What the ****Will require a significant drop in wages for these two to move on.
Can you imagine if that even gets close to happening?! No wayWill require a significant drop in wages for these two to move on.
I hate to say it but Mahrez only looked poor because Chilwell was so brilliantly effective against him.Mahrez was shite last night but has been good this season. Could understand Sterling going there if he was 35 and 10 stone heavier or something.
Rumours do seem to pick up if a team loses one big game nowadays. If they're basing it on yesterday then Brentford should put a cheeky offer in for DeBruyne as he fits their model.
Chilwell was excellent. He completely shut Mahrez down and offered lots going forward too.I hate to say it but Mahrez only looked poor because Chilwell was so brilliantly effective against him.
I hate to say it but Mahrez only looked poor because Chilwell was so brilliantly effective against him.
Not like City fans to fixate on the negative. He had a shit game against Millwall but apparently people forget that he was a very good wing back in a lot of games for us. His current performances shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who paid attention.Pity Chilwell didn't play like that for Leicester, ask the Millwall fans
I must of missed those games perhaps they were away from home.Not like City fans to fixate on the negative. He had a shit game against Millwall but apparently people forget that he was a very good wing back in a lot of games for us. His current performances shouldn't be a surprise to anybody who paid attention.
A very blinkered view IMO. It seems strange that somebody would pay the money they did for somebody who was "****ing terrible", and then suddenly they come very good, but never were for us.He wasn't. Current performance is no indicator of past performance elsewhere. He was, on the whole, ****ing terrible for us.
We knew how good he was. The fact that he didn't give his all in the last 6 months with us was very frustrating and made a lot of us downright angry. Unforgivable in my opinion.A very blinkered view IMO. It seems strange that somebody would pay the money they did for somebody who was "****ing terrible", and then suddenly they come very good, but never were for us.
Sigh. He really wasn't.He wasn't. Current performance is no indicator of past performance elsewhere. He was, on the whole, ****ing terrible for us.
Was he ****, for a lot of the games he played for us he was superb, which surprise surprise convinced Chelsea to spend fifty million pounds... still a lot of money... for his services.He wasn't. Current performance is no indicator of past performance elsewhere. He was, on the whole, ****ing terrible for us.
**** or not, he is a very good footballer and our squad was weaker this season without him.
I'm not sure why people here cannot separate these 2 mutually exclusive traits.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 24 | 57 |
2 | Arsenal | 24 | 50 |
3 | Nottm F | 24 | 47 |
4 | Chelsea | 24 | 43 |
5 | Manchester C | 24 | 41 |
6 | Newcastle | 24 | 41 |
7 | Bournemouth | 24 | 40 |
8 | Aston Villa | 24 | 37 |
9 | Fulham | 24 | 36 |
10 | Brighton | 24 | 34 |
11 | Brentford | 24 | 31 |
12 | Palace | 24 | 30 |
13 | Manchester U | 24 | 29 |
14 | Tottenham | 24 | 27 |
15 | Everton | 24 | 27 |
16 | West Ham | 24 | 27 |
17 | Wolves | 24 | 19 |
18 | Leicester | 24 | 17 |
19 | Ipswich | 24 | 16 |
20 | Southampton | 24 | 9 |