• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Giovani Lo Celso

Apparently Mundo Deportivo are reporting we have agreed a deal for Lo Celso at £55m.

If true, this is some way away from the £88m release clause Betis put on him, and the reported £75m fee they were prepared to accept.

A difference significant enough to cover the cost of Sessegnon.

Or about a third of a Dybala.

How anyone can begrudge us trying to get value like this, and instead demand we just pay up whatever it takes is beyond me.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Apparently Mundo Deportivo are reporting we have agreed a deal for Lo Celso at £55m.

If true, this is some way away from the £88m release clause Betis put on him, and the reported £75m fee they were prepared to accept.

A difference significant enough to cover the cost of Sessegnon.

Or about a third of a Dybala.

How anyone can begrudge us trying to get value like this, and instead demand we just pay up whatever it takes is beyond me.
Click to expand...

If we get the player then people won't mind.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Apparently Mundo Deportivo are reporting we have agreed a deal for Lo Celso at £55m.

If true, this is some way away from the £88m release clause Betis put on him, and the reported £75m fee they were prepared to accept.

A difference significant enough to cover the cost of Sessegnon.

Or about a third of a Dybala.

How anyone can begrudge us trying to get value like this, and instead demand we just pay up whatever it takes is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Simple, its not their money they are spending.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Apparently Mundo Deportivo are reporting we have agreed a deal for Lo Celso at £55m.

If true, this is some way away from the £88m release clause Betis put on him, and the reported £75m fee they were prepared to accept.

A difference significant enough to cover the cost of Sessegnon.

Or about a third of a Dybala.

How anyone can begrudge us trying to get value like this, and instead demand we just pay up whatever it takes is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Our bid at the beginning of May was £53m. I thought we'd probably need to go up to about £65m
 
Gutter Boy said:
Our bid at the beginning of May was £53m. I thought we'd probably need to go up to about £65m
Click to expand...

The tweet above says €50m (£45m).

I think we need to be honest and admit we dont know what we have bid, or if we even have bid, all we have is reports = which most often dont even agree with each other.

That said, I wouldnt be surprised (if we actually sign him) we end up paying £55-65m. The real question will be how much is guaranteed and how much is add ons.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The tweet above says €50m (£45m).

I think we need to be honest and admit we dont know what we have bid, or if we even have bid, all we have is reports = which most often dont even agree with each other.

That said, I wouldnt be surprised (if we actually sign him) we end up paying £55-65m. The real question will be how much is guaranteed and how much is add ons.
Click to expand...

The BBC - the only agency that actually still checks sources before it publishes - said £53m: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48433820
 
I wasnt talking about their gossip colum.

And, honestly, not just their sports pages either.

I think the BBCs reputation for credibility is thoroughly undeserved and is a hang over from the days when they actually did quality work.

They dont now. As I said, as red top as it gets...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I wasnt talking about their gossip colum.

And, honestly, not just their sports pages either.

I think the BBCs reputation for credibility is thoroughly undeserved and is a hang over from the days when they actually did quality work.

They dont now. As I said, as red top as it gets...
Click to expand...

The BBC is just as bad as any other paper, the days of good journalism went out with sensationalism coming in.
 
camspur said:
The BBC is just as bad as any other paper, the days of good journalism went out with sensationalism coming in.
Click to expand...

Gazza Dazzla said:
The BBC are terrible! They ran with a headline all day yesterday that Trippier was a Real Madrid player ! That’s just the tip of the iceberg as well, they’re really no better than gutter press.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

While its nice to see reports about us, I would certainly warn against taking the BBC as any more accurate than anyone else.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I wasnt talking about their gossip colum.

And, honestly, not just their sports pages either.

I think the BBCs reputation for credibility is thoroughly undeserved and is a hang over from the days when they actually did quality work.

They dont now. As I said, as red top as it gets...
Click to expand...

I've got friends who work in the sports unit at Salford. They do low key things like minority sports and live text events, but the way they are trained and their ethical codes of conduct have a rigour that just doesn't exist anywhere else in the profession these days

I've also got a friend who is a Sky journalist - and in contrast he's a coke-fuelled scoundrel. Though he did play an important role in bringing Gordon Brown down (bigot-gate)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back