John Stones transfer saga

Tree13 · August 2, 2015

blue4eva77 said:
Still reckon one of mccarthy, stones or mirallas will be sold before the deadline.

If on of those three is to go, then it will surely be McCarthy. We have depth in his position, whereas there is no depth behind Stones or Mirallas. Plus, we won't get much for Mirallas, and Stones helps towards our home-grown quota.

The Esk · August 2, 2015

mythbuster said:
It's not embargoed, it just takes the mongs hours to write something, and then publish it.

LinekersLegs said:
Been out of the UK a while but isn't "mongs" an unpleasant and derogatory word used to refer to Down's sufferers?

mythbuster said:
Yes, the less emotionally charged meaning is "hack journalists" - you could equally define a legion of of other bog-standard intelligent people with the same word. Don't be getting all politically correct with me LL

LinekersLegs said:
This has nothing to do with being politically correct - I have relatives with developmental issues so personally find it an offensive and unpleasant term to use especially when there are far more suitable phrases you can use like the "hack journalists" you suggested.

It's certainly not language we want to see used on this site.

@mythbuster please refrain from using it in future, thank you.

applecrumble · August 2, 2015

It is disgusting when you think about all the **** and lies the media perpetuate and report as facts.

chicoazul · August 2, 2015

Well this thread has been a hoot.

Bunch of anxiety ridden teds.

bizzaro · August 2, 2015

mythbuster said:
Haha, indeed mate. Rather ironically, The Telegraph have ran this little piece of hypocrisy in the last day or 3

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...atens-an-objective-and-independent-press.html

Theres potential infringements of the freedom of the press which is enshrined in UK law there.

On the other hand the biased articles being published by the London hacks isn't helping the situation either.

oldblue · August 2, 2015

the reason Mourinho thinks he can do whatever he wants is because people start to believe it. the media has sold plenty of our players who have then stayed, a few who haven't. all that means is clubs sometimes want our players and sometimes we are ok to sell. the only time I can ever remember our hand being forced was Rooney. So why keep analysing everything when the words NOT FOR SALE are out there?
The main thing I think is not to get blinded by how much cash Chelsea have to spend if Stones is considered too important to sell then we won't. And maybe today's game will be a reminder that a genuine legend can do a whole lot more for a club than some cash.

mythbuster · August 2, 2015

bizzaro said:
Theres potential infringements of the freedom of the press which is enshrined in UK law there.

On the other hand the biased articles being published by the London hacks isn't helping the situation either.

Not really mate. The hack in that piece seems to be making that argument, whilst ironically using the freedom of the press to voice his opinion.

Not being able to attend a press conference, in no way infringes his right to write his opinion on the club, report on a performance, or criticise or praise anybody associated with the barcodes.

coollino · August 2, 2015

Hearing Stones isn't in the squad today.

Duncan Disordely · August 2, 2015

There's a story on the Mirrors transfer live blog page that Chelsea have gone in hard for Stones because we didn't play Atsu. The UK press is beyond parody