The commentator (no idea who) on the stream I was watching said he went off because of an injury.sendô wrote:..........................................
Wilshere somehow managed to not injure himself.
...................
West Ham Utd 0-5 Manchester City (10/08/19)
Moderator: Gnome
- Johnny Byrne's Boots
- Posts: 32378
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Care home dodger
- Has liked: 1858 likes
- Total likes: 2107 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
- Johnny Byrne's Boots
- Posts: 32378
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Care home dodger
- Has liked: 1858 likes
- Total likes: 2107 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
Well there's a massive surprise, said absolutely nobody.
Manchester City have avoided a transfer ban after admitting breaching Fifa rules on signing youth players.
The Premier League champions have been fined 370,000 Swiss Francs (£315,000).
Fifa said City breached article 19 of its regulations: "International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18."
City say the breaches, which all occurred before December 2016, were as a result of "misinterpretation of the regulations in question."
more...
- Cuenca 'ammer
- ex 'ouston 'ammer
- Posts: 40929
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
- Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
- Has liked: 1993 likes
- Total likes: 1670 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
according to the beeb, same breach of rules as Chelsea but they got a 2 window transfer ban,
wasn't City's first first time either.
wasn't City's first first time either.
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 71110
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 764 likes
- Total likes: 3494 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
Interestingly perhaps, this has been our busiest match thread (by number of posts) since the 2-1 defeat at Chelsea on the opening day of the 2016/17 season three years ago, which weighed in at 75 pages.
Chelsea thread: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=164995
Match threads archive: viewforum.php?f=19
Chelsea thread: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=164995
Match threads archive: viewforum.php?f=19
- Marky
- Posts: 13315
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:27 pm
- Location: Sullivan has killed this club
- Has liked: 54 likes
- Total likes: 182 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
Up the Junction wrote:Interestingly perhaps, this has been our busiest match thread (by number of posts) since the 2-1 defeat at Chelsea on the opening day of the 2016/17 season three years ago, which weighed in at 75 pages.
Chelsea thread: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=164995
Match threads archive: viewforum.php?f=19
I thought it seemed a big one.
Probably due to size of tonking and being at home
- Georgee Paris
- Posts: 27179
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:07 pm
- Location: The Amazing Adventures of Wicked Willy & Fearless Steve
- Has liked: 495 likes
- Total likes: 1042 likes
- Contact:
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
I think plenty had been announcing this as the best squad / team ever and expectations were high... the rest is history.
- ironilunga
- Posts: 9019
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:05 am
- Has liked: 382 likes
- Total likes: 1201 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
Bad news sells.Up the Junction wrote:Interestingly perhaps, this has been our busiest match thread (by number of posts) since the 2-1 defeat at Chelsea on the opening day of the 2016/17
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 71110
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 764 likes
- Total likes: 3494 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
The busiest threads always follow a bad defeat.Marky wrote:Probably due to size of tonking and being at home
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
In the main the posts in the opposition view weren't to smug or self congratulating, some even going as far as to highlight one or two of our players. Considering how much money (£1.3Bn) Sheik Mansour has pumped into that club it should come as no surprise that they have the manager they have as well as the pick of the players, and the past five matches against them have an aggregate of 22 - 1. I take comfort from the fact we wont be the only team they demolish this season, and hopefully we can put it behind us and play some of the football we know we're capable of.
It's all very well being a City fan and lauding it over everyone else, but the knowledge of how many of their academy have made it into the first team (Phil Foden perhaps ) should tell them that money, lots and lots of it have got that team to where they are now.
It's all very well being a City fan and lauding it over everyone else, but the knowledge of how many of their academy have made it into the first team (Phil Foden perhaps ) should tell them that money, lots and lots of it have got that team to where they are now.
- BondsoBob
- Posts: 6992
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:05 pm
- Location: Folkestone, Kent,
- Has liked: 583 likes
- Total likes: 530 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
My thoughts exactly Georgee.Georgee Paris wrote:I think plenty had been announcing this as the best squad / team ever and expectations were high... the rest is history.
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 71110
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 764 likes
- Total likes: 3494 likes
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
There were some choice ones that didn't make the cut, Mark!Marklinc wrote:In the main the posts in the opposition view weren't to smug or self congratulating, some even going as far as to highlight one or two of our players.
- frankiemac
- Posts: 7425
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 10:04 am
- Location: up norf
Re: ⚽ West Ham United v Manchester City: Massacre Thread (10/8)
i heard the fine was leniant as man city held their hands up, co-operated and also, the issue was regarding 2 players they had signed...with chelsea it was over 20 players...Cuenca 'ammer wrote:according to the beeb, same breach of rules as Chelsea but they got a 2 window transfer ban,
wasn't City's first first time either.