Username
Password
Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
By Mighty Reds June 17 2008
Despite the player himself saying he loves being at Liverpool and living in the city, the manager and CE saying he’s not for sale, and now the owner , Tom Hicks, saying the same thing, Chelsea still seem to think they have a chance of signing Fernando Torres.

Why would any player want to go and play for a club like Chelsea other than if they’re looking for more and more money?

 

From Torres’s words he appears to be a lad who isn’t interested in the money as much as the glory, proved when he signed for Liverpool at a reduced wage last summer.  He has done nothing but praise the club, the city and fans ever since, and the love is most certainly reciprocated. Chelsea could offer him none of what he receives, and appreciates, at Anfield.  What player wants to play for a half hearted crowd who wave little plastic flags in unison? Or a club that changes it’s manager on a whim with an owner who thinks he can pick better players than the manager?

 

No, if Torres ever leaves Lverpool it certainly won’t be for Chelsea.

 

Bookmark or share this story with:

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Robao (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:14:44:22

No offence, old chap, but this article sounds kind of... well... homosexual.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: EuroBlue (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:14:50:40

Fantastic piece. There's no proof that Chelsea are actually interested, just a load of guff in the press.
That's why your hero, Hicks, says that 'The Chelsea rumours in the media are total rubbish'. There is no truth in them. Still, I'm glad if that helps you to rally around your American owners.
By the way, Chelsea's Chairman is Bruce Buck, presumably you are referring to the owner, Roman Abramovich. And you made a terrible it's / its error.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Ohdear (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:15:14:20

Have you even considered the possibility that as Liverpool have never received an approach from Chelsea it would tend to support the fact that Chelsea have never made an approach and it is therefore all "paper talk"? I guess you're just happiest believing what you want to believe...

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Reds (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:15:38:30

What's the difference with Chelsea? Owner, chairman, manager, it's all the same at Chelsea.

I have corrected it anyway.

..................................................................
Quote by Armin
There's no way back Tom. No press release, no statement, no transfer coup, you could provide a birth certificate proving you're the illegitimate son of Bill Shankly and Billy Liddell's daughter and all it would do in Liverpool is confirm you're a ba*stard.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: bluechelseadream (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:16:05:51

you @#$%& thieves can't get used to bein smaller than the chels. toress would jump to play for us if he gets the chance. he hates dirty scummy liverpool.

@#$%& off you @#$%&.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Reds (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:16:13:10

Oh feck, a Chelsea fan with an owner like the russian gangster calling others thieves....(Sm22)

Yeah, we're much smaller than Chelsea.....(Sm22)

As opposed to London which stinks of rat piiiss? Yeah right....(Sm22)

Your shiiitty little club isn't a fit place for someone with honour or morals to go, get used to it. Torres loves Liverpool.

..................................................................
Quote by Armin
There's no way back Tom. No press release, no statement, no transfer coup, you could provide a birth certificate proving you're the illegitimate son of Bill Shankly and Billy Liddell's daughter and all it would do in Liverpool is confirm you're a ba*stard.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: TDK (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:16:39:35

Quote:
bluechelseadream
you @#$%& thieves can't get used to bein smaller than the chels. toress would jump to play for us if he gets the chance. he hates dirty scummy liverpool.
@#$%& off you @#$%&.
Still being bullied at school are you little man? Let me guess 11? 12 years old? Jesus wept what an idiotic comment.
As for Ohdear's post,I tend to agree with him Chelsea haven't once said they want to buy Torres from Liverpool it's just idle lazy journalism.As a Liverpool fan I find some of the comments aimed at this article embarrassing,its so easy to have a go at Chelsea rather than see the article for what it really is,pure speculation.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Waspy (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:18:25:14

I think someones jealous, Chelski might have a bottemless pit of money. But Torres won't be going anywhere, iv'e seen enough of his interviews ta make me confident he'll be wearing Liverpool Red for a few seasond yet.

Anyway, Torres is not for sale end.

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL474/2295398/4499675/66729046.jpghttp://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL474/2295398/16404575/275162403.jpg

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:19:43:00

No he´s not for sale

Marca say an offer was made direct to Hicks and Gillett.

Hicks says no offer was made.

Gillett says nothing (yet).

Torres got his agent to ring Benitez to confirm that he would be continuing as manager of Liverpool next season (suggesting that Torres is more connected to Benitez rather than Liverpool).

All this does put the Liverpool board under pressure.





.

“It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it" P Kenyon.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: carra (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:20:24:28

Money cant buy you love , or respect.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Waspy (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:20:44:45

Dickie, you seem very gullible don't believe what journo's, papers etc are saying. the board is under pressure because G&H are gonna get twatted.

http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL474/2295398/4499675/66729046.jpghttp://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL474/2295398/16404575/275162403.jpg

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Reds (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:17:21:35:41

Dixon in another 'I'm really, really upset that we won't get what we want' shocker.

Torres has made it plain where he wants to be and we have the history, charisma and world status to keep him if Rafa was sacked. Unlike Chelsea whose players are lining up to get away and run off with Moanio.

..................................................................
Quote by Armin
There's no way back Tom. No press release, no statement, no transfer coup, you could provide a birth certificate proving you're the illegitimate son of Bill Shankly and Billy Liddell's daughter and all it would do in Liverpool is confirm you're a ba*stard.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: ianwelltravelled red (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:18:07:20:18

Should sell torres if chelsea pay for the new stadium, give Hicks or Gillet the funds to buy the others out and 150 mill cash as a transfer budget, at least them we have a starting point as that isn't going to happen Torres ain't going anywhere, 'Money can't by you love'

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:19:17:57:42

Quote:
Reds
Dixon in another 'I'm really, really upset that we won't get what we want' shocker.
Torres has made it plain where he wants to be and we have the history, charisma and world status to keep him if Rafa was sacked. Unlike Chelsea whose players are lining up to get away and run off with Moanio.

Where does it say I´m upset?!!

Personally I´d be just as happy if Drogba stayed..or Etoó came but of course I rate Torres very highly.

The reports on our Chelsea site are REPORTS ON REPORTS IN THE MEDIA - these type of reports could be media speculation or they could hold some truth (difficult to tell sometimes).

Drop the "we´ve got the history" rollocks - you sound like a tired, sctached record. Pretty soon you might just as well be a Preston, Huddesfield or Burnley fan.




.

“It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it" P Kenyon.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:19:18:27:42

Quote:
Reds
What's the difference with Chelsea? Owner, chairman, manager, it's all the same at Chelsea.
I have corrected it anyway.

OR...what´s the difference between the Everton chairman and the chief accountant put on the Liverpool board by the Everton chairman! Eh Kate?! ;-)






.

“It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it" P Kenyon.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: dixon9 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:19:18:32:04

Quote:
TDK
Quote:
bluechelseadream
you @#$%& thieves can't get used to bein smaller than the chels. toress would jump to play for us if he gets the chance. he hates dirty scummy liverpool.
@#$%& off you @#$%&.
Still being bullied at school are you little man? Let me guess 11? 12 years old? Jesus wept what an idiotic comment.
As for Ohdear's post,I tend to agree with him Chelsea haven't once said they want to buy Torres from Liverpool it's just idle lazy journalism.As a Liverpool fan I find some of the comments aimed at this article embarrassing,its so easy to have a go at Chelsea rather than see the article for what it really is,pure speculation.

Excellent post. Someone who SEES beyond the red mist.




.

“It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it" P Kenyon.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: KopMike_1 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:19:20:10:49

OR...what´s the difference between the Everton chairman and the chief accountant put on the Liverpool board by the Everton chairman -

As already stated on other thread.

Eric Sawyer was a big red and an accountant. His job was to find the money to buy players through the finances that were already coming in to the club, which he did with great results.

'Now, in May 1961, with The Reds heading for yet another third-place finish,the opportunity to sign StJohn arose once more, and the managers relationship with the club stood at the crossroads once again.

The asking price was £37,000 but this time,with Sawyer now batting for him in the boardroom, the moths were released from the safe and St John became a Liverpool player''

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Reds (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:19:22:05:20

(Sm22)

Nice one KM.

I've read that before but couldn't remember where. No doubt the fool will ignore that and TRY to paste his usual nonsensical answer.

..................................................................
Quote by Armin
There's no way back Tom. No press release, no statement, no transfer coup, you could provide a birth certificate proving you're the illegitimate son of Bill Shankly and Billy Liddell's daughter and all it would do in Liverpool is confirm you're a ba*stard.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: carra (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:19:23:45:01

Shanks threatend to resign before he signed the St John and Yeats because the board refused him money to sign his prodigy from Huddesfield Town Denis Law and Jackie Charlton.There is no evidence what so ever of millions been made available by anyone .Dixon has lost all creadability with his obsession with this argument ,he keeps raising it every couple of months ,its very boreing and very stupid.LFC have risen to the sumit of English and European football over many generations of title winning teams spanning over 100 years of success. We did in the 70/80s break transfer records with money gained through great successes on the pitch .Chelsea on the other hand have no history of any prolonged greatness.Their position now in the game is born out of one mans wealth acquired away from football.To try and compare LFCin the early 60s and Chelsea now is ridiculous.Dont get me wrong i would welcome a rich benefactor like DIC but at the same time was pleased we turned away the president of Thailand despite his millions .

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Reds (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:20:07:38:15

Oops.......(Sm22)

Stephen Done (LFC museum curator): While he could see there was potential in the club, what we have to try and remember is that back in 1959 this club was in a bad state. Perhaps no worse than many First Division clubs of today but compared to the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton, who were very wealthy at that time, Liverpool Football Club was in a bit of a mess and quite frankly wasn't going anywhere fast. It had plenty of money but wasn't spending it.

..................................................................
Quote by Armin
There's no way back Tom. No press release, no statement, no transfer coup, you could provide a birth certificate proving you're the illegitimate son of Bill Shankly and Billy Liddell's daughter and all it would do in Liverpool is confirm you're a ba*stard.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: carefree2008 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:28:16:07:37

Quote:
carra
Shanks threatend to resign before he signed the St John and Yeats because the board refused him money to sign his prodigy from Huddesfield Town Denis Law and Jackie Charlton.There is no evidence what so ever of millions been made available by anyone .Dixon has lost all creadability with his obsession with this argument ,he keeps raising it every couple of months ,its very boreing and very stupid.LFC have risen to the sumit of English and European football over many generations of title winning teams spanning over 100 years of success. We did in the 70/80s break transfer records with money gained through great successes on the pitch .Chelsea on the other hand have no history of any prolonged greatness.Their position now in the game is born out of one mans wealth acquired away from football.To try and compare LFCin the early 60s and Chelsea now is ridiculous.Dont get me wrong i would welcome a rich benefactor like DIC but at the same time was pleased we turned away the president of Thailand despite his millions .
Carra you just better get used to being in our shadow for many many years to come.You just don't get it do you,we all were jealous when you won the league every year, now that you are nowhere near of winning the league in my life time,i know how it must feel.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: carra (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:28:16:38:29

Why on earth would any Liverpool fan be jealous of Chelsea , when youve won 19 titles 6 European cups you might have an argument .Your not even in the same ballpark as us ,and as for casting shadows(Sm22)

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: carefree2008 (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:29:02:52:28

Quote:
carra
Why on earth would any Liverpool fan be jealous of Chelsea , when youve won 19 titles 6 European cups you might have an argument .Your not even in the same ballpark as us ,and as for casting shadows(Sm22)
Well why are you lot so bitter about what chelsea are trying to achieve and what we have accheived so far in the last ten years.It only points to jealousy.You know that whoever is successful at the time,people will think of something to belittle that club because of jealousy and nothing else.I`m sure you had something to say about the mancs lifting the league and the champions cup,when you should be admitting that they are the best club side in the world.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: carra (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:29:04:01:26

Bitter whose bitter good luck to the genuine Chelsea fans who have seen the bad times and who actuall know who Kerry Dixon is.All genuine footy fans deserve to taste success i wouldnt begrudge anyone that.As a Liverpool fan ive had my fair share of great triumphs so to say im jealous of Chelseas successes over the last number of years is way off the mark. What i and many other fans of other clubs dislike is your place at the top table of English football has not been earned through generations of dominence akin to Man u or Liverpool .Its been achieved through one mans wealth with no conection to London or your club or football for that matter.We are in the process at the moment of outside owners taking control the fact that their ars*HOLES is not the point .They were atracted to LFC because of our pedigree in football. Chelsea our a very very good team and your team deserves the highest of respect. Respect for your club has to be earned over a period of time before other fans will see past the Russians money .Good luck next season looking foreward to crossing swords agaibn.

Re: Reds again say NO to Chelsea.
Posted by: Reds (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:06:29:04:10:35

Agree with all you say carra.

I respect the Chelsea team, but the club is one of the lowest in my estimation and not only because of the money.

..................................................................
Quote by Armin
There's no way back Tom. No press release, no statement, no transfer coup, you could provide a birth certificate proving you're the illegitimate son of Bill Shankly and Billy Liddell's daughter and all it would do in Liverpool is confirm you're a ba*stard.

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListLog In

Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
CAPTCHA