Are you seriously suggesting spend £40m on a player only for him not to play against the best side in the league?Surely it's a win, win situation for Pep and City. We take Cole Palmer either permanently or on loan, who if fit will boost the possibility of us taking points off of City's supposed title/top four rivals. While not being allowed to play at either the Etihad or Amex against Man City.
I dont think that stipulation would be valid if he was sold permanently.Surely it's a win, win situation for Pep and City. We take Cole Palmer either permanently or on loan, who if fit will boost the possibility of us taking points off of City's supposed title/top four rivals. While not being allowed to play at either the Etihad or Amex against Man City.
I think its between Palmer and Macatee as to which one they keep or sell.I still can’t understand for the life of me, why Citeh would be considering selling him. Surely - they have decided to keep him but I’ve not seen that confirmed.
you’ve just got to laugh at this point…
That’s against League rules for permanent transferSurely it's a win, win situation for Pep and City. We take Cole Palmer either permanently or on loan, who if fit will boost the possibility of us taking points off of City's supposed title/top four rivals. While not being allowed to play at either the Etihad or Amex against Man City.
Agreed. Unless it means we win a trophy.I’d be interested if it’s a permanent, but absolutely not on loan. If teams like Chelsea and City Group want their players developing in the Premier League then they should put them in their own team.
6 month loan until Enciso is back? Pep does his mate Roberto a favour...I’d be interested if it’s a permanent, but absolutely not on loan. If teams like Chelsea and City Group want their players developing in the Premier League then they should put them in their own team.
It will back fire as it’s not a strategy built on firm foundations.Chelsea truly have ruined football