I expect most business to be done in time for pre-season (Mourinho criticised our preparations last year so I would think that he would be keen to get everything in order before the tour starts) but there's obviously going to be one transfer that drags out all summer and it looks like it could be this one.Those people who assured me that we'd have all our business done in time for the U.S. tour
Antoine Griezmann| Signs a new contract till 2022
- Thread starter Jacky Quacky
- Start date
- Status
Has nothing to do with the Ibra injury, more with the ban, financially and or Griezmann not wanting to leave Atletico with no one to replace him. The club is just getting the easier solution out there.
I don't think paying 100 million euros up front would be impossible for us. Our cash balance in Q3 financials was 150 million which will go over 200 million in Q4 so, paying the cash isn't as big a stumbling block as people make it out to be. The more likely explanation is that Griezmann rejected us because he didn't want to leave Athletico during the transfer ban and Athletico promised him that he can leave for cheaper next summer which will increase the options of clubs available to him.
So we're not getting him now? Typical. Watch us sign dross like Dier, Keane, Perisic and then get a big lump up top just like Jose dreams of.
Hope Chelsea sign Lukaku as soon as possible.
Mbappe is staying at Monaco and Morata is off to Milan. That would only leave Belotti, who should never be above Griezmann in terms of targets
Mbappe is staying at Monaco and Morata is off to Milan. That would only leave Belotti, who should never be above Griezmann in terms of targets
Well, no. I mean, it's clearly utter bollocks, but the people who want to believe it will lap it up. Job done.
Nothing to do with Ibra. That's old news. Blatantly hoping we could have negotiated to either bring fee down or pay full clause fee over a number of years. With the ban being upheld though, Athletico wont sell by choice and we don't wanna pay up front.
Last edited:
Getting sick of this. Same old BS. On, then off. On, the off.
From what I have been hearing, if we pay the buy-out, which is like 80M, then we get him.
Is it really that difficult?
From what I have been hearing, if we pay the buy-out, which is like 80M, then we get him.
Is it really that difficult?
Never quite understood the thinking behind this signing so not that bothered tbh, he's a good player of course, but for £85m i think we can spend that type of money on someone who suits our needs better. £50m would probably get us Sanchez, who would instantly sort out most of our attacking problems. Griezmann doesn't really provide any new solutions for our attacking issues, if anything, he creates more problems by simply trying to fit him in. And we would still need a CF. Onto the Sanchez thread.
Paying it all up front is. We're a rich club, but paying £80/85m up front seems crazy. I'd say we usually pay in installments.
Either we or the player or both have obviously decided not to go ahead while the ban is in place. It's over (at least until 2018).
Exactly. Not to mention that Ducker in the same article says Ronaldo is linked with coming back to us. Right..
A few reasons for me
1) we wont pay 100m up front so are using this story to save face
2) we are pressuring Ibra to sign a new deal?
3) AG won't come after hearing the CAS verdict, so again are saving face
4) we are absolute whoppers
The timing can't be a coincidence, it has to do with the transfer ban. For whatever reason be it a promise by Griezmann to stay if the ban went through, them demanding all the cash up front which for whatever reason we are unwilling to do or some type of gentlemans agreement between all parties it has to come down to the transfer ban surely.
This can't be happening. We were so close.
It's basic on paper but from what I hear Madrid are wanting all 80m upfront which almost never happens so we're fecked.
That would have been plausible but the timing of this sounds like it has everything to do with the CAS verdict. It's too much of a coincidence otherwise.
Oh just pay them the god damn release clause. I'm not buying we're not going to sign Griezmann for God sake.
Has anyone thought Ducket doesn't know shit or that's impossible?
The Zlatan injury has really screwed us. If he was fit €100 mil for Griezmann would not be an issue but that plus 50-70 for a 9 plus a midfielder and cb/lb is too much
That's what came to my mind. Ban means Atletico want the clause triggered and this is the club's way of saying we don't have to buy Griezmann so you better lower your demands. I completely don't know, though. Wonder what the significance the ruling and the supposed briefing being so close together.
Kill me now.
Woodward out.
OK we can dismiss luckhurst and Ducker, but Stone from BBC is running the same fecking story. The BBC are the gold standard.
It's a briefing and we are using Ibra as an excuse because the transfer ban was the tipping point.
It's a briefing and we are using Ibra as an excuse because the transfer ban was the tipping point.
I wasn't confident we'd get him tbh, but if we're not even going for a player like that then I don't think we're going to see much improvement next season
Relax,
People said Di Marzio was off center with his article yesterday but looks like he isn't, we don't have unlimited money and it looks like we aren't gonna do a Pep, so Jose has chosen a #9 over Griezmann, he needs that big target striker up top, he always has.
In all seriousness I hope we don't go for Morara. Spanish Welbeck.
Seems like the reports we got about Pedro just before he went to Chelsea.
GriezmOFF
Thats the spirit...we need more fans like you.
What a load of shit. Thats it, I am refusing to read any transfer threads for rest of the summer. Just tag me when any fecker officially signs.
It's obviously got nothing to do with Ibrahimovic's injury and everything to do with Atletico's ban.
May be we were triggering the clause in instalments and now they want in full so we move on to strikers and no 9s.
Not necessarily, there's been reports about Raiola & Ibra looking at other options last night and this morning.
Atletico were always going to have their ban upheld imo, they don't have as much influence as Barca or Madrid.
If in doubt....
It does seem a bit coincidental. I'd assume there's been a change with the decision of the Atletico ban and we're trying to make it seem like our decision.
FFS
very likely imo.
It also means costa can not go back to atletico.
- Status