Paulie Gualtieri
R.I.P. Tony Sirico
- May 18, 2016
- 12,328
- 3,062
Winks extends until 2023. Spurs have been on a roll this week, having already extended him, Sanchez, Walker-Peters and Carter-Vickers.
Premier League 2017-2018
- Thread starter spintheblackcircle
- Start date
Paulie Gualtieri
R.I.P. Tony Sirico
- May 18, 2016
- 12,328
- 3,062
Probably part of it. Pre-season and farewell tour.
Every young player can’t make it of course (unless it is a Liverpool youngster
), but I was hoping for more from CCV and Onomah. They are both much further away than I thought they would be.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
You're right, they just about got into the top half. But Villa have a lot more potential as a club than Leicester *in theory*.
Paulie Gualtieri
R.I.P. Tony Sirico
- May 18, 2016
- 12,328
- 3,062
After Poch's extension, Kane, Eriksen, Alli, Vertonghen, Lloris and Son are all expected to follow suit.
We’ll see with the extensions, but Spurs clearly isn’t a bad place to be these days. Love the optimism around the team and club in general.
Kane and Eriksen got to stay. Great if the rest stay as well, but they are all somewhat replaceable at the time their current contracts run out (Alli might not be if he can take that next step).
Kane and Eriksen got to stay. Great if the rest stay as well, but they are all somewhat replaceable at the time their current contracts run out (Alli might not be if he can take that next step).
Paulie Gualtieri
R.I.P. Tony Sirico
- May 18, 2016
- 12,328
- 3,062
If Eriksen were to ever leave, we should get Bruno Fernandes. He is far from as established yet, but they play the game in an incredibly similar way.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Luigi Habs
Captain Saku
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Things looking bad for Chelsea, we'll come out of this though. The past couple years of lower net spend have been in preparation for Roman eventually decreasing his levels of personal investment - this is sooner than expected, but we all knew this day would come.
Don't worry, things will continue once he gets more funds from his blood money investments.
Haha, evil russians and muslims using blood money, while honest good old americans and european use nice shiny money...
Anyway, if Chelsea is on the block, someone rich will buy the club. No worries. For Chelsea fans I mean.
Anyway, if Chelsea is on the block, someone rich will buy the club. No worries. For Chelsea fans I mean.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
We've had this argument in the past. Or at least, this statement is a typical comment you make.
There's a significant difference between a legitimate businessman making their money inventing something, investing, or doing well in the stock market, and a person who more or less plundered the money, resources and wealth of a nation for their own benefit. Especially when one of those two groups most likely is involved in the rule of violent dictators or oppressive regimes.
I realize both are objectively bad, but we are capable as educated adults to identify there are differences in degrees.
Roman's an oligarch who plundered the wealth of his country through illegitimate means. He had a hand in basically helping to install Putin.
As stupid as John W. Henry's comments in the public might be (and I don't think they were anymore than ignorant), I don't think he's possibly responsible for using gangsters and bribery to get his wealth, all the while working on installing a brutal dictator in his country. I would also guess that his track record on women's rights is probably a tad better as well.
I don't even need to get into the whole oil money arguments with Middle Eastern owners. All I will ask is whether or not that money they've taken from their people couldn't be better spent on helping improve economic conditions in their own countries.
There's a significant difference between a legitimate businessman making their money inventing something, investing, or doing well in the stock market, and a person who more or less plundered the money, resources and wealth of a nation for their own benefit. Especially when one of those two groups most likely is involved in the rule of violent dictators or oppressive regimes.
I realize both are objectively bad, but we are capable as educated adults to identify there are differences in degrees.
Roman's an oligarch who plundered the wealth of his country through illegitimate means. He had a hand in basically helping to install Putin.
As stupid as John W. Henry's comments in the public might be (and I don't think they were anymore than ignorant), I don't think he's possibly responsible for using gangsters and bribery to get his wealth, all the while working on installing a brutal dictator in his country. I would also guess that his track record on women's rights is probably a tad better as well.
I don't even need to get into the whole oil money arguments with Middle Eastern owners. All I will ask is whether or not that money they've taken from their people couldn't be better spent on helping improve economic conditions in their own countries.
You're putting :
- inventing something
- investing
- doing well in the stock market
As somehow innocent success and on the same level. Inventing something useful or stealing money (because that's what it is) from the workers in the stock market is entirely different.
And if you think your billionaire is stranger to bribery, you need to stop being naive. And surely, your billionaire could improve the conditions of the workers of HIS OWN company, right?
No, of course he can't. He has to invest the money in his shiny toys.
- inventing something
- investing
- doing well in the stock market
As somehow innocent success and on the same level. Inventing something useful or stealing money (because that's what it is) from the workers in the stock market is entirely different.
And if you think your billionaire is stranger to bribery, you need to stop being naive. And surely, your billionaire could improve the conditions of the workers of HIS OWN company, right?
No, of course he can't. He has to invest the money in his shiny toys.
Live in the Now
Registered User
This is a massively tough one. He's not allowed into the country to access all his asset holdings and the club owes him 1.2bn. Could call it in. To buy the club would also cost a lot more as a result of that loan. Does anyone think he gave all that money out of the goodness of his heart and would only want back what he loaned, and will give all of the club's assets away for free? Hell no.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
I'm not saying they haven't done things that are objectionable. I clearly stated that I completely agree that many of the people who have that much money probably aren't the best of characters. But all my point is, is that we should be smart enough to make a difference between certain owners.
Your only retort whenever anyone points out blood money, oil money, or whatever is to say "well Americans and Euros are just as bad". It's classic what about-ism. If you really feel that Roman, Putin and his thugs are the same as some of the American businessmen who own sports teams, there's really not much we can discuss on the matter.
Your only retort whenever anyone points out blood money, oil money, or whatever is to say "well Americans and Euros are just as bad". It's classic what about-ism. If you really feel that Roman, Putin and his thugs are the same as some of the American businessmen who own sports teams, there's really not much we can discuss on the matter.
What? How does one person who got his money from shady tactics somehow equal the entire nation of Russians and Muslims? I'm judging one guy here, not half of the world's population.
Burner Account
Registered User
- Feb 14, 2008
- 37,418
- 1,744
I think it takes a certain ruthlessness to become a billionaire. John Henry has probably screwed over some good people and ruined their lives, but I think it probably stops there.
