uefa cup
Posted by: Trevor Newall on 26 March 2004
now that liverpool are out, who do the other forum footie fans think will win it?
my vote goes to inter milan.
TN
my vote goes to inter milan.
TN
Posted on: 06 April 2004 by Trevor Newall
matthew,
why not?
it's not impossible.
it certainly not a money issue, abramovich would bankroll the transfer of ANY player if the manager indicated that the player was necessary to his plans.
however, you're right, it wouldn't likely be a financially related decision if the players you mention were to join chelsea, it would be more a case of them wanting a new challenge.
aside from obviously henry, and nistelrooy (who could possibly be tempted to join chelsea but for the intense rivalry between man u and chelsea fans), the rest might well be up for such a challenge.
gerrard, for example, would almost certainly view a transfer to chelsea at this moment as a career enhancement.
chelsea are a team who are going places, and can offer him more chance of winners medals than liverpool.
raul could well be tempted to test his skills in the premiership with a club such as chelsea, as is the case with many of the top players in la liga or serie a who haven't yet had the opportunity to play in england.
the premiership is considered one of the best leagues in the world, and the top players all over europe would like to play there at some stage in their career.
with raul, that time could be now.
for kaka, perhaps it's a bit too early in his career for a move to england.
ac milan are a 'happening' club at the moment, but it would be foolish to rule out him moving to the premiership in the future, especially to a club like chelsea.
I think it is.
my view is that it's a whole new ball game at chelsea since abramovich has arrived.
with his financial muscle behind them, chelsea are now in an elite league of clubs who can afford to buy the best players in the world, regardless of cost, and thus assemble a team that has world class ability in every position.
of the teams you mention, I consider only real madrid, ac milan, and possibly barcelona, to have similar financial clout.
man utd, juve, arsenal, and inter can all afford to sign such players, but not necessarily a whole team of them.
that is the difference.
in the case of man utd and arsenal, generally they adopt a more frugal approach to spending in the transfer market than the 'get the best at whatever cost' approach of, say, real.
yes, both man utd and arsenal pay huge transfer fees for players, but it tends to happen much more sporadically than it does at the big spanish and italian clubs.
in the case of bayern and liverpool, both are in a lower financial league, and could perhaps afford to sign only two or three world class players at most.
both clubs tend to rely mainly on home gown talent, many of whom become world class players in their own right, mixed with the odd talented foreigner here and there.
matthew, what you are essentially talking about is experience.
all the managers you mention have vast experience and have achieved success over a number of years, however (arguably) none of them were more naturally talented managers than martin o'neil.
when you look at what o'neil has achieved in europe with celtic, who, if you remove larsson from the equation, are a team of average players - it is quite incredible.
yet this team of 'average' players, who play in an inferior league, still managed to beat teams of the calibre of barcelona, valencia, juventus, liverpool (I wept!), porto, stuttgart, lyon, celta vigo, and blackburn rovers, all of whom play at a much higher level of football domestically than celtic, and the majority of whom have won recent european trophies .
in the case of barcelona, juve, and valencia, these are three of the best teams in the world, and only a manager of the highest calibre could possibly defeat them with a team of such average players in comparison.
aside from all that, o'neil won the treble with celtic in his first season in charge when at the time rangers were unquestionably the dominant force in scotland, transforming a team in total disarray into a team of winners.
what greater achievements did bobby robson et al have at the same stage of their managerial career?
it is o'neil’s tactical nous, uncanny good judgement in the transfer market, and exceptional motivational skills that make him currently one of the best managers available.
all he needs is more experience.
with that experience, and once he has achieved similar success, he'll then belong in the exalted company of the managers you mentioned.
however that doesn't mean right now he's not just as naturally talented.
btw, what about brian clough for the above list?
he is undoubtedly one of the greats.
o'neil is his protégé.
yes, but he's not as big a name as, say, ferguson, capella or hitzfeld.
abramovich wants only the best players and biggest names at chelsea from the players to the management.
also, I think you'll find that after o'neil's exploits with celtic in the uefa cup this season and last, he is known very well throughout europe.
perhaps.
but cash isn't always the answer.
we played celtic last season and owen failed to score in both legs.
he was hugely disappointing, as largely was gerrard.
o'neil has proved he has the ability to construct a team that can defeat far better sides than his, on a restricted budget.
therefore on that basis there is no reason why celtic can't offer him the chance of more success than liverpool.
when o'neil moves from celtic it will be to a bigger club where he can realise his ambitions.
in england that means man utd, arsenal or chelsea, unfortunately not liverpool.
there's no way celtic could afford gerrard or owen.
that's the main reason why they wouldn't be at celtic.
however I'm not so sure they wouldn't want to play for celtic if the money was right and celtic were competing regularly in the latter stages of the champions league or uefa cup, whilst winning the league regularly.
playing in front of 60,000 fanatical fans at every home game, and the uniqueness of an old firm derby also has a certain appeal.
I don't.
but I wish I believed you.
to me, it's a three-horse race in the premiership, and will be for some considerable time.
I think arsenal, man utd, and chelsea are in a league of their own in terms of the calibre of players and managers at the club compared to liverpool, and also the type of football infrastructure that is in place.
unfortunately, I don't see that situation changing anytime soon unless we can find another abramovich, and a manager of a similar calibre to o'neil who fancies the liverpool job at this stage in his career.
I agree, but it's all about finding the right people and creating a winning team.
at the moment, I reckon liverpool are at least four or five years behind arsenal and man utd.
what makes you think liverpool, after years of not winning the league, are all of a sudden going to win the premiership?
do you watch much scottish football?
how do you arrive at that conclusion?
o'neil has already demonstrated that celtic can defeat arguably better teams in superior domestic leagues (including liverpool).
so taking that into account, why should liverpool finishing 3rd in he premiership mean they are likely to progress further in the champions league than celtic?
it's worth noting that in the last two seasons celtic have progressed further than liverpool in the uefa cup despite playing in an inferior domestic league.
why not?
west ham, in such circumstances, could easily achieve the same as chelsea.
another big london club with a huge support.
if the money was there, and with the right manager in place, who knows what could be possible?
I'm first and foremost a liverpool supporter.
but I have a soft spot and affection for celtic because of irish connections and I enjoy the banter with the celtic fans, as is the case with quite a few liverpool supporters.
the emotion created when 'you'll never walk alone' was sung at celtic park last season is something I will never forget.
celtic are a unique football club in terms of their fans loyalty, passion, and excellent reputation abroad.
martin o'neil is a supremely talented manager.
celtic have great success ahead of them with o'neil, and o'neil will go on to become one of the great managers of all time.
all said through red tinted spectacles!!
TN
[This message was edited by Trevor Newall on Tue 06 April 2004 at 15:05.]
quote:
Chelsea almost certainly couldn't sign Thierry Henry for example, or Steven Gerrard, or Raul, or Nistelrooy, or Kaka, etc.
why not?
it's not impossible.
it certainly not a money issue, abramovich would bankroll the transfer of ANY player if the manager indicated that the player was necessary to his plans.
however, you're right, it wouldn't likely be a financially related decision if the players you mention were to join chelsea, it would be more a case of them wanting a new challenge.
aside from obviously henry, and nistelrooy (who could possibly be tempted to join chelsea but for the intense rivalry between man u and chelsea fans), the rest might well be up for such a challenge.
gerrard, for example, would almost certainly view a transfer to chelsea at this moment as a career enhancement.
chelsea are a team who are going places, and can offer him more chance of winners medals than liverpool.
raul could well be tempted to test his skills in the premiership with a club such as chelsea, as is the case with many of the top players in la liga or serie a who haven't yet had the opportunity to play in england.
the premiership is considered one of the best leagues in the world, and the top players all over europe would like to play there at some stage in their career.
with raul, that time could be now.
for kaka, perhaps it's a bit too early in his career for a move to england.
ac milan are a 'happening' club at the moment, but it would be foolish to rule out him moving to the premiership in the future, especially to a club like chelsea.
quote:
Although Chelsea clearly have elevated themselves to a high level my list would include ManYoo, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juvenuts, AC Milan, Inter and Bayern Munich in it as well. It's not quite the exclusive club you seem to imagine.
I think it is.
my view is that it's a whole new ball game at chelsea since abramovich has arrived.
with his financial muscle behind them, chelsea are now in an elite league of clubs who can afford to buy the best players in the world, regardless of cost, and thus assemble a team that has world class ability in every position.
of the teams you mention, I consider only real madrid, ac milan, and possibly barcelona, to have similar financial clout.
man utd, juve, arsenal, and inter can all afford to sign such players, but not necessarily a whole team of them.
that is the difference.
in the case of man utd and arsenal, generally they adopt a more frugal approach to spending in the transfer market than the 'get the best at whatever cost' approach of, say, real.
yes, both man utd and arsenal pay huge transfer fees for players, but it tends to happen much more sporadically than it does at the big spanish and italian clubs.
in the case of bayern and liverpool, both are in a lower financial league, and could perhaps afford to sign only two or three world class players at most.
both clubs tend to rely mainly on home gown talent, many of whom become world class players in their own right, mixed with the odd talented foreigner here and there.
quote:
Yes. In the right situation and with a bit of luck I beleive he will be able to achieve a level of success similar to that achieved by, say, Hector Cuper. If he continues at that level for a few more years then we might eventually elevate him into the exalted company of the likes of Bobby Robson, Arsene Wenger, Fabio Capella, Sven, etc. A lifetime and we can put him with Bob Paisley, Ferguson, Trappatoni, etc.
matthew, what you are essentially talking about is experience.
all the managers you mention have vast experience and have achieved success over a number of years, however (arguably) none of them were more naturally talented managers than martin o'neil.
when you look at what o'neil has achieved in europe with celtic, who, if you remove larsson from the equation, are a team of average players - it is quite incredible.
yet this team of 'average' players, who play in an inferior league, still managed to beat teams of the calibre of barcelona, valencia, juventus, liverpool (I wept!), porto, stuttgart, lyon, celta vigo, and blackburn rovers, all of whom play at a much higher level of football domestically than celtic, and the majority of whom have won recent european trophies .
in the case of barcelona, juve, and valencia, these are three of the best teams in the world, and only a manager of the highest calibre could possibly defeat them with a team of such average players in comparison.
aside from all that, o'neil won the treble with celtic in his first season in charge when at the time rangers were unquestionably the dominant force in scotland, transforming a team in total disarray into a team of winners.
what greater achievements did bobby robson et al have at the same stage of their managerial career?
it is o'neil’s tactical nous, uncanny good judgement in the transfer market, and exceptional motivational skills that make him currently one of the best managers available.
all he needs is more experience.
with that experience, and once he has achieved similar success, he'll then belong in the exalted company of the managers you mentioned.
however that doesn't mean right now he's not just as naturally talented.
btw, what about brian clough for the above list?
he is undoubtedly one of the greats.
o'neil is his protégé.
quote:
Er, Ranieri is at least as big a name as O'Neil and, outside of the UK, substantially better known.
yes, but he's not as big a name as, say, ferguson, capella or hitzfeld.
abramovich wants only the best players and biggest names at chelsea from the players to the management.
also, I think you'll find that after o'neil's exploits with celtic in the uefa cup this season and last, he is known very well throughout europe.
quote:
That's just not true. He has Hypia, Gerrard and Owen which is the classic "world class" spine to build a team around and at Liverpool he would have lots of cash to do it with.
perhaps.
but cash isn't always the answer.
we played celtic last season and owen failed to score in both legs.
he was hugely disappointing, as largely was gerrard.
o'neil has proved he has the ability to construct a team that can defeat far better sides than his, on a restricted budget.
therefore on that basis there is no reason why celtic can't offer him the chance of more success than liverpool.
when o'neil moves from celtic it will be to a bigger club where he can realise his ambitions.
in england that means man utd, arsenal or chelsea, unfortunately not liverpool.
quote:
He has almost zero chance of getting such players at Celtic becuase they simply won't play in the Scottish league.
there's no way celtic could afford gerrard or owen.
that's the main reason why they wouldn't be at celtic.
however I'm not so sure they wouldn't want to play for celtic if the money was right and celtic were competing regularly in the latter stages of the champions league or uefa cup, whilst winning the league regularly.
playing in front of 60,000 fanatical fans at every home game, and the uniqueness of an old firm derby also has a certain appeal.
quote:
I can easily see Liverpool winning the Premiership again (I'd be amazed if they didn't) and seriously challenging for the Champions League.
I don't.
but I wish I believed you.
to me, it's a three-horse race in the premiership, and will be for some considerable time.
I think arsenal, man utd, and chelsea are in a league of their own in terms of the calibre of players and managers at the club compared to liverpool, and also the type of football infrastructure that is in place.
unfortunately, I don't see that situation changing anytime soon unless we can find another abramovich, and a manager of a similar calibre to o'neil who fancies the liverpool job at this stage in his career.
quote:
Liverpool as a club are really not that different from Arsenal -- the main difference being the manager and the squad both of which are within their power to change.
I agree, but it's all about finding the right people and creating a winning team.
at the moment, I reckon liverpool are at least four or five years behind arsenal and man utd.
what makes you think liverpool, after years of not winning the league, are all of a sudden going to win the premiership?
quote:
Finishing 3rd with Liverpool is harder than winning the SPL with Celtic
do you watch much scottish football?
quote:
Also if he qualifies for the Champions League with Liverpool he will have a team that finished 3rd in the Premiership and therefore almost certainly more capable of progressing than a Celtic side.
how do you arrive at that conclusion?
o'neil has already demonstrated that celtic can defeat arguably better teams in superior domestic leagues (including liverpool).
so taking that into account, why should liverpool finishing 3rd in he premiership mean they are likely to progress further in the champions league than celtic?
it's worth noting that in the last two seasons celtic have progressed further than liverpool in the uefa cup despite playing in an inferior domestic league.
quote:
Which has never been the case -- Chelsea have won 3 trophies in the last 50 years IIRC. By your reasoning West Ham are "sleeping giants" just waiting for an Abramovich to come along.
why not?
west ham, in such circumstances, could easily achieve the same as chelsea.
another big london club with a huge support.
if the money was there, and with the right manager in place, who knows what could be possible?
quote:
BTW I am a big fan of O'Neill's and think he has lots of success at the highest levels ahead of him. But I do think you are wearing green tinted spectacles and giving him far too much credit.
I'm first and foremost a liverpool supporter.
but I have a soft spot and affection for celtic because of irish connections and I enjoy the banter with the celtic fans, as is the case with quite a few liverpool supporters.
the emotion created when 'you'll never walk alone' was sung at celtic park last season is something I will never forget.
celtic are a unique football club in terms of their fans loyalty, passion, and excellent reputation abroad.
martin o'neil is a supremely talented manager.
celtic have great success ahead of them with o'neil, and o'neil will go on to become one of the great managers of all time.
all said through red tinted spectacles!!
TN
[This message was edited by Trevor Newall on Tue 06 April 2004 at 15:05.]
Posted on: 06 April 2004 by matthewr
Trevor,
I think you are overstating the virtues of O'Neill who, impressive though he is, still has a lot to prove at the highest level, overstating the significance of Celtic's UEFA Cup runs (success in a knockout trophy is *very* different from league or Champions League success) and overestimating the role of money in all this.
Yes you need lots of money which Abramovich brings to Chelsea but Liverpool are easily rich enough to build a side that can challenge for the Premiership and Champions League. It's not *that* expensive and if Arsenal can do it I cannot for the life of me understand why you think Liverpool can't. The two clubs strike me as very similar.
"of the teams you mention, I consider only real madrid, ac milan, and possibly barcelona, to have similar financial clout.
man utd, juve, arsenal, and inter can all afford to sign such players, but not necessarily a whole team of them."
Top 20 clubs ranked by 2002/03 Turnover in €m. Previous years position in brackets.
1 (1) ManchesterUnited 251.4
2 (2) Juventus 218.3
3 (4) AC Milan 200.2
4 (6) Real Madrid 192.6
5 (3) Bayern Munich 162.7
6 (12) Internazionale Milan 162.4
7 (8) Arsenal 149.6
8 (5) Liverpool 149.4
9 (13) NewcastleUnited 138.9
10 (7) Chelsea 133.8
11 (10) AS Roma 132.4
12 (15) Borussia Dortmund124.0
13 (9) Barcelona 123.4
14 (n/a) Schalke 04 118.6
15 (16) Tottenham Hotspur 95.6
16 (11) LeedsUnited 92.0
17 (14) SS Lazio 88.9
18 (17) Celtic 87.0
19 (20) Olympique Lyonnais 84.3
20 (n/a) Valencia 80.5
I'm aware that Real tend to buy their annual "Galtico" via donations from private individuals and corrupt land deals with the local council but that ultimately is unsustainable.
Matthew
I think you are overstating the virtues of O'Neill who, impressive though he is, still has a lot to prove at the highest level, overstating the significance of Celtic's UEFA Cup runs (success in a knockout trophy is *very* different from league or Champions League success) and overestimating the role of money in all this.
Yes you need lots of money which Abramovich brings to Chelsea but Liverpool are easily rich enough to build a side that can challenge for the Premiership and Champions League. It's not *that* expensive and if Arsenal can do it I cannot for the life of me understand why you think Liverpool can't. The two clubs strike me as very similar.
"of the teams you mention, I consider only real madrid, ac milan, and possibly barcelona, to have similar financial clout.
man utd, juve, arsenal, and inter can all afford to sign such players, but not necessarily a whole team of them."
Top 20 clubs ranked by 2002/03 Turnover in €m. Previous years position in brackets.
1 (1) ManchesterUnited 251.4
2 (2) Juventus 218.3
3 (4) AC Milan 200.2
4 (6) Real Madrid 192.6
5 (3) Bayern Munich 162.7
6 (12) Internazionale Milan 162.4
7 (8) Arsenal 149.6
8 (5) Liverpool 149.4
9 (13) NewcastleUnited 138.9
10 (7) Chelsea 133.8
11 (10) AS Roma 132.4
12 (15) Borussia Dortmund124.0
13 (9) Barcelona 123.4
14 (n/a) Schalke 04 118.6
15 (16) Tottenham Hotspur 95.6
16 (11) LeedsUnited 92.0
17 (14) SS Lazio 88.9
18 (17) Celtic 87.0
19 (20) Olympique Lyonnais 84.3
20 (n/a) Valencia 80.5
I'm aware that Real tend to buy their annual "Galtico" via donations from private individuals and corrupt land deals with the local council but that ultimately is unsustainable.
Matthew
Posted on: 07 April 2004 by Bhoyo
Matthew:
I saw this list a week or so ago, and was amazed that Celtic were even in it. It's full of the TV clubs - those that make a significant portion of their dosh from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. I'm not entirely sure about the French league, but my guess is that Celtic and Olympique Lyonnaise are the only two in the top 20 solely because of their fan base and recent European records.
Davie
I saw this list a week or so ago, and was amazed that Celtic were even in it. It's full of the TV clubs - those that make a significant portion of their dosh from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. I'm not entirely sure about the French league, but my guess is that Celtic and Olympique Lyonnaise are the only two in the top 20 solely because of their fan base and recent European records.
Davie
Posted on: 07 April 2004 by matthewr
Davie,
TV money isn't actually as significant as one might think for the very big clubs who still make most of their money from tickets and merchandising. It makes far more difference to small to medium sized clubs as a proportion of income.
Being in the Premiership would probably bring Celtic about an extra £20m in TV income. Which would make them about 14th on that list rather than 18th. Being in the Champions League brings more money again with a trip to the Quarter Finals getting you another £20m or so. Add on another £10m for extra merchandising, increased ticket prices, executive boxes, etc. and you have about €160m.
So in the Premiership and in a good year when they made the latter stages of the Champions League Celtic would be about 5th or 6th and so around the size of Bayern or Inter. So, when accounting for CL performance, probably about the same size (at least financially) as Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle. Which sounds about right to me.
In the Premiership but not in the Champions League Celtic would be about the same size as Spurs and probably facing the same dilemna (Ie big enough that the fans demand success but facing a chicken and egg sitation with regards to Champions League money). The gap between Arsenal and Spurs who are roughly similar sized clubs makes the point about the importance of CL funding rather well.
Note that the table shows only turnover and takes no account of debt. Hence Chelsea and Leeds are high in the charts despite being essentially bankrupt.
For reference the New York Yankees turnover is about $240m (€192m, 4th overall) and the Washington Redskins are about $210m (€173m, 5th Overall). So broadly speaking Celtic have the potential to be about as rich as the the "Indiginous Peoples of the Potomac Basin" NFL Franchise.
Matthew
TV money isn't actually as significant as one might think for the very big clubs who still make most of their money from tickets and merchandising. It makes far more difference to small to medium sized clubs as a proportion of income.
Being in the Premiership would probably bring Celtic about an extra £20m in TV income. Which would make them about 14th on that list rather than 18th. Being in the Champions League brings more money again with a trip to the Quarter Finals getting you another £20m or so. Add on another £10m for extra merchandising, increased ticket prices, executive boxes, etc. and you have about €160m.
So in the Premiership and in a good year when they made the latter stages of the Champions League Celtic would be about 5th or 6th and so around the size of Bayern or Inter. So, when accounting for CL performance, probably about the same size (at least financially) as Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle. Which sounds about right to me.
In the Premiership but not in the Champions League Celtic would be about the same size as Spurs and probably facing the same dilemna (Ie big enough that the fans demand success but facing a chicken and egg sitation with regards to Champions League money). The gap between Arsenal and Spurs who are roughly similar sized clubs makes the point about the importance of CL funding rather well.
Note that the table shows only turnover and takes no account of debt. Hence Chelsea and Leeds are high in the charts despite being essentially bankrupt.
For reference the New York Yankees turnover is about $240m (€192m, 4th overall) and the Washington Redskins are about $210m (€173m, 5th Overall). So broadly speaking Celtic have the potential to be about as rich as the the "Indiginous Peoples of the Potomac Basin" NFL Franchise.
Matthew
Posted on: 07 April 2004 by Bhoyo
Matthew:
Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps I should have posted on your wonderful "get answers" thread.
I get the sneaking suspicion that the TV money and the allure of the CL are not long-term propositions. I'm sure I'm not only person who doesn't watch much of the CL until it reaches the knockout rounds. It looks suspiciously like a potential endangered golden-egg-laying goose situation.
Davie
Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps I should have posted on your wonderful "get answers" thread.
I get the sneaking suspicion that the TV money and the allure of the CL are not long-term propositions. I'm sure I'm not only person who doesn't watch much of the CL until it reaches the knockout rounds. It looks suspiciously like a potential endangered golden-egg-laying goose situation.
Davie
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps I should have posted on your wonderful "get answers" thread.
His explanation is too simplistic anyway as the commercial opportunities that EPL exposure would give to Septic would also add considerably to their ability generate revenue.
With the Irish connection I would expect that playing in a higher quality league Celtic would be able to generate income equivalent to the top English clubs.
I haven't totally decided how I want Celtic to do tonight. Of course them getting humped royally is always nice to watch but, as with last season, getting beaten in the final would probably the best result (for me as a Rangers fan anyway) bearing in mind EUFA-coefficients etc.
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by matthewr
"the commercial opportunities that EPL exposure would give to Septic would also add considerably to their ability generate revenue"
I added on £10m per anum for this which probably represents something towards 50% growth of non-ticket, non-TV revenue and, whilst obviously a back of a fag packet estimate, still seems about right to me and if anything a little but generous.
"Celtic would be able to generate income equivalent to the top English clubs"
That's what I said ("probably about the same size [...] as Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle"). Some way behind Manchester United but then everyone is.
Matthew
I added on £10m per anum for this which probably represents something towards 50% growth of non-ticket, non-TV revenue and, whilst obviously a back of a fag packet estimate, still seems about right to me and if anything a little but generous.
"Celtic would be able to generate income equivalent to the top English clubs"
That's what I said ("probably about the same size [...] as Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle"). Some way behind Manchester United but then everyone is.
Matthew
Posted on: 08 April 2004 by TomK
quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
the only reason celtic didn't win any domestic trophies last season was because of their exertions in the uefa cup.
celtic's exit from both domestic cup competitions occurred as a direct result of o'neil prioritising success in europe.
Bollocks. As far as I remember Celtic won every single league game immediately after playing in Europe. They also had a very easy time in terms of injuries. The fact is that the worst Rangers squad in 20 years (the worst ever pound for pound) won the treble while the best Celtic team in 35 years won bugger all. No excuses please. Oops That's already been done.
Posted on: 09 April 2004 by long-time-dead
Had a total hoot last night (especially being a Rangers fan.....)
One of the great unwashed (my neighbour) was obviously going to the game as he had appeared from his house in a new, clean home top (it still had the unironed creases in it
)
A perfect opportunity to ask if he had bought a new top as he was going to be on TV !!!!!
Even better - he replied "Yes"
One of the great unwashed (my neighbour) was obviously going to the game as he had appeared from his house in a new, clean home top (it still had the unironed creases in it
)A perfect opportunity to ask if he had bought a new top as he was going to be on TV !!!!!
Even better - he replied "Yes"
Posted on: 09 April 2004 by Bhoyo
Maybe he thought he was going to get a game.
Posted on: 10 April 2004 by long-time-dead
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
Maybe he thought he was going to get a game.
At around 220 pounds I don't think so........
Good luck in the Madrigal next week !
Posted on: 15 April 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Good luck in the Madrigal next week !
You jinxed them!
And the dodgy defending didn't help either.
Davie
Posted on: 15 April 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
And the dodgy defending didn't help either.
Dodgy everything last night! Agathe was particularily awful though.
Posted on: 16 April 2004 by Action
Well after freezing my cute little butt off in poland and watching the worst performance from the blues in my life I don't care
Mike
Mike