nihilistjnr:


Who are these 'sources' ?

Cuadrado was on a similar loan with option to buy deal in Juventus at the same time Salah was at Roma


Conte called Cuadrado back.

Conte is also on record saying that the Salah that Chelsea sold, is not the one that is at Liverpool.


The same summer. Conte called one, he didn't call the other.

Why?

Cuadrado was not on any similar loan to Salah.

Cuadrado deal became mandatory only after 2 years.

Salah deal was basically if Roma bid a certain amount, the matter is closed.

Ibime:


It's mandatory for Chelsea to accept the agreed purchase amount in the loan. That means Conte has nothing to do with it.

Mourinho agreed to Salah sale not once, but TWICE. Once to Fiorentina and once to Roma.

Is it mandatory for Salah to agree to go?

Mourinho was sacked December 2015

Conte became manager in April 2016

Conte immediately started talking to Cuadrado, Kante, Amba.

Roma did not agree a deal with Chelsea till August 2016

April, May, June, July - thats 4 months where Conte could have said, I want to keep this player. Within those 4 months he chose to keep Cuadrado who was also on loan on a similar deal.

Why did he not keep Salah? Intact, why is Conte now making excuses to justify the sale of Salah?

popizaino:


Conte wasn’t the one that requested chelsea to sign salah from Basel.

Did Conte request Chelsea to sign Cuadrado from Fiorentina?

nihilistjnr:


Is it mandatory for Salah to agree to go?

Mourinho was sacked December 2015

Conte became manager in April 2016

Conte immediately started talking to Cuadrado, Kante, Amba.

Roma did not agree a deal with Chelsea till August 2016

April, May, June, July - thats 4 months where Conte could have said, I want to keep this player. Within those 4 months he chose to keep Cuadrado who was also on loan on a similar deal.

Why did he not keep Salah? Intact, why is Conte now making excuses to justify the sale of Salah?

Simple. He spoke to Cuadrado simply because Cuadrados loan allowed him to come back to Chelsea.

Don't think Roma will typically start discussing contract with Salah only after making a bid. The usual practice is to agree terms on permanent contract with the player when you enter the loan-to-buy option.

raumdeuter:
Salah, 23, initially will join Roma on a season-long loan, but Chelsea said the Serie A club have the option to make the deal permanent at any point.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-transfers/story/2551087/mohamed-salah-completes-loan-move-to-roma-with-option-to-buy

Simple as ABC. No need to turn amala.

Ibime:


Simple. He spoke to Cuadrado simply because Cuadrados loan allowed him to come back to Chelsea.

Don't think Roma will typically start discussing contract with Salah only after making a bid. The usual practice is to agree terms on permanent contract with the player when you enter the loan-to-buy option.

Salah cannot sign any contract before Chelsea sanctions it. The best he can do is discuss. Did Fiorentina not agree a deal with Chelsea? Did Salah not refuse to go?

Chelsea did not sanction till August 3.

Why didn't Conte also discuss with Salah?


Why did Conte then come out to say that the Salah Chelsea sold is not the one Liverpool bought?

raumdeuter:
Salah, 23, initially will join Roma on a season-long loan, but Chelsea said the Serie A club have the option to make the deal permanent at any point.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-transfers/story/2551087/mohamed-salah-completes-loan-move-to-roma-with-option-to-buy

Option is not the same as mandatory. It was not mandatory for Roma to buy. It was not mandatory for Salah to sign. It was not mandatory for Conte to agree Salah's departure.

nihilistjnr:
Option is not the same as mandatory. It was not mandatory for Roma to buy. It was not mandatory for Salah to sign. It was not mandatory for Conte to agree Salah's departure.

It is not mandatory, But Roma has the right to refuse, If Roma doesn't reject then Chelsea cannot have him back

The only situation where Chelsea can have him back is IF Roma refuse

raumdeuter:


It is not mandatory, But Roma has the right to refuse, If Roma doesn't reject then Chelsea cannot have him back

The only situation where Chelsea can have him back is IF Roma refuse

If Salah refuses to sign, Roma cannot sign him. Surely that's pretty obvious.

nihilistjnr:
If Salah refuses to sign, Roma cannot sign him. Surely that's pretty obvious.

So why will Salah refuse a place he is getting regular minutes back to a place he wasn't considered for first team

raumdeuter:


So why will Salah refuse a place he is getting regular minutes back to a place he wasn't considered for first team

Maybe if a new manager like Conte believed Salah was in his plans, Salah might have been convinced to come back to London.

Higuain literally just did exactly the same thing at AC Milan who have him on loan with option to buy - and Higuain said no.

nihilistjnr:

Why did Conte then come out to say that the Salah Chelsea sold is not the one Liverpool bought?

This is the only argument you have that is worth considering. Of course, Roma can pre-agree a contract with Salah for when they make the deal permanent, and even if not, it is totally up to Salah totally. This is Chelseas second attempt to sell him, why should he choose them over Roma?

Conte when asked in his official capacity as Chelsea manager gave the correct answer. He has a duty to absolve the club and any of his colleagues that may have input into Salah sale. He is not absolving himself, cos he has nothing to do with Salah.

Maybe you expected him to say "Yeah, Salah was a great player. I don't know why these eediots sold him".

He gave a perfect diplomatic answer abeg, I don't know how you read into that as him absolving himself.

nihilistjnr:

Higuain literally just did exactly the same thing at AC Milan who have him on loan with option to buy - and Higuain said no.

Milan also have no stomach for Higuain as Higuain has flopped there. They are looking for exit from the agreement, and Chelsea decided to honour at least part of the agreement with no financial injury to Juventus.

Same as Torres loan to Milan which ended up diverting to Atletico.

This is different to Roma who were actively looking forward to activating their clause, while Milan are seeking all means to escape their clause. Milan haven't escaped it, they just found someone to lift some of the burden of honouring it.

6565

nihilistjnr:


Maybe if a new manager like Conte believed Salah was in his plans, Salah might have been convinced to come back to London.

Higuain literally just did exactly the same thing at AC Milan who have him on loan with option to buy - and Higuain said no.

Why will Salah believe in promise when he has reality in front of him, He was playing regularly in Roma, why will he go and try out in Chelsea where the same players who chased him away from are still there. Pedro, Willian Hazard

Higuain flopped in Milan, and which team will exercise a right to buy on a player that flopped on loan trials?

nihilistjnr:


Did Conte request Chelsea to sign Cuadrado from Fiorentina?

.

I don’t know what you are probably driving at but conte only asked for the player he felt would be a good addition to his squad.

raumdeuter:


Why will Salah believe in promise when he has reality in front of him, He was playing regularly in Roma, why will he go and try out in Chelsea where the same players who chased him away from are still there. Pedro, Willian Hazard

Higuain flopped in Milan, and which team will exercise a right to buy on a player that flopped on loan trials?

I'm still not sure how this answers my question on why Conte did not try to keep Salah

On Morata:

''Atletico are still in negotiations with Chelsea regarding the percentage of Morata's wages they will pay, with the Liga outfit hopeful of only forking out for 50% of his £120,000 per week salary before entering talks regarding a reduced contract with the player should he make the move permanent.''


They are even afraid to pay well for a striker some dolts wouldn't let us sleep with his fraudulent goals/minute laliga stats, those days. Thunder fire Emenalo.

Ibime:


Milan also have no stomach for Higuain as Higuain has flopped there. They are looking for exit from the agreement, and Chelsea decided to honour at least part of the agreement with no financial injury to Juventus.

Same as Torres loan to Milan which ended up diverting to Atletico.

This is different to Roma who were actively looking forward to activating their clause, while Milan are seeking all means to escape their clause. Milan haven't escaped it, they just found someone to lift some of the burden of honouring it.

I'm still not sure how this answers my question on why Conte did not try to keep Salah

Chelsea way no even get money again sef, Abramovich bannies, dem don finish im money, make Arab men self dem come buy us na. chai see as city dey chill untop Arab oil. if den like make dem change us to Arab fc, mujahiddin united or Stamford oil, I don't care.

PSG agrees personal terms with Paraedes

Segedinho:
PSG agrees personal terms with Paraedes

As usual, dillydallying is about to cost us another good player.
This is the same PSG that are about to let Adrien Rabiot leave For free, and who loaned out Giovanni Lo Celso last August.


Some things never change.

I swear, watching Marina Granovskaia bumble around in the transfer window is much worse than supporting Nigeria at a world cup.


God forbid.

Unlimited22:

As usual, dillydallying is about to cost us another good player.
This is the same PSG that are about to let Adrien Rabiot leave For free, and who loaned out Giovanni Lo Celso last August.


Some things never change.

...was speechless wen I saw the post earlier. ..funny enough sarri has complained about no readily available replacement 4 jorginho in d squad

Ibime:


This is the only argument you have that is worth considering. Of course, Roma can pre-agree a contract with Salah for when they make the deal permanent, and even if not, it is totally up to Salah totally. This is Chelseas second attempt to sell him, why should he choose them over Roma?

Conte when asked in his official capacity as Chelsea manager gave the correct answer. He has a duty to absolve the club and any of his colleagues that may have input into Salah sale. He is not absolving himself, cos he has nothing to do with Salah.

Maybe you expected him to say "Yeah, Salah was a great player. I don't know why these eediots sold him".

He gave a perfect diplomatic answer abeg, I don't know how you read into that as him absolving himself.

He said that about Matic, remember?

If Conte wanted a player, he was very forthright in the media.

Unlimited22:
I swear, watching Marina Granovskaia bumble around in the transfer window is much worse than supporting Nigeria at a world cup.


God forbid.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Mehn Reddit is the place to be

2 hours of no apari sports distractions while reading and arguing about Chelsea in peace

See matured arguments

iamJ:
See matured arguments

www.nairaland.com/attachments/8532785_img20190118185420976_jpeg7eb311a37a859729b5906b684545fc61

The only thing you have shown is that Chelsea fans are hypocrites

When talking about Drogba they remember trophies won and big games but not when its Iniesta a CM

So why cant you Chelsea fans use the same criteria of trophies and big games you are using for Drogba to evaluate Iniesta

nihilistjnr:


He said that about Matic, remember?

If Conte wanted a player, he was very forthright in the media.

Matic was his player. Salah is before his time and nothing to do with him.

People here shouting buy buy buy

They don't know that its not just about buying but some have to leave for some to come in

Ibime:


Matic was his player. Salah is before his time and nothing to do with him.

Cuadrado was before his time, and Conte publicly said he wanted to keep him....that same summer.

If Conte thought Salah was worth keeping, he would have tried. He didn't though...That's Why he came out 2 years later to say that Salah was different back then.