Another brilliant call.Andy Carroll to Liverpool for a then record fee for a British player takes some beating.
He turned up against us when we were in the FA cup when we scored 3 OGs
Another brilliant call.Andy Carroll to Liverpool for a then record fee for a British player takes some beating.
Plus a whole host of Leeds’ signings when Peter Ridsdale went mad. Seth Johnson, Robbie Fowler… sent them bankrupt
All of these, when fully fit, easily was deemed good enough to play more than 163 minutes of league football in half a season.Torres to Chelsea
Birtles to Utd - 80s.
Hazard Madrid
Lukaku Chelsea
Even Pogba I would suggest….
Far from the worst.
The fact you think he looks good in every X number of games, probably puts him above those players listed….
But has been already mentioned, they paid £85m for him, which I'm sure they'd like to get some backHad his food spiked by Chelsea so they can move him on and cancel his contract...
its chelsea..... they will have a workaround...But has been already mentioned, they paid £85m for him, which I'm sure they'd like to get some back
think they might need to see if they’ve got the receipt for him down the back of the sofa somewhere
Never trust ANYONE with a neck tattoo. It's one of my life mottos. I have it tattooed
He's a bit Goddy isn't he?If it's a performance enhancing drug he's an appalling brand ambassador.
So when Chelsea need to get rid of someone on a very long and expensive contract, all they need to do is pop something in their food? I'm not suggesting they would do such a thing, but it's useful to know.This might be a blessing in disguise unfortunately for Chelsea, surely if he's been found positive for a banned substance they can tear the contract up?
He is fast. But doping doesn't help you kick a ballIf it's a performance enhancing drug he's an appalling brand ambassador.
Clearly..... in this caseHe is fast. But doping doesn't help you kick a ball
It could, at least helping you better at kicking a ball compared to a non doped version.He is fast. But doping doesn't help you kick a ball
Chances are that failing a drug test is sufficient for dismissal from a professional club (in fact most employers). However, whilst sacking him would let them off the hook for the next 6.5 years' worth of wages - which would save them in the region £38m - only about 12m of his 70m fee will have amortised in the accounts ending summer 2024. This means that they'd have to write off a value of £58m in this year's accounts.This might be a blessing in disguise unfortunately for Chelsea, surely if he's been found positive for a banned substance they can tear the contract up?
More importantly, doping helps you get to the ball faster and more often before your oponent kicks the ball. If ahtletic performace, which can definitely be enhanced by PEDs, wasn't a major factor in professional football, then why on earth would teams do fitness training and have elite-level conditioning coaches and facilities?It could, at least helping you better at kicking a ball compared to a non doped version.
If you're doping to improve endurance then after 80+ of sprinting etc you'll kick it better if you have doped than if you haven't.
But Pogba was supposedly established, Mudryk is a lot younger, not an equal comparison from that perspective.All of these, when fully fit, easily was deemed good enough to play more than 163 minutes of league football in half a season.
Comparing Chelseas 5th or 6th choice winger with Pogba who was a key player for United for 4-5 years is more fun than sensible.
Did against us…. Win a penalty, hit the bar and roasted us at ChelseaHe is fast. But doping doesn't help you kick a ball
There was a player in Italy that was suited by the club for the transfer fee. Ex Chelsea? I think they won a well.Chances are that failing a drug test is sufficient for dismissal from a professional club (in fact most employers). However, whilst sacking him would let them off the hook for the next 6.5 years' worth of wages - which would save them in the region £38m - only about 12m of his 70m fee will have amortised in the accounts ending summer 2024. This means that they'd have to write off a value of £58m in this year's accounts.