The Official Marco Marchionni thread (9 Viewers)

Cronios

Juventolog
Jun 7, 2004
27,519
Oh yeah? How come?

Mellberg and Marco were free transfers. If we bought them one year earlier we were going to have to pay for them. This way we didn't pay anything for them and we even got something from their sales. (Plus, Marchionni was signed by Moggi)
Sissoko one year earlier? We were in serie B, how the fuck were we going to buy him?

Even for Grosso i'm not sure if it was smarter to get him earlier. Last year we called De Ceglie back and Grosso's value was around 7-8m eur. WE were hoping De Ceglie was going to earn his spot and deserve to be a starter. He didn't and Grosso's current value is around 2-3m eur and he'll be getting lower wages than what he was going to get last year.

Only for Amauri you can argue that we could've bought him one year earlier. His price was too high in 2007 just as it was in 2008 and since we wanted to sign more players, i doubt we could spend so much money on him.
I think you misunderstood, i am not saying that those transfers were bad per se, but that they would be far better tactically or strategically if they were coming the year before.

What i meant was that we needed Mellberg, much more a year before, when we had no decent options like him and faced that CB crisis, we knew it coming. And when we got him, we should rather opt for a permanent solutions.

Instead of spending cash left and right, we should better spend it on Amauri a year before. Maybe we would buy Iaquinta and Tiago or Almiron and given Palla and Giovinco more chances.

Sissoko should be bought when CR asked for him, we could prevent wasting 3 months, since his formation and planning included such a player and our roster didnt.

And Grosso should have come a few years younger instead of Molinaro.
Imaging having him instead of Moli for the past two years and imagine selling Marchionni and opt for a different solution last year!
Those acys a year earlier would have made critical difference to our club.

I am not saying that all the guys we bought, didnt help. Or that we didnt save more money waiting for them to become completely free. All i am saying that if we would have those players a year earlier we would have faced half of the problems we did. They would have made the difference tactically!
And probably avoided buying some of the junk we did too!
How do you know this deal is not related to a Melo deal?
I cant know for sure, actually that was my first thought too,
but then i thought this through.
Trying to let my wishful Juventino thinking apart, i hope that Secco got the time to discuss more with them and there is a bigger plan in mode.
But how can a deal or even pre deal would be concluded and there was no announcement? Why the hurry to rap up this deal right asap?

But its just Secco Marchionni and Grygera were his two aces,
he already dropped one and got what??

Since the Marchionni card is already paid, a significant amount of cash we could gain from giving away his full ownership is gone! 2 mil cant be critical for this cause 5-6 would...

And since we know that we can afford about 11mil pounds with cash.
All we know for now is that the deal isnt made yet and we have half a bargain chip less. Objectively that means less chances, nothing more, nothing less...
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
I cant know for sure, actually that was my first thought too,
but then i thought this through.
Trying to let my wishful Juventino thinking apart, i hope that Secco got the time to discuss more with them and there is a bigger plan in mode.
But how can a deal or even pre deal would be concluded and there was no announcement? Why the hurry to rap up this deal right asap?

But its just Secco Marchionni and Grygera were his two aces,
he already dropped one and got what??

Since the Marchionni card is already paid, a significant amount of cash we could gain from giving away his full ownership is gone! 2 mil cant be critical for this cause 5-6 would...

And since we know that we can afford about 11mil pounds with cash.
All we know for now is that the deal isnt made yet and we have half a bargain chip less. Objectively that means less chances, nothing more, nothing less...

The Marchionni deal isn't done yet.

All that has been agreed is a fee.

It is entirely possible that this is only one part of the negotiations in a deal for Melo.
 

Cronios

Juventolog
Jun 7, 2004
27,519
The Marchionni deal isn't done yet.

All that has been agreed is a fee.

It is entirely possible that this is only one part of the negotiations in a deal for Melo.
Although i find it highly unlikely to happen, judging by other similar deals (Amauri's)
That would mean that Melo's transfer is imminent and we are only working on the details (probably adding Grygera+cash). But whats the point of announcing the co-ownership just yet, if it is already included in the deal? And the deal is so close?

You mean it like, a separate negotiation, that comes like some sort of a pre-deal term?
 

v1rtu4l

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2008
6,349
But whats the point of announcing the co-ownership just yet, if it is already included in the deal? And the deal is so close?
because the viola fans would be even more opposed to this deal if they knew it would mean that getting marchionni equals losing melo..
 

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,877
Marchionni deal isn't completed (yet).

Marco: "Non ho ancora parlato con la Fiorentina e non so se le due società si sono già messe d'accordo, ma ancora non c'è nulla di definito".
 

Ken

The Dutch Touch
Aug 17, 2007
13,340
Marchionni deal isn't completed (yet).

Marco: "Non ho ancora parlato con la Fiorentina e non so se le due società si sono già messe d'accordo, ma ancora non c'è nulla di definito".
It's because everyone is waiting for Secco to show up and include him in the Melo deal. Secco will fix this. :snoop:
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
Although i find it highly unlikely to happen, judging by other similar deals (Amauri's)
That would mean that Melo's transfer is imminent and we are only working on the details (probably adding Grygera+cash). But whats the point of announcing the co-ownership just yet, if it is already included in the deal? And the deal is so close?

You mean it like, a separate negotiation, that comes like some sort of a pre-deal term?
It's possible.

Right now I think one has to assume that all negotiations with Fiorentina are, broadly speaking, linked together.

Also keep in mind that for the Amauri deal, it didn't go through officially as Nocerino + cash for Amauri. Officially it was just shown that we bought Amauri for his full value and sold Nocerino for his full value.

Of course, the deals were inseparable in reality
 

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
53,920
It's possible.

Right now I think one has to assume that all negotiations with Fiorentina are, broadly speaking, linked together.

Also keep in mind that for the Amauri deal, it didn't go through officially as Nocerino + cash for Amauri. Officially it was just shown that we bought Amauri for his full value and sold Nocerino for his full value.

Of course, the deals were inseparable in reality
And don't forget the Lanzafame to Palermo deal some 20 days later. It was also done separately from the Amauri and Nocerino deals, but it was part of the Amauri to Juve deal.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)