| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? 23:07 - May 8 with 8604 views | Kinsey |
I know what I would have chosen then and what I’d still choose now. |  | | |  |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:00 - May 9 with 1147 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 23:58 - May 8 by Kinsey |
I’d have chosen a striker whincandeliber and someone who can deliver any day over the crap that we have now.
Honestly not in the mood for your moronic justification |
Then log off and stop fishing for replies.
The point stands as it always will. |  |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:01 - May 9 with 1149 views | Kinsey |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:00 - May 9 by E20Jack |
Then log off and stop fishing for replies.
The point stands as it always will. |
what a w3nker | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:02 - May 9 with 1139 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:01 - May 9 by Kinsey |
what a w3nker |
You read my mind. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:04 - May 9 with 1140 views | swan65split |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 23:49 - May 8 by E20Jack |
£50m no brainer.
I would have spent it better, but that is not the question is it. |
like A AYEW..............yes your right again.
Night Night |  | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:05 - May 9 with 1132 views | KingBony |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 23:58 - May 8 by E20Jack |
Nope, it is not part of the question. They are completely seperate things. We can not afford to let any 15m striker leave for nothing and we cannot afford to have a player we can get 45m for sulking on the bench refusing to play.
As upset as everyone is, it doesn’t mean common sense is thrown out of the window. We had to sell, we did sell. We then needed to replace adequately - we didn’t. |
Nah, they had contracts, Gylfi was probably just fed up of being the one man team he was literally almost keeping us up by himself with no vision or improvement on the team no wonder he wanted to go. But he still had a contract - a long one.
You see players kept at their clubs irrespective if they are worth more to the team than the money they go for. Van dyke, Coutinho, Mahrez, Sanchez, yes they go eventually but not before the team has a chance to sort themselves out.
I agree it’s part of the same question. Unless quality like for like replacements were available on on the hit list they simply shouldn’t have been sold...it’s complete negligence on the part of our chairman and board.
What ever happened to we only sell if it suits Swansea city. It didn’t suit Swansea city, it suited the owners 💰 who dicked around way too long as well into the mix. |  |
| Daddy Daddy cool, Daddy Daddy cool |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:07 - May 9 with 1126 views | swan65split |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:05 - May 9 by KingBony |
Nah, they had contracts, Gylfi was probably just fed up of being the one man team he was literally almost keeping us up by himself with no vision or improvement on the team no wonder he wanted to go. But he still had a contract - a long one.
You see players kept at their clubs irrespective if they are worth more to the team than the money they go for. Van dyke, Coutinho, Mahrez, Sanchez, yes they go eventually but not before the team has a chance to sort themselves out.
I agree it’s part of the same question. Unless quality like for like replacements were available on on the hit list they simply shouldn’t have been sold...it’s complete negligence on the part of our chairman and board.
What ever happened to we only sell if it suits Swansea city. It didn’t suit Swansea city, it suited the owners 💰 who dicked around way too long as well into the mix. |
Ditto | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:08 - May 9 with 1118 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:04 - May 9 by swan65split |
like A AYEW..............yes your right again.
Night Night |
I don’t even know what that means. Neither do you I assume.
This relegation malarkey has turned already idiotic posters into magnified versions of themselves. Get a grip.
We have been terrible and on a decline for years, that’s with your two lover boys in the side. This season no doubt would have been a continuation of that decline, absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
We had to sell in a fleeting attempt to regenerate - we couldn’t do it. So be it. This was our fate regardless. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:10 - May 9 with 1111 views | Kinsey |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:08 - May 9 by E20Jack |
I don’t even know what that means. Neither do you I assume.
This relegation malarkey has turned already idiotic posters into magnified versions of themselves. Get a grip.
We have been terrible and on a decline for years, that’s with your two lover boys in the side. This season no doubt would have been a continuation of that decline, absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
We had to sell in a fleeting attempt to regenerate - we couldn’t do it. So be it. This was our fate regardless. |
Pathetic | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:11 - May 9 with 1106 views | swan65split |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:08 - May 9 by E20Jack |
I don’t even know what that means. Neither do you I assume.
This relegation malarkey has turned already idiotic posters into magnified versions of themselves. Get a grip.
We have been terrible and on a decline for years, that’s with your two lover boys in the side. This season no doubt would have been a continuation of that decline, absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
We had to sell in a fleeting attempt to regenerate - we couldn’t do it. So be it. This was our fate regardless. |
I agree with you all the way, whatever you say is correct. | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:13 - May 9 with 1094 views | swan65split |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:10 - May 9 by Kinsey |
Pathetic |
you couldnt make it up could you? anyway it lightens a sad evening, | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:13 - May 9 with 1092 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:05 - May 9 by KingBony |
Nah, they had contracts, Gylfi was probably just fed up of being the one man team he was literally almost keeping us up by himself with no vision or improvement on the team no wonder he wanted to go. But he still had a contract - a long one.
You see players kept at their clubs irrespective if they are worth more to the team than the money they go for. Van dyke, Coutinho, Mahrez, Sanchez, yes they go eventually but not before the team has a chance to sort themselves out.
I agree it’s part of the same question. Unless quality like for like replacements were available on on the hit list they simply shouldn’t have been sold...it’s complete negligence on the part of our chairman and board.
What ever happened to we only sell if it suits Swansea city. It didn’t suit Swansea city, it suited the owners 💰 who dicked around way too long as well into the mix. |
Llorente was free to talk to clubs in a few months time, was injured with a broken arm, had no pre season and only made noises that he was going to stay until the end of the previous season amid the Chelsea rumours. Gylfi was sulking for months and could not have been good for the dressing room, once someone refuses to play for you then that is the beginning of the end, to think otherwise is naive - they had to go.
We cannot ditch our clubs future for two players who lets not forget formed part of the worst side we have seen in the PL and declining season on season. We were terrible even with them in the side.
A club like ours will never be able to turn down 55m for two players in this situation. Never. No amount of crying or pretending otherwise will change this fact - and it is a fact. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:15 - May 9 with 1085 views | Kinsey |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:13 - May 9 by E20Jack |
Llorente was free to talk to clubs in a few months time, was injured with a broken arm, had no pre season and only made noises that he was going to stay until the end of the previous season amid the Chelsea rumours. Gylfi was sulking for months and could not have been good for the dressing room, once someone refuses to play for you then that is the beginning of the end, to think otherwise is naive - they had to go.
We cannot ditch our clubs future for two players who lets not forget formed part of the worst side we have seen in the PL and declining season on season. We were terrible even with them in the side.
A club like ours will never be able to turn down 55m for two players in this situation. Never. No amount of crying or pretending otherwise will change this fact - and it is a fact. |
£50m to the yanks and HJ and we scramble about pathetically your a genius. | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:17 - May 9 with 1079 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:15 - May 9 by Kinsey |
£50m to the yanks and HJ and we scramble about pathetically your a genius. |
No, £50m to Swansea City.
It was reinvested into players. Making stuff up to get yourself worked into a frenzy still is not changing the facts presented. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:20 - May 9 with 1072 views | LeonWasGod |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 23:58 - May 8 by E20Jack |
Nope, it is not part of the question. They are completely seperate things. We can not afford to let any 15m striker leave for nothing and we cannot afford to have a player we can get 45m for sulking on the bench refusing to play.
As upset as everyone is, it doesn’t mean common sense is thrown out of the window. We had to sell, we did sell. We then needed to replace adequately - we didn’t. |
Ah, but that isn't the thing people are talking about on this thread. That came long after you and another singled them out as being useless and holding us back. THAT'S what this thread is about.
Absolutely the time was right for them to go at the end of the season. You can't force players to stay when they don't want to. But you guys were slagging them off at Christmas and saying we should have sold them in January. At least have the maturity to admit you were wrong. I know you won't, but that's what people are getting at here. It's just cheap and easy shots, as I said before, but justified in Res' case because of his abuse to anyone who dared to disagree. |  | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:20 - May 9 with 1071 views | Kinsey |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:17 - May 9 by E20Jack |
No, £50m to Swansea City.
It was reinvested into players. Making stuff up to get yourself worked into a frenzy still is not changing the facts presented. |
What players????
Please explain! | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:21 - May 9 with 1070 views | KingBony |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:13 - May 9 by E20Jack |
Llorente was free to talk to clubs in a few months time, was injured with a broken arm, had no pre season and only made noises that he was going to stay until the end of the previous season amid the Chelsea rumours. Gylfi was sulking for months and could not have been good for the dressing room, once someone refuses to play for you then that is the beginning of the end, to think otherwise is naive - they had to go.
We cannot ditch our clubs future for two players who lets not forget formed part of the worst side we have seen in the PL and declining season on season. We were terrible even with them in the side.
A club like ours will never be able to turn down 55m for two players in this situation. Never. No amount of crying or pretending otherwise will change this fact - and it is a fact. |
I’m sure it’s as black and white as you’ve described it. We didn’t even offer Llorente a new deal, didn’t even try then?
The spurs thing was clearly last minute, Chelsea didn’t come in for him.
Mahrez sulked, van dyke sulked, I’m sure Sanchez did too but they stayed (AND PLAYED) nonetheless. Players come around and realise they have to be playing and performing to stay in the shop window. I don’t blame Gylfi not getting on the plane for the pre-season - we’d given him the green light we were selling him!!
Appease the fans - tell them he didn’t want to play.
I don’t disagree with all you are saying but we didn’t have to sell. Even if we were struggling at least you knew these players would come up with the goods when the chips were down and create and score goals....that’s also a fact and I’m not crying. | |
| Daddy Daddy cool, Daddy Daddy cool |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:21 - May 9 with 1067 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:20 - May 9 by LeonWasGod |
Ah, but that isn't the thing people are talking about on this thread. That came long after you and another singled them out as being useless and holding us back. THAT'S what this thread is about.
Absolutely the time was right for them to go at the end of the season. You can't force players to stay when they don't want to. But you guys were slagging them off at Christmas and saying we should have sold them in January. At least have the maturity to admit you were wrong. I know you won't, but that's what people are getting at here. It's just cheap and easy shots, as I said before, but justified in Res' case because of his abuse to anyone who dared to disagree. |
Can you point to where I was saying that then?
another that is just making stuff up to suit a non existent argument.
I accept your apology in advance. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:23 - May 9 with 1064 views | Kinsey |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:21 - May 9 by E20Jack |
Can you point to where I was saying that then?
another that is just making stuff up to suit a non existent argument.
I accept your apology in advance. |
You are the Res’ arse strings and I claim my five pounds. | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:27 - May 9 with 1057 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:21 - May 9 by KingBony |
I’m sure it’s as black and white as you’ve described it. We didn’t even offer Llorente a new deal, didn’t even try then?
The spurs thing was clearly last minute, Chelsea didn’t come in for him.
Mahrez sulked, van dyke sulked, I’m sure Sanchez did too but they stayed (AND PLAYED) nonetheless. Players come around and realise they have to be playing and performing to stay in the shop window. I don’t blame Gylfi not getting on the plane for the pre-season - we’d given him the green light we were selling him!!
Appease the fans - tell them he didn’t want to play.
I don’t disagree with all you are saying but we didn’t have to sell. Even if we were struggling at least you knew these players would come up with the goods when the chips were down and create and score goals....that’s also a fact and I’m not crying. |
Nobody knows the inner workings of the clubs contract dealings. To think a 15m asset would not have been offered a renewal of contract would be very fanciful I suggest while being a matter of months before being allowed to agree a free transfer. He didn’t sign one. He had to go. This policy will continue too, as it should of course which was born from the incidents leading to Darren Pratley walking away for nothing. Although many on here were not around then to know.
Van Dijk refused to play, not a great example. The other two have major financial backing on Arsenal and Leicester. We are not comparable. We can not afford to do that, we probably never will be in a position to either.
It will never be the wrong decision to sell no matter how many desperately want it to be. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:29 - May 9 with 1046 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:20 - May 9 by Kinsey |
What players????
Please explain! |
You want me to explain the fact we spent money on players to the value received hence it not going to Jenkins and the Yanks? Really?
Add up our signings and come back to me and tell me how Jenkins managed to pocked £50m too. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:33 - May 9 with 1037 views | LeonWasGod |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:21 - May 9 by E20Jack |
Can you point to where I was saying that then?
another that is just making stuff up to suit a non existent argument.
I accept your apology in advance. |
Well Res certainly was (apologies if I lumped you in with him and that wasn't the case on this ocassion), and that's what this thread is about. And you're bright enough to know that. So stop stirring. | | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:33 - May 9 with 1034 views | KingBony |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:27 - May 9 by E20Jack |
Nobody knows the inner workings of the clubs contract dealings. To think a 15m asset would not have been offered a renewal of contract would be very fanciful I suggest while being a matter of months before being allowed to agree a free transfer. He didn’t sign one. He had to go. This policy will continue too, as it should of course which was born from the incidents leading to Darren Pratley walking away for nothing. Although many on here were not around then to know.
Van Dijk refused to play, not a great example. The other two have major financial backing on Arsenal and Leicester. We are not comparable. We can not afford to do that, we probably never will be in a position to either.
It will never be the wrong decision to sell no matter how many desperately want it to be. |
Like I said I don’t disagree with everything you say, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on some of it. What did Llorente cost £5m wasn’t it? So we get £10 profit? I’m not sure that was a bad deal tbf but again, and this is where it is connected we loan an unproven striker instead of a replacement for an ex Spanish international with an illustrious career behind him. Van dyke was brought back in and did play games for Southampton before he was sold btw. | |
| Daddy Daddy cool, Daddy Daddy cool |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:38 - May 9 with 1026 views | giantstoneater |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 23:52 - May 8 by E20Jack |
Not the best thing, no. But a much needed thing after being backed into a corner with very little option to turn to. Let a 15m striker walk away for free and keep a player that was refusing to play for us who both contributed to an awful style of play that scraped us survival by our collective nut sacks - or cash in and replace with players in the mould of what brought us success in the first few years. The decision is as easy now as it was then - sell.
We did the first bit right, the second part was sadly lacking. |
Nothing is certain in football but those players might well have tipped the balance in our favour. Sometimes you are not damned by the things you do but by the things you dont We sold two players that didn't want to stay fair enough but did we use the money wisely enough to replace them?. |  | | |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:38 - May 9 with 1024 views | E20Jack |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:33 - May 9 by KingBony |
Like I said I don’t disagree with everything you say, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on some of it. What did Llorente cost £5m wasn’t it? So we get £10 profit? I’m not sure that was a bad deal tbf but again, and this is where it is connected we loan an unproven striker instead of a replacement for an ex Spanish international with an illustrious career behind him. Van dyke was brought back in and did play games for Southampton before he was sold btw. |
He played a few, once it was agreed he could go in the window. He was not good though and their fans wanted him gone suggesting he was not giving his all. Which is natural when you are in that situation, same goes for Sanchez - he was terrible.
We both agree we did not replace adequately, but that is where the error was - not in selling them as we simply had to and will do all over again if we get the chance. See Mawson next season for example. West Ham 20m is my guess. Simply will have to be sold, we would need to balance the books and no matter what we think of Alfie, he will not be a happy player with International ambitions playing in the championship. | |
| |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:38 - May 9 with 1023 views | theloneranger |
| £50m or Gylfi and Llorente? on 00:29 - May 9 by E20Jack |
You want me to explain the fact we spent money on players to the value received hence it not going to Jenkins and the Yanks? Really?
Add up our signings and come back to me and tell me how Jenkins managed to pocked £50m too. |
No, we really replaced them at the start of the season with a Chelsea U21 player, and another youngster from Bayern Munich.
A gamble that failed miserably. |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
