Fabio Grosso DONE DEAL (137 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,704
Well yeah, the same goes for Pandev and Ledesma who were clearly key players for Lazio. I am still of the opinion that he is not good enough currently to start for Juventus, but as an alternative, perhaps.
That might be the case, but he could have been a low-risk , high-reward acquisition if his progression curve stayed on its current course
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,580
Oh my god. What the fuck is wrong with you???


We said that NOBODY WANTED TO WORK for Juventus after the scandal.
Exactly, then he got Tiago, Almiron, Andrade and a few others. They were not good transfers for different reasons. Then he got Amauri and Poulsen and the latter was not his choice and this eyar he got Diego, Melo, Cannavaro and Caceres. He didn't succeed with D'Agostino for reasons beyond him and if he fails to get Grosso it's also for the same reasons. And without going into too much details, the bashing is really unworthy. He neither brought us in the negative nor did he overpay Melo. It's just Moggi sour grapes.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
72,600
Ledesma? The most limited player?

I don't think he's bad. I think he's below average (he might be decent for Lazio, but it should be the end of the road for him).
Quite harsh really, considering the while reason he has become a problem is because interest from several big teams (including our own according to constant press links) meant he turned down renewals attempts. It could be worse, we could have Lotito as president.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,704
Typical, you refuse to find middle ground. Keep it up, bash the board.

:gsol: voice your concern :gsol:

I am not here to change your opinion, I just expressed my opinion about what is making me dislike this forum.
Andy, I love you like a little brother, I've said that many times. But sometimes your tendency to not look objectively at certain things drives me nuts.
The problem is this: you nor I have any proof that nobody else would have wanted to join Juventus in Secco's position after the scandal hit.

The only proof we have is that Blanc and Gigli joined Juventus in directing roles once Calciopoli surfaced, facts that do not provide much support to your arguments.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
88,454
I am not here to change your opinion, I just expressed my opinion about what is making me dislike this forum.
You should take it easy. There are many people here and you know all can't agree on something and it's always hard to find the middle ground.

You love Secco for signing Diego, yet again bash for not signing someone. It's like some food, you either like it or not. If you make someone eat it, you will throw up and hate it again.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,704
You should take it easy. There are many people here and you know all can't agree on something and it's always hard to find the middle ground.

You love Secco for signing Diego, yet again bash for not signing someone. It's like some food, you either like it or not. If you make someone eat it, you will throw up and hate it again.
Well said, D.
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,580
You should take it easy. There are many people here and you know all can't agree on something and it's always hard to find the middle ground.

You love Secco for signing Diego, yet again bash for not signing someone. It's like some food, you either like it or not. If you make someone eat it, you will throw up and hate it again.
I am the most one taking it easy. At least I am not the one who goes on for ages for Secco not selling Molinaro and writing essays about it and coming up with conspiracy theories that are just imagination, worse than those who come up with reality TV series.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
88,454
Quite harsh really, considering the while reason he has become a problem is because interest from several big teams (including our own according to constant press links) meant he turned down renewals attempts. It could be worse, we could have Lotito as president.
Maybe, I rate him very low. I hated when we were linked to him.

No Dusan...you see, I was asking what channel it is on (as if if were still running as I was unsure) and in parenthesis I asked "was it on" as if the program had already transpired, again unsure. I did not ask, however, what channel "will" it be on. Thanks for your attempted grammatical correction:p
Was not meant to be a grammatical correction, I don't like to do that since my English was never (and probably won't ever be) perfect.

I just wanted to add the third option. :D
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,580
The problem is this: you nor I have any proof that nobody else would have wanted to join Juventus in Secco's position after the scandal hit.

The only proof we have is that Blanc and Gigli joined Juventus in directing roles once Calciopoli surfaced, facts that do not provide much support to your arguments.
Yet you have proof that the board mistreated Deschamps and a lot of the older players. Hypocrisy at its best.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
88,454
I am the most one taking it easy. At least I am not the one who goes on for ages for Secco not selling Molinaro and writing essays about it and coming up with conspiracy theories that are just imagination, worse than those who come up with reality TV series.
No, you don't, but you're making fun of people that do which causes even more drama.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,704
Yet you have proof that the board mistreated Deschamps and a lot of the older players. Hypocrisy at its best.
Those were the words of Deschamps himself. He said the board didn't like the route he was taking. Bettega had to step in to solve Trezeguet's contract issue because David thought the offer the board put on the table was unacceptable.

Sure, there is always the chance these guys were lying. But I have a hard time believing it considering their history here.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,704
I'm not saying this is the case, but wouldn't it be interesting if Secco was always going to be Moggi's replacement and learned some tricks from the Station Master himself?

Everyone would turn on Secco and bash the board.
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,359
Maybe, I rate him very low. I hated when we were linked to him.



Was not meant to be a grammatical correction, I don't like to do that since my English was never (and probably won't ever be) perfect.

I just wanted to add the third option. :D
:dule:

You should have said "Or will be on "....then I would have understood:D
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,580
I'm not saying this is the case, but wouldn't it be interesting if Secco was always going to be Moggi's replacement and learned some tricks from the Station Master himself?

Everyone would turn on Secco and bash the board.
You got your keyword here. Moggi was a station master and yet considered the god of football managers. Secco was a paper boy, why would a station master become god and a paper boy won't?
 

Hust

Senior Member
Hustini
May 29, 2005
93,359
I would like to say the sun just came out, so I suggest we let the peeps that prefer to live under a rain cloud to live under a rain cloud and those who prefer to enjoy the sunshine to go outside and take a walk.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,704
You got your keyword here. Moggi was a station master and yet considered the god of football managers. Secco was a paper boy, why would a station master become god and a paper boy won't?
Not sure I understand what you're saying, but if you're trying to say that people dislike Secco JUST because he is not Moggi, that's not true for some people.

This was probably the first time I mentioned Moggi in over a year. If you notice, I never compare him to Secco or even bring him up.

But Secco has to earn his God-like status.
 

Snoop

Sabet is a nasty virgin
Oct 2, 2001
28,186
I hate it when you guys compare Moggi to praise Secco.

Secco or the board deserve all the critics for most of the work they had done the past two years. Too many mistakes, sure there were some nice deals too, Manninger's transfer for example was amazing.. We bought too many unnecessary players, even Amauri was on of them (yes I know what a player he is, but he wasn't the first priority to strengthen our weakest links).

As for this year, he is doing good so far, maybe we overpaid Melo's transfer, maybe we could negotiate, we could abuse Fiorentina's financial weaknesses, Diego worths every penny we paid, Caceres is a great deal, Cannavaro good deal (not a hard one probably), Zanetti's sale was a mistake (we should have offered him the new contract he was expecting). So far good, it's not great, because we know what our weakest area is, and still we didn't strengthen there firstly. If we spent the whole budget, then that's a terrible mistake, we need fullbacks desperately, if we sign a decent one for a good price, that's when I will tell you that we had a great transfer campaign, but it's not great just yet!!

But comparing this season's campaign with the past two, there is a huge difference and I hope they keep working this way!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 136)