kippax88 said:yozzer said:maybe we dont want john terry and we are just showing chelsea our power in the transfer market..as if to say coming soon boys we going to take over...because who really believes jt will come to us this season...i just cant see this transfer happening,although its very funny upsetting opposition
i agree with this, i just think the arabs are taking the piss out of chelsea.
mancboy123 said:It wasnt newspaper reports that brought this to the fore. We made a PRIVATE bid and then you chose to PUBLICLY reject it on your website.
Paulmcfc2703 said:welcome to last week ;) lolThe Fat el Hombre said:No smoke without fire according to jamie redknapp:
Jamie Redknapp, the Sky Sports pundit, believes Manchester City Football Club may not end their interest in John Terry just yet.
The mega-rich Eastlands club have been linked with a £45million bid for the Chelsea defender, who they have tried to buy on two previous occasions.
And although Carlo Ancelotti insists the England international is staying at Stamford Bridge, Redknapp doesn’t think this will bring an end to the speculation.
"I do feel in these situations that there is no smoke without fire," he told Sky Sports. "I'm sure there has been some dialogue between Terry's representatives and City.
"They obviously need defenders - they've bought [Roque] Santa Cruz, they've bought Robinho - but they need some good central defenders, and they're at a premium.
"It's very difficult to get top central defenders, so if they want to go and pay £45million for someone like John Terry and make a bid for him, then that's up to them.
"But they won't be doing it unless they know that there is interest on [the player's] behalf. So I think it's one that's maybe going to run and run. I'm not sure this is the end of it."
If it's already been posted, feel free to psot with the standard internet put-downs ('welcome to lastw eek etc')
Sam Eto's work visa said:Don't think this has been posted before.
A valid reason for Chelsea to sell from SSN....?
Living without John
Chelsea's last three seasons of results with and without John Terry
John Terry, Chelsea captain and Blues' icon, is one of the most recent players to come to the attention of Manchester City manager Mark Hughes as he attempts to build a side capable of breaking down the hegemony of the "Big Four".
Many at Stamford Bridge feel that losing the talismanic central defender would spell doom for their club, and with this in mind Opta investigate the history of the Pensioners' performances without Terry in the last three seasons.
Interestingly, though Terry is obviously a vital factor in his side's defence, with Chelsea conceding an average of 0.58 goals per game in the Premier League with him and 0.86 in his absence, the Blues are not incapable of winning without him.
Indeed, in the last three seasons the London side have won a higher proportion of their games without him in the side (68% to 64%) and taken more points per game (2.32 to 2.16).
On top of this, Chelsea have lost just one game in 28 when he hasn't been playing, this coming in a 2-0 defeat away at Liverpool in January 2007.
The Blues lost at the same venue 2-0 with Terry in the side earlier this season.
Chelsea in PL - Last Three Seasons With Terry Without Terry
Games 86 28
Wins 15 19
Draws 21 8
Losses 10 1
Goals For 140 57
Average Goals For 1.63 2.04
Goals Against 50 24
Average Goals Against 0.58 0.86
Win % 64% 68%
Lose % 12% 4%
Points per game 2.16 2.32
This means that the Pensioners have now gone 20 games undefeated without their Captain in the line-up, leaving new manager Carlo Ancelotti to ponder how vital he is to Chelsea's continued success.
bobrivers said:mancboy123 said:It wasnt newspaper reports that brought this to the fore. We made a PRIVATE bid and then you chose to PUBLICLY reject it on your website.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1197668/Chelsea-s-Peter-K-funnier-original.html?ITO=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... l?ITO=1490</a>
"What has provoked Chelsea's anger this time is that City scheduled a meeting over the transfer of Daniel Sturridge (a young player who City nurtured but who has now joined Chelsea) and used that to make a formal offer for Terry. When this newspaper found out what had happened, Chelsea went on the record in the strongest terms dismissing City's interest."
I believe that article was already mentioned in this thread but the highlighted bit should explain to you why Chelsea decided to go public with their rejection, it was to make their position clear before the press manages to put their own twist on the story.
Makes you wonder though who decided to leak the info about that bid to begin with, and I don't think it was anyone from our club, since it wasn't in Chelsea interest.
city-adam said:dunnes better
Dubai Blue said:at what?city-adam said:dunnes better
Dubai Blue said:at what?city-adam said:dunnes better
Benarbia said:Can't see how being turned down superstar after superstar is good for the club???
bobrivers said:mancboy123 said:It wasnt newspaper reports that brought this to the fore. We made a PRIVATE bid and then you chose to PUBLICLY reject it on your website.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1197668/Chelsea-s-Peter-K-funnier-original.html?ITO=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... l?ITO=1490</a>
"What has provoked Chelsea's anger this time is that City scheduled a meeting over the transfer of Daniel Sturridge (a young player who City nurtured but who has now joined Chelsea) and used that to make a formal offer for Terry. When this newspaper found out what had happened, Chelsea went on the record in the strongest terms dismissing City's interest."
I believe that article was already mentioned in this thread but the highlighted bit should explain to you why Chelsea decided to go public with their rejection, it was to make their position clear before the press manages to put their own twist on the story.
Makes you wonder though who decided to leak the info about that bid to begin with, and I don't think it was anyone from our club, since it wasn't in Chelsea interest.
keemanan said:There's no way we would have pursued this hard if he wasn't interested.
Terry loves Hughes and Hitchcock so it's not beyond the realms. Kenyon saying he has spoken to Terry I think is misleading, if he had spoke recently then he would say that first not as an aside , I think he is saying that in the past he has told him he wants to stay. geddit?