... go for underwear too then you you ... you win; he wears your scally y-fronts ... he wins; you wear his Victoria's Secret pink and blue frilly thong ...
So £1 million profit buys £150 million worth of full backs? That's great, we should all live in this sort of world. You don't agree with me, fine as this is an open forum where we discuss what we want. Which is what I was doing. Do me a favour though, don't miss quote or make things us up about me as it's the one thing that really ****ing bugs me. I've not cried, moaned or mentioned nett spend. At all. Thanks.
Eh? Their turnover allows them to buy £150m worth of fullbacks. Their profit is what they still have in the kitty having done so.
exactly sky two very easy games coming up, I basically said the same the spurs lads over on their rival watch thread and was treated with utter contempt. I fear they fear the fear
Seriously? Never heard of turnover? Cried wasn’t meant to be literal ffs, my perception was that you were moaning - my prerogative, and you brought up net spend by default by saying that City couldn’t afford all the players they were buying. Cheers
Why do you keep repeating that i cried then? I was having an open valid discussion and you stepping in with that bollocks. Next thing you'll be telling me I never wash my hands. If City turned over £450 million and then spent £150 million without selling then they wouldn't make any profit, sorry.
Nice try mate ... but this was taken outside your house by HIAG just a couple of minutes ago ... he's still pissed off about you demeaning his 'artistic talent' please log in to view this image
In that scenario they’d have made a £150m loss. Meanwhile in reality, they posted a turnover of £473m and returned a profit of £1m.
You obviously don’t understand the difference between net profit and turnover ffs The net profit includes all of their costs
