• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

King Kante was talking about Chelsea taking Conte to court over the text.
That doesn't seem to have happened as I thought.

Your piece talks about Conte taking Chelsea to court over compensation (twice) and doesn't mention the text or Costa at all.

It does say this though.
 

Possibly guesswork by the Mail but at least intelligent guess work.

See what King Kante, says above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Kante said:

I made a typo in my previous post, what I meant was: 

A) Costa wanted to leave in Jan to go back to AM. 

B) Chelsea, fed up by this point, drummed interest from China (as they were throwing money around at that time.) Costa said no to China and stayed instead. 

C) By May, Costa thought his chances of going to AM were slim. However, Conte sent that text message and Costa used it to leverage his move away to AM by saying the manager didn't want him. 

D) Conte wanted to get rid of Costa so the text message was deliberate on his part. However, he did so thinking he would get Lukaku. 

That is personally my take on the Costa>China>AM>Conte situation. 

As for the part about Morata, I agree that Morata was probably down as a 2nd / 3rd choice. However, this was an arguement used by those that defended Conte at the time. In that, the club never got his first choices and a lot of the time he ended up with his 2nd-3rd options or a club sanctioned buy. Personally, I do not rate Lukaku either, so I am not saying Conte's picks were fantastic, rather that he didn't get many first choice options. 

My best guess is pretty much the same.

1 hour ago, King Kante said:

As for the text being used against him in court, it was widely rumoured that it was a key plank of the clubs evidence: 

https://www.therealchelseafans.com/2018/07/chelsea-plan-to-use-diego-costa-text-message-against-conte-if-he-takes-club-to-court/

Perhaps - but that kind of rumour really is just an early rumour.  I presume what happens in the court is not accessible to the public.  And the trouble with the rumour is of course scandal sheets (newspapers etc) love to link the text with any report on the Conte/Chelsea dispute.  It was just natural for any hack back in 2017.  But it remains just guess work.

The Mail report though doesn't even reference it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

wasn't sure where to put his but I see the VAR official for Liverpool v Leicester has been changed, as it was orginally suppsoed to the same guy who did the Merseyside Derby, and for the first time in 6 years, some decisions went against Liverpool.

I wish we had the power to cherry pick these things. Anthony Taylor after in one Chelsea v Arsenal cup final incorrectly awards Arsenal a goal and then sends a Chelsea player off, then got awarded a second Chelsea v Arsenal final.......... in 2015 we would have run out of officials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bert19   
14 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

wasn't sure where to put his but I see the VAR official for Liverpool v Leicester has been changed, as it was orginally suppsoed to the same guy who did the Merseyside Derby, and for the first time in 6 years, some decisions went against Liverpool.

I wish we had the power to cherry pick these things. Anthony Taylor after in one Chelsea v Arsenal cup final incorrectly awards Arsenal a goal and then sends a Chelsea player off, then got awarded a second Chelsea v Arsenal final.......... in 2015 we would have run out of officials. 

It doesn't matter for the VAR as Fergie is sat there throwing tenners at the official at Stockley Park anyway.  Leicester vs Liverpool will still result in a Man Utd penalty 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JaneB   
5 hours ago, paulw66 said:

wasn't sure where to put his but I see the VAR official for Liverpool v Leicester has been changed, as it was orginally suppsoed to the same guy who did the Merseyside Derby, and for the first time in 6 years, some decisions went against Liverpool.

I wish we had the power to cherry pick these things. Anthony Taylor after in one Chelsea v Arsenal cup final incorrectly awards Arsenal a goal and then sends a Chelsea player off, then got awarded a second Chelsea v Arsenal final.......... in 2015 we would have run out of officials. 

Ham and I touched on this in the General Football thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JaneB said:

3 cheers for the vaccine.  Everything can go back to normal right away.  Thank God governments have found a route out of the mess they took us into.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
23 minutes ago, JaneB said:

 

21 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

3 cheers for the vaccine.  Everything can go back to normal right away.  Thank God governments have found a route out of the mess they took us into.

It seems very odd to go from, "I can't see my gran at Xmas" to, " I can mingle with 4k fans at football" in a blink of an eye. 

We have been sold down the river somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

I suspect a combination of a range of different factors. Not a political point, but it usually is. I would cite a failure to understand the mechanisms of the immune system, especially the importance of T-Cells. Prof. Karl Sikora, an oncologist, has been making this point since last April. It is interesting to note that none of the members of SAGE are immunologists, which is odd.  The failings of PCR-Testing has been well documented now (Henegan, Cummings, Yeldon, Craig) but it is a key plank of SAGE and government strategy. SAGE promotes it and all parties want to be seen to be "driven by the science". One problem government don't seem to get is that science is not a dogmatic set of proven rules, but a public square for discussion. Different scientists have different, but honestly held opinions. Politicians, in such circumstances, tend to be small-c conservative and reactionary, because they seek to protect their positions. They defer to what they perceive to be expertise. Moreover, much of the policy seeks to protect the economy over personal freedoms. This produces very strange and, seemingly, contradictory sets of rules (such as meeting in pubs but not in houses, opening stadia but banning a visit to gran'). Keeping pubs and stadia open helps the economy unlike meeting gran. This is not helped by the influence of social media on policy-making. It has two effects. It creates highly vocal and partisan groups who are unable to discuss these issues in a rational way. The debate becomes polarised. It promotes ideas and comparisons which have no basis in science at all. This mix of partially informed people is politically incendiary. This is not helped by the failure of government advisors in taking a holistic view of the measures they propose. Maajid Nawaz and others have been pointing out the last one for weeks. We will have to have an inquiry when it is all over, and we will probably discover that everyone genuinely did what they thought was the right thing at the time

Edited by Sciatika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I suspect a combination of a range of different factors. Not a political point, but it usually is. I would cite a failure to understand the mechanisms of the immune system, especially the importance of T-Cells. Prof. Karl Sikora, an oncologist, has been making this point since last April. It is interesting to note that none of the members of SAGE are immunologists, which is odd.  The failings of PCR-Testing has been well documented now (Henegan, Cummings, Yeldon, Craig) but it is a key plank of SAGE and government strategy. SAGE promotes it and all parties want to be seen to be "driven by the science". One problem government don't seem to get is that science is not a dogmatic set of proven rules, but a public square for discussion. Different scientists have different, but honestly held opinions. Politicians, in such circumstances, tend to be small-c conservative and reactionary, because they seek to protect their positions. They defer to what they perceive to be expertise. Moreover, much of the policy seeks to protect the economy over personal freedoms. This produces very strange and, seemingly, contradictory sets of rules (such as meeting in pubs but not in houses, opening stadia but banning a visit to gran'). Keeping pubs and stadia open helps the economy unlike meeting gran. This is not helped by the influence of social media on policy-making. It has two effects. It creates highly vocal and partisan groups who are unable to discuss these issues in a rational way. The debate becomes polarised. It promotes ideas and comparisons which have no basis in science at all. This mix of partially informed people is politically incendiary. This is not helped by the failure of government advisors in taking a holistic view of the measures they propose. Maajid Nawaz and others have been pointing out the last one for weeks. We will have to have an inquiry when it is all over, and we will probably discover that everyone genuinely did what they thought was the right thing at the time

Excellent post couched in an elegant unprovocative style. I'll continue this on the Corona page...    (note Jane started it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now