Sass any updates on Rafa and BR

[Sir X]

Lol...hehe...yuh gwaaaan .

[Peter R]

Peter i said contradictory and oxymoronic to make my point ,saying consistently is half the problem of my reference.The other half is context in a sentence worse yet a paragraph,but as yuh say,only you can ovastand di bredda.

I hate to drag out these types of exchanges, but you consistently misrepresent what people say: I can tell you that I never used the word ONLY when I said in the past that I understand Paul's posts. Thanks for NOT misquoting me.

[Sir X]

Peter i said contradictory and oxymoronic to make my point ,saying consistently is half the problem of my reference.The other half is context in a sentence worse yet a paragraph,but as yuh say,only you can ovastand di bredda.

[Peter R]

Paul did not belatedly introduce words like "consistently"... he has always spoken of being able to compete on that basis...

You want ratings for recognising what is a given?? market value fluctuation is inherently understood by anyone with half a brain... the fact is at any given moment in time, the only way to increase squad value is by a positive net spend, so therefore if your competition on a given day has a greater squad value than you and you want to approach it, or surpass it, you'll have to spend more than you bring in. Remember that it's not only "your club" whose squad value will fluctuate according to the market, and therefore, if you aren't keeping up in the points column with the competition with your current squad money will have to be spent. I am optimistic about LFC's performance this year, but IMO, we still lack top quality in a couple key positions...

One thing you fail to acknowledge (if you did I missed it) is that LFC is not competing in as many fronts as the other "big" clubs and therefore we might be able to get away with not spending to fill certain positions now.

BTW, I saw you write something about Leicester being a bottom of the table club (or something to that effect). They've lost two matches out of four so far, while last year they lost three all year. What's up with them and more with less (at this point)? Are they going to be able to challenge for the title again with the squad they have?

[Peter R]

Kissteeth...........now mi a liad....ahhh bwoyyyy.Mi a tell yuh,but I have improved because I agree with you on certain points.

Question,unnuh reach dah stage deh wid me yet,how long mi ah beg mi ratings ?

[Sir X]

Isnt that what it is ? you conceed I have agreed with you,when have you ever on the issue of getting more out of less with me ,instead I get a spin - lecture on how net spend equates to position in the tables,have I disagreed ? Yet you sarcastically refer to the reinforced admission as an improvement,as if its something new on my part ?

My position has always been what I stated in the above post,your brother has many and it is my duty to point out his grey areas.He states can squad value can only be increased with a positive net spend.History has shown that is not true ,it can be done with a negative net spend ,then he inserts contradictory words like consistently and other mitigating words,which blows the definition of only out of the water.Of course this is his wiggle room to sit on both sides of the fence ,now he goes further in that he states its not important if

Am I being ignorant, dishonest, blind, totally biased, lacking in comprehension skills, or a combination of all the preceding! Or is it you two,when I point it out your contradictions -oxy-moronic statements. I am to be denigrated with the most vile words by your childish brother ,only to be cheered on by you,then defended with you see the usual egg on his face..hehe

Gi mi mi ratings!

[Peter R]

Kissteeth...........now mi a liad....ahhh bwoyyyy.Mi a tell yuh,but I have improved because I agree with you on certain points.

Question,unnuh reach dah stage deh wid me yet,how long mi ah beg mi ratings ?

[Sir X]

Kissteeth...........now mi a liad....ahhh bwoyyyy.Mi a tell yuh,but I have improved because I agree with you on certain points.

Question,unnuh reach dah stage deh wid me yet,how long mi ah beg mi ratings ?

[Peter R]

I know it hurts you two - trying to spin the conversation- But unnu fi know ?

*) 1st you need to address why a negative net spend all of a sudden doesnt count by your brother ,incidentally you are not saying that , he is !

*) Your info on net spend and proof of it being consistent is not being debated by me , I have no arguement with that , why is it an issue when we agree ?

*) My point has always been you can get more with less - be it spending less - that could mean a negative or positive net spend.,as I have stated we will never have money to spend like the money bags in along while but their is a way to get more out of less , I have stated.Klopp came along and proved it,now both of you ave unnu tear up draws itch up inna unnu ***** and cant get it out,nuh matter how hard unnu a pick...hehe

* LFC needed a WC coach- Rodgers & Hodgson wasnt it
* That coach can attract world class talent
* Talent will be attracted to coach and club name
* Talent will be scouted and drawn across the continent to club and bargains will be procured to develop in value - thus increasing club value- Fergie did it to knock us off our perch.

What dont you two comprehend , Unnu need fi gi mi , mi ratings ! Esp di bredda whey say , di coach wasnt di prablem and we can only compete with a positive net spend - $75 mill, same bredda whey say di prablem is money - wi nuh ave it !


Yuh nuh see yuhh bredda nuh righted and mi waan yuh lang time , yuh follow im and yuh tun fool, because im nuh ave nuh sense, wha im ave im borrow and affi gi back to you...hehe

Whether we agree or disagree on certain points is beside my point. However, it is an improvement on your part that you can agree with me Where I part company with you is when you misinterpret and misrepresent what the REAL position of individuals is, and then you spread this misinterpretation or misunderstanding as gospel. It is propaganda.

What I have underlined, which you have stated is Paul's position is only one half of what he says, however you continue to leave out the other half, which is just as important to understand what he has said.

You are therefore either ignorant, dishonest, blind, totally biased, lacking in comprehension skills, or a combination of all the preceding!

[Sir X]

I know it hurts you two - trying to spin the conversation- But unnu fi know ?

*) 1st you need to address why a negative net spend all of a sudden doesnt count by your brother ,incidentally you are not saying that , he is !

*) Your info on net spend and proof of it being consistent is not being debated by me , I have no arguement with that , why is it an issue when we agree ?

*) My point has always been you can get more with less - be it spending less - that could mean a negative or positive net spend.,as I have stated we will never have money to spend like the money bags in along while but their is a way to get more out of less , I have stated.Klopp came along and proved it,now both of you ave unnu tear up draws itch up inna unnu ***** and cant get it out,nuh matter how hard unnu a pick...hehe

* LFC needed a WC coach- Rodgers & Hodgson wasnt it
* That coach can attract world class talent
* Talent will be attracted to coach and club name
* Talent will be scouted and drawn across the continent to club and bargains will be procured to develop in value - thus increasing club value- Fergie did it to knock us off our perch.

What dont you two comprehend , Unnu need fi gi mi , mi ratings ! Esp di bredda whey say , di coach wasnt di prablem and we can only compete with a positive net spend - $75 mill, same bredda whey say di prablem is money - wi nuh ave it !


Yuh nuh see yuhh bredda nuh righted and mi waan yuh lang time , yuh follow im and yuh tun fool, because im nuh ave nuh sense, wha im ave im borrow and affi gi back to you...hehe

[Peter R]

Your reading comprehension is at best, godawful!

[Sir X]

Now it's not important ,so you misspoke when you said only a positive net spend,meaning that other factors go into increasing squad value or is it league position ,or is it to consistently challenge for top 4 or is it the Prem,or is it to get more out of less?

So you can have a negative net spend,and you can dismiss it at your will to come to your voodoo economic conclusion about what?

Wha yuh say bout idiot again.

[Paul Marin]

With a negative net spend...hehe.

Once again, showing your inability to read and comprehend. Remember, net spend is only important if it brings your squad value and wage bill into competitive range or above par. Rafa's negative net spend still leaves his squad value 27%, 63%, 102% and 130% higher than his nearest rivals. So bunch up yu draws all you want, Rafa should be able to pull off promotion with his eyes closed.

[Sir X]

With a negative net spend...hehe.

[Peter R]

Nice to know that Rafa bucking the trend and doing "more with more"; don't get me wrong, mi happy fi him... mi live a Trinidad an mi observe everyday how it cyan nice fi be a big fish in a likkle pond! LOL