Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[MrRaspberryJam 251]

1 minute ago, Howmanheyman said:

I'd have farted in his general direction. 

 

I’d have smeared my own shit on his car bonnet. 

[MrRaspberryJam 251]

5 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

I’d have smeared my own shit on his car bonnet. 

id have preferred to smeared Keane’s shit onto his car bonnet but I dunno how I’d get access to it. 

Edited April 28 by MrRaspberryJam

[Dougle 2891]

[RobinRobin 9401]

4 hours ago, Dougle said:

Not sure that's wise 

[PaddockLad 14838]

Materazzi, what a cunt  

 

 

 

[thebrokendoll 7182]

55 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Materazzi, what a cunt  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dazzler 5747]

1 hour ago, PaddockLad said:

Materazzi, what a cunt  

 

 

 

I both hated and loved Materazzi as a kid. Absolute shit house of a player, would put in a two footer like this and then roll around the floor two minutes later because someone gently brushed by him. He was always the best panto villain in any match he played in

[ewerk 26745]

I didn't know wyki was a closet St. Mirren fan.

 

[Toonpack 7027]

[Dazzler 5747]

43 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

You need big balls to be a success in the premier league, so this fella is fucked.

[PaddockLad 14838]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

I didn't know wyki was a closet St. Mirren fan.

 

I think you’ll find I’ve already formed the TT branch of the St Mirren supporters club. If you want to apply for membership PM Andrew for a form  

 

18 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

Think I might start supporting St Mirren

 

 

 

[Toonpack 7027]

St Mirren PAH, St fucking Liedown cunts

[PaddockLad 14838]

1 hour ago, Toonpack said:

St Mirren PAH, St fucking Liedown cunts

Whits wrang wi yer girney lookin puss the day ya bam?

[ewerk 26745]

Fair play to this little scamp.

 

 

[MrRaspberryJam 251]

Shocking haircut. 

[Gemmill 35322]

Future young offender, that one. 

[ewerk 26745]

 

[Dazzler 5747]

The spending cap has been voted in. man city, man utd and villa all voted against it and chelsea abstained. Fuck know what it all means but there's going to be a spending cap now.

[Gemmill 35322]

Won't come in immediately (think it's not til 25/26), but the prevailing view seems to be that in the short to medium term, it'll be good news for us and will loosen the purse strings a decent amount. 

[Dazzler 5747]

8 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Won't come in immediately (think it's not til 25/26), but the prevailing view seems to be that in the short to medium term, it'll be good news for us and will loosen the purse strings a decent amount. 

Surely that's the same for villa though, so a bit odd they'd vote against it. Unless they are so cock sure of themselves and think they'll be able to maintain top 4 form next year whilst getting bummed by celtic on Wednesday's

[ewerk 26745]

15 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Won't come in immediately (think it's not til 25/26), but the prevailing view seems to be that in the short to medium term, it'll be good news for us and will loosen the purse strings a decent amount. 

 

Not really, the 85% spending cap as a percentage of revenue still applies and is reduced to 70% by UEFA rules.

[Dazzler 5747]

23 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Not really, the 85% spending cap as a percentage of revenue still applies and is reduced to 70% by UEFA rules.

Is this not to replace the 85% spending cap? If not then what is the fucking point, it doesn't level anything. "You can spend c£400m this year, but only if it's less than 85% of your revenue" is fucking mentally over complicated. 

[ewerk 26745]

I think it's basically to stop the biggest earning clubs taking advantage of the 85% figure as obviously that will be multiples of the revenue of the lowest earning club. But in effect I don't think this will really change anything as it's only really Man City and Chelsea that are adversely affected by it.

[Gemmill 35322]

 

 

 

That's what I'm basing it on. 

 

[ewerk 26745]

Yes but the anchoring element is irrelevant unless we can grow our revenues substantially.