₦airaland Forum

Sportsweb:
Scene when Southampton CEO slap 80M on Romeo Lavia knowing Chelsea are more than desperate

I agree with this.

CrystalTiger:
I personally was praying Chelsea signs Caicedo 😕, Klopp getting this Caicedo na serious problem..

If it works out that way for sure. However, I don't think Klopp will maximize him because TAA is now playing the inverted role like Stones. Leaving TAA, Moses and any other midfielder be it Alcantara or Curtis Jones, McAllister etc, coupled with an aging and emaciated VVD, Liverpool's midfield and defense will be open like that tennis competition.

airmark:
Go and ask the professionals that made up Uefa study group.

VVD never played 59-60 games for Liverpool because Liverpool never played as many games to do it and they certainly didn't do it back to back like Rodri is saying.

Take note.

BlueAngel444:
that's a lie Gvardiol was never quoted that amount, it was 90m or 85m euros

I don't mean by RB Leipzig. I'm saying the journalist that had claimed City agreed to pay €120M for Gvardiol is the one spearheading this Lucas news in terms of the amount being quoted and that I do not believe it because surely WH don't believe this guy is on the level of Rice that they sold for £105M.

Overhappiness dey worry me.

andrewbaba44:
Bro the news na real

Mancity are running crazy

It is not true. City want the player but the quoted amount is not true. The people you are listening to are the same people that claimed Gvardiol was €120M but when the deal was announced it was less than that.

OVA200:
Post evidence werey dey write theory.

I've never beg online in my life.

I don't know you can be covering someone you despise.

Help me him to please drop receipt.

When a mendacious knave is caught in his lies he starts fidgeting.

Fret not, I will not post your ugly photos here or your full name.

Gucciboy:
Ahh, you got it wrong by saying "Grealish is among 5 most marketable players".

You were fooled by English media.

I did not say he is top 5 best players in England. I said marketable. If you don't know how marketable Jack is, make we dead the conversation.

MorataFC:
You have not answered my question, have you landed your dream job, if not ( I don't expect an honest answer though ) is your certificate also inconsequential?

I have taught you how to read and understand but you won't listen.

If I got a diploma from CALTECH because I believed it would be instrumental in helping me get a job in Saudi Aramco but I did not get the job yet someone else with a degree from Unilag got the same job I wanted, my diploma from CALTECH was inconsequential to getting that job at Saudi Aramco.

BlueAngel444:
he was signed last season for 40/45m contributed to west ham's European success and up to 10G&A. He is a Brazilian international player. Don't know what ability you think he doesn't have but City bid €100m for a one season proven EPL creative midfielder with 4more years left in his contract. I no know wetin dem use Grealish market o, but yes he is Brazilian and is marketable

I did not say he is not a good acquisition. I asked you if he is as marketable and talented as the 2 people I mentioned.

If you were not trolling you will know that Jack Grealish is probably top 5 most marketable players in the whole of England. People want to wear his jerseys. Celebrities know him and want to meet him. Brands want him to endorse their products. I mean, Jack makes money for City like (never said at the same level) Messi is making money for Inter Miami.

OVA200:
You can keep ranting all you want, you won't still get a mention from me.

I'm a man of dignity and I can't stoop so low to beg online. ME BEG ONLINE.

I only have one moniker and I use it for everything I do here. Dig as much as you can.

Anything I write here endeavors to fact-check it.

Any evidence you have about me paste it here.

Oladimeji Victor A--------- You don forget how we figured you out? You know you were begging online including posting your bank account details and name? You don forget? You know your monitor is OVA right?

You are scum of the earth. A bottom barrel, wretched, hideously-looking tadpole IQed nonentity with the personality of a toilet flush.

Regretting taking me on? Your peril just begun.

MorataFC:
Please stop bastardizing the profession and accomplishments of people's hard work with the wrong use of words, their certificates are not inconsequential but they were just not LUCKY to get their dream job. ( not everybody wey study mass com dey work for media house).

From the get-go everybody knows it is only one team that will win the trophy, EPL 23/24 is going to be won by just one team, just like every team is buying and spending hundreds of £ to strengthen their team in preparation for the next EPL season but sadly only one team will win it.
So are you now saying the investments of other teams, like their training, the coaches they hire and some logistics they put in place that we don't even know are.....? (fill in the gap)
Not everyone that runs a race wins the ultimate prize, in the heyday of Usain Bolt everyone knows is going to win the 100-meter race, I expect the organiser to say Since we know you going to win the race just come and take the prize" but no, just because it is not for the prize or title alone, but for the entertainment, viewership sponsorship etc.
I'm yet to get my dream job but my certificate is not inconsequential is your own certificate inconsequential too?

You're wasting my time. What am I talking about and what are you on about? If someone brags about training harder than Usain but still lost to him in a race I am wrong for saying the person's training was inconsequential to winning the race even though the person did not win the race? Which one come be "unlucky" and Masscom and all that Jazz?

BlueAngel444:
and you think Lucas paqueta who is a Brazilian midfielder isn't marketable 😮‍💨 or worth 100m

The question I asked is if he is as marketable as Grealish to dictate that City paid more than his true value? Or as skilled as Gvardiol to be the potential best in his role? Both answers are NO.

andrewbaba44:
Man city bidding 101 million for paqueta and westham rejecting asking for 110?

Pep guardiola is definately not okay

It seems that club is beginning to loose it

Stop believing everything you read.

Gucciboy:
Like they didn't pay much for grealish or gvardiol😁😁😂😂😂

Grealish's true value is £60M. But his release clause was £100M and he is a pretty boy with plenty endorsements which means he is marketable so City knew it was a better strategy to pay the clause.

Gvardiol? He was £77M. City paid £77M for 1 of the top 3 if not the best defender in the world (potential). That was cheap. Maguire cost United more.

Is Lucas as marketable as Grealish? No.
Is Lucas potentially the best winger in the world? No.

He even has a release clause for £85M although they claimed it comes into effect in 2024. Remember Cucurella? Kane? City will never pay more than what has been identified as a player's real value (potential and marketability).

Gucciboy:
🚨 𝗕𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: Manchester City have made a second bid to sign Lucas Paquetá. The offer is worth €101m. West Ham have rejected and want €110m.

Talks will continue and both clubs are confident a deal will be done.

(Source: @Foot Mercato)

LoL West ham would be preparing £50m bid for Conor Gallagher after doping Man city for Paqueta.

LOL. If you believe City will pay this much for Lucas, I have some property on the moon to sell to you.

OVA200:
It's not about mentality but more about dignity.
A person should know he is human and can be wrong and corrected but being hell-bent on using irrelevant thing to conquer relevant stuff is demeaning.

Imagine thinking you can win an informal argument by highlighting your opposition grammatical blunders when you are faced with fact and you can't find a way out.

Dignity is being a man of your words and not run away when your words require actions.
That was how he offered his arm just to win baseless argument and not have the dignity to walk the talk.

Having different moniker just to escape the consequence of your word is demeaning to a man of values.

But he will never learn until he pays dearly.

The guy who begs online for money? Talking about dignity?

The guy who lied that I had a conversation with him about 3 at the back and it being defensive and nobody fact-checked you?

The guy whose grand counter argument is bringing up league football and goals difference AFTER I had specifically said the context was about winning a final. That bum, Victor?

Pray tell, how will losing 5-2 in a final be consequential to the team that lost? What role will the 2 goals play in helping the team that lost? It helped them lose "dignifyingly"? That was their objective?

Remember, this was your earth-shattering analogy? The one I am too proud to submit to.

Why am I surprised. Someone else claimed some teams set out to only get to penalties. And I am the one who is illogical and ridiculous.

Greatihex:
What did Haaland do for all the minutes that he played? Why leave him there? When he was winning it, it was not friendly match. Now that he has lost it 3 times in a row now, it has turned to friendly.

Even if Haaland is playing crap, Pep will still leave him on because he is the best finisher in the team. That is what the historical data has shown.

Next, you are not making the impact you think you are if you mention that Pep has lost it 3 times on the trot. If anything, you are strengthening my case for me. He never plays his main team, never starts preparing his players early enough for such games and always ends up doing better than all the teams that ever beat him to winning the community shield.

That does not mean he wants to lose. It just means he does not care that hard about winning it.

MorataFC:
That guy mentality tire me, just because you failed to land your dream job after you got your PhD then you now declare all your certificates and education learning from primary to university level inconsequential.

When I think I will never see a stupider person than OVA200, MorataFC comes to his rescue.

Here is how to apply the analogy:

If you acquired a PhD because you felt it would be instrumental to helping you get your dream job but you lost that dream job to someone who did not have a PhD, it means your PhD was INCONSEQUENTIAL to getting your dream job in that moment.

Rule of thumb: if you want to make a perfectly analogous statement to what is being challenged,

1. Define the objective: what is the person or group trying to achieve? For e.g City wanted to win the community shield.

2. Establish the actionable step that will help the person or group achieve that objective. In this case, City will have to score more goals than Arsenal.

3. Determine if the group or person achieved that actionable step. E.g City did not, because they did not score more goals than Arsenal.

Therefore, Palmer's beautiful goal was insufficient in helping City win the community shield. It did not lead to the CONSEQUENCE that City wanted.

You see the words "not" and "consequence"?

When conjoined they become inconsequent. Like "not" "valid" becomes "invalid".

Palmer's goal was inconsequential to City winning the community shield.

You're welcome.

raumdeuter:
I think Rico was used at the John Stones role mid season last year, He starts at RB but moonlights mostly at DM

Yea. I love the kid but he cannot defend at a high level enough to be City's RB. In the preseason friendly, Carrasco skinned him dead to score for ATM and I remember twice when that Chelsea midfielder turned LB, Lewis Hall, told him to hold something last season. But you see the guy's football IQ? It is off the charts. Like Lahm and Kimmich. He will be a deadly midfielder. To me, he should play the Gundo role not Phillips or even Kova.

Watch him closely. His brain moves faster than his body it is like his body is trying to catch up when he plays. He always does or attempts to execute the right moves all the time. Even when he makes a mistake you can see he was making the right decision. Maybe he overcommitted or underhit a pass but his mind is quick. Pep loves him die.

Greatihex:
He was just doing testing, remember?

So Pep is chasing a game and will take off Erling Haaland? Or is desperate to win and will start Kova, Rodri and Stones as his creators?

SMH

Jodera:
Only Trossard goal didn't help arsenal win. You guys are just making it seem Trossard scored the goal that gave Arsenal the cup when in actual fact it is not. It just opened up the platform for penalties

The people that helped arsenal win was Trossard, Odegaard, Saka and Viera Penalties while needing the help of Kdb and Rodri misses.

Trossard goal just gave the platform for the above to happen and that's the thing you guys are not getting.

Like Ova said, the only inconsequential goal was Bernardo Silva own

Nobody said this. Trossard's goal was consequential because it helped A.K.A was instrumental, significant etc to Arsenal meeting her objective in the game which was to WIN (not participate in the penalties).

Inconsequential = did not help meet objective
Consequential = helped meet (i.e was important to) objective

Don't be happy when people like OVA200 or some Chelsea fans are supporting you. If anything, you should be depressed. They are usually low IQ warehouse janitors and smellos. I said "some". Sodeeq clearly is fighting hard to be named amongst them. His wish has been granted.

swiz123:
You were supposed to understand my point. Trossad's goal in the end helped Arsenal fulfil their objective and therefore consequential.

A final has one single objective; It is just what it is.

Something so plain and simple to understand.

OVA200:
There are not many inconsequential goals in football.

Dullards will make shit up, attribute it to someone else, rebut the argument that they themselves made and then pat themselves in the back.

The goals that can be term inconsequential are consolation goals in knockout matches.

Termed* The goals that can be termed . . .

In league football their is no inconsequential goal because even if you lose 5-2 the two goals you scored will reduce your goal deficit and we've seen team winning the league with goal difference.

1) There* not their* 2)Only fools will bring league football when FINALS are being discussed. France vs Argentina- FINAL. Arsenal vs City- similar to a FINAL. League football =/= (this means is not equal to) FINAL.

Going by his stupid logic then a 3-0 win for a team have two inconsequential goals because the last two goals did nothing to change the outcome of the game.

Just type 'going by all the things OVA200 has been typing then a 3-0 win for . . .'

Why will additional goals from the team winning (i.e meeting their objective) "change the outcome" of the game?

Since when did 'meeting objectives' become "changing outcome"?

I'm seriously asking. I am fascinated by extremely stupid people and whenever I come across one, I like to understand how they think so differently from the rest of humanity. Do people always tell you how "special" you are? Were you in your late 20s or early 30s when you finally got promoted to primary 1?

Pep has found his own Joshua Kimmich in Rico Lewis. Watch out for him in midfield he is going to breakout this season. I said it first!!

Jodera:
So many grammar while beating around the bush without answering the question.

It's only you who determine what's consequential and what is not.

Not me, common sense. So sad that as we can see, it is not common.

It's only you that claims teams don't play to participate in penalties when history proves otherwise on countless occasion

The irony is, Teams go into penalties rather than settle for a "draw" because they want to ensure a winner is decided. This defeats your current argument and any other argument you could possibly make along this line because it proves both teams always play to WIN not to merely participate. Read it slowly. Then digest it even if it is hard to swallow.

It's only you that still claimed a player can celebrate a goal even if It'll end in a draw because it'll draw them nearer to their objectives but still talk about the goal being inconsequential because the team lost on penalties.

Stop being clever by half. Why are you sneaking the word "draw"? Can you draw a final?

You'll just formulate something in your head and bring it here and you think people will just accept it because of your penchant for many words and Amala turning.

Yah bless. Hope you're winning in real life.

This your school of thought this past few hours na error!!!

It's acceptable. Darkness won't accept the light.

Jodera:
In order words, the process I talked about which you termed "inconsequential" is what you feel he should be celebrating?

In one breath, you feel the process in keeping objective alive ought to be celebrated

In another breath, you feel that same process that was once ought to be celebrated is now inconsequential because the final objective wasn't unfortunately met.


Wetin the be colour of your problem again??

Like I told the other person. You must not reply if you have nothing else to say.

Let me take it extra slow for you.

France v Argentina. Their objective: win the WC.

Thus, even if Mbappé missed all his PKs but France still won the WC - He would have been happy and his misses would have been inconsequential because his team achieved its objective.

Same way if City had won, KDB and Rodri's missed penalties would have been inconsequential.

You determine the consequentiality of an action AFTER the objective has been finalized not before.

I have reversed it so maybe you will understand.

If you can't, speak Igbo. English is not for you.

Jodera:
According to you, it's not the winning goal.

So I ask, why will Mbappe celebrate an equalising goal that's drawing his team closer to Penalties?

Again for people who understand English. The goal is keeping France's OBJECTIVE alive. France wanted to win the world cup.

Jodera:
Did he win or was France winning at that point?

If no, Why then was he celebrating the 3rd goal if he knew it might be inconsequential?

How will he know it was inconsequential until . . .wait for it. . .FRANCE DID NOT WIN?

Jodera:
I never said Wrong is a synonym for inconsequential and I never insinuated it in that post.

They're both independent of each other in that statement

You may need a refresher's course on grammar. In that sentence you presented wrong and inconsequential as synonyms.

Jodera:
He's not smiling because his teammates unfortunately lost their PKs and not because he scored 3 goals.

If not, he wouldn't have celebrated when he scored the 3 goal that dragged them to penalties.

Afterall they weren't winning then right?

He was celebrating after scoring because it was getting him closer to his team's objective.

He did not smile because France did not WIN.

Jodera:
Every objective have a process.

That an objective is not met doesn't always mean the process is wrong or inconsequential

And that's what you've been trying to say throughout this evening which I'm here to debunk

Wrong is not a synonym (even contextually) for inconsequential. Do better.