João Félix

Gazzznigga

Active member
Man, do you even read what you write? Even your examples contradict what you are trying to say.

High expectation? Only a fool had high expectation for Felix, he was a flop for Atletico and failed to succeed in Chelsea
We got him because he was the only player we could afford for the price.
Tell me whom we could have got for 0.5M that would have had a better input? This is the cost of a bench player in Celta Vigo FFS

For the cost, Felix is a bargain.
If you can afford better, you go for it. But if you judge a deal that was made, you do it based on cost and opportunity cost. In both cases Felix is a good deal.
..lol...so your own expectation of Jao Felix was to be a bench player at Barca, from when he was brought in. Really? I just can't imagine some nonsense I read here. How much you paid for the loan is irrelevant here. If the original expectation of player like Felix, was so low, that he was bought just to come and warm the bench at Barca for a season for 0.5M, then Barca is ran by idiots. If not...then you don't know what you are talking about.
 

Messi983

Senior Member
He was clearly bought to be a starter but to be fair to Xavi benching Joao was one of the best things he did this season.

It also shows he was more of a Laporta signing than someone Xavi ever wanted.
 

khaled_a_d

Senior Member
..lol...so your own expectation of Jao Felix was to be a bench player at Barca, from when he was brought in. Really? I just can't imagine some nonsense I read here. How much you paid for the loan is irrelevant here. If the original expectation of player like Felix, was so low, that he was bought just to come and warm the bench at Barca for a season for 0.5M, then Barca is ran by idiots. If not...then you don't know what you are talking about.

It is the most relevant thing of the subject when judging the deal.
He is a cheap option that we could afford, we couldn't afford anything better.
That is how he should be judged. The cost for performance, that is what this discussion is about.
If you are trying to eliminate the most important factor in the deal, then you are the clueless one.
 

khaled_a_d

Senior Member
He was clearly bought to be a starter but to be fair to Xavi benching Joao was one of the best things he did this season.

It also shows he was more of a Laporta signing than someone Xavi ever wanted.

It was said from the start he was the management deal, Deco and Laporta are the ones who wanted him.
Xavi approved as long as we get Cancelo first, who was his priority as he wanted a RB who can attack.
 

Gazzznigga

Active member
He was clearly bought to be a starter but to be fair to Xavi benching Joao was one of the best things he did this season.

It also shows he was more of a Laporta signing than someone Xavi ever wanted.
....shh! Don't bother stating it. He was brought to be a 4th option on the LW according to some "experts" here.
 

Gazzznigga

Active member
It is the most relevant thing of the subject when judging the deal.
He is a cheap option that we could afford, we couldn't afford anything better.
That is how he should be judged. The cost for performance, that is what this discussion is about.
If you are trying to eliminate the most important factor in the deal, then you are the clueless one.
...lol. Your post up there clearly shows who is the clueless one here. He was not what Barca could afford, it was a packaged deal by the agent and Laporta for friendship sake. Coach acvepted on the condition of getting Cancelo. Enough said.
 

khaled_a_d

Senior Member
...lol. Your post up there clearly shows who is the clueless one here. He was not what Barca could afford, it was a packaged deal by the agent and Laporta for friendship sake. Coach acvepted on the condition of getting Cancelo. Enough said.

So, what is it mate? an agent favour that coach said ok, or he was brought to be starter?
I mean you can't even be consistent with your argument.
 

malvolio

Senior Member
He's a flop on sporting reasons.

Money doesn't matter if you're a flop. Vital contributions that brought us nowhere. Nor was he an influential player for the shite we produced this season.

On stats Ferran is better. Even if he is also terrible.

So at the end of the day we paid almost nothing(even though for sure we somehow paid somewhere else or in the future) for a nothing player. Having him or not doesn't make a difference on our season.
 

Gazzznigga

Active member
It is the most relevant thing of the subject when judging the deal.
He is a cheap option that we could afford, we couldn't afford anything better.
That is how he should be judged. The cost for performance, that is what this discussion is about.
If you are trying to eliminate the most important factor in the deal, then you are the clueless one.
Lol....your post is akin to a business owner who employed a security man for cheap to guard his warehouse containing precious stones worth millions of euros....by the end of the month those stones were stolen while the security man was on guard...if the business owner stated to you that.."well the most relevant thing is that I employed him for cheap, so I didn't have much expectations anyways, for me, the most important thing was that he was employed for low wages"... will you not question the sanity of the business owner? That is the true and only definition of cluelessness, bro.
 
Last edited:

ZenI

Professor Balthazar
Don't know what's wrong with this boy, shame really. Yeah but we won't loan him again even if we get a good deal...
 

Home of Barca Fans

Top