I think it pretty much reflects with the crowd on OA, too. Zaha would not change us, or our results, dramatically.
I’d much rather we sign Demarai Gray from Leicester if we’re going the Zaha route. He’s also an improvement on Iwobi and would probably be about 20mil cheaper
Take Zaha out of CP and what have you left…a void
It’s the best nickname for Raúl Sanllehí. I, myself, Abou–formerly known as Arsene–Cuellar brought it to this forum about a year to go to this day. In that moment I told you all that it would be the top nickname and the best way to refer to Raúl Sanllehí on this forum. Now you are finally understanding what I was saying. Though it took you pricks long enough. And after all that fucking abuse! FFS. Yeah, yeah, I’m sure it would’ve caught on faster and I would’ve been accepted earlier if I went with the more mainstream nickname, something that wasn’t strictly Catalán like three paellas a day, but that’s what you get for being a visionary with superior culinary and apellative knowledge.
That’s all cool and stuff but I still don’t know what the fuck a fid is?
Its a bit much though making Zaha the only reason they are in the Prem. Some decent players in that side and enough strength that they should survive most seasons. Decent back line for a start.
With the sale of Wan Bissaka as well, they are going to fill that void with about 120m of players.
There isn’t a single player in the City or Liverpool squad that cost more than £70m (VVD?) lol to think that anyone would pay that for Zaha, must be scare tactics or twitter dung (which I think 99% of all this tweeting about “this club thinks this about this player” shite is every fucking time, how the fuck do they know, most of them sit at a fucking desk in an office and sip coffee, call some old has-been player to chat some shite and google like everyone else most likely).
Again wouldn’t mind Zaha for like £30m but not far in excess of that considering our uh… “restricted financials”, then there are better bang for the buck to plug holes with.
You said it they should survive most seasons…not really good is it. Maybe they will buy well but they are up against some stiff competition from top clubs in Europe including the prem.
Tis just a shame that none of us call roll that ‘r’ in three like a native.
:kos2:
Bet @Electrifying and @Calum can 
Consolation for the level of “”“football”"" in their country.
Fiduela, I assume some fatty Catalan dish
Fiduela. Sounds like the name of some Spanish whore. Maybe he’s eating three of those a day. 
Being bantered off by Klarna ffs this club 
Brilliant.
What a disgrace! Trying to min/max our spending potential when we don’t have a huge amount to begin with.
Can’t believe Arsenal are trying to pay for transfers in installments, no other fucking clubs in the world do that.
Actually, nearly all clubs still do this (Ornstein noted just the other day that staggered payments are the norm in one of his tweets). Unless you’re a club such as City or United where the cash flow makes money no object, there’s good reason for it – it saves you a lot of money. The Guardian explained it a few years ago, using Micki’s transfer to United and Xhaka’s to Arsenal to show why it was costing United a lot more on an annual basis:
In practice, clubs such as United, for whom cash flow is never an issue, often pay the entire transfer fee up front or in a few instalments over a short period of time (less than 12 months). This helps reduce the overall cost of the transfer, and most selling clubs will much prefer to see the entire fee paid quickly, as opposed to several instalments over two or three years.
However, on the books – and this is how clubs actually calculate player costs – United, like every single other football club in Europe’s top eight leagues, will record the transfer fee as £8.75m in each of the next four years, not £35m now.
This is a universal accounting practice called player amortisation, and it is fundamental to how clubs calculate player costs. Rather than recording the entire purchase when it was made, the club will spread the transfer fee over the length of the player’s contract.
Naturally, wages must also be included in the calculation of player costs. Ideally, agent fees and image rights payments will be included as well, but to keep things simple, we’ll focus on the two big expenditures: amortisation and wages.
With Mkhitaryan costing Manchester United £8.75m per year in amortisation and £9.36m in wages (£180,000 per week multiplied by 52 weeks), his overall cost to the club is just over £18.1m per year. That £18.1m per year is what clubs look at with regards to player costs, not just the transfer fees coming in and out.
Let’s compare the Mkhitaryan deal to that of another recent Premier League signing from the Bundesliga: Arsenal’s £30m purchase of Granit Xhaka from Borussia Mönchengladbach. Xhaka signed a five-year deal and will reportedly earn around £125,000 per week at Arsenal. The transfer fee will be spread out over Xhaka’s contract at £6m per year (£30m divided evenly over five years). So including Xhaka’s wages, the overall cost to Arsenal is £12m per year.
While the transfer fees for Mkhitaryan and Xhaka are similar, Mkhitaryan is costing Manchester United 50% more than Xhaka is costing Arsenal on an annual basis.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/the-set-pieces-blog/2016/aug/24/transfer-window-market-myths
I was joking mate 
