Modric back to Tottenham, Ronaldo back to Manchester United.
Who's next to move back to their old club?
Fabregas and RVP back to Arsenal please
January Transfer Window 2012/2013 Season Rumours/Signings
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
Fabregas and RVP back to Arsenal please
Typical Wenger signing if true, another mediocre player to come into the squad...suck up £60k a week and offer nothing to the squad as a whole.
Hopefully its just a rumour and no truth is in it.
Wouldn't be surprised if the motivation is to not play in the champ next year and not ever to be managed by 'Arry...
I would take Modric back in a heartbeat. Spurs are still a decent side without him but he adds a certain grace that makes Spurs much more enjoyable to watch.
I can't say I've ever had a problem with his attitude either. He wanted to leave for Chelsea, he was told no. He could have given up trying on the pitch and yet went on to give some of his best performances for Spurs.
I think at Spurs (now), Modric would have the same problems he has at RM.
He doesnt get enough goals to play behind a striker, nor is he devastating enough as a Rooney type role, and there are better players at driving forward having picked up the ball from defence.
In Spurs' case, Dembele has that deep role and does it well. The opportunity cost of Spurs buying back Modric would be huge considering other areas of the team are under-resourced (we need a creative forward to distribute the ball high up the pitch).
Edit- as to whether he would/could come back, stranger things have happened; Berbatov is now rocking with Jol after the terrible end to their working relationship
He doesnt get enough goals to play behind a striker, nor is he devastating enough as a Rooney type role, and there are better players at driving forward having picked up the ball from defence.
In Spurs' case, Dembele has that deep role and does it well. The opportunity cost of Spurs buying back Modric would be huge considering other areas of the team are under-resourced (we need a creative forward to distribute the ball high up the pitch).
Edit- as to whether he would/could come back, stranger things have happened; Berbatov is now rocking with Jol after the terrible end to their working relationship
-------------Lloris
Walker - Vert - Kaboul - BAE
------------Sandro
Dembele-------------Modric
Lennone-------------Bale
-------------Striker
4-3-3 AVBs preferred formation.....it could work could even have Sandro and Dembele as a 2 with Modric slightly further forward. After all isnt this why we are in for Moutinho?
I don't mind not offering contracts to club legends if it's the best thing for the squad/club (i.e. older player with high wages/loss of form making room for better younger player).
Having said that Lampard is still playing well for Chelsea and it has to be worth offering him a one/two year deal on lower wages. I wouldn't class him as deadwood in the Chelsea squad so it is a strange decision.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Legend at a club has nothing to do with it, conversely Giggs shouldn't have been offered new contracts in 2-3 years, because he's been pap for years and giving him new contracts just because, is daft.
Lampard however has 6 goals in 20 shots this year, a better shots to goal ratio than RVP, and is still playing exceptionally well, still the most consistently brilliant player Chelsea have and is still one of the best players in the league.
Not offering a top class player a contract when he's that good is a joke and disrespectful, the fact that you'd treat a player badly when he's also a club legend just compounds the ridiculousness of it.
They don't have to offer him 5 years and 300k a week, offer him a one year rolling contract at a reduced wage, its still an offer and even if its something that other clubs easily beat, its still both a sign of respect and good business.
There is still no other midfielder in the league with his scoring capability, few with his assisting capability(though lately his play has been exactly as good and is involved in the build up of a huge number of goals, but has been getting less direct assists), none with his consistency. Age is irrelevant, if he was 24 people would be paying 40mil + for him and getting a 15 goal a year central midfielder, he's still a player that good.
he could certainly do a job in the cups for them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,068
- Location
- Surrey
Chelsea and United seem to be going to opposite extremes with their old players 
Lampard not getting a new contract from Chelsea is beyond stupidity really, i can see Utd making a play for him but from what i read, Lamps wont be able to leave till the summer.
Would love to have him at Arsenal but hes made it clear he wont be signing for another London club...shame really.
Would love to have him at Arsenal but hes made it clear he wont be signing for another London club...shame really.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I would imagine its up to Lampard, can't he buy out his contract if he wants and move on, I really can't remember the rule, you can do it if you're over 28?
The daftest thing about not offering a contract is that he'll likely help take points off Chelsea from when he leaves till when he retires. I mean Silvestre to Arsenal helped Utd out, Giggs to Chelsea would help Utd out, Lampard to anyone will both hurt Chelsea by losing one of their best players and hurt them when he ends up playing against them, its a truly epically awful move. If he was crap, fine, but 7 starts, 6 goals, he's still one of their best players, age has smeg all to do with wages as well, if player X delivers a 10 goals, why is player Y who delivers 15 goals only worth paying 50k a week less. Lampard is still their most effective player, and he's only being played less because they are choosing to play him less. Its like Barca deciding to rest Messi every other game and asking him to take a massive paycut.
if someone is genuinely less capable of playing as often and less good, sure they aren't worth as much, but Lampard is neither of those things.
Last edited:
no disprespect to Fat Frank but I very much doubt Giggs (or Scholes who is in the same boat) are on anything like the same wages.
The un-answerable question is what each player does behind the scenes for the team on the training pitch etc etc, it may be woth it to SAF /Utd to pay Giggs and Scholes 80/90k a week while they take their coaching badges etc while playing fewer 1st team games.
There are also question marks as to whether Lamps is part of the player power issue at Chelsea, which might be making the releasing on a free easier to decide from the club's point of view.
Saying all that, I am hoping at least one, if not both of Scholes and Giggs are retired from the squad (when this happens Scholes sounds like he will continue the coaching the juniors which he started 18 months ago). I hope Giggs does something similar with the club.
He's getting paid a fortune, he would be mad to pay to leave for a lower wage. If he leaves in the summer he'll probably be better off.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
He can probably get paid loads anyway, he's a multiple millionaire, Joe Cole is a poo player who was never very good and left to get more money, Lampard will be leaving at the top of his game to go continue to be the best he can be after his club have treated him like poo, it depends exactly when his contract is up, if its end of May its only 4 months(if he moved on the last day of Jan) which is only a couple million.
Its basically chump change to him at this point, and means he gets to play more and prove his worth. If he did go to the states or something, he'd end up on significantly more than he's on currently anyway.
Joe Cole isn't making less, he was prepared to move because WHU offered him first team football and we were happy to pay off the difference between what WHU will pay him between now and the end of his contract with us.
I wouldn't presume to know what another man considers "chump change"
I do see what you're trying to say though, I was only considering if he stayed in the prem as I'd heard he didn't want to move abroad. You're right if he left for the US he'd be paid a fortune.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,001
Lampard should goto West Ham, just to go old school.
I'd have him at Newcastle, never happen though.
I'd have him at Newcastle, never happen though.
Everyone 'knows' that letting SFL go is wrong, it's just that obvious, so it'll also be obvious to whoever decides these things which leads me to believe there has to be a fair reason for it.
Keeping him would be great but it's probably not the way forward due to his age, I bet the majority of Man.U. fans would rather have a couple of young promising players in MF this season instead of Giggs or Scholes, perhaps that's what's going to happen at Chelsea.
There's also FFP to consider, SFL is apparently on around £7m per year, that's a lot of money and perhaps the club think they can spend that better with an eye to the future.
Nobody knows exactly what's going on, newspapers contradict themselves daily so it's not worth listening to their opinions.
Keeping him would be great but it's probably not the way forward due to his age, I bet the majority of Man.U. fans would rather have a couple of young promising players in MF this season instead of Giggs or Scholes, perhaps that's what's going to happen at Chelsea.
There's also FFP to consider, SFL is apparently on around £7m per year, that's a lot of money and perhaps the club think they can spend that better with an eye to the future.
Nobody knows exactly what's going on, newspapers contradict themselves daily so it's not worth listening to their opinions.