Dave

47 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

£20m for Kellyman is not ridiculous, he’s arguably top 5 prospect in this country.

Hi Nick De Marco, welcome to the forum.

For what it's worth I think Tim Irogbaneam could be a good signing. At Michael Beale's QPR when they were at the top of the league he looked a big athletic lad in the middle that could run through the midfield with enough technical ability to influence the game. Not sure what happened after mind.

The fees paid for Dobbin and Kellyman seem farcical.

11 hours ago, Stan said:

What are they even going to 'review'?

Just means they'll close the loophole. They can't undo the transfers, I imagine. 

As you said, they'll look to close a loophole. They need to look like they have some form of authority whilst the government are planning to introduce an independent regulator even though the horse has bolted.

A review would be pointless, how far back do you want to go, Man City selling several young players for high fees to Southampton? Bournemouth's bizarre valuation of Liverpool's players by a man who now works for Liverpool? The several deals between Udinese and Watford? 

Clubs have been doing this for years, it's just Chelsea have once again ruined it for everybody by paying a ridiculous fee for an Aston Villa player.

Croatia winning would be very good for England providing we top our group.

Mental that England 1 Denmark 1 didn't get prediction of the round given the carnage its caused in the media.

Whilst I'd be fuming if my club even contemplated it. If club owners were happy to lose the advantage of a home fixture and commit to not complaining about fixture congestion, travel etc should form suffer around the date of the overseas match I'd say let them do what they want. 

The Wrexham response would have been interesting. Whilst I would expect Birmingham fans, most of whom haven't seen there side in the third tier until now would have had protests over this. I'm not sure how much of the Hollywood Koolaid a club who spent so long out the '92 have drank.

1 hour ago, Dan said:

called it pre-tournament but he fucked up with the left back situation. Not having a proper left back totally nullifies our game plan regardless of who the front four are. Shaw is now apparently doubtful for the whole tournament. It feels more 2016 by the day.

He's taken four Palace players, and the one who would have been my first choice didn't even make the preliminary squad.

Noticed earlier that if Holland match France's score then France, Germany, Portugal and Spain should be on the other side of the Knockout bracket.

Got no idea what everyone's panicking about.

It's no coincidence that the fans of clubs who haven't budgeted correctly, taken unnessecary gambles and (Villa aside) have largely recruited poorly are patting each other on the back whilst the rest are embarrassed of your behaviour.

3 hours ago, El Profesor said:

 

 

Also, Estevão and Endrick are completely different players.

Estevão is more of a classic winger, while Endrick is a striker.

IMO Estevão is more talented and more technically gifted than Endrick. On the other hand, Endrick seems to be more mature, hence the jump to Europe might be less problematic to him.  

I would say that Estevão is the closest to a generational prospect since Neymar.

I wouldn´t go as far to say Estevão is generational, not yet. But the way he is developing is just incredible. At age 17, he is already the best player in a very strong Palmeiras side. 

Rodrygo and Vinícius Jr. as a good as they were when they started, weren´t that good.

So one can say for sure, at least for now that Estevão has a very high ceiling. 

I am not sure what Chelsea will do with all the young forward talent they have, Kendry Paez also looks great by the way.

 

 

 

I think the comparison has come more in our media outlets because they're both attacking players from Palmeiras as opposed to them being carbon copy's of each other.

From the little I've seen of Kendry Paez in Copa America he does look great.

1 hour ago, Redcanuck said:

Did he sign a seven year deal?  I thought they were limiting deals to 5 years to stop Chelsea fudging the numbers on the PSR  and FPL

I think you can only amortise the contact over five years but you can offer lengths for as long as you want.

'The Next Endrick' which feels a little bizarre to say given Endrick's age.