Do they? Why?

What's your take on the Ashley Cole situation, LGJM? I know it's your policy to not offer more than 1 year to over 30's but if i was a Chelsea fan i'd be screaming at Roman to make an exception with Cole.

I have no opinion on the situation, to be honest.

I think he's a great player, but I'm not sure if he's so great that he deserves the great money he's on. I think his injury situation needs to be known. From what I've seen of Bertrand I like, so I wouldn't be too concerned if we were to let Cole go and allow Bertrand to grow into the position.

Basically whatever CFC and Cole decide, I can accept it.

You've missed the point fella, the fee is irrelevant, they still turned down Ba due to his injuiry record or him failing a medical whatever it might have been.

You're missing the point that £7m is a risk, £0 isn't

Sure, but wouldn't this knee problem have been identified during his medical at Newcastle given that it was a recurring one? In that case, Pulis passed and turned him down whilst Pardew didn't and accepted, no?

I know that. Either way Pulis has still got the wrong end of the bargain.

Aye, but isn't hindsight marvellous?

From memory, it was. Newcastle chose to take the gamble, Stoke didn't.

I think it says more about the financial risk profile of the respective clubs, than the player himself.

Stoke would have been buying him for over £7m.

Newcastle signed him on a free.

Stoke simply got unlucky because a quality player they were signing happened to have a worrying medical. Newcastle got lucky because they were able to snag that player on a free.

If Pardew had swooped in and paid the £7m when the Stoke deal collapsed then you may have a point. As he didn't, you don't.