Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Last edited:
Mourinho media trolling is GOLD.
- Thread starter Wallyson
- Start date
- Replies 60
- Views 7K
- Status
Yea well of course you just go back to the personal insults without actually dealing with my arguments ... Not that I have come to expect anything more from you mind
Jeez I just said I found that source within 5 seconds of a google search, if you want a proper source ... Here it is- Manchester United set to beat Chelsea in £30m deal for Luke Shaw | Football | theguardian.com
Guardian is a reputable source. Please do reciprocate with a proper and reputable source as well
Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
It's not really a personal insult when it's the truth. And yes you do have arguments when I actually debate. Now please if you can't take a bit of banter just go away.
Truth? The truth is that most of your arguments regarding Mourinho are fairly ridiculous and whenever someone calls you up on them, you basically try to wriggle your way out by either enforcing the 'rules' of the Internet or personally attacking them or 'banter' or whatever you want to call it
Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
No it's that everytime someone mentions anything negative about Mourinho you get all twitchy and then start to troll that person. You have done it to me and you have done it to others. Now if you don't like me or my opinions that fine by me but you act like a troll and just get on peoples backs which make you look an absolute fool. So carry it on. As for now if you want to keep jumping on any comments I make go ahead as I will just slap you back down like you deserve. Now either leave this off the boards or contact me by PM or just run along.
Hmm never did actually jump on your back though ... You gave an opinion which I disagreed with and presented an alternative viewpoint which you never really dealt with. You just seem to be trying to blur the lines between an argument/debate and troll. Is it really that hard for you to deal with my original reply to your post instead of simply labeling me a 'troll'? Our argument might run a few pages but at least that will fulfill the purpose of this forum instead of having 2-3 pages of these unsavory personal attacks
Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I did deal with the Shaw argument on the Chelsea thread. I suppose a day is long enough for you to forget that. You then chose to avoid questions I asked you so we both now can be accused of that. I just pointed out the truth to you that you do troll when anyone says something negative about Mourinho or Chelsea at all. IanC calls Chelsea Chavski and you get all twitchy about it as well. Now that was banter calling Chelsea that but you have to think everything aimed at Chelsea is a personal insult to you.
You accuse someone of acting like a rapist and think thats acceptable. Just because they proved you were acting an idiot. Now I suppose you think I am taking the moral high ground with this so expect the same argument thrown my way. My advice to you which I very much doubt you will take is that not everything said about Chelsea is an insult to you. Now as I said keep this off the board and contact me by pm if you really want to continue this as no-one really gives a **** and does not want to see this on here.
1. You did wade into the Shaw debate on the Chelsea thread. However, the argument you presented was the same one you presented yesterday which got shot down by a few people and now you just seem to regurgitate it again. I presented an alternative viewpoint in my original reply to your post, the same one which I did yesterday, and again it's something you again have chosen to conveniently ignore. Also let's be fair, you were not aiming things at Chelsea but instead aimed them at me by calling me a 'troll and what not. On the whole point of Chavski, I believe it was you or IanC who said that the reason they used the word was in reference to the type people who support Chelsea. I support Chelsea so I don't think it's unfair to constitute even Chavski being a personal insult aimed towards me
2. Hmm as I pointed out, it was an analogy. I didn't actually call him a rapist. The reason for this was simple, he would personally attack people in his arguments and then try take the morale high ground when someone retaliated by telling them to 'behave'. Nuances which you completely ignored and instead decided to straw man my entire argument. Also again on the point on Chelsea , I believe you are aiming insults at me when you call me a 'troll' and not Chelsea so I really struggle to see how your points stand
In essence what happened is this ... You gave a similar argument about Hazard which was shot down earlier. I gave you alternative viewpoint. You then resorted to 'as hominem' attacks which you then tried to pass off as 'banter. Now you seem to think that calling me a 'troll' is somehow not attacking me but attacking Chelsea. Ridiculous. Now either deal with my original reply to my post or PM me if you want to debate something non-football which you obviously seem intent on doing
Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
For the third time.
Now as I said keep this off the board and contact me by pm if you really want to continue this as no-one really gives a **** and does not want to see this on here.
Jeez I just said I found that source within 5 seconds of a google search, if you want a proper source ... Here it is- Manchester United set to beat Chelsea in £30m deal for Luke Shaw | Football | theguardian.com
Guardian is a reputable source. Please do reciprocate with a proper and reputable source as well
In this report it says wages 100K,
Same Guardian reporting 130K
José Mourinho: ‘Signing Luke Shaw would have killed Chelsea’ | Football | theguardian.com
Telegraph reported 75K
Independent reported 75K
Luke Shaw to Manchester United 'agreed' as transfer hinges on World Cup defender accepting personal terms - Transfers - Football - The Independent
The link I asked was about Chelsea willing to pay the transfer fee and you took it for granted that they would. Well Guardian disagrees with you.
Luke Shaw considers options after deal to Manchester United stalls | Football | The Guardian
So all your points are just assumptions and I don't even know what strong point you have to make an argument.
Wait, what are we even debating about here?
You posted a link about Andres Christensen from the Daily Fail which said that he was being paid 20k p/w and then made a sarcastic remark of how you hope that doesn't put Chelsea in financial difficulty. I then pointed out to you how Chelsea have strongly refuted the whole idea that he is being paid that much and the fact that the most reputable source you had was the Daily Fail. You then responded to me by saying how your actions are justified because I used Metro to prove Luke Shaw's wages and then in response, I gave you the link to the Guardian's article which is a much more reputable source and asked you for one about Andres Christensen in return which you didn't actually provide among the numerous links you did post
Not sure why you are trying to revert the debate back to whether or not United outspent everyone to Shaw considering we have been over it numerous times and gotten nowhere ... Also interestingly, Mourinho only commented on Shaw's wages and not the proposed transfer fee so my assumption that Chelsea would have paid the transfer fee has just gotten stronger
Christensen's wages was reported only by Daily mail. He isn't important enough to command space in Telegraph and Guardian. Hardly my fault.
You provided Guardian link and said it's reliable and I posted same Guardian link reporting different wages. You assumed Chelsea were ready to pay the transfer fee but according to your reliable paper Chelsea were not ready to pay the transfer fee.
Just because Jose was talking about wages doesn't mean Chelsea were ready to pay the fee. Jose would have hardly played him so its a waste of 30 Million for him. He would have taken Lukaku route of playing for WBA and other PL clubs to prove he is good enough.
1. Huh? Now you are making a huge assumption that what the Daily Mail is reporting is correct despite it being denied by Chelsea and the only reason Guardian and Telegraph haven't reported the same is because Christensen is not important enough despite the fact that the reported on such excess previously when they actually managed to verify it. The very Daily Mail is which famed for sensationalizing the **** out of even the smallest of matters ...
Firstly, it's debateable whether what the Daily Mail is reporting is even correct. I would probably lean towards it being false considering the reputation of the source
2. Another assumption you are making here is that Chelsea were not ready to pay the transfer fee but were ready to pay the wages. I think the paper and even Mourinho clearly stated that Chelsea weren't willing to do BOTH in the best case scenario but at least we know for sure they definitely weren't willing to pay the wages as seen from Mourinho's interview. Whether they were willing to pay the transfer fee or not is still up in the air
Maybe it's time you provided a source that states that Chelsea were willing to pay the wages but the huge transfer fee held them
back
That's pretty strange to say that Jose wouldn't have played him. He is rated very highly by Jose. Maybe you should read the whole interview instead of selecting parts that is convenient for you because Jose praises him very heavily
Last edited:
Just show me where I said Chelsea were ready to pay wages but not transfer fee, I will bow out saying you were correct.
When Chelsea were not ready to pay the transfer fee, it doesn't matter what they were ready to offer to Shaw.
Re, other parts I don't care tbh. Also Chelsea paid 40K to 60K for Lukaku (various reports so I'm not sure what is the exact one), so that's 40K (or 60K) for a 18 year old playing in Belgian league. Not sure how that didn't impact Chelsea financially.
Last edited:
epic terrorist
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,009
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What is the point in this thread seriously? Was this not done to death the other day in the Chelsea thread?
I dont know, at least I can use it to post the wages Chelsea pay for young players.
Oscar earns 70K, signed as a 21 year old playing in Brazilian league.
Nathaniel Chalobah earns around 35K even though he never played in a top league.
These are just from google searches, not sure how correct they are.
That's funny because you initially created a sarcastic post about Christensen before reverting to the debate to Shaw despite me making it abundantly clear that I didn't want to debate on Shaw as it has been done to death numerous times. It seems you finally dropped the Christensen argument which is good to see
Also regarding Lukaku ... I am not sure where you get this whole idea of impacting Chelsea financially. Firstly, if you read Mourinho's interview fully which you clearly haven't, he makes the financial remarks in reference to FFP which wasn't implemented when Lukaku was signed. You can post as many young player wages as you like but the majority of them signed contracts before the FFP came into force and paying Nathaniel Chalobah 30k p/w really doesn't have as much of a financial impact as paying Shaw 100k p/w which will only increase as time goes by
Secondly, the main crux of Mourinho's argument was that Shaw was demanding higher wages than some first team regularly which would have killed the balance in the dressing room. However, Lukaku even at 60k p/w does not have higher wages than any first-team regular with the exception of perhaps Oscar who is on 40k p/w. That was actually the main thrust of Mourinho's interview which you conveniently ignored
Last edited:
Not sure what that achieves though. They still earn lower wages than first team regulars. Mourinho's argument was that Shaw was demanding higher wages than first team regulars and that would have contributed to friction within the dressing room as he hasn't really achieved much in the game yet despite being a player of immense potential
Completely irrelevant.
Re Christensen I have said it's not my fault others thought it was news worthy.
- Status