DoomMerchant wrote:Socrates wrote:89 points should have been enough to win by 10 points anyway without the "lucky" decisions the rags got. Thinking we should get more than that is just arrogant.
read the words i wrote...i'm not even talking about points, although we clearly could have hauled in more.
the comments i made were about buying players since Cookie fired himself.
Something reasonable done in January and we would have walked the league by 10 pts. We did basically nothing and just squeaked it.
Ronk gets it. You should PM him and ask for some advice.
Look, if we land De Rossi, an experienced CB as cover, and some pacy winger i've never heard of next week and i'll shut the fuck up about the topic...but until then i'm allowed to have a gripe.
cheers
I read what you wrote, maybe you should read it too? You said we should have finished 10pts clear. We got the maximum already against the runners up so that means ten more points than we got = 99 points. Ludicrous crap wrapped up in astonishing arrogance that City fans really should not be capable of yet. Very disappointed in you TBH as you are usually so sensible.