Get a load of old man bimpy over here. Probably just got done printing a pamphlet on his gutenberg press complaining about horseless carriages.
edit: safety
Is that a rule now for having an opinion that a player is not good and not worth keeping? We have to somehow know the availability of replacements/improvements? Seems like a silly requirement tbh. I'll just stick to thinking he's not worth keeping, ta.
Sexual dimorphism exists ffs. Even just "on average" men are faster, stronger and have more physical endurance than women. When you start talking about people who've turned their physicality into a career the gap widens.
They'd get absolutely mullered by any half organized men's side over 90 minutes.
TBF last season we dicked a few teams during pre-season.
And then won the league, marra.
If these trends continue .... eyyyyy!
http://i.imgur.com/PT8G69X.jpg
I feel like an obligation to buy makes it a "two part installment" in everything but name, skirting our ridiculous "all the cash up front" policy. Which I'm not even sure is in place. I applaud the cheek of it though.
as ever, would you rather have colback? argument settled
Not settled, what's worse than having Colback is to have 2 Colback.
Know nowt about him but I'll eat my hat* if he's anywhere near as bad as Colback.
* - by my hat i mean a pizza
The price of players was only ever loosely tied to the TV money, as most clubs don't do the "if we don't have the cash on hand we don't do the deal" shit we do. £25-30m players going for £50m now doesn't mean there has to have been a 66/100% increase in TV money. It's just a more expensive market because of it - and other factors - but there's no hard rule.
There's an element of risk to every transfer but the more highly rated a player is the less that risk usually becomes and as a result the higher the price. Obviously there are exceptions but by and large you get what you pay for.