ITK jurgenthegerman- SWP+ Anelka+ Money for Berba
- Thread starter lennon321g
- Start date
AngerManagement
Well-Known Member
- May 15, 2004
- 12,518
- 2,739
Im more incline to think we would be better served taking a straight cash deal and using it for players we have specifically targeted rather then looking at Chelsea's unwanted list searching for make weights.
That being said, both SWP and Anelka have the potential to be the type of player we need (in terms of quality)
Big question marks over Anelka with his attitude (and wheter his goon links would stop him being accepted) Im sure he could play with Keane, as for Bent, well things haven't worked well with him and Drogba (maybe he is best as a lone striker maybe its Chelsea's style that has inhibited him)
As for SWP, my only concern is that he is too similar to Lennon... bags of talent and pace to burn but very little end product in releation to this talent (what does he offer us over the course of a season that Lennon does not???)
Personally I Dont see this happening, in as far as I feel the 'ITK' is pulling legs, still I would not totally write of the potential for it to be a good deal for us.... touch and go, could be a flop or a master stroke is it were to commence.
That being said, both SWP and Anelka have the potential to be the type of player we need (in terms of quality)
Big question marks over Anelka with his attitude (and wheter his goon links would stop him being accepted) Im sure he could play with Keane, as for Bent, well things haven't worked well with him and Drogba (maybe he is best as a lone striker maybe its Chelsea's style that has inhibited him)
As for SWP, my only concern is that he is too similar to Lennon... bags of talent and pace to burn but very little end product in releation to this talent (what does he offer us over the course of a season that Lennon does not???)
Personally I Dont see this happening, in as far as I feel the 'ITK' is pulling legs, still I would not totally write of the potential for it to be a good deal for us.... touch and go, could be a flop or a master stroke is it were to commence.
- Oct 25, 2005
- 32,629
- 33,579
- Staff
- #23
we could just swap berb for the dogshit i found on my shoe the other day.
same thing
same thing
Glenn_Purvey
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2006
- 1,320
- 451
if we sell to chelsea we are shooting ourselves in the foot...
we dont make teams around us better by giving them our best players..
it is not rocket science we either sell to a team abroad or he stays and sees out his contract, i would take 4 more years of berbatov and then let him go for free.
it seems like carrick all over again
we dont make teams around us better by giving them our best players..
it is not rocket science we either sell to a team abroad or he stays and sees out his contract, i would take 4 more years of berbatov and then let him go for free.
it seems like carrick all over again
DoublePivot
Relegated to Lurker
- Jul 1, 2005
- 8,987
- 67
:grin: Spot on
fazza
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2004
- 17,285
- 490
:grin:
spurslenny
I hate football
- Nov 24, 2006
- 7,545
- 6,538
Berba for Bridge, Cudicini plus 20mil, ta very much
That is what I thought.
weststandvoice
Yes we have no bananas
- Jul 29, 2005
- 1,076
- 876
What was the special? Eek
General Levy
Banned
- Jun 7, 2007
- 4,295
- 9
I honestly cannot believe some people on here. Selling him to Chelsea is like selling him to Arsenal. WTF is wrong with some people???
DoublePivot
Relegated to Lurker
- Jul 1, 2005
- 8,987
- 67
I've been thinking about this and I have no issue selling Berbatov to United or Chelsea if they pay a king's ransom.
Look, the big four has become the big two when it comes to money and ability. Arsenal and Liverpool have a little extra pull due to being in UCL, but they are part of a second group including us, Everton (and Villa and Citeh in the near future) who are vying for those last two slots for CL. And both Arsenal and Liverpool can be caught.
So I would say that within that little mini-league of six, we shouldn't sell our best players. I would be more worried about selling Chimbonda to Villa (strengthening on of their main weaknesses) rather than selling Berbatov to Chelsea, where he will be just another talented player on a talented squad.
I do understand that some would prefer to not sell the Chelsea because of the rivalry aspect, but I've never really cared about Chelsea as a rival, because I didn't become a supporter until the start of the century.
So Chelsea and Man United are going to have talented squads due to their stature and millions no matter what we do. So why shouldn't we take the money? Once we can break the top four, we can see these two as rivals to a long term hope of the tital, but we aren't winning that title until we get UCL and to do that we need to get ahead of Liverpool and Arsenal, who are both crunched money wise and in various reported degrees of turmoil.
If selling Berbatov to Chelsea helps us get more cash than selling him on the continent, then we should do so. Every penny helps as we try to improve the talent to top four level. If we sell him to Real, does anyone expect that Chelsea won't find other similarly talented players? Of course they will.
So I think if you have issues about selling to Chelsea out of hatred, then you are justified not to want him to go there. But if it's about our "league" rivals? We aren't at their level. We can beat them in a one-off, but we won't be finishing above Chelsea until we get UCL. So take the oil barons money and use it wisely, I say.
Look, the big four has become the big two when it comes to money and ability. Arsenal and Liverpool have a little extra pull due to being in UCL, but they are part of a second group including us, Everton (and Villa and Citeh in the near future) who are vying for those last two slots for CL. And both Arsenal and Liverpool can be caught.
So I would say that within that little mini-league of six, we shouldn't sell our best players. I would be more worried about selling Chimbonda to Villa (strengthening on of their main weaknesses) rather than selling Berbatov to Chelsea, where he will be just another talented player on a talented squad.
I do understand that some would prefer to not sell the Chelsea because of the rivalry aspect, but I've never really cared about Chelsea as a rival, because I didn't become a supporter until the start of the century.
So Chelsea and Man United are going to have talented squads due to their stature and millions no matter what we do. So why shouldn't we take the money? Once we can break the top four, we can see these two as rivals to a long term hope of the tital, but we aren't winning that title until we get UCL and to do that we need to get ahead of Liverpool and Arsenal, who are both crunched money wise and in various reported degrees of turmoil.
If selling Berbatov to Chelsea helps us get more cash than selling him on the continent, then we should do so. Every penny helps as we try to improve the talent to top four level. If we sell him to Real, does anyone expect that Chelsea won't find other similarly talented players? Of course they will.
So I think if you have issues about selling to Chelsea out of hatred, then you are justified not to want him to go there. But if it's about our "league" rivals? We aren't at their level. We can beat them in a one-off, but we won't be finishing above Chelsea until we get UCL. So take the oil barons money and use it wisely, I say.
saltkjelen
Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 161
- 31
I agree with Spurslenny. Cudicini and Bridge and 20mill. Then raid City for Dunne and Petrov, and Buy a worldclass Dm and striker
Oh, we certainly need a lot to be top-four I see
Oh, we certainly need a lot to be top-four I see
AllSeeingEye
YP Lee's Spiritual Guide
- Apr 20, 2005
- 3,085
- 433
Don't like this story, can't see Levy selling to Chelsea even for Anelka and SWP.
Sell him to Milan so he can't trouble us until the champions league in 2009
Sell him to Milan so he can't trouble us until the champions league in 2009
Similar threads
