leffe186

According to Marca lalalalala...

Feel like I should point out, they've taken £60m and not £80m. £20m in peformance and success related add-ons which will probably never activate. Receiving £60m for Maguire and spending £45m on Dunk is bad business. ...except of course there will be performance and success-related add-ons for Dunk too. Although I can see your argument that they are more likely to be activated.

https://www.facebook.com/bewarmers/videos/378968959426374/?t=23

Yeah, that all sounds about right. He understands, like Rafa, what the potential is. One trouble is that he used to be a bottom 10 Prem/Top 10 Championship manager, but with his aging and the influx of good coaches from abroad and young British coaches I'd say he's more of a bottom 15 Championship manager now.

Me too. I presume it's Fat Cockney Bastard? I always find that faintly annoying because my Dad actually is Cockney (just), whereas Ashley was born in Walsall and grew up in Buckingham. Not that it matters at all.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148884965033160704 Found this pretty interesting. Certainly surprised me that it's been so long since West Ham or Villa had a player score 20 goals in the top flight.

I think we'll stay up. The Fulham thing is nonsense, like. As if the sensible thing to do would be not to sign new players. Better than big-spending Fulham and worse than big-spending Wolves. Only sensible if the manager is right. Will Dean Smith get Top 10 first season up like Rafa Benitez(Without money) and Nuno Santo did? Nope. I think Aston Villa will be more in the Fulham and Brighton category = underachieving PL big spenders. I think they might be in the Brighton category - teams who spend the TV money and achieve exactly what they aim to - Premier League survival. The big advantage they have over Brighton and Fulham is ground capacity and potential support, which means they will be more likely to push on, backed by owners who are willing to spend. Do you really think Brighton are underachieving? Massively have you not seen their net spend? Reason why they’ve underachieved in relation to their net spend = The manager. Aston Villa will have the same issue. Net spend is kinda irrelevant - what matters is whether they are making a profit/breaking even, and whether they stay up. Don't know this year's figures yet, but here are last year's: https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2018/12/11/brighton-and-hove-albion-post-11m-profit/ They made a profit and they stayed up. Isn't that the bottom line? Just go look at their net spend You’ll be surprised. I did. Like I say, it doesn't mean much on its own because you have to factor in the enormous amount of money available from the TV deal. Their TV income went up from 7.7M to 110M when they got promoted. If they can argue that a net spend of 60M or whatever it was this year kept them in the Premier League then good luck to them. I'd be surprised if they broke even this year because presumably their wages went up again, but they stayed up, and that's the key achievement. Rafa Benitez and Nuno Santo would have them Top 10 with their net spend. Please stop saying "net spend". I think there's a fair chance that Aston Villa get 44pts next season, which is what got you 10th. As to where that will get them, who knows? 44pts would have been 15th last year, and if you offered Villa that now they'd bite your arm off.

I think we'll stay up. The Fulham thing is nonsense, like. As if the sensible thing to do would be not to sign new players. Better than big-spending Fulham and worse than big-spending Wolves. Only sensible if the manager is right. Will Dean Smith get Top 10 first season up like Rafa Benitez(Without money) and Nuno Santo did? Nope. I think Aston Villa will be more in the Fulham and Brighton category = underachieving PL big spenders. I think they might be in the Brighton category - teams who spend the TV money and achieve exactly what they aim to - Premier League survival. The big advantage they have over Brighton and Fulham is ground capacity and potential support, which means they will be more likely to push on, backed by owners who are willing to spend. Do you really think Brighton are underachieving? Massively have you not seen their net spend? Reason why they’ve underachieved in relation to their net spend = The manager. Aston Villa will have the same issue. Net spend is kinda irrelevant - what matters is whether they are making a profit/breaking even, and whether they stay up. Don't know this year's figures yet, but here are last year's: https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2018/12/11/brighton-and-hove-albion-post-11m-profit/ They made a profit and they stayed up. Isn't that the bottom line? Just go look at their net spend You’ll be surprised. I did. Like I say, it doesn't mean much on its own because you have to factor in the enormous amount of money available from the TV deal. Their TV income went up from 7.7M to 110M when they got promoted. If they can argue that a net spend of 60M or whatever it was this year kept them in the Premier League then good luck to them. I'd be surprised if they broke even this year because presumably their wages went up again, but they stayed up, and that's the key achievement.

I think we'll stay up. The Fulham thing is nonsense, like. As if the sensible thing to do would be not to sign new players. Better than big-spending Fulham and worse than big-spending Wolves. Only sensible if the manager is right. Will Dean Smith get Top 10 first season up like Rafa Benitez(Without money) and Nuno Santo did? Nope. I think Aston Villa will be more in the Fulham and Brighton category = underachieving PL big spenders. I think they might be in the Brighton category - teams who spend the TV money and achieve exactly what they aim to - Premier League survival. The big advantage they have over Brighton and Fulham is ground capacity and potential support, which means they will be more likely to push on, backed by owners who are willing to spend. Do you really think Brighton are underachieving? Massively have you not seen their net spend? Reason why they’ve underachieved in relation to their net spend = The manager. Aston Villa will have the same issue. Net spend is kinda irrelevant - what matters is whether they are making a profit/breaking even, and whether they stay up. Don't know this year's figures yet, but here are last year's: https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2018/12/11/brighton-and-hove-albion-post-11m-profit/ They made a profit and they stayed up. Isn't that the bottom line?

I think we'll stay up. The Fulham thing is nonsense, like. As if the sensible thing to do would be not to sign new players. Better than big-spending Fulham and worse than big-spending Wolves. Only sensible if the manager is right. Will Dean Smith get Top 10 first season up like Rafa Benitez(Without money) and Nuno Santo did? Nope. I think Aston Villa will be more in the Fulham and Brighton category = underachieving PL big spenders. I think they might be in the Brighton category - teams who spend the TV money and achieve exactly what they aim to - Premier League survival. The big advantage they have over Brighton and Fulham is ground capacity and potential support, which means they will be more likely to push on, backed by owners who are willing to spend. Do you really think Brighton are underachieving?

I think we'll stay up. The Fulham thing is nonsense, like. As if the sensible thing to do would be not to sign new players. Better than big-spending Fulham and worse than big-spending Wolves.

That Forest pic is the first time I noticed Dawson was back there.

The US really need a goal before 60 mins. They are so on top despite this little flurry, but I can see them tiring a little. If they score first I think it’s all over, unless Ellis goes into her shell again in response.

You're just making that up in your head... Kaka, somebody literally said those words. Okay, but that was one person. He's talking about 'posts' insinuating that sentiment, which is just not true. Bro, what are you doing? You are so goofy What you quoted does not support your argument, even with you separating it from the rest of the explanation in the post. Awful. Kaka. You are a fucking idiot. Nope. You're an overly sensitive and emotional guy... Fuck me, Kaka . Motes and beams everywhere in this thread.

England were a bit less dangerous than the Netherlands going forward, but overall they seem like the better team, frankly.

You're just making that up in your head... Kaka, somebody literally said those words.

It hasn't got the history for that, imo. It's fine, though. The women are getting better, and other nations are making bids to come at us, as leaders of the sport. Good times ahead. Also Rapinoe would walk into the NUFC first 11. She really, really wouldn’t. I mean, maybe when she was younger she might have had more of a chance, but she’s lost a lot of pace through injuries and has never been especially strong. She’s a clever footballer with two good feet, but I respectfully disagree.

Huge difference between mens and womens WC final the mens probably has a global audience of over a billion the womens maybe 10% of that There is expected to be over 1 billion people watching this final Worldwide fyi. Genuinely surprised at that. What’s the breakdown by country? I’d expect the US to have more then most, but not a large percentage of the population. Has a lot of China been watching? I'm not sure, was just mentioned on the BBC commentary. Yeah, i found an NBC article. I think it was suggesting that there might be 1 billion people who have watched at least one minute of a game in this World Cup. That makes more sense. For example, I think it said something like 200,000 Italians watched the last Women’s World Cup Final, which seems more plausible. Netherlands’ one chance here is to defend in numbers and hit the US on the break.

Huge difference between mens and womens WC final the mens probably has a global audience of over a billion the womens maybe 10% of that There is expected to be over 1 billion people watching this final Worldwide fyi. Genuinely surprised at that. What’s the breakdown by country? I’d expect the US to have more then most, but not a large percentage of the population. Has a lot of China been watching?

Huge difference between mens and womens WC final the mens probably has a global audience of over a billion the womens maybe 10% of that Gee I wonder why. Couldn’t be that even developed countries like England have told women for years that they can’t play the game. Remind me again why women in the US play (American) football in lingerie?

They need to zoom in a bit.

Just to cheer you guys up an infinitesimal amount: Would be fun if you both boycotted the first match.

Not with your calculations no I'll do one for fun. Bournemouth have bought one player - Lloyd Kelly - for about 16M Euros. 173 + 16 = 189. Can I see your calculations? Was genuinely trying to help because I was curious about the numbers.

IIRC, Wolves have bought one player so far (50M Euros?) and Brighton two (25M?). I said Spurs was a bit more than Man U - 75M Euros, say? Southampton about 40M, Leicester nothing yet, but let's say 35M for Perez. https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/transfer-guides/feature/premier-league-transfer-ins-and-outs-summer-2019_358847.html Need me to add them up for you?