chippy1722
Player Valuation: £35m
I can’t believe I just heard he scored less goals last season than Cornet at Burnley, and Dennis at Watford. Two relegated teams worse than us. People really expected more than £60m with those stats.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oooooo Zat will be on his way to let you have it.I can’t believe I just heard he scored less goals last season than Cornet at Burnley, and Dennis at Watford. Two relegated teams worse than us. People really expected more than £60m with those stats.
I can’t believe I just heard he scored less goals last season than Cornet at Burnley, and Dennis at Watford. Two relegated teams worse than us. People really expected more than £60m with those stats.
Since when is 50m nothing?we've sold our best player for a song.
there is no other way of dressing this up.
absolutely gutted.
He probably read it from someone smart who took the penos outHe didn’t score less goals than them mate.
he scored less goals at Turf Moor thoughHe didn’t score less goals than them mate.
I'd be surprised if he isn't a rawk poster after reading the first two paragraphs.Kopites at the Guardian. I mean he's not wrong with some of it, but his tone is that of a rawk poster https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/30/the-fiver-richarlison-everton-spurs
You're surely not insinuating that there's some media bias towards Liverpool are you!? That's preposterous. Anyway on an unrelated note I envy their business, didn't you hear they bought the most expensive goalkeeper in the world, most expensive defender and a £100m striker all for free because they sold Coutinho about 24 years ago, meanwhile you've got City paying £3.6b on Haaland as a total package because after all the City owners had to buy City in the first place and then the entirety of their squad, stadium and infrastructure over the last decade to be in a position to buy Haaland in the first place, of course it's included in the price of Haaland, logically.Why are the BBC saying we've sold richarlison for 50m, and then in the next sentence saying that we signed him from Watford for 50m in 2018?
The media are obsessed with our spending, and literally manipulating figures (total vs up front etc.) to make it look worse. They never refer to the RS purchases as total fees, but they do so when they sell players.
Does selling at £50 million with 10% to Watford mean we are losing money on him?