Rafa Benitez has welcomed Kenedy back to St James Park.

Newcastle United officially confirmed on Thursday morning that the winger has agreed another season on loan.

The 22 year old now training with the rest of the squad in Ireland.

Via his own personal website Rafa Benitez has given a special welcome, declaring at the end of it: “Welcome again Keny.​ COME ON TOONS!!!”

Rafa Benitez via his own personal website:

“I’m sure every single Newcastle United FC fan will agree with me that we are really pleased to see you back.

“A few months ago I was explaining to some of our fans why we thought you were a good signing for our team, nearly two months after the end of the last season we don’t need to explain anything.

“They really enjoyed your football last season, so, just to say we wish you all the best for you this season that it will be good news for us at the same time.

“Hopefully you will be ready for the new challenge just keep working as hard as the last season and your future will be bright.

“Welcome again Keny.​ COME ON TOONS!!!”

The Mag – Earlier Today (Thursday 12 July 2018):

Kenedy has been confirmed on Thursday morning as a Newcastle player once again.

He will be a Newcastle United player for the entire 2018/19 season.

However, no mention at all of a buying clause or option.

The winger is now with the rest of the Newcastle squad training in Ireland.

The team have their first friendly on Tuesday against St Patrick’s Athletic.

Official Newcastle United announcement:

Newcastle United have completed the signing of Kenedy on loan from Chelsea.

The Brazilian winger – who enjoyed a successful spell on loan at St. James’ Park last term – returns to the club until the end of the 2018/19 season.

Kenedy is well-known to United supporters, having spent half of the 2017/18 season on Tyneside as Newcastle secured a top-ten finish under manager Rafa Benítez.

He joined on loan in January, playing 13 times, scoring twice and winning the FUN88 player of the month award for March.

The former Brazil Under-23 international becomes Newcastle’s third addition of the summer, following the permanent acquisitions of Martin Dúbravka and Ki Sung-yueng.

He has joined up with the rest of the Magpies squad at the club’s pre-season camp in Ireland and will train this morning.

“I am so happy with this interest from Rafa Benítez, that he came back for me,” said Kenedy. “I want to keep it going, the work that I did here before, for the new season.

“I have received many, many messages on social media from the fans. They made me feel appreciated, so I wanted to come here in this new season and give everything on the pitch.”

Manager Benítez added:

“I’m really pleased to have Kenedy back with us. I’m sure every fan will be happy with this signing.

“Hopefully he can keep playing at the same level that he reached with us last season. I wish him all the best for his time here.”

Twenty-two-year-old Kenedy began his career in his homeland with Fluminense, where he made 31 appearances and scored twice before making a move to Stamford Bridge in August 2015.

He has featured 27 times in all for the Blues, netting three times, while he also spent time on loan at fellow Premier League side Watford in 2016.



  • Monkseaton Magpies

    Rafa ” Iam sure every fan will be happy with this signing”. That confirms he does not read the Mag. Most people on here are never happy even with good news. A loan frees up money to buy other players and we might even get to buy him during the season when the new Chelsea regime is in place.

    • jack

      You hope it frees up money

  • jack

    Is there any news if there’s a clause to buy him at the end of season

    • Clarko

      We have ‘first option’, no set price.

      • jack

        Well that’s not very good business sense to me.

        • Clarko

          It’s silly to criticise the ‘business sense’ when you’re clearly uninformed on the details of the deal.

          • jack

            And your informed are you ? What your saying doesn’t make sense after your first comment , of “option to buy “at end of season , and it is bad business sense to have arranged a buying clause at the end of season , where if Kennedy has a great season another twenty million could be added to his price , you know you come out with some compete rubbish at times , if your not contradicting yourself your saying things which are completely against the consensus of opinion .Remind me on never to go into business with you

          • Clarko

            1) You don’t know the difference between your and you’re.

            2) Yes I’m informed.

            3) What I said absolutley made sense, nowhere did I ‘contradict’ myself and nowhere did I say anything that was ‘rubbish’, I said we have ‘first option’ to buy Kenedy in my first comment (no rubbish there) and called you uninformed in my second comment (no rubbish and no contradiction).

            4) It’s Kenedy, not ‘Kennedy’, you would think a fan would know how to spell his name, he has been here since January.

            5) This has nothing to do with the ‘consensus’ of opinion, you asked for information (because you’re uninformed), I gave you that information (because I’m informed) and suddenly you became an expert on the topic.

            6) Again you’re uninformed on the deal, you’re trying to talk about the potential price when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • jack

            Now your an English teacher , don’t patronise me , every post you put on here is rubbis in support of a regime , and don’t pretend every one else is uniformed and your the only one who is informed and yes you did contradict yourself in your replies to me , so obviously your not as good at English as you thought , once an idiot always an idiot ,

          • Clarko

            1) Again, you still don’t know the difference between your and you’re.

            2) I don’t pretend that everyone else is ‘uniformed’ (dummy), I said that you were uninformed, you were, you were so uninformed that you had to ask about any clause in the loan deal.

            3) I didn’t contradict myself, my first two comments weren’t even related so it would be impossible for them to ‘contradict’ one another , which is why you failed to explain the contradiction, because you couldn’t, because it didn’t happen.

            4) If you think that every post I put on here is ‘rubbis’ (dummy), why don’t you challenge those posts? Because you can’t, because they’re not ‘rubbis’.

          • jack

            Of course I do , I’ve said I make no apologies for predictive text. And your getting off the subject , which was about bad business or good , I don’t need an idiot like you giving me gold stars for English

          • Clarko

            I’m not getting off topic, I responded to your other comment above, it’s not my fault you need two attempts to try and express your “thoughts”.

            ‘You do have to be informed, if you were informed you would know that Newcastle tried to insert an ‘option/obligation to buy’ clause in the contract, Chelsea’s price was £30m, Newcastle (rightly) thought that was too high and both clubs couldn’t reach an agreement making your ‘not very good business sense’ comment stupid, no surprise there.’

          • Tony English

            “Newcastle tried to insert an ‘option/obligation to buy’ clause in the contract, Chelsea’s price was £30m”

            I’d be interested to know where you got your info regarding this, cite your sources, don’t shoot me down (or correct my grammar yawn) but I haven’t read this info anywhere reliable, all press guesswork.

            I think with massive inflation in the transfer market over the last few seasons, very few clubs will set reasonable end-of-loan fixed price options, clubs like Chelsea will continue to loan out their vast pool of peripheral players knowing they will coin it in eventually anyway.

            P.S. it would be good if we can have an argument as some of the paranoid on here think I’m you, despite the fact that unlike yourself I have never (and will never) defend Ashley.

          • Clarko

            The Northern Echo and The Chronicle/Everything is Black and White podcast. The common consensus early on in the window was £20m would be enough to sign him now, it was reported that Newcastle couldn’t afford to sign him permanently this window and a loan deal was the only viable option, Newcastle/Benitez wanted an ‘option/obligation to buy’ Kenedy inserted into the deal but Chelsea, to compensate for potential good form/inflation set the ‘option/obligation to buy’ fee at £30m.

            P.S. You wouldn’t, under any circumstance, defend the owner of the football club you support? Even if the attacks were factually wrong?

          • Tony English

            Ah ok, lets break this down then…

            1] “The common consensus” – as in a general agreement, the majority of opinion. So lots of fans and pundits guestimate a figure based on the market….fine, but if we’re taking about factual information, that means zilch.

            It’s down to two men who make a final decision on the value of the asset, not the common consensus, and those two men coming to an agreement. So we don’t know if Chelsea wanted 40million or 14million, we don’t actually, factually, know if they were ONLY looking to loan Kenedy out and a permanent transfer was off the table. I don’t know, you don’t know. Jack doesn’t know.

            2] “The Everything Black and White Podcast” I was unaware of, but one second of research shows its actually the news desk at “The Chronicle” (which explains your forward slash)…The Chronicle….really? The Chronicle….you write above like you have an insight into the detail of the contract and now you’re quoting The Chronicle?

            Remind me, how many appearances did Socrates make for us? Has Bas Dost been granted his testimonial yet? Remember when they broke the Andy Cole transfer to Man U after it happened? It was a well known fact for years if they didn’t have a Newcastle story on the sandwich board outside the central they wouldn’t sell one paper. The only insider knowledge they have is from agents using them to publicise their players.

            The Chronicle is not a creditable source for information when it’s been way off the mark time and time and time again for decades.

            3] “The Northern Echo” (see [2])

            So basically…you say “you’re informed” in this instance you’re regurgitating common opinion and local rags populated with half truths by bang average journalists? If you think that gives you the right to rip Jack a new ar se ho le then fine, that’s your choice.

            Finally, with regards to me never defending the owner (even if the attacks were factually wrong)…

            …facts…nothing else in your standpoint in this instant was based on facts, poorly reported hearsay and common opinion seem to be enough thus far…

            …but when it comes to Ashley, I ignore the background noise and take his previous behaviour into consideration, changing the stadium name, despoiling the strip and stadium with bargain basement sponsors, Joe Kinnear, Joe Kinnear again, undermining Keegan, Pardew, Dennis Wise, two relegations….

            Let’s agree on one thing, we’re definitely not the same person with two profiles.

          • Clarko

            1) “The common consensus” – as in those numbers/reports were corroborated by a variety of reliable media outlets/sources, I didn’t say anything about fans and pundits trying to ‘guesstimate’ a value.

            ‘It’s down to two men who make a final decision on the value of the asset, not the common consensus, and those two men coming to an agreement’. I don’t believe that’s true and I don’t know how that’s relevant to the conversation. Sloppy.

            In the rest of your first point, for whatever reason, you use your own hypothetical numbers and scenario instead of using the actual numbers and scenario that we are actually “discussing” not that it matters because my response/counter is based on the reliability/credibility of the source which I will address below.

            2) Your criticism of the Chronicle (and the examples you used) does not damage their credibility, you’re doubting the credibility of the Chronicle because you believe they were late in getting out a story? That has nothing to do with their credibility. You don’t think they’re credible because they believed that Newcastle were interested in Bas Dost? To use one of your own quotes, ‘you don’t know’ whether or not Newcastle were interested in Bas Dost do you? If you’re going to question the credibility of the Chronicle you need some actual examples/evidence of them repetitively and deliberately being deceptive/untrustworthy. Until then, they can be considered as credible. (Same goes for the Northern Echo).

            3) I was informed because I was aware of all the available information on the topic I was discussing, Jack was not, which wasn’t a problem until he started to criticise the ‘business sense’ of the deal.

            Definitely not the same person.

          • Tony English

            1) “ME- It’s down to two men who make a final decision on the value of the asset, not the common consensus, and those two men coming to an agreement”

            “YOU – I don’t believe that’s true and I don’t know how that’s relevant to the conversation. Sloppy.”

            How is that not true? How is it not ultimately the owners of the two club either rubber stamping the deal, or the two men they have delegated the decision to?

            How is not Abramovic (or his delegate) saying we want this much, and then Ashley (or his delegate) saying yes or no?

            You’re drowning in the shallow end here my friend.

            Do you think Charnley goes back to Ashley and says “I know you only want to pay £ABC, but the common consensus is we should play £XYZ because that’s what they reckon on the Everything Black and White Podcast AND The Northern Echo” ?

            Really?

            If you want to narrow down the common consensus to the media (which you didn’t originally state) on the valuation of Kenedy….the media has largely based this on the sale price of one similarly aged and experienced player leaving Chelsea, 22year old Nathan Ake leaving for £20.52million last year, he is more often than not the sole example within articles regarding Kenedy’s valuation (please show me an article where any other Chelsea sale is mentioned to compare, you won’t find one).

            That is lazy (sloppy) research on both your part and the part of the media.

            In the same time period, Chelsea also allowed the transfer of 22year old Nathaniel Chalobah for £5.67million, 21year old Bertrand Traore for £9million, and two players less comparable in age but comparable in position, Christian Atsu (26) for £6.75million, Juan Cuadrado (29) for £18million.

            If we include Ake, that’s five players with similar lack of impact on the fringes of the Chelsea squad who left for an average price of £11.98million.

            I do my own research and come to my own opinion, not regurgitate half truths from the local paper, I’m mentioning hypotheticals as IT’S ALL HYPOTHETICALS, every single half baked article you read in those local rags. we can all do an info grab, boil down the numbers and give a hypothetical opinion, that’s what you singularly fail to grasp.

            2) ” YOU – If you’re going to question the credibility of the Chronicle you need some actual examples/evidence of them repetitively and deliberately being deceptive/untrustworthy/getting it wrong.”

            I would say if you need proof of the Chronicles lack of credibility, read it seven days after it goes to print.

            You keep reading the local rags and coming to your own “informed” opinions.

          • Clarko

            1) This isn’t relevant to the discussion, you’re trying (and failing) to build a straw man, the only person who has suggested that the journalists have an impact on valuation is you, not me. Very, very sloppy.

            You then go on and try to make the argument that because players like Chalobah sold for £5.67million and Traore sold for £9million it must mean Kenedy’s valuation of ~£20m is too high. They’re different players dummy, Chalobah and Traore are not Kenedy. Very, very silly.

            2) No evidence or examples, shocker…

          • Tony English

            A] First you say the valuation at £20million is the common consensus.

            B] You then narrow it to say the common consensus within the (local) media was that £20million would be enough.

            I state at both points that their figures are arrived at from thin air and have no bearing on the true price, which NONE OF US KNOW. I give examples as to how this figure was poorly arrived at and state we are all similarly uninformed/misinformed.

            C] Now you’re saying the very sources of your information, have no bearing on the price (as I agree and stated from minute one) yet you still cite them as the source for your information, which as history has shown is flawed (I gave examples in my earlier comment, didn’t need to repeat).

            When I describe the very SIMPLE nature of ANY business transaction – man A quotes price – man B decides if he agrees – you pathetically state…

            “I don’t believe that’s true and I don’t know how that’s relevant to the conversation.”

            …that is the very essence of the conversation (dummy) you talk of contract details because that’s what the papers say, you have NO INFORMATION beyond that.

            I compile a list of outgoings at Chelsea to show the basis of valuation used in the media, generally the sale of Ake (who is a very different player dummy) is flawed, that the age/experience/distance from first team model that has been used to reach his price can equally be compared to cheaper sales in the same timeframe as Ake.

            My entire point began at your statement….

            “Newcastle tried to insert an ‘option/obligation to buy’ clause in the contract, Chelsea’s price was £30m”

            Which you read…..in The Chronicle….and you….are informed….

            Ok boss x

          • Clarko

            A) You didn’t even make a point here (sloppy).

            B) ‘I state at both points that their figures are arrived at from thin air and have no bearing on the true price’

            And you have absolutley no evidence or valid reasoning to support that statement.

            ‘I give examples as to how this figure was poorly arrived at’

            No you didn’t, you listed how much Bertrand Traoré sold for a year ago, that has no relation to Kenedy’s price now.

            C) ‘Now you’re saying the very sources of your information, have no bearing on the price’

            No, I stated that ‘the only person who has suggested that the journalists have an impact on valuation is you’. You keep doing this, trying to misrepresent what I have said. Sloppy.

            ‘When I describe the very SIMPLE nature of ANY business transaction – man A quotes price – man B decides if he agrees’

            As stated many times, that’s not the argument. Where did I make an argument detailing the process of a ‘business transaction’? Where did I make an argument detailing who decides a players value? Quote me.

            Again, it’s a very simple argument, I’m citing a valuation that was provided by the sources that I listed, sources that I believe are credible. You need to provide evidence showing that the sources are not credible, you haven’t.

          • Tony English

            You cited a valuation and contractual details, whilst belittling another poster because “you are informed”, even resorting to the last bastion of the intellectually destitute by correcting his grammar.

            I questioned your knowledge of the valuation/contractual detail as the publications you cite do not quote verbatim anyone directly involved with the deal, they pull figures out of the air based on (your words) the common consensus.

            If they do not quote VERBATIM and attribute that quote to someone involved in the deal, then they can’t be held up as a creditable source, they are reporting nothing but speculation…the common consensus.

            I stated the common consensus (from whichever pool of folk you decide to narrow it down to) is meaningless and does not give you the right to take the high ground and state “you are informed”.

            I gave examples of how the oft quoted example of the sale Ake within these articles is flawed, and when it is being used as a measure, the other sales (yes indeed one year ago) could also be held up as benchmark…by saying they are of no relevance you are actually agreeing with me…I’m saying if they are using a one year old sale of Ake as the measure (which I think is flawed) then to be even handed you also have to look at the full picture of that transfer window (which is also flawed).

            I stated the price was ultimately down to an agreement between two men to which you replied – “I don’t believe that’s true and I don’t know how that’s relevant to the conversation.” – once again….the initial question I asked was how do you know about contractual clauses…you cited common consensus, then the local media…I maintain, all of the opinions, all of the media coverage, it boils down to the decision of the seller and the buyer, and we – ALL OF US INCLUDING YOU – know very little/nothing of the detail.

            The burden of proof of the validity of the Chronicle et al is on the person using the sources to prove his point that he is “informed”, as I’ve already said, any article that doesn’t included attributed quotes is speculation and therefore worthless.

            I can see why some thought I was you, as I state certain points and argue my corner to the ‘enth degree, and try to break it down into bullet points, so I see why the initial welcome was bristly as they believed I was standing in your shoes (even though we have very different standpoints).

            However I tend not to use derogatory words like “dummy, sloppy” (I have made an exception in your case as that is clearly your modus operandi).

            Keep believing everything you read.

          • Clarko

            Where is your evidence that the sources I listed are not credible? All you are doing is saying “your sources are wrong because I say they are wrong”. It’s just silly.

            ‘If they do not quote VERBATIM and attribute that quote to someone involved in the deal, then they can’t be held up as a creditable source’

            Again, you’re using reasoning that doesn’t damage the credibility of the source, not having a quote doesn’t damage their credibility. Where is your quote from someone involved in the deal that contradicts the valuation published by the sources I listed? I don’t see one.

            None of the sources I listed based the valuation of Kenedy on how much Ake sold for.

            ‘ALL OF US INCLUDING YOU – know very little/nothing of the detail.’

            Again, you keep on talking about how little we both know, although I do agree that you know very little about everything that you have tried to “discuss” during this “conversation” I would like to point out that I have never claimed that I personally know the details about the deal, I’m claiming the sources that I cited do.

            The burden is on you to provide evidence to support your claim, that burden isn’t on me or the Chronicle.

          • Tony English

            The burden isn’t on a newspaper to provide evidence that it’s stories are real? Honestly? You believe that? The burden is on a reader questioning the newspaper? You enjoy swimming uphill do you?……

            “He definitely killed her m’lud, I am informed”

            “who informed you Mr.Clarko?”

            “the newspaper m’lud”

            “And did this newspaper cite the source of their information? Did they name their informer? Did they have direct quotes in parenthesis that cannot under any circumstances be questioned that can be attributed to someone with undeniable evidence?”

            “Well they didn’t quote anyone who directly disagreed with their information, and it’s the common consensus of opinon, so that”s just as good isn’t it? I read it in the newspaper so it must be true your honour.”

            “AHHH, YOU’VE GOT ME THERE MR CLARKO! YOU ARE A FINE CRIMINAL MIND….GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!! Just one thing Mr Clarko, does this….newspaper….have a record of accuracy?”

            “Yes, M’lud…we’re very close to signing Socrates.”

          • Clarko

            The newspaper has history of providing credible and factual reports, which is why you have been unable to provide evidence or examples to support your argument, like every other media outlet, they have to protect the identity of their source, that’s how they get information, because of their trustworthy history and because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise, the reports can be trusted, they are credible.

            All you have to do is provide examples/evidence of them (on a somewhat consistent basis) getting it wrong or deliberately lying to their readership, it should be easy considering ‘it’s been way off the mark time and time and time again for decades’, instead you keep mentioning ‘Socrates’ a player who was ‘linked’ with Newcastle in 1983, a whole 35 years ago…

            I don’t appreciate the racist remarks either.

          • Tony English

            So Clarko, your latest comment has been sent to my email but not appeared here yet, presumably it is being looked at by the powers that be.

            In a nutshell you repeat the same position, that the burden of proof is upon someone questioning a publication, not the publication itself, we can park that because as you know that comment is patently untrue. So I’ll let you continue on that nonsense for as long as you like.

            The other point you made, which you also said to Jack is “I don’t appreciate the rac ist remarks either” is this your stock response when you are deep into your diatribe of nonsense?

            I make no mention or allude to any race, and attribute no characteristics good or bad to any group or any ethnicity. I have no idea of your background, but my immediate family spans 3 continents, and the only offence I take at your comment is that it is ludicrously desperate and shouldn’t be bandied around so flippantly.

            Feel free to continue educating me by cutting and pasting my offensive remarks regarding this issue….it will be a very very short comment, your shortest yet.

            Pr at.

          • Clarko

            And the newspaper(s) in question have a history of providing credible and factual reports, which is why you have been unable to provide evidence or examples to support your argument, like every other media outlet, they have to protect the identity of their source, that’s how they get information, because of their trustworthy history and because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise, the reports can be trusted, they are credible.

            All you have to do is provide examples/evidence of them (on a somewhat consistent basis) getting it wrong or deliberately lying to their readership, it should be easy considering ‘it’s been way off the mark time and time and time again for decades’, instead, for whatever reason, you keep mentioning ‘Socrates’ a player who was “linked” with Newcastle in 1983, a whole 35 years ago…

            I don’t appreciate the racist remarks either.

          • Come&TakeIt1836

            At the risk of getting caught in some crossfire but trying to be helpful to you, I saw the £30M number floated somewhere myself. Maybe the Chronicle. Sure can’t speak to its accuracy… I’m not sure anyone outside the parties to the contract can.

          • Come&TakeIt1836

            “But a price could not be mutually agreed – the Blues are believed to have wanted a figure of around £30million, whereas Newcastle wanted the clause to be significantly lower – and, although United do appear to have first refusal on acquiring Kenedy permanently, the Brazilian’s future beyond the 2018/19 campaign remains uncertain.”

            – Chronicle article today.

          • Tony English

            No crossfire. No worries! I don’t shout down people trying to be reasonable and having a point of view even if it differs from mine.

          • jack

            You think everyone that talks against the regime on here is uniformed , and by backing them all the time who exactly is the dummy , every one on here thinks your the dummy or are you that thick skinned you haven’t noticed , and your wrong about your posts not being contradictory, it’s obvious your knowledge of the English knowledge is not as good as you think , and your also wrong about the purpose of your and you’re too , but most posts you put on here are wrong

          • Clarko

            Give me an explanation, with actual quotes, of me contradicting myself.

            I’ll wait…

          • jack

            Enough you idiot , if you can’t understand what your writing It’s not my job to enlighten you ,

          • Clarko

            And there we go, no quotes or explanation, why? Because it didn’t happen.

            Oh and it is your job to provide evidence to support your argument dummy. That’s how arguments work…

          • jack

            Because if you can’t see where you’ve contradicted yourself then there’s not much hope for you , people who post on here are correct , you really are a balloon , if brains were taxed you’d never get a rebate ,this discussion is ended , you started the sarcasm because this is what you try and do to everyone who disagrees with your point of view .Remain an idiot

          • Clarko

            You’re a racist.

          • jack

            The .most absurd comment yet , you really are an idiot

          • Clarko

            If you can’t see where you’ve been racist then there’s not much hope for you. Racist idiot.

          • jack

            Absolutely absurd , and to even suggest it is ridiculous , I understand English very well and only an idiot like you would look for something that’s just not there .

          • Clarko

            You’re a racist, your posts are racist.

          • jack

            Nothing remotely racist in any of my replies to you , so cut the bull , and I could take offence at some of your replies but don’t , the difference between me and you is , that I would say if to your face , but doubt you would .

          • Clarko

            Like I said, if you can’t see where you’ve been racist then there’s not much hope for you. I’m extremely offended by your racist remarks, you should be ashamed.

          • Tony English

            Apparently I’m a racist too now. This is what he does when he’s disappeared up his own backside.

          • jack

            Tony I just don’t think he’s a full shilling , you won’t find any racist remarks in my replies to him , I think he’s got real problems and tries to be sarcastic with everyone

          • Tony English

            I know you made no rac ist remarks, I read the thread thoroughly before questioning his claims of “being informed”.

            He’ll argue black is white (hopefully that isn’t taken as a rac ist comment) until his keys wear out.

            A waste of air.

          • jack

            Yeah there’s a few of them on here , always apologising for Ashley , the majority of fans can see it for what it is

          • jack

            He seems to think that he is the only one informed , and the rest of us uniformed racist dummies , when basically he’s getting his informed information from the same source as the rest of us

          • jack

            Lol you really are an idiot

          • Clarko

            At least I’m not a racist.

          • jack

            And getting back to original post , it’s not good business sense , and I don’t have to be informed about that , only common sense tells you that , which your devoid of , and I make no apologies for predictive text in the spelling of Kenedy

          • Clarko

            You do have to be informed, if you were informed you would know that Newcastle tried to insert an ‘option/obligation to buy’ clause in the contract, Chelsea’s price was £30m, Newcastle (rightly) thought that was too high and both clubs couldn’t reach an agreement making your ‘not very good business sense’ comment stupid, no surprise there.

  • TheTradge

    It would have been a disastrous transfer window if we hadn’t at least secured Kenedy and Dúbravka for another season, it’ll be a disappointing window if we don’t break the transfer record at least once for a new striker, and also get in a decent number 10 as well.

  • jack

    And you didn’t respond to my post , you tried to be sarcastic and correct my English , I stated that it was bad business . which it is , and if you can’t see that ? I’m happy with the signing but not about the terms

    • Vodkamagpie

      Jack, regarding the not very good business sense. Chelsea hold all the cards, and the current deal is beneficial to Chelsea more than Newcastle , which should be the case. No one knows the details, 20mil, 30mil, there could be a number of reasons why the deal is the deal, it’s all speculation .

      • jack

        I’m really happy that he is coming back for the whole season , but it isn’t good business sense if no fee is agreed at the end of the loan , like you say nobody knows the terms of the deal only clarko and we are all uniformed apart from him , the perfect deal for us would have been an agreed fee at the end of it , and Chelsea do hold all the aces , we’ve been proven to be bad at negotiatons without adding release clauses etc , and the fact that the fatman doesn’t like to spend money makes you wonder if there was a better deal to make

        • Vodkamagpie

          If we had agreed a fixed price for him, it would of been good financial sense. Unfortunately Chelsea are in control, and if they, have/or have not, agreed a fixed price, Chelsea will argue that, that is the best financial sense for their football club, and couldn’t give 2 hoots about Newcastles financial sense

          • jack

            I agree