ChatterBank4 mins ago
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sunny-dave. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Others
VanGaaling - refusing to play one of your players even though you are paying him a fortune every week.
Mourinhoing - complaining about your medical staff to deflect criticism of your bad start to the season.
Spursing - Spending a fortune on players who you then "give away" as they are so bad - ie Soldado, Lamela (soon to be gone).
Rodgersing - Keeping your job even though you have won nothing for 3 years, and have bought and sold loads of players.
VanGaaling - refusing to play one of your players even though you are paying him a fortune every week.
Mourinhoing - complaining about your medical staff to deflect criticism of your bad start to the season.
Spursing - Spending a fortune on players who you then "give away" as they are so bad - ie Soldado, Lamela (soon to be gone).
Rodgersing - Keeping your job even though you have won nothing for 3 years, and have bought and sold loads of players.
On a slightly more serious note than my append above.
I am not an Arsenal fan but can understand some of their frustration, however they have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on their new ground which has to be paid for, so they don't have the spending power of some other clubs.
Also Wegner's success rate with players he buys is quite high, he rarely buys a "dud".
Whereas Spurs spent the "Bale" money on Soldado (26 million) and Lamela (25 million) and Paulinho (17 million) and both Soldado and Paulinho have already gone, and Lamela nearly went on loan in the recent transfer window.
How who are the "silly" club - Arsenal for keeping their money when they have a decent (but not great) squad, or Spurs for paying out all that money for players and then have to sell them at a loss.
I am not an Arsenal fan but can understand some of their frustration, however they have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on their new ground which has to be paid for, so they don't have the spending power of some other clubs.
Also Wegner's success rate with players he buys is quite high, he rarely buys a "dud".
Whereas Spurs spent the "Bale" money on Soldado (26 million) and Lamela (25 million) and Paulinho (17 million) and both Soldado and Paulinho have already gone, and Lamela nearly went on loan in the recent transfer window.
How who are the "silly" club - Arsenal for keeping their money when they have a decent (but not great) squad, or Spurs for paying out all that money for players and then have to sell them at a loss.
1 to 2 of 2
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.