Who will generally support the most successful side even if it means switching between clubs all the time, this includes going back and fourth between Liverpool and Man Utd, how can there be a connection to any club it that scenario?
From what I see it also has a connection to players from their country playing in the teams but who knows
West ham are in need of a CB but are also playing the poor card. I reckon phillips will be in the babel copter on deadline day. Someone will panic. Southampton could lose all the games prior to the international break. Man utd will rip that side apart (flat track bullies) and then newcastle away. Burnley have tarkowski nearing end of contract but already have replacement, they bascially spent 12mil on a CB in collins from stoke and taken in a couple of free transfers so they have not exaclty opened the purse. west ham are pretending they have no money and signed Dawson for 2mil. thats it. Southampton bought armstrong ,a new lb from france and picked up the kid form chelsea at rb. they just look piss weak at the back.
I remember after City's first PL trophy some comedian saying "City fans have never been so happy since they were Chelsea fans".
its a trigger to people who consider themselves "real fans" "real fans" neither wash their 2 sizes too small shirts and they only buy it in preseason OR buy knock offs. They hate slefie sticks, half and half scarves, shirts or peoepl who buy badges or any other such nick nacks.
There's a video on YouTube of a Hollywood actor at a city match with his young son. All decked out in pale blue and supporting 'their' team by shouting 'come on united'.
I got a half and half Liverpool - Denmark scarf back in '86 when we played them before the WC. ****e match. We thought Molby would play a half for both sides like in a testimonial. He didn't. My ex threw away the scarf when we separated five years later, Slag.
What are chances of coming onto some internet backwater site and meeting one of the several thousand who ****ed my ex? In fact, own up if, by chance, you didn't **** a rancid, bottle blond scrubber by the name of Lorraine from Bromborough circa 1988 to 1994?
Trying to think when the last time we signed a young player who had first team experience. A 18-21 year old who had played a few seasons already, had decent potential etc. Seems we’ve either signed mid 20s players who are just coming into their prime or really young players for the academy. Can’t remember last young prospect we’ve signed who can develop but also play a part in first team? Are we missing out on some players who we can develop at an age who can add fresh legs into the squad with aim of replacing players like henderson Thiago Salah mane in the next couple years?
that's just plain mean We watch them until it's so blindingly obvious they are ready then pay 45mil for them.like jota or we buy them like gordan who might get a game in 5 years. We simply do not punt on a 21 year old haaland for 20mil. Just do not. We seem to want to see the next step up and then decide they are too expensive and go make do with origi. Again. Finally rumours abound salah to sign a 250k per week new deal imminently.
Part of the recruitment plan; we generally sign players that are between 23 & 25 in preparation for their prime. There's a reason most of our first team are a similar age.
Which is fine. But as mito says does mean you don’t take a punt on 20 year olds for £15m and end up not being able to afford the top quality ones (Haaland, sancho, soon to be Bellingham). Inagine if we were braver and got Bellingham for 25m. Would have been a great investment but instead when he moves gonna be looking at high end of 80m which we won’t pay. Just seems like we aren’t willing to take a punt on a younger player. Are the scouts not picking these people up? Do the recruitment team not trust their judgement? Would have thought would fit fsg profile well. Sign 18 year olds for £10-£15m hope they turn out decent.