| Gylfi 15:33 - Aug 4 with 81551 views | Darran |
He's off. |  |
| |  |
| Gylfi on 19:31 - Aug 8 with 2566 views | jack247 |
| Gylfi on 19:29 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
It would be ducking mental to risk a potential £45-50m deal with that sort of negotiating tactic.
Can you imagine the outrage on here if he got injured and the deal fell through? From a business perspective it would be considered negligent in the extreme to adopt that sort of risk for such a potentially critical cash injection.
Leave it to the professionals |
Yeah, cos they are doing a great job of it |  | | |
| Gylfi on 19:35 - Aug 8 with 2538 views | jack247 |
| Gylfi on 19:23 - Aug 8 by TheFranchise |
Has anyone suggested you may have a stress management problem? |
You're the first. | | | |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 with 2507 views | EasternJack |
| Gylfi on 19:31 - Aug 8 by jack247 |
Yeah, cos they are doing a great job of it |
So far, I think so.
They don't want to sell Gylfi. The 50M tag clearly supports that view - it's a stupid number for him that Everton were never meant to really consider.
Great if we get the money
20 goals assured if we don't
Win win |  |
| |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 with 2507 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 19:29 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
It would be ducking mental to risk a potential £45-50m deal with that sort of negotiating tactic.
Can you imagine the outrage on here if he got injured and the deal fell through? From a business perspective it would be considered negligent in the extreme to adopt that sort of risk for such a potentially critical cash injection.
Leave it to the professionals |
What if the deal doesn't happen and his ACL goes in the first match in September? Or he tears his hamstring because he hasn't done a proper pre season?
It's the same thing (and more likely as injuries happen less often in friendlies).
Liverpool haven't sat Coutinho out for pre season, Leicester haven't with Mahrez, etc etc etc.
We are in the farcical situation of our most valuable player neither giving us the money to improve the squad for Saturday, nor being able to play for us.
It's utterly ridiculous. | | | |
| Gylfi on 19:41 - Aug 8 with 2479 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
So far, I think so.
They don't want to sell Gylfi. The 50M tag clearly supports that view - it's a stupid number for him that Everton were never meant to really consider.
Great if we get the money
20 goals assured if we don't
Win win |
Hang on. One minute you're saying that it's business suicide to risk the deal not happening and the next you're saying they don't want to sell him?
Which is it?
If they didn't want to sell him, they wouldn't have kept him out of pre season. But keeping him out, with only one club interested, was stupid anyway. | | | |
| Gylfi on 19:44 - Aug 8 with 2424 views | pencoedjack |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
What if the deal doesn't happen and his ACL goes in the first match in September? Or he tears his hamstring because he hasn't done a proper pre season?
It's the same thing (and more likely as injuries happen less often in friendlies).
Liverpool haven't sat Coutinho out for pre season, Leicester haven't with Mahrez, etc etc etc.
We are in the farcical situation of our most valuable player neither giving us the money to improve the squad for Saturday, nor being able to play for us.
It's utterly ridiculous. |
If he's fit and the best option he should play Saturday |  | | |
| Gylfi on 19:46 - Aug 8 with 2402 views | EasternJack |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
What if the deal doesn't happen and his ACL goes in the first match in September? Or he tears his hamstring because he hasn't done a proper pre season?
It's the same thing (and more likely as injuries happen less often in friendlies).
Liverpool haven't sat Coutinho out for pre season, Leicester haven't with Mahrez, etc etc etc.
We are in the farcical situation of our most valuable player neither giving us the money to improve the squad for Saturday, nor being able to play for us.
It's utterly ridiculous. |
Ah - we're dealing in "what if's"
What if he bangs in 50 goals next season and he subsequently becomes worth £100M?
I genuinely feel that PC and board want to keep Siggy as a matter of pinciple: obviously the money being banded around and the imminent potential of the deal (plus Siggy changing his mind) made this something they had to consider - and therefore protect by benching him.
It looks like a lot of bad faith by Everton that's causing this delay - probably by their board being torn on the value of this deal (it's a terrrible deal for them that makes no sense unles CL is guaranteed - it's not)
The Coutinho/Mahrez situations are slightly different. Neither have been as "imminent" as the Siggy deal, also the 50m is a major deal for us. If Mahrez was potentially subcject to an imminent 70m deal then I'm sure Leicester would pull him from any games | |
| |
| Gylfi on 19:47 - Aug 8 with 2394 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 19:44 - Aug 8 by pencoedjack |
If he's fit and the best option he should play Saturday |
Genuinely can't see how he's fit enough.
Possibly on the bench.
But I'd be amazed if he ever gets near pulling on the shirt again to be honest.
I think it's all gone too far. But in the crazy world of the premier league, who knows anymore.
If we've turned down £40m plus for him though, we are utterly, utterly mad. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gylfi on 19:48 - Aug 8 with 2375 views | EasternJack |
| Gylfi on 19:41 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
Hang on. One minute you're saying that it's business suicide to risk the deal not happening and the next you're saying they don't want to sell him?
Which is it?
If they didn't want to sell him, they wouldn't have kept him out of pre season. But keeping him out, with only one club interested, was stupid anyway. |
I've explained. I'll simplify:
Board didn't want to sell and made a statement to the same by setting a huge price tag.
Huge price tag is seriously considered by Everton
Player then starts to agitate
Makes sense for the board to try and conclude the deal [Post edited 8 Aug 2017 19:52]
| |
| |
| Gylfi on 19:50 - Aug 8 with 2359 views | Thornburyswan |
IF what SSN are reporting is close to the truth - we accepted £45M & then Everton changed their mind & came back @ £40M - & Siggy still holds the respect of PC & the first team squad for me he should be reintegrated & put on the bench on Saturday (with a view, subject to game situation, giving him the last 10/15 minutes).
Putting him with the kids is not a play for me & keeping him out of the squad until the window shuts 'just in case' doesn't help either - the above either starts his reintegration or forces Everton to come back @ £45M+ | | | |
| Gylfi on 19:51 - Aug 8 with 2346 views | jack247 |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
So far, I think so.
They don't want to sell Gylfi. The 50M tag clearly supports that view - it's a stupid number for him that Everton were never meant to really consider.
Great if we get the money
20 goals assured if we don't
Win win |
Huh?
We either sell him, or we don't. If we don't, we don't wrap him in cotton wool.
It's really not a win win if we spend the whole transfer window butting heads with them and either end up with an unfit, disillusioned player, or £50m and no time to spend it.
If we really wanted to keep him, just say he is not for sale. If we were happy to sell, then a slightly lower amount earlier in the window, which would have allowed us to sign and integrate a replacement would have been better for all parties. | | | |
| Gylfi on 19:51 - Aug 8 with 2347 views | bluenile |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
What if the deal doesn't happen and his ACL goes in the first match in September? Or he tears his hamstring because he hasn't done a proper pre season?
It's the same thing (and more likely as injuries happen less often in friendlies).
Liverpool haven't sat Coutinho out for pre season, Leicester haven't with Mahrez, etc etc etc.
We are in the farcical situation of our most valuable player neither giving us the money to improve the squad for Saturday, nor being able to play for us.
It's utterly ridiculous. |
What if?............What if?............If my Uncle was a dog he'd go woof! |  |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| Gylfi on 19:55 - Aug 8 with 2290 views | TheResurrection |
| Gylfi on 19:35 - Aug 8 by jack247 |
You're the first. |
I've thought it for a while ;-) |  |
| |
| Gylfi on 19:56 - Aug 8 with 2271 views | jack247 |
Fair play, genuine laugh out loud moment ðŸ‘🻠| | | |
| Gylfi on 20:02 - Aug 8 with 2213 views | TheResurrection |
| Gylfi on 19:38 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
What if the deal doesn't happen and his ACL goes in the first match in September? Or he tears his hamstring because he hasn't done a proper pre season?
It's the same thing (and more likely as injuries happen less often in friendlies).
Liverpool haven't sat Coutinho out for pre season, Leicester haven't with Mahrez, etc etc etc.
We are in the farcical situation of our most valuable player neither giving us the money to improve the squad for Saturday, nor being able to play for us.
It's utterly ridiculous. |
It's far more likely that Siggy's agent is both behind this latest article and him not taking much of a part in pre-season.
Yeah, I think we've been happy to go along with it to a certain degree as it protects what was looking like an extremely valuable asset.
For Siggy's agent, this is one of the final attempts to force Everton's hand, almost publicly shaming them by announcing their moving of the goalpost's. If this doesn't work, then the advice would be to hand in a transfer request.
It's ridiculous, but it's the beginning of the end. | |
| |
| Gylfi on 20:06 - Aug 8 with 2168 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 19:51 - Aug 8 by bluenile |
What if?............What if?............If my Uncle was a dog he'd go woof! |
I was responding to the post that said we couldn't play him in case he was injured and we lost our asset.
That's a 'what if' in the first place, which was the point I was making.
It's all what ifs.
If he's ours, we should have played him. This saga has been so badly managed it's untrue. | | | |
| Gylfi on 20:10 - Aug 8 with 2134 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 19:46 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
Ah - we're dealing in "what if's"
What if he bangs in 50 goals next season and he subsequently becomes worth £100M?
I genuinely feel that PC and board want to keep Siggy as a matter of pinciple: obviously the money being banded around and the imminent potential of the deal (plus Siggy changing his mind) made this something they had to consider - and therefore protect by benching him.
It looks like a lot of bad faith by Everton that's causing this delay - probably by their board being torn on the value of this deal (it's a terrrible deal for them that makes no sense unles CL is guaranteed - it's not)
The Coutinho/Mahrez situations are slightly different. Neither have been as "imminent" as the Siggy deal, also the 50m is a major deal for us. If Mahrez was potentially subcject to an imminent 70m deal then I'm sure Leicester would pull him from any games |
No. I'm pointing out that you were doing exactly that. In which case, it never ends.
I don't think for a moment the board want to keep him. They put a price in his head the second the season ended. The only difference is we've upped the price during the summer. I also don't think for a moment that he wanted to stay if any club bigger than us came in for him.
And the Siggy deal hasn't been imminent. Hence why after what seems like a decade or two, he's still not gone. | | | |
| Gylfi on 20:13 - Aug 8 with 2088 views | TheResurrection |
| Gylfi on 19:46 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
Ah - we're dealing in "what if's"
What if he bangs in 50 goals next season and he subsequently becomes worth £100M?
I genuinely feel that PC and board want to keep Siggy as a matter of pinciple: obviously the money being banded around and the imminent potential of the deal (plus Siggy changing his mind) made this something they had to consider - and therefore protect by benching him.
It looks like a lot of bad faith by Everton that's causing this delay - probably by their board being torn on the value of this deal (it's a terrrible deal for them that makes no sense unles CL is guaranteed - it's not)
The Coutinho/Mahrez situations are slightly different. Neither have been as "imminent" as the Siggy deal, also the 50m is a major deal for us. If Mahrez was potentially subcject to an imminent 70m deal then I'm sure Leicester would pull him from any games |
The Board and PC wanting to keep him point, you make,
Trust me, they don't.
I dont care whether you believe it or not, it's the truth. | |
| |
| Gylfi on 20:18 - Aug 8 with 2033 views | Darran |
| Gylfi on 20:13 - Aug 8 by TheResurrection |
The Board and PC wanting to keep him point, you make,
Trust me, they don't.
I dont care whether you believe it or not, it's the truth. |
That's not completely true. If someone tossed £50million into the transfer kitty tomorrow they'd keep him.
They want money not him gone and they've got a big dimella. | |
| |
| Gylfi on 20:26 - Aug 8 with 1935 views | Nirvana |
| Gylfi on 19:46 - Aug 8 by EasternJack |
Ah - we're dealing in "what if's"
What if he bangs in 50 goals next season and he subsequently becomes worth £100M?
I genuinely feel that PC and board want to keep Siggy as a matter of pinciple: obviously the money being banded around and the imminent potential of the deal (plus Siggy changing his mind) made this something they had to consider - and therefore protect by benching him.
It looks like a lot of bad faith by Everton that's causing this delay - probably by their board being torn on the value of this deal (it's a terrrible deal for them that makes no sense unles CL is guaranteed - it's not)
The Coutinho/Mahrez situations are slightly different. Neither have been as "imminent" as the Siggy deal, also the 50m is a major deal for us. If Mahrez was potentially subcject to an imminent 70m deal then I'm sure Leicester would pull him from any games |
Completely agree here, Eastern.
Well said. |  | | |
| Gylfi on 20:28 - Aug 8 with 1919 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 20:18 - Aug 8 by Darran |
That's not completely true. If someone tossed £50million into the transfer kitty tomorrow they'd keep him.
They want money not him gone and they've got a big dimella. |
That's fair.
But as I said a few weeks ago, we have, in turning down the offer of two weeks ago, effectively paid out £40m plus on one midfielder when we don't have the ability to bring in the players that we needed. And we've done it in order to be bloody clever. And those of us who've been Swans fans for years, could see this coming a mile off.
Teams that are far richer can afford to invest so much in one player. We can't. | | | |
| Gylfi on 20:30 - Aug 8 with 1891 views | union_jack |
| Gylfi on 20:18 - Aug 8 by Darran |
That's not completely true. If someone tossed £50million into the transfer kitty tomorrow they'd keep him.
They want money not him gone and they've got a big dimella. |
Exactly. |  |
| |
| Gylfi on 20:34 - Aug 8 with 1837 views | Darran |
| Gylfi on 20:28 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
That's fair.
But as I said a few weeks ago, we have, in turning down the offer of two weeks ago, effectively paid out £40m plus on one midfielder when we don't have the ability to bring in the players that we needed. And we've done it in order to be bloody clever. And those of us who've been Swans fans for years, could see this coming a mile off.
Teams that are far richer can afford to invest so much in one player. We can't. |
I completely agree as you probably know I said basically the same thing on twitter two weeks ago.
There's playing hardball and there's fuçking up and if this falls through not accepting £40million is fuçking up big time. | |
| |
| Gylfi on 20:34 - Aug 8 with 1837 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Gylfi on 20:26 - Aug 8 by Nirvana |
Completely agree here, Eastern.
Well said. |
That's because, as you've admitted on a number of occasions, you don't understand the finances.
It's why you've spent ages talking about (insert name of random European player) joining us for 'only' €10m 'whether we get rid of Gylfi or not'.
Investing £40m on one player for us is madness when there are weaknesses all over the squad.
Why we don't have any money to spend is a different matter, as we bloody well should have if the club is being managed properly. But we don't have the sort of money that selling one player for in excess of £40m would give us. | | | |
| Gylfi on 20:36 - Aug 8 with 1808 views | max936 |
| Gylfi on 20:06 - Aug 8 by londonlisa2001 |
I was responding to the post that said we couldn't play him in case he was injured and we lost our asset.
That's a 'what if' in the first place, which was the point I was making.
It's all what ifs.
If he's ours, we should have played him. This saga has been so badly managed it's untrue. |
Badly managed you say? nah the Yanks said lessons have been learnt mun 
Koeman hasn't come out of this with any credit at all either publicly stating that he wants to sign him, I know it happens behind closed doors but this has been as public as it gets that can't be right, just because they are now a club with huge financial backing they think they can do what they Like.
They've fuked up our signings pre-season [yes the yanks have a hand in this as well] and our preparations for the seasons start it stinks |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
