Giuseppe Marotta (111 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Tags asmr is so cool a_legend butthurt_tuz curtains dai is a feminist rus bangs hookers was holding us back
People try to defend this dodge of Pizaon for no reason whatsoever. Just to say how our board is smart.
Pato costed 16mln more and had 3 times higher wages and it's based on 9 matches. I don't think Chelsea would chase untalented player anyway.
And at the same time we are giving our best to sign Pirlo and offer him at least 3mln/year
Pato costed 16mln more and had 3 times higher wages and it's based on 9 matches. I don't think Chelsea would chase untalented player anyway.
And at the same time we are giving our best to sign Pirlo and offer him at least 3mln/year
Rubbish. And yeah, sure. Defending our current board is a really popular pastime on here.
Of course Chelsea will offer him a deal, assuming he gets his Italian passport €10m is nothing to them, they can afford to take a risk. Whether he goes on to be the best in the world or playing for Rio Branco in 5 years it matters not to them.
Of course Chelsea will offer him a deal, assuming he gets his Italian passport €10m is nothing to them, they can afford to take a risk. Whether he goes on to be the best in the world or playing for Rio Branco in 5 years it matters not to them.
There is always a risk.
There's a much bigger risk if we sign the likes of Pirlo and Ziegler. Also if we spend 16mln + for Matri and many other players we want.
Avoiding Piazon (at some point) would make sense. But it makes no sense whatsoever considering our targets. And no, you don't need to point out how those are just rumors because in the end we end up signing worse players than those we were linked with.
So at least to me this move makes no sense, but whatever. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even though some are just pretending to see the good thing out of the hole we're currently in.
There's a much bigger risk if we sign the likes of Pirlo and Ziegler. Also if we spend 16mln + for Matri and many other players we want.
Avoiding Piazon (at some point) would make sense. But it makes no sense whatsoever considering our targets. And no, you don't need to point out how those are just rumors because in the end we end up signing worse players than those we were linked with.
So at least to me this move makes no sense, but whatever. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even though some are just pretending to see the good thing out of the hole we're currently in.
so Dusan,how would you feel if we signed him,spent 10mat least on him (transfer and wages) and passed him around like Elisabetta Canalis at an Inter end of season party before dumping him off at Bologna in a co-ownership deal that nets us very little return?
my guess is that you and the majority on here would be blasting the board for wasting money,imagine if Giovinco was on 1m a year since we signed him
my guess is that you and the majority on here would be blasting the board for wasting money,imagine if Giovinco was on 1m a year since we signed him
Failing to sign Piazon just shows the direction this club is heading with the BoD in the drivers seat. We were supposed to bring in younger players and build a solid foundation...we are doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE. The foundations that were laid last summer have crumbled to rubble. Not signing this kid was a mistake because this is one of the kinds of risks we should be taking...what is more expensive?...signing an old washed up pirlo at 3 or more million a year for 4 years or 10m Piazon at 1-2m a year? Because in 3 or 4 years we will find ourselves having to spend so much more money replacing Pirlo anyways so why the fuck we didn't land Piazon is beyond me. Sign a great talent that is good for 5-6 years or more if he becomes great make a huge profit off of him or keep him...but we opt for the quick fix band aids that end up costing more in the long run.
Idiots.
Idiots.
but what assurances do we have that paizon won't fail miserably and we watse at least 10m nurturing a talent taht fails and we then have to spend 10m signing a replacement,also the intervening years where we need someone in place for him to take over from.
or do you think we will sign him and play him NOW?
or do you think we will sign him and play him NOW?
You're right...let's sign Pirlo because we can play him NOW. Makes sense, meanwhile everyone else around us takes long term risks. Signing Pirlo makes perfect sense because of what he used to be able to do so we have something to hope for rather than the senseless potential that a youth talent could bring this club.
3.5m a year for Pirlo is the direction we should be heading.
3.5m a year for Pirlo is the direction we should be heading.
risk
 
–noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.
2.
Insurance .
a.
the hazard or chance of loss.
b.
the degree of probability of such loss.
c.
the amount that the insurance company may lose.
d.
a person or thing with reference to the hazard involved in insuring him, her, or it.
e.
the type of loss, as life, fire, marine disaster, or earthquake, against which an insurance policy is drawn.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to expose to the chance of injury or loss; hazard: to risk one's life.
4.
to venture upon; take or run the chance of: to risk a fall in climbing; to risk a war.
—Idioms
5.
at risk,
a.
in a dangerous situation or status; in jeopardy: families at risk in the area of the weakened dam.
b.
under financial or legal obligation; held responsible: Are individual investors at risk for the debt part of the real estate venture?
6.
take / run a risk, to expose oneself to the chance of injury or loss; put oneself in danger; hazard; venture.
 
–noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.
2.
Insurance .
a.
the hazard or chance of loss.
b.
the degree of probability of such loss.
c.
the amount that the insurance company may lose.
d.
a person or thing with reference to the hazard involved in insuring him, her, or it.
e.
the type of loss, as life, fire, marine disaster, or earthquake, against which an insurance policy is drawn.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to expose to the chance of injury or loss; hazard: to risk one's life.
4.
to venture upon; take or run the chance of: to risk a fall in climbing; to risk a war.
—Idioms
5.
at risk,
a.
in a dangerous situation or status; in jeopardy: families at risk in the area of the weakened dam.
b.
under financial or legal obligation; held responsible: Are individual investors at risk for the debt part of the real estate venture?
6.
take / run a risk, to expose oneself to the chance of injury or loss; put oneself in danger; hazard; venture.
You're right...let's sign Pirlo because we can play him NOW. Makes sense, meanwhile everyone else around us takes long term risks. Signing Pirlo makes perfect sense because of what he used to be able to do so we have something to hope for rather than the senseless potential that a youth talent could bring this club.
3.5m a year for Pirlo is the direction we should be heading.
3.5m a year for Pirlo is the direction we should be heading.