Ar
Are the PL rules and CL ruled assumptions? I assume you know 21 is too many for both?
Stop deflecting
Ar
Are the PL rules and CL ruled assumptions? I assume you know 21 is too many for both?
1
17 senior Pros. They have made it clear they don't want Ballotelli, they will have their pants pulled down on him.
But I fail to see your point. They don't have 5 or 6 senior pros over the allowed allocation like we do. You know the difference between one or two and six don't you?
Are you trying to suggest that having to shift 5 or 6 players in the last month of a transfer window is a strong foundation for negotiation?
Since when has a surplus of stock been a good thing in sales?
That is a different spin. No one has said your wrong to be concerned
You're ignoring my point AGAIN. You said they got good value for Allen because they weren't overstocked. They are, get it?
I'm not trying to suggest anything and no need for the patronising cuntishness either.
You've given yet another horrendous example, much like the other day.
Liverpool are not over stocked with senior internationals. We are.
They got good value for Joe Allen because they haven't got a back log of senior pros they need to shift to accommodate new signings.
What am I defelecting. My arguement is and remains. We have too many senior pros.Stop deflecting
They're overstocked with non homegrown ( you're moving the goalposts again with this "senior pros" bolloxology ) so your argument doesn't stack up.
Not moved any goal posts. 2 xGK's. 5 x Defenders. 5 x Midfielders. 5 x strikers including Balotelli who can leave. 17. Not over stocked as I said.
No goal posts moved.
If you're counting a bunch of teenagers who've never played , we are certainly fucked then.
Again, is a huge surplus a good or a bad thing. You won't answer and it's obvious why.
How many times do I have to say it? This time in block capitals I ACKNOWLEGE THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE.
The simple fact is mate that they have 17 non homegrown so if they want more they've to sell before they buy, agree?