zaafi
New Member
Also you on Bruno:
Oh, I changed my mind after Bruno delivered another three consecutive absolutely shit performances! Got me good there, huh?
Funny how you deleted the rest of that quote too.
Also you on Bruno:
Oh, I changed my mind after Bruno delivered another three consecutive absolutely shit performances! Got me good there, huh?
Well its just strage how taken back you are that somebody should want Bruno over Mount. Makes you laugh you said.
Given you held the same opinion very recently.
At the time, Mount was playing together with Bruno, so I assumed he would continue to do so. It's hard to replace a player with someone who already plays. The options at the time were McTominay, Mejbri and Eriksen.
And because you deleted the rest of that quote, you kind of missed the essence of what my point was. The point was that I think it's more important to replace Bruno, rather than bench him. The replacements we have available won't necessarily improve us as a team, but it is worth a shot.
Zaafi stop digging. You've been a little hypocritical. Own it.
Mount and Bruno have played together twice. Absolute nonsense of you to say you didn't consider Mount over Bruno an option at the time.
Zaafi stop digging. You've been a little hypocritical. Own it.
Mount and Bruno have played together twice. Absolute nonsense of you to say you didn't consider Mount over Bruno an option at the time.
Not sure what's so weird about that? Bruno is captain so the default should be to assume he plays. The fact he continues to stink the place up means we should look at alternatives (not that I think ETH will, feels like he's throwing darts at a board atm)
Agree he should be dropped and Mount should have a go but that's not the point I'm making with Zaafi.
So you agree with me, but you're just looking to argue for the sake of it?
No I'm picking you up on mocking a poster for an opinion you held yourself until recently.
Agree he should be dropped and Mount should have a go but that's not the point I'm making with Zaafi.
I think we have to throw your theory out of the window as Chelsea wanted to keep him.I have a feeling he picked up a really bad injury last year and he could be finished as the player he was. Why else would Chelsea let go a player who was their best player, or at least most productive player, the season before last?
He was non existent v Brentford and again on Sunday. One thing I remember from his Chelsea days was he was always prominent in their games.
He had a year left on his contract and wasn't willing to sign a new one, as he wasn't getting assurances about being first team regular at Chelsea.I have a feeling he picked up a really bad injury last year and he could be finished as the player he was. Why else would Chelsea let go a player who was their best player, or at least most productive player, the season before last?
He was non existent v Brentford and again on Sunday. One thing I remember from his Chelsea days was he was always prominent in their games.
If they really wanted to keep him they would have kept him.I think we have to throw your theory out of the window as Chelsea wanted to keep him.
Yes contract negotiations had 'broken down'. He wasnt a priorityIf they really wanted to keep him they would have kept him.
A lot of Chelsea fans didnt rate Kovacic. Though I think he would have helped us a lot more than Mount.He had a year left on his contract and wasn't willing to sign a new one, as he wasn't getting assurances about being first team regular at Chelsea.
They sold Kovacic in the summer as well. Does that mean that he's finished as the player he was?
Bruno role changed when McTominay was on the pitch. McTominay was allowed to push up more into the box to use his physical presence, where as Bruno got instructed to withdraw more into no 8 role (Mount's starting role).First of all, they've played together 5 games. Mount was injured the other games, and Bruno didn't play in the League Cup against Palace. Don't be a fool. Only recently has Mount been dropped in favour of McTominay, thanks to his two goals against Brentford. Mount was not an option, as he was already playing. Of course, Ten Hag could have subbed McTominay on for Bruno and put Mount in Bruno's role, but you know as well as me that would never happen.
Please get your facts straight, as it's clear you don't know what you're talking about when you're just making things up.
If they really wanted to keep him they would have kept him.
He wanted to leave, they either lost him for a zero next year or sold him this year.Yes contract negotiations had 'broken down'. He wasnt a priority
for all their positives the amount of money we gave madrid for varane and casemiro is ridiculous as well.There’s a solid track record of bailing other clubs out by overpaying for overrated or over the hill players. Happened with Sanchez and City and now Liverpool and Mount. The Murtough disaster class rolls on.
So you're saying we sack Murtough then? Ten Hag wasn't involved in the negotiations.1 year left on his contract and we paid 60m for him.
That decision alone is sackable.
Was completely gobsmacked when were after him this summer, still scratching my head why we signed him now.
Just a massive nothing player.
1 year left on his contract and we paid 60m for him.
That decision alone is sackable.
Why not both?So you're saying we sack Murtough then? Ten Hag wasn't involved in the negotiations.
Schneiderlin
Van De Beek
Mount
Someone should right a book about this deal and how not to conduct business and teach it in Universities.