kaz7
Well-Known Member
Their mates at the top have come through for them , he didnt care playing the kids that time he wanted to throw it but not now , i knew he would do something and hope his players come home early from AFCON
Maybe Alisson is back from isolation and they have a keeper in contrast to tomorrow.If they can’t field a team on Thursday surely they will still be in isolation at the weekend meaning the fa cup game can’t be played ? So why hasn’t that been called off ? Or will there be a miracle and they are all suddenly clear .
Probably fucking Tebas would pipe up as well.If City were in the same situation, would current EFL chairman, ex dipper CEO, chief leaker of confidential info at CAS, puppet master for all anti City shit for the past years Rick poisonous twat Parry agree to the postponement, not a fucking chance.
What is the time scale for AFCON? Surely there is a quarantine period before they can rejoin their EPL club as well?Their mates at the top have come through for them , he didnt care playing the kids that time he wanted to throw it but not now , i knew he would do something and hope his players come home early from AFCON
Dont think there is , read it someone they just come straight back and take a testWhat is the time scale for AFCON? Surely there is a quarantine period before they can rejoin their EPL club as well?
Haha, in their heads 24/7, the mental gymnastics throughout that article is impressive, even linking Wolves starting 11 as less than the cost of KDB.
The pain is delicious!
They won’t be home in time for the second legTheir mates at the top have come through for them , he didnt care playing the kids that time he wanted to throw it but not now , i knew he would do something and hope his players come home early from AFCON
In the comments section:
"A more simple comparison can be made by looking at the "Net Spend" difference between Liverpool and Man City. Over the last five years, Liverpool's "net spend" (the price of players added, minus the price of players sold), is about 92 million pounds. Over the same period, Man City's "net spend" is OVER 500 million pounds! You really do not need to look any further than that for an eye-opening, reality-check comparison of the two teams. I have said, before, that looking at those two comparative figures, it is an irrefutable testament to Klopp's greatness as a manager that we have won ANYTHING during that period. It is the antithesis of a 'level financial playing field'."
So, Dipper, tell me about that 'level financial playing field' when you were in division 2 and were given enormous amounts of money to buy the best players to get out of said division. Ah I see. That was different yeah?
A voice of reason:
"Why the desperation to find obscure ways of'proving' that Liverpool (and others) are disadvantaged due to Manchester City's preparedness to spend more than others?
Man City spend what they earn, or so the genuine data indicates. They have no debt, they have investors who have bought equity that can presumably be sold but have not made loans. which have to be repaid. They have built an old underperforming club into a modern behemoth by improving its facilities and management, financial, commercial and managerial. In short the ownership invested well in the location and ability to grow the infrastructure and develop the brand; primed the pump with investment into playing staff and through commercial excellence created the revenue to sustain this and develop it further through reinvested earnings.
FSG and the Glazers have a different model!"
Having read Prestwich blues financial breakdown of major clubs over a 6 year period. It seems that the difference between Chelsea and the dippers net spend is a mere £6m. So instead of comparing to us maybe they should compare to Chelsea and what they have won in the same periodIn the comments section:
"A more simple comparison can be made by looking at the "Net Spend" difference between Liverpool and Man City. Over the last five years, Liverpool's "net spend" (the price of players added, minus the price of players sold), is about 92 million pounds. Over the same period, Man City's "net spend" is OVER 500 million pounds! You really do not need to look any further than that for an eye-opening, reality-check comparison of the two teams. I have said, before, that looking at those two comparative figures, it is an irrefutable testament to Klopp's greatness as a manager that we have won ANYTHING during that period. It is the antithesis of a 'level financial playing field'."
So, Dipper, tell me about that 'level financial playing field' when you were in division 2 and were given enormous amounts of money to buy the best players to get out of said division. Ah I see. That was different yeah?
A voice of reason:
"Why the desperation to find obscure ways of'proving' that Liverpool (and others) are disadvantaged due to Manchester City's preparedness to spend more than others?
Man City spend what they earn, or so the genuine data indicates. They have no debt, they have investors who have bought equity that can presumably be sold but have not made loans. which have to be repaid. They have built an old underperforming club into a modern behemoth by improving its facilities and management, financial, commercial and managerial. In short the ownership invested well in the location and ability to grow the infrastructure and develop the brand; primed the pump with investment into playing staff and through commercial excellence created the revenue to sustain this and develop it further through reinvested earnings.
FSG and the Glazers have a different model!"