Match Day Thread 2016/17 Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

I haven't twisted anything, Astro has quoted some things and laughed, I just asked what was wrong about them

 

If you can't see what is wrong with them than you're never allowed to laugh at Astro again

 

It's the new big thing, soon to takle the place of "net spend"

Won't change the cost of a team/squad though

 

What point? I didn't even realise a point was being made

 

As a percentage of their net debt, Pogba cost infinitely more than Benteke

Man Utd £261m debt, Crystal Palace £0m

#reality

 

Go on then tell me, which one was the highest cost relative to turnover?

 

You've already put on par with net spend ffs, give it up

 

Quite right, if only we had bought someone for £89m 6 years ago it would have been a much lower percentage of the debt

 

Well it is, neither of them make the cost of the team any less

 

Yet you criticise net spend but attempt to defend the BBC claim posted by Astro above? #hypocrisy

 

Would have been better value than the £90m going to the Glazer kids over 6 years

 

Why should I defend a claim that is obviously true?
If anyone was trying to say we hadn't spent a **** load on Pogba then that would be wrong, all they are saying is percentage wise we have spent similar sums before. Are they right or wrong?

 

When have you spent £89m previously? Using percentage is twisting it just like net spend. You can't have it both ways.

For the record, i've never defended net spend.

 

it does not surprise me that you dont realise the point of the story as you need an IQ above 50 to see through this pathetic childlike story.

 

It's the Glazer's business, it's how they make money. Why do you think FSG bought Liverpool?

 

He does see it. The problem is that its after 10pm and he'll have had a shandy, it's just waiting for his (chuckle) brother to turn up to help him out now...

 

How many of Henry's kids are getting paid £2.5m by LFC each per year to do **** all?

 

Are you missing the term percentage deliberately?
Nobody has spent £89m on one player before, that's why it's classed as a world record, all the BBC have stated is that as a "percentage" of turnover we have spent much more in the past so it's nothing to get worked up about

 

But why as a percentage of turnover then? Why not at least profit?

 

Yes!

It's a massive twist attempt to justify a ludicrous fee. You know that already you pissed up ****wit