Celtic banter 36397


Use our rumours form to send us celtic transfer rumours.

(single word yields best result)

04 Sep 2017 10:32:35
Ed BR in an article for the DR saying Man City wouldn't have sold PR for 30m, is this just a smokescreen? Can't understand why he would be saying this if PR was the one who rejected them permanent move.

{Ed007's Note - So is that everyone moved on from the story from last week that we had an £8 million fee agreed and Guardiola pulled the plug at the last minute?}

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Sep 2017 11:22:45
Looks like it could be a smokescreen as I have complete faith in the info the Eds give. Hopefully in a years time we're still the only club puts in a permanent bid, and hopefully Roberts has a change of mind.

04 Sep 2017 11:37:21
This second loan is a double-edged sword. It's great to have him back but if he comes up here and plays a blinder this season, especially in the CL, then his value will rocket and we'll be well and truly priced out of any move.

04 Sep 2017 11:57:02
That's probably the case kevbhoy but in all honesty we will have had him for 2.5 years by then . There isn't many players as talented as him that we have permanently signed that stay with us for that long, especially in the last few seasons .

04 Sep 2017 12:11:17
Are we really saying that Celtic claim they tried to buy him when we didn't? Don't you think City would shoot that lie down if it was one?

More co sours yes in here than that push Ancient Aliens.

We bid for him. They said naw. That's it.

04 Sep 2017 13:41:24
@Magicpole what?

04 Sep 2017 14:59:52
MP I don't think the suggestion is that Celtic didn't try to buy PR permanently mate. It's that PR turned down the move not City. They are getting rid of talented youngsters such as Iheanacho, Unal and even our Ntcham. If they valued Roberts so highly then he'd be there fighting with the likes of Sane for a place in the team, sorry, bench. Doesn't look to me like they have much infention of introducing such youngsters to the first team fold at all.

04 Sep 2017 15:27:45
It's just boring stories in an attempt to try an unsettle our player and drive a wedge between him and the fans (some hope) . He here, let's enjoy the wee man for another year and wish him well.
Try to sign him
Didn't happen
If his value rockets it's only cause he have played a blinder for us in the CL so I'm hoping it does!

That's Gordon parks is a fud.

04 Sep 2017 16:59:55
Honestly don't know what the deal is with all this smoke and mirrors! Why is Brendan saying this? Won't benefit the club in any way.

04 Sep 2017 17:28:26
You get some folk though SoS, that get the slightest whiff of a player not wanting to spend the rest of their career at a club and want them out of the team, no matter how good they are.

04 Sep 2017 17:54:07
Quinn. the difference is though mate we get transfer money for the talent we buy that doesn't stay as long. in saying that I hope he is better than last time even though we won't get any dosh as it might open up others eyes to the benefits of coming here.

04 Sep 2017 19:04:50
It's not the money that bothers me, it's not like it just gets spent on other transfers, I like our players to want to be here. I know he wants to play for us with him being here on loan but I would have loved him to commit to us for a few years! Maybe he feels like he has a point to prove at City but there's so many obstacles to get in the first team.

05 Sep 2017 10:11:12
If the point is that we bid for him and Paddy said no, then why bid? Obviously Rogers would have asked him if he wanted to sign. If it's true Roberts vetoed it, there wouldn't have been a bid at all.

He doesn't want to sign so we waste four weeks asking City to sell him when the player isn't interested?

No way would that happen.

{Ed007's Note - Are you saying the Celtic manager would make an illegal approach to a player who was under contract to another club? I can't see that after his problems at Liverpool for doing the same.
And why would Brendan Rodgers be doing Peter Lawwell's job and dealing with transfers? Are you saying Rodgers is also doing the CEO's job as well as managing the team?
No way any of that happened.}

05 Sep 2017 10:42:51
Are you saying to me that before he left he never asked him if he wanted to sign? Of course he did. Otherwise no approach at all would be made.

We would obviously want to buy him, we would have told him that before he left. If he didn't want to sign then no bud would be made as this would be a kick in the teeth. lawell and Rogers knew the fans wanted to make him our player. The tine it took to resolve clearly shows it was more than just a loan they were talking about. If after all that Celtuc didn't know he wanted to sign then that would be appalling planning.

Pep would have said on day one the player doesn't want to sign, end of, take or leave the loan and it would have concluded weeks ago.

We didn't need to tap him clise season, he would have known we wanted him and he would have said yes I want that too if he wasn't going to be played at City. Them considering and allowing the loan prices he wasn't in the plans.

The question for me is did we offer enough?

{Ed007's Note - OK then, and who told you all this happened and who said what or are you just speculating with what you think happened? You're accusing the Celtic manager of a very serious thing here btw, I just want to know if you can prove it?
Nobody including Celtic had permission to talk to Roberts until the night Lawwell was in Manchester, that was the first time anyone from Celtic was allowed to talk to Roberts about coming back to Glasgow. Roberts had hoped to be told when City came back from Spain that he was in their squad for this year, Roberts preference was staying at City this season, he didn't want to come back here or anywhere else and when that didn't happen he had to look at his options. Why would Roberts tell anyone that he wanted t come back to Celtic when he didn't - he wanted to play for City this year, what's so difficult to understand about that?
Why did Rodgers and Chris Davies continually say that Roberts was a City player and we had to respect that if according to you the manager has broken not only football rules but he's went over the head of his own boss and risked the good relationship between us and City by tapping up their player?
You're just making stuff up without really knowing what happened or even how transfers work.}

05 Sep 2017 11:50:46
So you are saying no one said, son we would love to sign you if we could. That's how highly we rate you. He would have responded. Tierney we are told was always on his case. To suggest we wouldn't talk about the possibility of him being a Celtic player IF City didn't see him in their plans to me is ludicrous. Of course we would. If he was to move on loan again would he come back to us? That's planning for what happens after he has been told he won't feature. If pep had told him he would he wouldn't be here.

If it was Paddy who didn't want a to come back as a Celtic player, then I can't see any reason why it took so long. Are you not calling Rigers a liar saying he knew it was Roberts who didn't want to sign and he never made a bid? Why would he say that if it wasn't true? I think that is an allegation that you need to provide proof of. I wasn't there but I would put my last tenner on he made it clear he would come back before he left if not getting a chance at city.

Your point is Roberts didn't want to sign. I say Rogers knew if he wasn't in peps plans he would come back. No tapping needed.

{Ed007's Note - I'm not wasting my time arguing against stuff you're just making up as you go along. Are you seriously saying Celtic didn't try and sign Roberts on a permanent deal?
And stick to the facts, not what you think happens or happened.}

05 Sep 2017 15:56:39
No, I do think we did try to sign him. I think Paddy was up for that and City decided to keep him at least another year. That's why it took so long. Them thinking about our offer.



Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass