Morally wrong because of the anti-doping charge? Maybe a bit harsh? As i understand it he claims to have taken an anti-allergy medication without telling his doctor first. Couldn't it have been just a mistake? I mean, CONMEBOL aren't exactly paragons of virtue are they?
I didn’t sign him on loan Or then sign him permanently Only to then loan him out for a year And then chop n change him this season
It was a punt on a 19 year old and he's not really progressed as much as we'd hoped, it happens. He's being replaced with a player who's played 75 times for Monaco, we're improving the squad and if he gets a move to AIK, I'm sure he'll be very happy.
Just listened to the 1904 club, Baz seems to think we’ll carry on supporting Zambrano. His appeal is end of feb hopefully, if it gets reduced to. 1 year then he’s out until November, the club will look to sign him at a reduced price
I don't know why other clubs walked away. Maybe they thought he wasn't good enough to justify the risk of suspension? It's just that saying it's morally wrong sounds a bit high-handed and puts the club on a bit of a pedestal. Should we have binned Livermore on moral grounds when he had his drug issues? No, and I'm glad we didn't. Can we accommodate a small misdemeanor on Zambrano's part, deliberate or not? Surely we can, and we did.
If Zambrano got a 12-month ban then he would be back at the start of November. 18 months and he misses next season as well. We have obviously rolled the dice with this one and hoping for a shorter ban. Annoyingly, if we do let him go, I’m convinced that when he comes back he’s going to be a top player.
Ye Chelsea are known to give their kids away for next to nowt We got him and vale and we we’re paying a lot for them It’s all part of the same chaotic transfer policy
The 2 cases are obviously very different but I have sympathy with both. Livermore had a traumatic event when he turned to drugs and not performance enhancing ones! Zambrano claimed to have taken an unauthorised medicine after having an allergic reaction. This is supported by the fact he reported himself after doing so. They are both a million miles from drugs cheats in my opinion and both deserve to be treated leniently.
Probably, he was a bellend who disrupted training sessions on purpose to force through a move to West Brom according to Meyler.
Watching pods like under the cosh, that seems to be more common than you would hope was the case. Think Snodgrass did similar. Still a ****s trick though. No wonder some end up training on their own or with the kids.
That, and Vale was valued differently by Chelsea, he was the vastly more expensive of the two loans, hence he went back pretty sharpish. Obviously Simons was available at a price we felt we could do business at. Lumping the two transfers together to reach a conclusion seems a bit contrived to me.
We'll have paid about £500k for Simons and we should get that back if we flog him now, it's nowhere near as bad as the Giles or Sinik situations. Harvey Vale was an odd one, no idea why he was so highly rated at Chelsea, he spent all last season playing left back in League One.
