We regularly beat City, we beat Chelsea away last year
It's still 11 v 11
Why can't we win the league?
Because over time variations in form and luck even out, and competency prevails.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We regularly beat City, we beat Chelsea away last year
It's still 11 v 11
Why can't we win the league?
Did they actually pay for Falcao?
Alright IsaacBecause over time variations in form and luck even out, and competency prevails.
We should have done it!
... They were relegated in 2000 not long after their offices were raided in the infamous Caso Atletico. That eventually led to Gil's jail sentence of three-and-a-half years as well as punishments for Enrique Cerezo and Miguel Angel Gil Marin - who remain at the club. Following relegation, they simply stopped paying their taxes for two years. In that way they avoided around €46 million (£37.7m) worth as they expedited their escape from the Segunda Division.
Haven't read the rest of the thread but when people say 'Chelseas, Arsenals, Man Utds' does my tits right in. Why use the plural? What is the need for it? Almost as bad as 'TOP, TOP player' etc
Yes but I believe he was part owed by a hedge fund...Im sure Porto would have been a bit annoyed if they didnt!
Freak!Why don't they all fuck off and form a European league, with the other bassad billionaire clubs of their ilk, and leave the grass roots teams like, Stoke , Villa, Ourselves, Burnley, and the West Broms of this country to form our own Premiership league. I'm f***ing sick of their clubs and supporters lording it over the rest, just because they can afford the 6o, 70, 80 million pound signings, and we're left just to be cannon fodder for them. BASTAAAAARDS!,,,,,,,,,,,,,gripe owwa!
To be fair you can use one of the teams and then use them to refer to a type of club. What you can't do is start listing all of them. "The Chelsea's of this world are ruining football" is fine. "The Chelsea's, the Arsenal's, the Manchester United's are ruining..." is simply listing every team yet you're referring to a group each time.Is there more than one Chelsea? What's with the plurals?
Ha true just always hated this phrase!To be fair you can use one of the teams and then use them to refer to a type of club. What you can't do is start listing all of them. "The Chelsea's of this world are ruining football" is fine. "The Chelsea's, the Arsenal's, the Manchester United's are ruining..." is simply listing every team yet you're referring to a group each time.
There is like.............theres only one way now to get the revenue streams those clubs have and that's a new owner who has gazillions to throw away..
And FFP prevents that..
Cant see anyone being able to raise than a billion quid based on Chelsea's brand to buy the place...Like Rome all empires fall. What happens when Abramovich(?sp) sells out to some group who use the clubs income as leverage to buy, same for City. The club that will end up all conquering is Arsenal.........
Cant see anyone being able to raise than a billion quid based on Chelsea's brand to buy the place...
Folk having to do that obviouly need a return and I cant see where they would get it from..
Man utd as a global brand are out on their own and whilst I dont see this sort of takeover ever happening again theres no way chelsea could float part of the club on a foreign stock market or raise the amount man utd did to tone down the crippling intetest payments by issuing hundreds of millions of pounds of bonds. .
I actually disagree, with FFP a level will be found that top clubs will start turning very very large profits (actually huge) within a decade even without a breakaway Super League, it's the way of monopolies. However with leveraged deals you get the down side as Man U are seeing.
I recon Ellis has seen the future and that involves a return
Edit: Ellis was a big player behind FFP as you well know!