|
|
Post by RocketMan on Jun 1, 2012 5:04:47 GMT -5
£38 million for hulk, i have only seen him in a couple of games and while decent he didn't look like £38 million worth of talent. Is he better than i think? he is really good. physically and technically really strong. i guess the 38mio are to much, but you know, it's chlesea ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Jun 1, 2012 5:09:38 GMT -5
That's actually pretty cheap for Hulk, he's a class player. Chelsea has paid way more for way worse players in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on Jun 1, 2012 5:21:15 GMT -5
That's actually pretty cheap for Hulk, he's a class player. Chelsea has paid way more for way worse players in the past. nah it's alright. there's no need to pay your ass off. it's just a football player |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 7:56:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 2, 2012 6:56:38 GMT -5
Brendan Rodgers is going to be great for Liverpool. I love his tactics, a really smart man and a great man manager apparently. Saw him on Match of the Day a few weeks ago and was so impressed. Would love to see him succeed with them - world and English football needs Liverpool FC back amongst the big boys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2012 7:36:36 GMT -5
Paul Lambert to Villa.. that could go either way really. I'd love to see Norwich finish higher than Villa (again). anyways I have 5 away days planned for 12/13 season: QPR, West Ham, Reading, Southampton, Swansea & probably a home game. looking forward to next season it could be good!  |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Jun 2, 2012 8:22:06 GMT -5
Brendan Rodgers is going to be great for Liverpool. I love his tactics, a really smart man and a great man manager apparently. Saw him on Match of the Day a few weeks ago and was so impressed. Would love to see him succeed with them - world and English football needs Liverpool FC back amongst the big boys.No. It really doesn't. Football needs good teams not a history book. Liverpool haven't won the league since 1990. Why should that give them an entitlement? They are currently a joke of a club run by owners that know nothing about football. They remind me of my own club circa. 2008/09 and we all know how that one ended up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2012 8:37:49 GMT -5
i always wish the worst on liverpool  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 3, 2012 16:03:08 GMT -5
Brendan Rodgers is going to be great for Liverpool. I love his tactics, a really smart man and a great man manager apparently. Saw him on Match of the Day a few weeks ago and was so impressed. Would love to see him succeed with them - world and English football needs Liverpool FC back amongst the big boys.No. It really doesn't. Football needs good teams not a history book. Liverpool haven't won the league since 1990. Why should that give them an entitlement? They are currently a joke of a club run by owners that know nothing about football. They remind me of my own club circa. 2008/09 and we all know how that one ended up. That's absolute rubbish, football does not simply need 'good teams' and to discount history from football is just stupid. Manchester City and Chelsea are a good team but in my opinion it means fuck all since they bought their league titles. If a team won it legitimately, like Arsenal (like Liverpool and Man Utd have) did under Wenger and built it shrewdly over a few years (living within their means despite much heftier funds that United had), then that is what constitutes a real and deserved achievement and deserved history, no matter what you think of Arsenal. History and class of clubs like United, Arsenal and Liverpool make football the attraction that it is, not 'good teams'. I think you're team Newcastle show much class with their fans and support, which is the heart of a football club and they also give an attraction to football, despite lack of success - therefore I think it would be better for English football if they were top rather than clubs who simply buy success. This is not me saying that all clubs with no history should not be allowed to succeed, I'm saying that clubs should secure their place in history legitimately. I don't care what you say, but City's success is not legitimate and it is bad for the game. Brendan Rodger's is good for the game and if he can build Liverpool into a force again, it would be one of the most admirable things I'd ever see. Likewise with Newcastle, if a manager came and gave the fans what they deserved - and I mean league titles because I've always though Newcastle have the potential to challenge the big boys - it would be amazing. Success from the pockets of oil tycoons is not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2012 16:36:20 GMT -5
you make it sound as though man city and chelsea have no history
|
|
|
|
Post by gavincampbell on Jun 4, 2012 2:16:32 GMT -5
No. It really doesn't. Football needs good teams not a history book. Liverpool haven't won the league since 1990. Why should that give them an entitlement? They are currently a joke of a club run by owners that know nothing about football. They remind me of my own club circa. 2008/09 and we all know how that one ended up. That's absolute rubbish, football does not simply need 'good teams' and to discount history from football is just stupid. Manchester City and Chelsea are a good team but in my opinion it means fuck all since they bought their league titles. If a team won it legitimately, like Arsenal (like Liverpool and Man Utd have) did under Wenger and built it shrewdly over a few years (living within their means despite much heftier funds that United had), then that is what constitutes a real and deserved achievement and deserved history, no matter what you think of Arsenal. History and class of clubs like United, Arsenal and Liverpool make football the attraction that it is, not 'good teams'. I think you're team Newcastle show much class with their fans and support, which is the heart of a football club and they also give an attraction to football, despite lack of success -therefore I think it would be better for English football if they were top rather than clubs who simply buy success. This is not me saying that all clubs with no history should not be allowed to succeed, I'm saying that clubs should secure their place in history legitimately. I don't care what you say, but City's success is not legitimate and it is bad for the game. Brendan Rodger's is good for the game and if he can build Liverpool into a force again, it would be one of the most admirable things I'd ever see. Likewise with Newcastle, if a manager came and gave the fans what they deserved - and I mean league titles because I've always though Newcastle have the potential to challenge the big boys - it would be amazing. Success from the pockets of oil tycoons is not. you have a big tendency to blame money on things.city didnt buy the title surely they would have had to have spent the most to do that ? go get your facts straight before you blow hard on a forum.also certainly maybe lift a book on football teams before you say they have no history. |
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Jun 4, 2012 2:57:19 GMT -5
Question:
Have Fulham got a suitable replacement should Mark Schwartzer retire?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 10:27:56 GMT -5
the difference between man city and chelsea is they have been luckier than other clubs in getting super rich owners but it happens throughout football look at wigan and their position before DW took over same for fulham.
|
|
|
|
Post by gavincampbell on Jun 4, 2012 14:31:15 GMT -5
the difference between man city and chelsea is they have been luckier than other clubs in getting super rich owners but it happens throughout football look at wigan and their position before DW took over same for fulham. jealousy plays a huge part with us.was ok while our neighbours were smashing transfer records and buying titles but how dare us noisy ones try emulate the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 14:40:03 GMT -5
If you aint already heard, google Cardiff City FC and read whats happened there...
Shocking stuff from the cunts that own the club..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 15:21:34 GMT -5
If you aint already heard, google Cardiff City FC and read whats happened there... Shocking stuff from the c unts that own the club.. complete lack of respect for the fans |
|
|
|
Post by supernovadragon on Jun 7, 2012 3:18:54 GMT -5
If you aint already heard, google Cardiff City FC and read whats happened there... Shocking stuff from the c unts that own the club.. complete lack of respect for the fans Was thinking the same myself - what a complete and utter joke!! |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 7, 2012 19:17:55 GMT -5
complete lack of respect for the fans Was thinking the same myself - what a complete and utter joke!! WTF? How does that even make any sense? Ok, it's one thing to try to re-brand a club. That's logical and makes marketable and financial success. Switching colors of a kit, etc isn't going to accomplish anything - and in this case, quite the opposite. Shocking indeed. Total lack of respect for the club and it's history.  |
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Jun 9, 2012 8:54:00 GMT -5
The away kit is blue. I can see all the fans buying the away kit instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2012 10:59:59 GMT -5
The away kit is blue. I can see all the fans buying the away kit instead. they should not by anything |
|
|
|
Post by gavincampbell on Jun 10, 2012 6:43:07 GMT -5
The away kit is blue. I can see all the fans buying the away kit instead. they should not by anything agreed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 12:33:50 GMT -5
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5