[Albion] Marc Cucurella *Signed For Chelsea 05/08/2022*

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,339
Withdean area
No, strangely he did not.
Despite it being reported by a respected journalist, who he previously acknowledged, for referencing his breaking of the transfer request story, he chose to ignore it.
You would have thought professional courtesy might kick in, but apparently not.

He did unpin his tweet about Cucu handing in his transfer request though.

Anyone would think that he’s biased towards clubs feeding his ego (and click-based bank balance)?
 




Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
No, strangely he did not.
Despite it being reported by a respected journalist, who he previously acknowledged, for referencing his breaking of the transfer request story, he chose to ignore it.
You would have thought professional courtesy might kick in, but apparently not.

He did unpin his tweet about Cucu handing in his transfer request though.

[tweet]1553365714119102465[/tweet]
 






Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
Yeah failing to mention that we had called off discussions.
Odd

We haven’t really though have we. If they come back to our valuation then they are back open. So no agreement on fee is accurate.

Anyway it’s obvious that Cucus agent is the one leaking most of these stories so of course he will report on that, as I doubt Barbs would give him the time of day
 




PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
19,642
Hurst Green
Yeah failing to mention that we had called off discussions.
Odd

Not odd at all, he has only ever reported one side and fed by the agent.

The agent's action and this twitter bloke has only gone to serve Brighton's resolve. He's played a blinder for us.

Love to hear Simon Jordan's view on it, given his hate of agents.

In the last few years our recruitment team has overcome messy negotiations especially in S America. We now have a proven record. I'm sure we can deal with this agent and firmly put him in his place. I'm sure, as we were unwittingly caught out before, all our dealings with agents are now conducted in a concise lawful way. Those that go behind our backs are likely to feel the full force of the Lizard.
 




Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,140
We haven’t really though have we. If they come back to our valuation then they are back open. So no agreement on fee is accurate.

Anyway it’s obvious that Cucus agent is the one leaking most of these stories so of course he will report on that, as I doubt Barbs would give him the time of day

Well yes we have actually.
Negotiations have broken down.

Agree that this is a best and final offer only statement, but it is significant and should be reported.
It is certainly more newsworthy, than Cucurella is unhappy and only wants City.
 




Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
Well yes we have actually.
Negotiations have broken down.

Agree that this is a best and final offer only statement, but it is significant and should be reported.
It is certainly more newsworthy, than Cucurella is unhappy and only wants City.

So basically what was reported - stalled on fee.

It’d be a better statement if Brighton said we don’t need to sell and won’t be selling this window. Marc is not for sale.
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
So basically what was reported - stalled on fee.

It’d be a better statement if Brighton said we don’t need to sell and won’t be selling this window. Marc is not for sale.

Except he is if the fee put on him is met. We are just not getting involved in Burnley style piss poor increments one after the other. Pay up or look elsewhere is the very clear message as we have no need or desire to sell him

The efforts to force a shit price through by unsettling the player via Romano is hardening the resolve not softening it imo

This is not an Arab bazaar :smile:
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,603
Burgess Hill
Except he is if the fee put on him is met. We are just not getting involved in Burnley style piss poor increments one after the other. Pay up or look elsewhere is the very clear message as we have no need or desire to sell him

The efforts to force a shit price through by unsettling the player via Romano is hardening the resolve not softening it imo

This is not an Arab bazaar :smile:

Yep…clearly pissed Tony off. He’ll have increased his price now.
 




Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,140
So basically what was reported - stalled on fee.

It’d be a better statement if Brighton said we don’t need to sell and won’t be selling this window. Marc is not for sale.

No it's not the same thing.

When one party walks away from the discussion the deal is not "stalling"
City have still only made one official bid,
That bid is over, not that it was ever in play.
Saying the deal is stalling is factually incorrect.
 


One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 4, 2006
23,003
Worthing
No it's not the same thing.

When one party walks away from the discussion the deal is not "stalling"
City have still only made one official bid,
That bid is over, not that it was ever in play.
Saying the deal is stalling is factually incorrect.

Think they’re reported as having made two £30m and £40m aren’t they?
 






Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,140
Yep…clearly pissed Tony off. He’ll have increased his price now.

No I don't think he will have done that. Tony is a businessman first and foremost.
If the original price is met, he will be free to go.

Certainly he is pissed off.
He is just forcefully letting the agent know, who he is dealing with.

The agent had better be squeaky clean in his dealings on this, or I suspect the club will insist on him being investigated to the fullest extent possible.
 




Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
No it's not the same thing.

When one party walks away from the discussion the deal is not "stalling"
City have still only made one official bid,
That bid is over, not that it was ever in play.
Saying the deal is stalling is factually incorrect.

This is one version of the events.. not necessarily facts.
 


Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
No it's not the same thing.

When one party walks away from the discussion the deal is not "stalling"
City have still only made one official bid,
That bid is over, not that it was ever in play.
Saying the deal is stalling is factually incorrect.

We haven’t walked away, we are there the second they meet the price.

The question does beg what we had been ‘negotiating’ for 2 weeks anyway if the asking price was never met.

IMO the Naylor thing was just to give the Brighton fans something from their camp but means nothing
 




Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,140
We haven’t walked away, we are there the second they meet the price.

The question does beg what we had been ‘negotiating’ for 2 weeks anyway if the asking price was never met.

IMO the Naylor thing was just to give the Brighton fans something from their camp but means nothing

It means significantly more than "Cucurella is unhappy and only wants City" though doesn't it.
 


Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,785
GOSBTS
It means significantly more than "Cucurella is unhappy and only wants City" though doesn't it.

Not really because it’s a different thing. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t unhappy and only wants City. In fact handing in a transfer request and willing to write off a few Million quid of bonuses he is owed to force a move is pretty strong action from someone.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top