THE WOLF'S DEN - Tana dei Lupi II

[maro]

I would bet that if he wasn't "offered" another contract then that was because the club was never in a position to come close to meeting his terms. That is, that Mexes effectively rejected the contract that was nominally on the table.

[DonSimon]

He was never offered a contract but I'm seeing a few explanations - some say that he was never offered one and was never going to be offered one, and others say that he made up his mind in winter to leave and made that clear, so there was no point in offering him one. Or what Maro just said. And the Borriello deal does seem to be getting stranger by the minute.

[DavidP]

[Giacomo]

As I said elsewhere after the last game of 2009/10 against Chievo, unless he has renewed his contract by 1 June he goes on the transfer list.

The management are entirely at fault for him leaving for free.

[marco]

in response to giacomo earlier point, no, i have not seen that refuted by the club either. my question is, why the fuck not? how does letting him go for free make any sense to either the current owner (unicredit) or the impending one? it's a rhetorical question because clearly we are never going to know for certain and it'll just be a matter of people trying to fill in seemingly credible blanks to make sense of what transpired. based on whatever i've read to date, i have to agree with maro in that this situation doesnt really shine a positive light on mexes. it may be unfair to him because of the lack of transparency of the situation but there is little information (based on mexes' / his agent's declarations) out there for public consumption that disuades me from believing that there is some betrayl on mexes' part . . . or it could also be because i'm feeling like i just got dumped by my highschool girlfriend and trying to come to grips with the old, "it's me, it's not you" line.

[ASR1927]

[maro]

Unless it suited the club to let Mexes go on a free (say, because they didn't rate him and wanted to get rid of him or because he was used as a pawn in another (Borriello) deal), then I don't see how he's not also responsible for his having signed for another club. He's done what suited him personally. The management can be criticised for not guarding the club's interests or for alienating a loyal player, but I don't see how Mexes can say it would have been nice to have gone for a transfer fee to have given the club a bit back and then go on a free without being morally compromised. I rather doubt the club would have refused a one-year extension with no pay rise and a 15 mil buy-out clause. Going on a free has got Mexes more money.

[ASR1927]

[Giacomo]

One fact defeats your argument: Mexes is not responsible for contracts, the management are.

[maro]

No. Contracts aren't unilateral arrangements, Giacomo.

[DavidP]

[Lupa]

blech. So we've gone from 'probably joining Milan' to certainty. Sad day, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's true that di Benedetto is annoyed because central defense is an area where he'll certainly have to fork out money now. Wasn't it just this season that he was singing Roma Roma Roma in a bar? (Mexes, not di Benedetto)

Also, I have to say that that jersey is fugly.

[ASR1927]

[vtec]

[Giacomo]

[AlCapone]

[maro]

[maro]

And Al is clearly spot on with the singing - why the hell wouldn't Mexes join in? I bet that he'll do the same given a similar opportunity with Bilan next season. Nor shall I hold that against him.

[ASR1927]

[Giacomo]