Jack Grealish

Originally Posted by AK14

They’re signing him then?

£#%&! him and them (obviously)

Hopefully he bombs.

Tbf they don’t £#%&! about do they…

Few weeks of ‘paper talk’ and the next thing he’s apparently having a medical.

But apparently 'he who revolutionised football' was telling us all how they can't afford to pay such prices for players

Still makes a change for him to spend 100 million on an attacker instead of two fullbacks

Agent Grealish infiltration successful.

Enjoying Twitter comparing Grealish unfavourably to Young

Originally Posted by Pop

been reading an article on the floppy haired @#%&! and there was this pic of chequebook pep attached to it.



bald old @#%&!. He's wearing the trouser equivalent of marty feldman.

😂😂😂

Don't think he's worth anywhere near £100m, but this transfer really does encapsulate all that's wrong with modern English football, and how utterly lop-sided the external money flow from the corrupt lands of Arabia and Russia have made things.

It's not really much of a competition when the team at the top can effectively cherry-pick the best players from the weaker teams, thus strengthening their own position, whilst simultaneously weakening others. This then becomes a cyclical self-fulfilling prophecy that is the antithesis of fair competition.

It's not sour grapes either, as on the odd occasions when United did something supposedly similar, such as the purchases of Andy Cole, Rio Ferdinand and Wayne Rooney, they did it with self-generated money from self-generated success.

This modern-day stuff that City, Chelsea and also PSG do is fake, as it's simply external quick-fix money pumped in to acquire assets for similar quick-fix success.

Football clearly needs to change, as it's utterly broken, corrupt and infected by parasites, with Manchester City being arguably the biggest offender.

Originally Posted by Neo

Don't think he's worth anywhere near £100m, but this transfer really does encapsulate all that's wrong with modern English football, and how utterly lop-sided the external money flow from the corrupt lands of Arabia and Russia have made things.

It's not really much of a competition when the team at the top can effectively cherry-pick the best players from the weaker teams, thus strengthening their own position, whilst simultaneously weakening others. This then becomes a cyclical self-fulfilling prophecy that is the antithesis of fair competition.

It's not sour grapes either, as on the odd occasions when United did something supposedly similar, such as the purchases of Andy Cole, Rio Ferdinand and Wayne Rooney, they did it with self-generated money from self-generated success.

This modern-day stuff that City, Chelsea and also PSG do is fake, as it's simply external quick-fix money pumped in to acquire assets for similar quick-fix success.

Football clearly needs to change, as it's utterly broken, corrupt and infected by parasites, with Manchester City being arguably the biggest offender.

I’m with all of that. My Bert mates - I’m like, enjoy your success, it’s literally the shittest type of success you could possibly achieve. So shit that’s it’s embarrassing to even celebrate it with anything other than a token fist pump. It can and will never be anything like 99 was for us or anything we achieved prior to that.

But then I look at us now and our shitty ownership structure and shit @#%&!s like Pogba (modern players like him) and I struggle to find anything worth investing any real emotion on.

100m on Grealish Is £#%&!ing insane. Genuinely £#%&!ing hilarious. 100m

£#%&!ing degenerate. Hope he has a catastrophic life-crushing relapse.

Originally Posted by Vedder

100m on Grealish Is £#%&!ing insane. Genuinely £#%&!ing hilarious. 100m

But it means nothing pal. It could be 1 billion but what do they care? There’s no recourse, hardly any embarrassment m, ffp is done so it’s irrelevant.

If it’s was a club that was spending its hard earned cash on some big gamble then it would be funny. As it is, there’s no consequence if it fails. It therefore fails to be funny.

https://twitter.com/utdjozi/status/1423010437965258755?s=21

Originally Posted by dunk

https://twitter.com/utdjozi/status/1...965258755?s=21

Young’s was all in the Premier League as well

Grealish didn’t even tear up the Championship

Maybe he’s a late bloomer and he’ll prove to be worth the money but to me he looks way over priced at 100 million

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

Young’s was all in the Premier League as well

Grealish didn’t even tear up the Championship

Maybe he’s a late bloomer and he’ll prove to be worth the money but to me he looks way over priced at 100 million

He's got great hair though, so could attract a new official shampoo sponsor for the Berts. EmiratreSemmé or the like.

He'll cost nearly as much as Sancho and Varane

I’m smelling floppage. City feel like an odd fit, think they’ve jumped the shark a bit re this summers targets.

Originally Posted by Stickman

I’m smelling floppage. City feel like an odd fit, think they’ve jumped the shark a bit re this summers targets.

We can at least hope......

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

We can at least hope......

Genuinely don’t think he’s a great player, but a good one.

100m

Grealish will look a great buy if he's playing behind Kane.

If Guardiola plays his 'no-striker' system then I think he'll flop.

Originally Posted by tatty

Grealish will look a great buy if he's playing behind Kane.

If Guardiola plays his 'no-striker' system then I think he'll flop.

If he plays behind Kane theyre going to have to change up whats worked for them.

Kane and Grealish going into a front 3 will be interesting as they are so different to what City have had to date. I dont think id be too surprised if City have a slow start by their standards.

Originally Posted by Neo

Don't think he's worth anywhere near £100m, but this transfer really does encapsulate all that's wrong with modern English football, and how utterly lop-sided the external money flow from the corrupt lands of Arabia and Russia have made things.

It's not really much of a competition when the team at the top can effectively cherry-pick the best players from the weaker teams, thus strengthening their own position, whilst simultaneously weakening others. This then becomes a cyclical self-fulfilling prophecy that is the antithesis of fair competition.

It's not sour grapes either, as on the odd occasions when United did something supposedly similar, such as the purchases of Andy Cole, Rio Ferdinand and Wayne Rooney, they did it with self-generated money from self-generated success.

This modern-day stuff that City, Chelsea and also PSG do is fake, as it's simply external quick-fix money pumped in to acquire assets for similar quick-fix success.

Football clearly needs to change, as it's utterly broken, corrupt and infected by parasites, with Manchester City being arguably the biggest offender.

Regardless of whether the money was self-generated we were still able to cherry pick the best players from the rest of the division. And while it's infinitely better than raising money from Arab terror states, our means of generating extra revenue was exploitative in its own right.

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

Regardless of whether the money was self-generated we were still able to cherry pick the best players from the rest of the division. And while it's infinitely better than raising money from Arab terror states, our means of generating extra revenue was exploitative in its own right.

True but the extra revenue we generated would not have been possible were we not successful no the pitch first.

The money came as a by product of success. It wasn't the other way around.

Very rarely were we the top spenders in the 1990s. True, we splashed out on the odd big signing when we needed to but we were routinely out-spent overall by clubs like newcastle, blackburn, chelsea...

This summer will be the 7th time in the last 12 seasons that City will be the highest spenders in our league. During the 90s we were top spenders just once, In 1998/99.

You cannot really compare what they're doing now to what we did. We cherry picked the odd big name and up and coming youngster but we didn't routinely, every season, spend untold millions stockpiling players in a bloated squad of £60 million quid substitutes.

Haven’t we spent almost as much as City in the last 7/8 years? Abs how is what they spend now not a by product of their success? They’ve been the most successful team in England during that time

Yes 100 milllion on Grealish is mental but the same was said when we spent 7 million on Cole, then 30 million x then 50 million on y, etc etc. I’d also imagine that ratio of income versus expenditure is pretty much the same now as it was in the 90’s.

I’m in no way defending City but to keep banging this drum that what they’re doing is cheating just smacks of bitterness. Plenty of teams have spent ridiculous amounts of money and won £#%&! all but we never say a thing about them. Think Villa are the prime example of that.