I've grown to accept that part of football supporter behaviour.On the other hand dismissing medical experts opinions while ramming footballers opinions on the matter down people's throats? That puts being illogical on a whole new level.
You just never know, end of the day when klopp looks to the bench in a tight game and the lads on the pitch are tired he would be a nice option
If but I doubt Gelson Martins will get his contract terminated It would be a no brainer to sign him .
Ah, but opinions are like ar$eholes mate, everyone has one ! Endless legal disputes take place, where both sides bring in their medical experts into court to give professional opinions in support of either side of the argument. They can't all be right as I'm sure you appreciate. So, while I'm definitely not saying that footballers are always right, I am saying that medical experts are not always right either, and are well capable of saying what their paymasters want them to say, just like everyone else in this world.
Is he replacing someone else there, that may be on the move (or are they strengthening) ? Betya they ain't paying €90m for him, or whatever we were being asked for last year either Seemed a very unlikely scenario when that story first broke, he may be able to leave subject to fee being agreed but that's another story..... very much doubt he'd be a first team regular for us next season and right now, I think that's where our priorities need to be, focused on getting in what's needed for regular first team places, then strengthen the subs bench etc.
Very poor analogy Garrett as we both know I'm talking about a very specific situation where there is no logical reason for taking a layman's opinion over an expert. Those players know Karius played badly and medical experts are claiming he suffered a concussion,that's the extent of their knowledge of Karius' case. I'd want more than that to go on when deciding what to buy my missus for Christmas,never mind to come out publicly and call a fellow pro and two highly respected doctors liars,and gift buying doesn't take 8 years of higher education to become qualified at it. It still disgusts me that some Liverpool "supporters" were desperate to push that narrative and give those cunts waffle credence,and that's without taking into account how dangerous it is to trivialise concussion in sports.
PSG have to raise 60m with player sales in the next month to avoid FFP sanctions.I wonder if Klopp is still interested in Draxler? I've no idea if they'd sell him or if he'd come but maybe it's worth an inquiry.
I thought it was a lot more than 60m (Just remember reading something earlier in the year) I dont think Mbappe signed permanently? The article may have took his fee into account . I wonder what the sanctions are?
60m for this period confirmed mate,I haven't really read up on the details though I'm pretty sure you're right Mbappe was a loan initially.
We’re not looking for a first team regular but a quality player to back up the front three that is happy to play that role and imo for free it’s a no brainer and leaves us the choice to spend big elsewhere .
I cannot for the life of me understand where the 60m has been plucked from Babbs, there's a few sites running with it but the only thing that is confirmed is that PSG have been cleared of breaching FFP up to the end of last year. How anyone has the inner workings on PSG seems quite amazing but perhaps they're based simply on the profits required by PSG this year to break even over the past 3 years.
Wasnt the MBappe deal a season long loan with an obligation to buy at the end of that season? Have to imagine Monaco had set a fee, and that fee will put a major hole on the books. Maybe 60m has to be brought in to be able to balance signing MBappe? Pure guesswork of course
The Guardian had an article about 60m, when I went to read it it was gone and replaced by an article saying they were cleared but will be closely monitored.
The Bbc are still including it in their article which gives it some credibility (I think) but it really comes across as tabloid gossip to me.
When Man city were fined approx 50m, can it come straight from the owners pocket or was it from the club. Don't really know where I'm going with this but surely if the club over spent, then an additional fine means they have "over spent more".
City's fine was laid down with a heap of conditions which were things like the amount they could spend the next transfer window, the amount of players they could register in their European squad, the limit on their wage bill for the following season. As long as they complied with them they would get back most of their fine (which was to be deductions from their European prize fund). But ultimately you are right, the fine would only serve to worsen the situation which I guess would be Ciyt's burden to bear.
That's where I took the figure from and they're normally pretty decent on these kinds of things but as you say the article doesn't mention 60m at all.
My very limited understanding is that the calculation is based on results over a rolling 3 year period, so that may help explain it. I think there are also certain adjustments permitted to the reported profitability each year, when doing the actual calculation (for example, I think that certain "once off" payments (such as redundancy type payments for a sacked manager) may be added back, so they would essentially increase the overall spending power). That's exactly as I recall the deal having been presented too mate.