After capitalising on Liverpool's reluctance, Mourinho insisted that Remy has no medical issues whatsoever. He told reporters:
"We have a fantastic doctor and I trust him completely. They will identify any problem. The information we have from specialists in different areas is that he does not have a problem."
In his column for The Mirror today, Kamara questioned Liverpool's decision to pull out of the Remy deal, and suggested that the striker would've been a much better signing than Mario Balotelli. He observed:
"What everyone seems to have forgotten is Liverpool's attempted signing of Loic Remy. Remy failed his medical at Anfield and things could’ve been very different had he signed"
I maintain that Remy's €12m Chelsea move makes an absolute mockery of Liverpool's failure to complete the deal:
* If Remy is healthy enough for Stamford Bridge, then why is he not healthy enough for Anfield?
* If underlying issues exists that's serious enough to derail a transfer, Chelsea's doctors and specialists - who are just as qualified and experienced as LFC's - would've found it, no?
* Clearly, there's no issue with Chelsea obtaining insurance for Remy.
* £10.5m on Remy is a significantly lower risk than £16m on Balotelli, even with his alleged heart problem.
It's ridiculous, really. Chelsea have pulled off one of the bargain transfers of the summer, and it's a deal that Liverpool could've - and should've sealed.
It just doesn't compute: if Remy has a serious medical issue then why have Chelsea signed him on a long-term deal? If someone can explain that to me, then I'm all ears (!)
We'll probably never know the truth behind the Remy collapse, but it's increasingly hard to believe that the deal fell through due to medical reasons.
Is Kamara right about Remy making a difference for Liverpool?
Well, the striker has 2 goals/1 assist in 6 appearances so far, and is averaging a goal/assist every 73 minutes. Compare that with Balotelli, Lambert, and Borini, and the difference is as obvious as it is depressing.
Author: Jaimie K