Takemeanywhere Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Are u sure thats how this clause works??????My thinkin was that we wer on for 30% of future transfers?but i c this as irrelevant as the so called owners will pocket the cash even tho we av a side of our ground missin!!! YANKS OUT!!! It's 20% and they're not yanks. Aside from that, your argument is erm...dreadful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Are u sure thats how this clause works??????My thinkin was that we wer on for 30% of future transfers?but i c this as irrelevant as the so called owners will pocket the cash even tho we av a side of our ground missin!!! YANKS OUT!!! We have hornet in our wasp nest me thinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Are u sure thats how this clause works??????My thinkin was that we wer on for 30% of future transfers?but i c this as irrelevant as the so called owners will pocket the cash even tho we av a side of our ground missin!!! YANKS OUT!!! Fantastic first post U S A, U S A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 We have hornet in our wasp nest me thinks. It's lacking a bit of subtlety, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Are u sure thats how this clause works?????? Yes, it does, but what would it matter given what you say next? My thinkin was that we wer on for 30% of future transfers? No, it's 20%but i c this as irrelevant as the so called owners erm, you mean the blokes who spent millions buying the club, bought back the ground and spend hundreds of thousands every year keeping the club afloatwill pocket the cash even tho we av a side of our ground missin!!! YANKS OUT!!! you mean those "yanks" from london? So, to sum up: Wrong on the clause percentage Wrong on the "so called" bit Wrong on the Yank bit And, really, wrong on the "our ground" bit - There is no way on earth that you are a proper latics fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrikkiNikki Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Manchester City defender Micah Richards has pledged his future to the club despite being linked to Arsenal. (www.micahrichards.com 1720 GMT) That's it then.... he's off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Telegraph also report that Richards as ruled out a move to Arsenal this month. I hate footballers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Telegraph also report that Richards as ruled out a move to Arsenal this month. I hate footballers! His website quotes him as saying that he's very happy at City etc. However he also says that Wenger is a manager he admires. Options open. Cake , having and eating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Telegraph also report that Richards as ruled out a move to Arsenal this month. I hate footballers! Perhaps he'll move on Monday 2nd February and then he won't have lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 From Wengers mouth. " I like Richards but we have NOT made any move for him." Press conference today. If I can clutch at a straw - he didn't say " We are not GOING to make a move for him". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I'm surprised Wenger likes him - if you think Eardley's passing is bad you should see Richards. Still, Arsene knows better than me.....never pays much though does he. Talk of £3M-£4M for Latics was always wishful thinking. The only way that would have happened was if Chelski had bought a while ago, or if Citeh were after him today... Latics Luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_blue Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Villa in for him but Arsenal could get him in a swap deal for Toure according to BBC sport gossip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Do you think 20% of Kolo Toure is better than Terrible Forbes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_blue Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Aston Villa boss Martin O’Neill will launch a deadline-day £7million swoop for Manchester City defender Micah Richards. O’Neill is a big admirer of Richards, who can operate at right-back or in the centre of defence. But the Villa boss had originally planned not to move for the England international, 20, until the summer. However, last week’s news that skipper Martin Laursen is likely to be out for at least two months with a knee injury has left his title challengers short of cover at the back. O’Neill confirmed yesterday he will attempt to bring in a quality defender during the final 24 hours of the current transfer window. He said: “We are still trying to bring in one before the window closes. We have a lot of games coming up.” And with time running out he is expected to table a ‘take it or leave it’ offer for Richards first thing tomorrow. Richards is known to fancy a fresh challenge having lost his England place. That makes a switch to Villa all the more attractive given O’Neill’s record of helping youngsters, Gabriel Agbonlahor and Ashley Young, into Fabio Capello’s squad. Daily Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Well certainly than the thousands of low paid immigrants that Kuwait exploits. As you seemingly didn't understand Corporal Jones's question, I'll ask it in simpler words: What the feck has Kuwait got to do with anything? Are u sure thats how this clause works??????My thinkin was that we wer on for 30% of future transfers?but i c this as irrelevant as the so called owners will pocket the cash even tho we av a side of our ground missin!!! YANKS OUT!!! Comedy Gold. City fan perhaps? Now go and play on the railway line but watch for those trains... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 It's just a shame that everyone has realised he's not that good. They should have flogged him to Chelsea a couple of years ago when they were looking at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 It's just a shame that everyone has realised he's not that good. They should have flogged him to Chelsea a couple of years ago when they were looking at him. he is suffering a dip in form at the moment,not his best season by any means,doesnt mean he isnt anygood though does it.. what ever he goes for we get cash,which will hopefully wipe out this seasons debt and leave a bit for next season,meaning we dont have to sell any players unless we really want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.