• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Transfer thread

Well I’ve exaggerated
It’s £492m for 2 years
Plus bonuses and a 15% stake in the club
So £488k a day
And that's why we needed PSR.

The Saudis just throw money like confetti, even though they cannot get into UEFA so cannot win the Champions League, so they get the World Club Cup started via FIFA and throw 100's of millions at that instead.
 
And that's why we needed PSR.

The Saudis just throw money like confetti, even though they cannot get into UEFA so cannot win the Champions League, so they get the World Club Cup started via FIFA and throw 100's of millions at that instead.
As I said last month once another side is owned by either the UAE or Americans get ready for overseas league games
I’ve been told now by 3 guys I know who have very very close relations to Saudi and they have all said at different times that they will take over football one way or another like boxing and F1. And it won’t be via Saudi Sportswashing Machine because they couldnt do it quickly
Their biggest football stake is actually in Chelsea I believe
 
Yep
Footballers earn obscene money
Saudi money is another league
Ronaldo is on a £500k a day … a day

I think there's a big difference going there for that sort of money, not that footballers are poor but 125m tax free for someone like Hernandez is insane. Sets up his whole family for generations to come.
 
And that's why we needed PSR.

The Saudis just throw money like confetti, even though they cannot get into UEFA so cannot win the Champions League, so they get the World Club Cup started via FIFA and throw 100's of millions at that instead.
And in so doing help sustain Chelsea's obscene operating pattern.
 
Linked with Grealish again in - obviously gonads. But how was he so scintillating at villa, and meek at City?
 
Last edited:
Linked with Grealish again in - obviously gonads. But how was he so cinctilating at villa, and meek at City?

Despite not particularly being a fan, the main issue is Pep makes him play the way he does now.

Pep saw him as a big part of the side in 22/23 (50 game splayed) & 23/24, he's clearly fallen off the favorites list at this point.

The only way Grealish goes anywhere (outside of Saudi) is a loan with City eating most of the wages.
 
Think it’s more the Harry Rednapp observation: once you’re made and have those millions kicking around the bank account, in your 20s, some loose a certain amount of hunger and focus!
He was the main man at Villa and could do whatever he wanted. At City he had a role that he had to stick to and had to change his game.
Was never a £100m player, wasted money when you think they could've got Kane instead for a bit more.
 
Despite not particularly being a fan, the main issue is Pep makes him play the way he does now.

Pep saw him as a big part of the side in 22/23 (50 game splayed) & 23/24, he's clearly fallen off the favorites list at this point.

The only way Grealish goes anywhere (outside of Saudi) is a loan with City eating most of the wages.

Like Doku, Foden, Ibrahimovic and Haaland, he's been "Pep-ed"...
 
He was the main man at Villa and could do whatever he wanted. At City he had a role that he had to stick to and had to change his game.
Was never a £100m player, wasted money when you think they could've got Kane instead for a bit more.

Interestingly Son would have been an ideal player for Pep, that left side player than could float inside, be provider or scorer. But yes, for 100M-ish, Kane or Son would have been a much better option for City (and Kane would have saved them a ton on Haaland).
 
Back