Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Conor Gallagher - Going to Athletico (p81)

1464749515283

Comments

  • All that needs to be said Thank you Connor for the fantastic time you gave to us good luck son go and have a great career 


    bet we see him again in a red shirt 


    Connor needs a break I thought on Saturday he looked 70% the player I first saw and the player I have enjoyed watching 

    we move on. 
    Breaking news: ITK hints at Gallagher move north to Man Utd or Liverpool. 
  • Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    Conor 100% did not instigate this, he was more than happy to stay and loved his time here.


    I'll ask this again. How do you know this for a fact?
    Because I do. I‘m not prepared to say how exactly, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen, whenever they get asked. 

    Let’s just say I know for fact, the same way you know for a fact that today is Wednesday. 
    But yesterday you had no idea if this rumour was true or not and today you know the ins and outs of it? Starting to think you might not know what day of the week it is.
    😂 you’re joking, right?

    Yesterday I learnt the same as everyone else that this was happening. If you look at my comments over the last couple of days, I said that Gallen’s response didn’t sit right, I said that if he goes it’s rubbish because what can he learn elsewhere that he wouldn’t be able to here.

    Last week I clearly stated that he was staying and the stories from The Sun and Mail were rubbish. And they were at that time. Things change in football, but that wasn’t Conor’s doing.

    It’s early afternoon on Wednesday, in case you didn’t know, lots of conversations can happen at any time. Since the news came around yesterday, I’ve had one of those many conversations and can categorically say, for a fact, that Conor did not instigate this.

    You’re more than entitled to question things, the same way I have said the same to Doucher when he says things without any statement or substance, such as the Field injury situation which he was wrong about, but then he gets very sarcastic and defensive straight after at times. On this occasion, I’ve said I’m not prepared to say how I know, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen. It’s now you who has been sarcastic and defensive because I didn’t give you an insightful answer as to how I know 100%.
    I'm not going to believe some random person on the internet just because they said so, that's why I'm getting defensive. I have a problem with people who state things as a fact without backing them up. 
  • Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    Conor 100% did not instigate this, he was more than happy to stay and loved his time here.


    I'll ask this again. How do you know this for a fact?
    Because I do. I‘m not prepared to say how exactly, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen, whenever they get asked. 

    Let’s just say I know for fact, the same way you know for a fact that today is Wednesday. 
    But yesterday you had no idea if this rumour was true or not and today you know the ins and outs of it? Starting to think you might not know what day of the week it is.
    😂 you’re joking, right?

    Yesterday I learnt the same as everyone else that this was happening. If you look at my comments over the last couple of days, I said that Gallen’s response didn’t sit right, I said that if he goes it’s rubbish because what can he learn elsewhere that he wouldn’t be able to here.

    Last week I clearly stated that he was staying and the stories from The Sun and Mail were rubbish. And they were at that time. Things change in football, but that wasn’t Conor’s doing.

    It’s early afternoon on Wednesday, in case you didn’t know, lots of conversations can happen at any time. Since the news came around yesterday, I’ve had one of those many conversations and can categorically say, for a fact, that Conor did not instigate this.

    You’re more than entitled to question things, the same way I have said the same to Doucher when he says things without any statement or substance, such as the Field injury situation which he was wrong about, but then he gets very sarcastic and defensive straight after at times. On this occasion, I’ve said I’m not prepared to say how I know, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen. It’s now you who has been sarcastic and defensive because I didn’t give you an insightful answer as to how I know 100%.
    I'm not going to believe some random person on the internet just because they said so, that's why I'm getting defensive. I have a problem with people who state things as a fact without backing them up. 
    As I said, you’re entitled to ask the question, but I’m not prepared to say who I spoke to or any personal details as to how I know for a fact. Do you go and say the same or have the same attitude when others on here who have information but aren’t prepared to explain or expose how they know on a public forum for the whole world to see?

    If you look through my previous comments on here, over a long period of time, I am not some WUM or say things for the sake of it. I’ve said I know it for a fact, and that you will see or hear it for yourself in time by people at the club.

    It should also be quite obvious anyway with the reaction from people at the club. Tracey Leaburn, Matt Southall, the players, all of them have said on social media how he gave his all and wishes him luck. Do you think that would be the case if he instigated this move? But I know because I’ve been told, he was happy here and happy to stay, this move or what’s happened did not come from Conor. 
    Actually yes I do say the same for here or any other person/publication/website that states something without backing it up. It's a bit like when a tabloid runs an article on someone and then follows it with "a source close to X said..." followed by a load of bollocks they've just made up. You're well within your right to post anything you like and I'm well within mine to question it. 
  • colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    Conor 100% did not instigate this, he was more than happy to stay and loved his time here.


    I'll ask this again. How do you know this for a fact?
    Because I do. I‘m not prepared to say how exactly, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen, whenever they get asked. 

    Let’s just say I know for fact, the same way you know for a fact that today is Wednesday. 
    But yesterday you had no idea if this rumour was true or not and today you know the ins and outs of it? Starting to think you might not know what day of the week it is.
    😂 you’re joking, right?

    Yesterday I learnt the same as everyone else that this was happening. If you look at my comments over the last couple of days, I said that Gallen’s response didn’t sit right, I said that if he goes it’s rubbish because what can he learn elsewhere that he wouldn’t be able to here.

    Last week I clearly stated that he was staying and the stories from The Sun and Mail were rubbish. And they were at that time. Things change in football, but that wasn’t Conor’s doing.

    It’s early afternoon on Wednesday, in case you didn’t know, lots of conversations can happen at any time. Since the news came around yesterday, I’ve had one of those many conversations and can categorically say, for a fact, that Conor did not instigate this.

    You’re more than entitled to question things, the same way I have said the same to Doucher when he says things without any statement or substance, such as the Field injury situation which he was wrong about, but then he gets very sarcastic and defensive straight after at times. On this occasion, I’ve said I’m not prepared to say how I know, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen. It’s now you who has been sarcastic and defensive because I didn’t give you an insightful answer as to how I know 100%.
    I'm not going to believe some random person on the internet just because they said so, that's why I'm getting defensive. I have a problem with people who state things as a fact without backing them up. 
    As I said, you’re entitled to ask the question, but I’m not prepared to say who I spoke to or any personal details as to how I know for a fact. Do you go and say the same or have the same attitude when others on here who have information but aren’t prepared to explain or expose how they know on a public forum for the whole world to see?

    If you look through my previous comments on here, over a long period of time, I am not some WUM or say things for the sake of it. I’ve said I know it for a fact, and that you will see or hear it for yourself in time by people at the club.

    It should also be quite obvious anyway with the reaction from people at the club. Tracey Leaburn, Matt Southall, the players, all of them have said on social media how he gave his all and wishes him luck. Do you think that would be the case if he instigated this move? But I know because I’ve been told, he was happy here and happy to stay, this move or what’s happened did not come from Conor. 
    Actually yes I do say the same for here or any other person/publication/website that states something without backing it up. It's a bit like when a tabloid runs an article on someone and then follows it with "a source close to X said..." followed by a load of bollocks they've just made up. You're well within your right to post anything you like and I'm well within mine to question it. 
    Absolute boĺlocks....
    .


  • Sponsored links:


  • Ben18 said:
    Not directly Conor related, but a dig at Chelsea. And nothing new either.

    Chelsea have 26 players out on loan at the moment. More than half of those are over 23 years old

    Jamal Blackman - Vitesse - 25 years old
    Matt Miazga - Reading - 24 years old
    Baba Rahman - Mallorca - 25 years old
    Davide Zappacosta - Roma - 27 years old
    Tiemoue Bakayoko - Monaco - 25 years old
    Lewis Baker - Fortuna Dusseldorf - 24 years old
    Danny Drinkwater - Aston Villa - 28 years old
    Kenedy - Getafe - 23 years old
    Victor Moses - Fenerbahce - 29 years old
    Charley Musonda - Vitesse - 23 years old
    Nathan - Atletico Mineiro - 23 years old
    Danilo Pantic - Fehevar - 23 years old
    Mario Pasalic - Atalanta - 24 years old
    Izzy Brown - Luton - 23 years old
    Lucas Piazon - Rio Ave - 25 years old

    They are stockpiling players and treating them as commodities.

    There should be a limit on loaning out players over the age of 23. Maybe 2 per season

    Players over 23, who don't make your 25 man squad, should be either released (paid up) or sold via tribunal.
    Most of those players will never play for Chelsea again - I don’t really understand why they feel the need to keep them? The likes of Baker, Blackman, Brown, Musonda and Piazon will just keep signing new contracts and being loaned out. I can’t see how that helps their career (I’m not talking about financially). Baker has been on loan at 7 different clubs since signing for Chelsea -where he has played 1 game in 6 years. I don’t see the point - just leave and get a permanent gig somewhere and get your career going.

     I just hope Gallagher’s career goes down a different route because he is too good a player to just disappear in to obscurity. 

    Chelsea are everything I hate in football. Let’s not kid ourselves, the only reason they have Lampard as manager and the likes of Abraham, James, Mount and Tomori are playing is because they couldn’t make any moves in the transfer market. 

    Mount and Tomori were with Lampard at Derby last season and Abraham played under Lampard's best mate, John Terry, at Villa. If they were ever going to chance it would have been as much to do with Lampard being the Chelsea Manager as it was to do with the embargo.

    And Abraham, for one, would have made it anyway. Goalscorers do not grow on trees and 15 goals for Chelsea is evidence enough that he can cut it at this level.
    Understand what you are saying. However, I’m not so sure that Chelsea would have gone for Lampard though if they didn’t have their hands tied in the transfer market. It was a no lose situation for both the club and the manager..... Finish mid table and it would have been down to the fact that he couldn’t sign players, was a novice manager and the team was made up of young players. You can’t tell me that if Lampard could sign players that Zouma and Tomori would have been their first choice centre backs. Abraham, as good as he is, would not have been their first choice centre Forward - they would have spent £50m on one. Not saying Lampard wouldn’t have given them game time, but in this case, he had no choice but to play them week in week out. It’s obviously great to see kids getting a chance and more teams should do it and it has benefited the English National team. 

    I’ll be interested to see what happens when Lampard is given money to throw about. We will see how good a manager he is then.  

    Would be good if more teams had their hands forced and had to play kids.  A classic example is Foden at Man City - I keep hearing Pep saying the player is the best thing since sliced bread -  if that is the case then pick him. But with the Premier League being what it is, results are more important than the development of players. And Chelsea would have been no different if they hadn’t been greedy bastards and getting themselves a transfer embargo. 
  • Confirmation that the main reason for the recall appears to be down to money, in that Swansea have offered a loan fee as well a bigger contribution to his wages.

    Interesting also that when asked why we could not pay his wages, appears he is on a fair whack which would easily make him a top earner at Charlton!




    Aligns with what my pal said, shame.
  • Football is screwed
  • colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    Conor 100% did not instigate this, he was more than happy to stay and loved his time here.


    I'll ask this again. How do you know this for a fact?
    Because I do. I‘m not prepared to say how exactly, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen, whenever they get asked. 

    Let’s just say I know for fact, the same way you know for a fact that today is Wednesday. 
    But yesterday you had no idea if this rumour was true or not and today you know the ins and outs of it? Starting to think you might not know what day of the week it is.
    😂 you’re joking, right?

    Yesterday I learnt the same as everyone else that this was happening. If you look at my comments over the last couple of days, I said that Gallen’s response didn’t sit right, I said that if he goes it’s rubbish because what can he learn elsewhere that he wouldn’t be able to here.

    Last week I clearly stated that he was staying and the stories from The Sun and Mail were rubbish. And they were at that time. Things change in football, but that wasn’t Conor’s doing.

    It’s early afternoon on Wednesday, in case you didn’t know, lots of conversations can happen at any time. Since the news came around yesterday, I’ve had one of those many conversations and can categorically say, for a fact, that Conor did not instigate this.

    You’re more than entitled to question things, the same way I have said the same to Doucher when he says things without any statement or substance, such as the Field injury situation which he was wrong about, but then he gets very sarcastic and defensive straight after at times. On this occasion, I’ve said I’m not prepared to say how I know, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen. It’s now you who has been sarcastic and defensive because I didn’t give you an insightful answer as to how I know 100%.
    I'm not going to believe some random person on the internet just because they said so, that's why I'm getting defensive. I have a problem with people who state things as a fact without backing them up. 
    As I said, you’re entitled to ask the question, but I’m not prepared to say who I spoke to or any personal details as to how I know for a fact. Do you go and say the same or have the same attitude when others on here who have information but aren’t prepared to explain or expose how they know on a public forum for the whole world to see?

    If you look through my previous comments on here, over a long period of time, I am not some WUM or say things for the sake of it. I’ve said I know it for a fact, and that you will see or hear it for yourself in time by people at the club.

    It should also be quite obvious anyway with the reaction from people at the club. Tracey Leaburn, Matt Southall, the players, all of them have said on social media how he gave his all and wishes him luck. Do you think that would be the case if he instigated this move? But I know because I’ve been told, he was happy here and happy to stay, this move or what’s happened did not come from Conor. 
    Actually yes I do say the same for here or any other person/publication/website that states something without backing it up. It's a bit like when a tabloid runs an article on someone and then follows it with "a source close to X said..." followed by a load of bollocks they've just made up. You're well within your right to post anything you like and I'm well within mine to question it. 
    Okay cool man, to go back to your initial questioning of Sage as to the instigation of the recall, I'll back him up and go a tad further. My source is mentioned, in a roundabout manner, here

    And as has been said before, Sage's track record is good. I'm inclined to believe him.
  • Confirmation that the main reason for the recall appears to be down to money, in that Swansea have offered a loan fee as well a bigger contribution to his wages.

    Interesting also that when asked why we could not pay his wages, appears he is on a fair whack which would easily make him a top earner at Charlton!




    Not confirmation at all. I still maintain he was recalled because of our current situation, struggling in a relegation battle with a team full of kids. Not for money.

    But then when it became clear Chelsea would recall him, other clubs were interested and naturally to get him, they had to offer something to win the race.
  • Confirmation that the main reason for the recall appears to be down to money, in that Swansea have offered a loan fee as well a bigger contribution to his wages.

    Interesting also that when asked why we could not pay his wages, appears he is on a fair whack which would easily make him a top earner at Charlton!




    Not confirmation at all. I still maintain he was recalled because of our current situation, struggling in a relegation battle with a team full of kids. Not for money.

    But then when it became clear Chelsea would recall him, other clubs were interested and naturally to get him, they had to offer something to win the race.

    But if involvement in a relegation battle is such an issue, why loan him to us in the first place? When he signed in August we were favourites to finish bottom, so always likely to spend the season fighting relegation. If anything our current position is better than Chelsea would have expected at the start of the season!

    We also had the lowest budget in the league by some distance, so its not like at that point we were going to be signing rafts of experienced midfielders for him to play alongside?
    I think this is a good point, well made. Seems we may be victims of our success earlier in the season that has re-set Chelsea's expectations of what we would be offering Conor in terms of his development and experience.
  • Confirmation that the main reason for the recall appears to be down to money, in that Swansea have offered a loan fee as well a bigger contribution to his wages.

    Interesting also that when asked why we could not pay his wages, appears he is on a fair whack which would easily make him a top earner at Charlton!




    Not confirmation at all. I still maintain he was recalled because of our current situation, struggling in a relegation battle with a team full of kids. Not for money.

    But then when it became clear Chelsea would recall him, other clubs were interested and naturally to get him, they had to offer something to win the race.

    But if involvement in a relegation battle is such an issue, why loan him to us in the first place? When he signed in August we were favourites to finish bottom, so always likely to spend the season fighting relegation. If anything our current position is better than Chelsea would have expected at the start of the season!

    We also had the lowest budget in the league by some distance, so its not like at that point we were going to be signing rafts of experienced midfielders for him to play alongside?
    Stage 1 of his development was entry level Championship. We were a good fit, and he has passed it with flying colours.

    Ergo Chelsea will tick that box, and due to his exceptional progress, move him along to stage 2 ahead of schedule. A team with better quality players, who are actually fit to play, in a promotion push at the top of the Championship.

    Next year he will be at Stage 3 - entry level Premiership is my guess. Or knocking on the door of Chelsea's first team.

    I think it is as simple as that.
  • Islam Feruz was signed by Chelsea in 2012 for 2.5k pw before signing a new deal in 2014 for 15k a week.

    he is now without a club at the age of 24 having made around £4m so far in his career.

    YearsTeamApps(Gls)
    2014–2019Chelsea0(0)
    2014→ OFI Crete (loan)1(0)
    2015→ Blackpool (loan)2(0)
    2015–2016→ Hibernian (loan)6(0)
    2016–2017→ Royal Excel Mouscron (loan)7(0)
    2017→ Swindon Town (loan)4(0)


    nice work if you can get it.
    Not played for 2 years - surprised we haven’t signed him. 
    He's retired.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Confirmation that the main reason for the recall appears to be down to money, in that Swansea have offered a loan fee as well a bigger contribution to his wages.

    Interesting also that when asked why we could not pay his wages, appears he is on a fair whack which would easily make him a top earner at Charlton!




    Not confirmation at all. I still maintain he was recalled because of our current situation, struggling in a relegation battle with a team full of kids. Not for money.

    But then when it became clear Chelsea would recall him, other clubs were interested and naturally to get him, they had to offer something to win the race.

    But if involvement in a relegation battle is such an issue, why loan him to us in the first place? When he signed in August we were favourites to finish bottom, so always likely to spend the season fighting relegation. If anything our current position is better than Chelsea would have expected at the start of the season!

    We also had the lowest budget in the league by some distance, so its not like at that point we were going to be signing rafts of experienced midfielders for him to play alongside?
    Because in the first 6 months of the loan he's exceeded all expectations and proven himself to be far better than where we're currently positioned.

    That's why clubs have a recall clause i guess.

    He'd never played senior football and it could've gone completely the other way. What if he'd been shit and not really up to it. Then they might have recalled him and had to loan him to a league one club. Would we be moaning then?
  • edited January 2020
    Confirmation that the main reason for the recall appears to be down to money, in that Swansea have offered a loan fee as well a bigger contribution to his wages.

    Interesting also that when asked why we could not pay his wages, appears he is on a fair whack which would easily make him a top earner at Charlton!




    Not confirmation at all. I still maintain he was recalled because of our current situation, struggling in a relegation battle with a team full of kids. Not for money.

    But then when it became clear Chelsea would recall him, other clubs were interested and naturally to get him, they had to offer something to win the race.

    But if involvement in a relegation battle is such an issue, why loan him to us in the first place? When he signed in August we were favourites to finish bottom, so always likely to spend the season fighting relegation. If anything our current position is better than Chelsea would have expected at the start of the season!

    We also had the lowest budget in the league by some distance, so its not like at that point we were going to be signing rafts of experienced midfielders for him to play alongside?
    Because in the first 6 months of the loan he's exceeded all expectations and proven himself to be far better than where we're currently positioned.

    That's why clubs have a recall clause i guess.

    He'd never played senior football and it could've gone completely the other way. What if he'd been shit and not really up to it. Then they might have recalled him and had to loan him to a league one club. Would we be moaning then?

    Possibly but I would say that he did well playing with the team of players who have subsequently got injured and that, since then, he has been something of a shadow of what we saw back then. With us planning on strengthening the team in this transfer window AND with most of those injured players coming back now, I would argue that we would soon be back to where we were from the perspective of Conor's role and learning experience. Clearly, Chelsea don't need to take that 'gamble', nor will they have the inclination to look that closely at our changing fortunes. The bottom line is that it is a simple, lower risk decision to move him into a better, more successful team than us. That's life, I guess.

    Looking forward to seeing him flourish over the coming years as he's clearly talented. We were fortunate to have seen him at the start of his career. I am sure he will look back in the future at his time with us as the catalyst for his successes as, clearly, an unsuccessful loan elsewhere could have had the opposite effect on his career. Let's hope Swansea proves to be as good a loan placement as we were for him.

  • Islam Feruz was signed by Chelsea in 2012 for 2.5k pw before signing a new deal in 2014 for 15k a week.

    he is now without a club at the age of 24 having made around £4m so far in his career.

    YearsTeamApps(Gls)
    2014–2019Chelsea0(0)
    2014→ OFI Crete (loan)1(0)
    2015→ Blackpool (loan)2(0)
    2015–2016→ Hibernian (loan)6(0)
    2016–2017→ Royal Excel Mouscron (loan)7(0)
    2017→ Swindon Town (loan)4(0)


    nice work if you can get it.
    Not played for 2 years - surprised we haven’t signed him. 
    He's retired.
    Ah, same as Kayal and Hemed. 
  • Islam Feruz was signed by Chelsea in 2012 for 2.5k pw before signing a new deal in 2014 for 15k a week.

    he is now without a club at the age of 24 having made around £4m so far in his career.

    YearsTeamApps(Gls)
    2014–2019Chelsea0(0)
    2014→ OFI Crete (loan)1(0)
    2015→ Blackpool (loan)2(0)
    2015–2016→ Hibernian (loan)6(0)
    2016–2017→ Royal Excel Mouscron (loan)7(0)
    2017→ Swindon Town (loan)4(0)


    nice work if you can get it.
    Not played for 2 years - surprised we haven’t signed him. 
    He's retired.
    Ah, same as Kayal and Hemed. 
    Whilst I did laugh at your post, I do think Hemed will come good in the end.
  • edited January 2020
    Islam Feruz was signed by Chelsea in 2012 for 2.5k pw before signing a new deal in 2014 for 15k a week.

    he is now without a club at the age of 24 having made around £4m so far in his career.

    YearsTeamApps(Gls)
    2014–2019Chelsea0(0)
    2014→ OFI Crete (loan)1(0)
    2015→ Blackpool (loan)2(0)
    2015–2016→ Hibernian (loan)6(0)
    2016–2017→ Royal Excel Mouscron (loan)7(0)
    2017→ Swindon Town (loan)4(0)


    nice work if you can get it.
    Not played for 2 years - surprised we haven’t signed him. 
    He's retired.
    Ah, same as Kayal and Hemed. 
    Whilst I did laugh at your post, I do think Hemed will come good in the end.
    At the rate he hasn’t got a choice!

    Seriously only people at Sheffield United come good. 
  • PragueAddick said:

     To me that lacks class, and maybe one day the person or people st Chelsea responsible might wish that they had shown some.
     To me that lacks class, and maybe one day the person or people st Chelsea responsible might wish that they had shown some.
    Have Chelsea ever had class? 
    Yes. They allowed us to bring forward the home fixture in 1983 because we needed the gate money to avoid going bust (something we did anyway about 5 months later). 
  • Swansea at 11/1 to get promoted isn't a bad shout though.
  • All we got to do is finish the season higher than Swansea..............easy  :)
  • At least derby get another chance to kick shit out of him again early next month.
  • colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Sage said:
    Conor 100% did not instigate this, he was more than happy to stay and loved his time here.


    I'll ask this again. How do you know this for a fact?
    Because I do. I‘m not prepared to say how exactly, but in time you will see or hear it from Bowyer and Gallen, whenever they get asked. 

    Let’s just say I know for fact, the same way you know for a fact that today is Wednesday. 
    But yesterday you had no idea if this rumour was true or not and today you know the ins and outs of it? Starting to think you might not know what day of the week it is.
    Yesterday wasn't Wednesday, that's why.  Try to keep up.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!