 17 Barcelona goals quicker than Torres scored 17 Chelsea goals didn't he? Villas record at Barca is still decent. Look at his Spain record though, top goalscorer in their history, if that doesn't shout "quality" at you then fuck knows what does!

Villas hardly declining with age, his game was never about pace. Was always about clever movement and being clinical in front of goal. Always will be, he could play at a top level unto hes 36-37 because hes similar to Del Piero in the way that his game was never about speed. Thinking Villa's declining because hes getting old is ridiculous. Does that mean Lampard and Cole have declined? Maybe Lampards not the 20 goal a season MF but hes still good. Coles not as young but still the best or second best LB in the world. Age is just a number.

What does that mean? Im sure Raul scored 17 goals in La Liga faster than Torres reached 17 goals, maybe we should sign him up? Your looking at his record as a whole, look at it more recently. You can look at any older players record, and if you look at it as a whole it'll probably be decent, but you'll see as they get older it decline, as has Villa's. He's not the player he was and he's not worth the money. Plenty of players games isn't about speed, but they still have to retire at some stage. Pace isn't the only thing that leaves you. Frank wasn't dependent on pace, but he's as you say " not the 20 goal a season MF" anymore.

You then create one of the most conflicting statement I have ever read. "Does that mean Lampard and Cole have declined" Yes, yes it does. You then back up my point. "Maybe Lampards not the 20 goal a season MF but hes still good. Coles not as young but still the best or second best LB in the world." Lampards not near his prime, not anywhere near the level of second best player in the world that he was in 2006. Neither is Cole, quite possibly one of the finest Lb's we've have ever seen, certainly me anyhow. Could shut down a whole side of the pitch by himself, now is being caught out consistently, a la the Utd game.

But they still have a lot to offer, Cole is still imo the finest LB in the PL and possibly the world. Lampard would make a good rotation player despite being 35.

Anyway the thing I don't get is though, why do people think just because Villa's 31 that it doesn't mean he won't score goals for fun in a team where hes the focal point of the attack? Hes hardly declined, just getting back to 100% match fitness and back to form...

Coles still the best LB in the league, thats why we would be stupid let him go, but thats not to say he hasn't declined.

Im not saying he won't score, but I'm saying we won't get a valuable return on our investment. He won't score for fun though, when he's posting stats like the above in La Liga you'd have to worry for him in the prem. The stats also show he has declined significantly.

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

What does that mean? Im sure Raul scored 17 goals in La Liga faster than Torres reached 17 goals, maybe we should sign him up? Your looking at his record as a whole, look at it more recently. You can look at any older players record, and if you look at it as a whole it'll probably be decent, but you'll see as they get older it decline, as has Villa's. He's not the player he was and he's not worth the money. Plenty of players games isn't about speed, but they still have to retire at some stage. Pace isn't the only thing that leaves you. Frank wasn't dependent on pace, but he's as you say " not the 20 goal a season MF" anymore.

You then create one of the most conflicting statement I have ever read. "Does that mean Lampard and Cole have declined" Yes, yes it does. You then back up my point. "Maybe Lampards not the 20 goal a season MF but hes still good. Coles not as young but still the best or second best LB in the world." Lampards not near his prime, not anywhere near the level of second best player in the world that he was in 2006. Neither is Cole, quite possibly one of the finest Lb's we've have ever seen, certainly me anyhow. Could shut down a whole side of the pitch by himself, now is being caught out consistently, a la the Utd game.

Coles still the best LB in the league, thats why we would be stupid let him go, but thats not to say he hasn't declined.

Im not saying he won't score, but I'm saying we won't get a valuable return on our investment. He won't score for fun though, when he's posting stats like the above in La Liga you'd have to worry for him in the prem. The stats also show he has declined significantly.

Chelsea aren't Arsenal, we don't sell our best players or in fact any good players. We keep them.

[FriendlyMailman 15]

If his knees were normal he'd be paid 120k p/w just like the rest of them

[Damo810 5]

Chelsea aren't Arsenal, we don't sell our best players or in fact any good players. We keep them.

Who mentioned selling him? And we don't keep them, we let them go for free even when they are worth a few million. Drogba for example. More than likely Frank and Ash.

If his knees were normal he'd be paid 120k p/w just like the rest of them

When you compare him to Torres, he's worth every penny of 120K. It's a shame about the risks involved though.

[Zola kinda blue 89]

If his knees were normal he'd be paid 120k p/w just like the rest of them

he's hardly missed a game with his dodgy knees