City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
It was at that moment our owners (who were basically a couple of fans with a few quid) decided that they were out of their depth and decided to sell.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since day dot…
FFP didn’t even exist. So it didn’t relate at all.
What do you mean by sponsorship deals which aren’t paid back?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsorships aren't paid back, loans are, you put the 2 in the same bracket for income on your list 👌
A lot of people seem to disregard the financial contribution made by Matthew Harding before Roman stepped in.
City had Thaskin Shinawatra at the helm, a crook with an International Arrest Warrent on his head. I would have been juat as happy at the time if we'd sold out to a local mill owner.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
It was at that moment our owners (who were basically a couple of fans with a few quid) decided that they were out of their depth and decided to sell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said above, I’m not comparing in moral terms and I said you have to credit City for doing well with the money. The OP’s question was about where the term “financial doping” came from and what it meant, so I simply tried to explain that. It is about a sudden injection of power.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
The rest have replied by deciding not to answer at all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a new game show format, Ripleys? Who Wants to be a Billionaire (Through Legitimate Earnings Only)?
You need more questions, if I could offer some constructive feedback.
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since day dot…
FFP didn’t even exist. So it didn’t relate at all.
What do you mean by sponsorship deals which aren’t paid back?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsorships aren't paid back, loans are, you put the 2 in the same bracket for income on your list 👌
----------------------------------------------------------------------What?
You put income in the form of sponsorship and loans in the same bracket for income?
And then you said sponsorship is something to be paid back? What the same as a loan is?
What are you talking about?
Ah, hang on, I’ve read your post again. I misunderstood. Apologies RespectyourAldersSon
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
A lot of people seem to disregard the financial contribution made by Matthew Harding before Roman stepped in.
City had Thaskin Shinawatra at the helm, a crook with an International Arrest Warrent on his head. I would have been juat as happy at the time if we'd sold out to a local mill owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward with Franny!!
City are only doing what humans have done for since time began, climbing over each other to get what they want , it’s up other teams to stop them that’s challenge it’s what makes it the game it is ,
3 dopey spurs fans coined the phrase , it means frustration
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
A lot of people seem to disregard the financial contribution made by Matthew Harding before Roman stepped in.
City had Thaskin Shinawatra at the helm, a crook with an International Arrest Warrent on his head. I would have been juat as happy at the time if we'd sold out to a local mill owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward with Franny!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#staywithswales
#staywithswales
Franny caused us 25 years of misery
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by One Love - Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
delete answers that dont fit your narrative or wumming, so delete them.
Maybe the internet is not for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh give over you patronising fool.
Add something worthwhile, instead of making personal digs, and then I’ll take you seriously.
Until then, go away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I answered both your questions
Is the answer £1/4 billion for Jack Grealish & Harry Kane?
Without looking I am going to try and guess which team you support Ripley.
Manchester City?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 hours, 16 minutes ago
Ok, so the first two posters weren’t able to answer the question.
Anyone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never used this phrase...I'm a Chelsea fan...so why would I
comment by der kloppites Hi, wie geht es dir * (U13373)
posted 10 hours, 5 minutes ago
City are only doing what humans have done for since time began, climbing over each other to get what they want , it’s up other teams to stop them that’s challenge it’s what makes it the game it is ,
3 dopey spurs fans coined the phrase , it means frustration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a bitter thing with them actually...Billy & Sandy are frequent users of said phrase
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I think they're feeling a bit unloved.
C'mere
The only level playing field in football is the actual playing field.
Always has been, always will be
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
The only level playing field in football is the actual playing field.
Always has been, always will be
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in Yeovil
The Yeovil pitch is level.
It’s the surrounding area that’s out of kilter
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 seconds ago
The Yeovil pitch is level.
It’s the surrounding area that’s out of kilter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I say about myself on the walk back from the pub
Financial doing is a term used by bitter people who see other clubs spending.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 15 hours, 15 minutes ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn you have those magic steds eh
Sign in if you want to comment
Is anybody here able to…
Page 4 of 4
posted on 16/8/21
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
It was at that moment our owners (who were basically a couple of fans with a few quid) decided that they were out of their depth and decided to sell.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since day dot…
FFP didn’t even exist. So it didn’t relate at all.
What do you mean by sponsorship deals which aren’t paid back?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsorships aren't paid back, loans are, you put the 2 in the same bracket for income on your list 👌
posted on 16/8/21
A lot of people seem to disregard the financial contribution made by Matthew Harding before Roman stepped in.
City had Thaskin Shinawatra at the helm, a crook with an International Arrest Warrent on his head. I would have been juat as happy at the time if we'd sold out to a local mill owner.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
City were up and down at best before the new owners. Unless I’ve got my years wrong, it was only a few months after the 8-1 at Boro that City were able to go out and get the likes of Robinho and Santa Cruz. People said the “blue moon was rising” and that titles would follow; it probably took a year or so longer than expected but the first major trophy in decades came within three (?) years and the title the year after.
It was at that moment our owners (who were basically a couple of fans with a few quid) decided that they were out of their depth and decided to sell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said above, I’m not comparing in moral terms and I said you have to credit City for doing well with the money. The OP’s question was about where the term “financial doping” came from and what it meant, so I simply tried to explain that. It is about a sudden injection of power.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
The rest have replied by deciding not to answer at all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a new game show format, Ripleys? Who Wants to be a Billionaire (Through Legitimate Earnings Only)?
You need more questions, if I could offer some constructive feedback.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, flip it on it's head, what was your understanding of the term before vs now that you've had others opinions?
How do you see the current model of Barca vs that of City and at what point do you think the current City model would differ if they weren't also responsible for a lot of their sponsorship deals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barca had had money poured into the club.
So have City.
Portsmouth had money poured into the club.
So did Leeds.
Arsenal borrowed money for their stadium.
So have Spurs.
Leeds borrowed.
Portsmough borrowed.
Out of those clubs mentioned, which ones have struggled to pay it back?
Which ones borrowed money based on future success?
Which ones self financed themselves,
Which ones are the most stable financially?
Which ones have been labelled financially doped?
Which clubs are criticised?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you can count borrowing a loan that has planned repayments and a penalty if those aren't met, the same as influx of cash from sponsorship deals that aren't paid back...
Look, I'm not arguing here with, just replying, if City's deals and finances are above scrutiny the fair play.
I will say they may have them in place now, I sincerely doubt they had them in place since day dot of the spending splurge. How that relates to when FFP came in to play, I have no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since day dot…
FFP didn’t even exist. So it didn’t relate at all.
What do you mean by sponsorship deals which aren’t paid back?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsorships aren't paid back, loans are, you put the 2 in the same bracket for income on your list 👌
----------------------------------------------------------------------What?
You put income in the form of sponsorship and loans in the same bracket for income?
And then you said sponsorship is something to be paid back? What the same as a loan is?
What are you talking about?
posted on 16/8/21
Ah, hang on, I’ve read your post again. I misunderstood. Apologies RespectyourAldersSon
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
A lot of people seem to disregard the financial contribution made by Matthew Harding before Roman stepped in.
City had Thaskin Shinawatra at the helm, a crook with an International Arrest Warrent on his head. I would have been juat as happy at the time if we'd sold out to a local mill owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward with Franny!!
posted on 16/8/21
City are only doing what humans have done for since time began, climbing over each other to get what they want , it’s up other teams to stop them that’s challenge it’s what makes it the game it is ,
3 dopey spurs fans coined the phrase , it means frustration
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
A lot of people seem to disregard the financial contribution made by Matthew Harding before Roman stepped in.
City had Thaskin Shinawatra at the helm, a crook with an International Arrest Warrent on his head. I would have been juat as happy at the time if we'd sold out to a local mill owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward with Franny!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#staywithswales
posted on 16/8/21
#staywithswales
Franny caused us 25 years of misery
posted on 17/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by One Love - Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
delete answers that dont fit your narrative or wumming, so delete them.
Maybe the internet is not for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh give over you patronising fool.
Add something worthwhile, instead of making personal digs, and then I’ll take you seriously.
Until then, go away
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I answered both your questions
posted on 17/8/21
Is the answer £1/4 billion for Jack Grealish & Harry Kane?
posted on 17/8/21
Without looking I am going to try and guess which team you support Ripley.
Manchester City?
posted on 17/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 hours, 16 minutes ago
Ok, so the first two posters weren’t able to answer the question.
Anyone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never used this phrase...I'm a Chelsea fan...so why would I
posted on 17/8/21
comment by der kloppites Hi, wie geht es dir * (U13373)
posted 10 hours, 5 minutes ago
City are only doing what humans have done for since time began, climbing over each other to get what they want , it’s up other teams to stop them that’s challenge it’s what makes it the game it is ,
3 dopey spurs fans coined the phrase , it means frustration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a bitter thing with them actually...Billy & Sandy are frequent users of said phrase
posted on 17/8/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/8/21
I think they're feeling a bit unloved.
C'mere
posted on 17/8/21
The only level playing field in football is the actual playing field.
Always has been, always will be
posted on 17/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
The only level playing field in football is the actual playing field.
Always has been, always will be
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in Yeovil
posted on 17/8/21
The Yeovil pitch is level.
It’s the surrounding area that’s out of kilter
posted on 17/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 seconds ago
The Yeovil pitch is level.
It’s the surrounding area that’s out of kilter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I say about myself on the walk back from the pub
posted on 17/8/21
Financial doing is a term used by bitter people who see other clubs spending.
posted on 17/8/21
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 15 hours, 15 minutes ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn you have those magic steds eh
Page 4 of 4