Originally posted by Nic83
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Low priced right winger
Collapse
X
-
[QUOTE=Piedro]Come back when you've taken the bubble wrap off your cock you stupid little Irish ****er.[/QUOTE
Irish? Aren't you Irish as well Pete?
Oh and Ryan and the rest take ths piss out of you every fcuking day about your experiences with the shall we say bigger females, ooops forgot it's one rule for one and another for everyone else with your lot.
See ya.Last edited by Marky; 21-11-06, 04:47 PM."Let me say for the record, I am not a gangster and never have been. Im not the thief who grabs your purse. Im not the guy who jacks your car. Im not down with the people who steal and hurt others. Im just a brother who fight back."
Tupac
Comment
-
Name them and I will give you a response. Henry cost £11.9M and Rooney £28M, Saha £12.5M. The other top boys are Drogba £24M, Shevchenko £31M - I am not talking just about 'current form'....Originally posted by dirty_sanchezIn the BBC's list of the current top 15 goalscorers in the Premiership, only Drogba, Henry and Rooney cost more than £10m. Henry was only £1m more.
Look at the other top clubs and see what their strikers cost then see Diouf - who is the cheapest of the lot...
Comment
-
No, but you are talking about our current form so the current Premiership leading scorers is an entirely relevant fact unlike most of your last response.
1) Thierry Henry cost £11m.
2) Shevchenko is on current evidence not a top Premiership striker. I can't begin to imagine the fuss you'd be kicking up if we'd paid £30m for a striker who then scored 2 goals in 15 odd games.
3) Dirk Kuyt is the joint fourth highest scorer too, so we actually do have a "top striker" who cost us £9m, on the same amount of goals as Saha, one of your named "top strikers"
4) Bolton and Wigan are above us and have no "top striker"
5) Charlton have a "top striker" and they are absolutely rock bottom of the table.
Besides all of that though, you have a fair point
Such an ugly face, such an ugly mouth.
Comment
-
This thread is a about buying top strikers, and I am telling you that the category of strikers at our rivals you cannot buy for £10M. Even Juventus reject Henry, a striker cum winger cum striker cost £12M.Originally posted by dirty_sanchezNo, but you are talking about our current form so the current Premiership leading scorers is an entirely relevant fact unlike most of your last response.
1) Thierry Henry cost £11m.
2) Shevchenko is on current evidence not a top Premiership striker. I can't begin to imagine the fuss you'd be kicking up if we'd paid £30m for a striker who then scored 2 goals in 15 odd games.
3) Dirk Kuyt is the joint fourth highest scorer too, so we actually do have a "top striker" who cost us £9m, on the same amount of goals as Saha, one of your named "top strikers"
4) Bolton and Wigan are above us and have no "top striker"
5) Charlton have a "top striker" and they are absolutely rock bottom of the table.
Besides all of that though, you have a fair point
Manchester United and Chelsea both hav strikers that play each week costing over £40M and £55M respectively.
The two that started for us last game cost £15M combined.... so yes £10M we paid for Diouf is small fry in comparison to what top strikers cost. (Although Diouf turned out ****).
Comment
-
But what's your point? Our two most prolific strikers have as many goals in the league as Chelsea's front two, so how much they cost is irrelevant. From what I can see you are basically bleating that our strikers didn't cost much. That's the sum total of your point right?
Henry cost £11m
Such an ugly face, such an ugly mouth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RashidThis thread is a about buying top strikers, and I am telling you that the category of strikers at our rivals you cannot buy for £10M. Even Juventus reject Henry, a striker cum winger cum striker cost £12M.
Manchester United and Chelsea both hav strikers that play each week costing over £40M and £55M respectively.
The two that started for us last game cost £15M combined.... so yes £10M we paid for Diouf is small fry in comparison to what top strikers cost. (Although Diouf turned out ****).
Actually, it's about aidan mc geady. At least, it's 'supposed' to be
Comment
-
I am saying that we spend **** all compared to other teams, we load the team with cheaper buys and some of them come out good and many don't. If we want to compete with Man U etc we have to match them for ambition in the transfer market. They are all miles ahead of us in the league despite "Our two most prolific strikers having as many goals in the league as Chelsea's front two"Originally posted by dirty_sanchezBut what's your point? Our two most prolific strikers have as many goals in the league as Chelsea's front two, so how much they cost is irrelevant. From what I can see you are basically bleating that our strikers didn't cost much. That's the sum total of your point right?
Henry cost £11m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Henry
.
Man United with a **** midfield still score shedloads, why? Because they have top quality striking options... Rooney may not score many but we have noone as good as him playing up front for Liverpool.
Comment
-
Nobody cares about aidan mc ****ty because scottish football is ****e!! Just like this thread!!!111Originally posted by Nic83
Actually, it's about aidan mc geady. At least, it's 'supposed' to be
Watching Scottish football is like watching X-Factor, its ****ing ****e!!!! just like your taste in player!!
Comment
-
Where was McGeady at the night? Injured or something?
Surprised he wasn't playing."Let me say for the record, I am not a gangster and never have been. Im not the thief who grabs your purse. Im not the guy who jacks your car. Im not down with the people who steal and hurt others. Im just a brother who fight back."
Tupac
Comment
Comment