Spike

Tanksie is the ugly one.

What are you talking about?

superstitions r gay

Great technique is the last thing Muller has (better than Lukaku though!). He runs around like a lunatic and somehow scores goals from being the right place at the right time. It all comes from his intelligence and physicality. He is one of the scrappiest players, I've ever seen and he reminds me more of a net-crashing ice-hockey player than a footballer. I think he scores more with his knees than anything

YES! He is a clever player that can use both feet and his head. Not only that but he has shown the gusto to score goals in the 'big' matches.

Another question is: why should their be more leading roles for women? the same applies for the opposite. Creating roles to meet a quota is anti-creativity. I feel western society is egalitarian enogh that roles will be written with quality in mind over gender/race quotas. I'd rather a well rounded character than a ham fisted one. Men and women are different and characters usually aren't blank slates that can be gender swapped.

The Doctor isn't a human nor is his name 'Doctor Who'. The character is basically genderless (in a human context) but up until now has been portrayed as masculine. ALTHOUGH it creates an issue, the Doctor has had a lot of love interests, all of them female, all of them fell for an alien that was physically exact to a human male, not a female. The Doctor being portrayed as a female (thus making the character less human and ultimately genderless) makes those past relationships really bloody creepy. Ruins the dynamics.

And United paid Everton take Rooney and them gave them an extra 75mill for Lukaku.

Also on Bond, I don't care for Idris Elba at all. Mainly because he looks like Douglas Maicon so I couldn't take him seriously as James Bond. One of my friends went on a rant about The Dark Tower series recently. Mainly how about the character's race was central to his character and especially the dynamic between him and one of the main villains which is a black woman. He also went off on some tangent about how the main characters 'white power' was representative of his race or some shit. He also mentioned that since it was written in the 90s people weren't offended by a different examination of race relations and that this new movie is a product of the time we live in.

You think that is bad but the BBC cast a black woman as this real life human bean: Now mate, I don't really care too much about Doctor Who because that is a fictional character and an alien to boot but THIS IS HISTORICAL REVISIONISM. I wouldn't cast the greatest actor alive if they didn't look like the historical figure they are portraying. Devil's Advocate here: Gender equality isn't making a male character female. It's writing a new character completely. Equal representation is nonsense, TV creators have no obligation to write 1 male part for every female part. Their duty is to write engaging stories and characters that sell and if that means writing more male parts, than that is where the money is. I think this is sexist, they've taken a well received and loved male character and expect 'equality' to simply ride on the coat-tails of an already loved character. It's far easier to do that and create an engaging female character, they've put zero stock in an actual heroine capturing the hearts of audiences. This is lazy, pandering nonsense, that is meant to appeal to no-one outside of the writer's ego. I don't think woman have to be placated or even settle for gender swapped roles. We know a woman can be an amazing TV lead, look at Xena and Buffy.

That being said I wouldn't be surprised if every top club in Europe did the same thing to get around taxes and laws. Paying players under the table, zoning permits, etc.

@LFCMadLad Read this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-shell-companies-launder-dirty-money/ https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/setting-up-your-own-tax-haven-shell-company-takes-10-minutes/7297094 It is for this reason I doubt he uses Chelsea to launder. Not that I'm biased, but I just don't believe using a publicly well known entity like Chelsea (where everyone known the owner) is a particularly smart method of laundering. I really doubt he doesn't use anonymous shell and dummy companies for that, even legitimate organisations like Disney use the later for working it's way around laws. You can literally Google 'Cayman Islands shell corporation' and in ten minutes you're an anonymous owner of a 'company'. I am 100% certain that the man owns a web of shell corporations to launder through, I wouldn't be surprised if there were shell corporations that owned other shell companies to muddy the waters further.

No shit he is dodgy, I never once said he wasn't. How do you know that his company cannot? I really doubt either know the finances of companies as large and powerful as Abramovic's, and I doubt either of us could ascertain how much money can be extorted through a shell company. I never said he was in it for love, in fact I outright rejected that idea and called the club a toy. I sincerely doubt it took him over a decade to figure out a method of cleaning money. Hang on a sec, do you even know what a shell company is? I'm not talking about the bloody gas/oil company!

I'll believe that he owns dozens shell companies throughout the world that he launders money through, with a confusing paper trail to the moon and back. I really doubt he does in a publicly visible company. Love and dreamt of owning them? Pull the other one; there is a grey area between the two extremes. There isn't anything odd about an eccentric billionaire playing football manager. Chelsea is a toy, not a tool. For fucks sake mate, it is public knowledge he owns shell companies in Panama. I really doubt he needed to buy Chelsea and invest a billion pounds to 'clean his money', he'd have been doing that for the previous decade with far more refined means through internal corruptions and connections.

That is just conjecture. It would be far more refined that what you are proposing and I doubt he needed to spend a billion dollars to clean some chump change. I'm sure there are far easier ways for him to launder in his native Russia and I doubt that going through a famous football club is the easiest hoop to jump through.

The club is trying to be self-suficient. There has been too much wasteful spending, no more are the days where the club will drop an obscene amount of cash on players like Cuadrado. This isn't new, the club is very methodical and slow in the transfer market. People still think that Chelsea are a spending machine like United or City but that hasn't been true for years, big money does get thrown around but to the extent of those two clubs.

? The club has been very 'frugal' for several years now. Chelsea hasn't spent over 34,000,000 pounds on a transfer in seven years. It's the club's new business model. I don't think there has been a transfer made by Abramovic's money in a while.

You need to calm the fuck down, m8. The pre-season just bloede started. Plenty of time.

I disagree. Guardioloa doesn't want Aguero and there are very few possible destinations for transfer.

hoo roo

It's 'how ya goin' you uncultured swine.

@Danny you need to go back

you'll get ur head caved in if you ever come down my way. UP UP CRONULLA

your a fucking cheeky cunt, mate. bit too fucking lippy for a pommie bastard

ive had a fucken gutful of your shit mate