₦airaland Forum

nateevs:
Boring and repetitive Indeed. And some of us are now being quoted out of context, abused and accused of hatred.
Exactly why I have now left the discussion.


Time to discuss expectations for Sunday.

Your statements reeked of massive dislike or hate for mourinho there is no doubt about that. I simply hope with time you realize that you were totally wrong in slandering him the way you are doing now.
Mourinho is the greatest manager Chelsea ever had.
Peace.

Antonio Conte’s 3-4-3 formation – Is it here to stay?

As Chelsea prepare for Manchester United and Jose Mourinho this weekend, there has been plenty of debate over Antonio Conte’s decision to switch to a 3-4-3 formation. I ask the question, “Is it here to stay?”

Chelsea have only played two games against Hull City and Leicester City with the using the new approach but it’s been so far, so good with two wins, six points and two clean sheets. After a shaky start defensively and having been opened up by both Liverpool and Arsenal beforehand, those have been key in building confidence.

It’s clear that the players have adapted to the new formation and look to have settled into it quicker than expected but having made the decision to play with three centre backs it causes us a massive problem higher up the pitch?

You need natural width in the side if you play with a three at the back. The width comes from wingbacks and who pretty much pick themselves on a weekly basis with Marcos Alonso and Victor Moses performing well in both games so far.

It’s the key midfield and attacking areas that cause Conte a problem. I think we can all agree that N’Golo Kante, Eden Hazard and Diego Costa all pick themselves at the moment. That’s three of five positions if you include our wingbacks, which leaves just two places that are really to be contested between key members of our squad and that’s the position next to Kante in Midfield with the additional player in attacking areas alongside Costa and Hazard being the other.

In effect, Nemanja Matic, Mikel, Cesc Fabregas, Oscar, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Pedro, Nathaniel Chalobah and Willian are all in contention for those places in the starting line-up and will be selected on a game-by-game basis. If anything, I still personally believe that Conte could alter the formation again to include Michy Batshuayi up front, which is another debate in itself with a 3-5-2 formation.

N'Golo Kante has been speaking to the Official Chelsea Website of the new formation this week and he believes it suits him and the team. He said:
"The new system is working well. We have been better with and without the ball, and we have conceded fewer chances."
One thing I am certain of is that the 4-2-3-1 formation that Chelsea had adopted for a number of seasons is dead in the water, as we do not have the players that fit into the formation. If ever you need an example of that, watch the first halves of the Liverpool and Arsenal game!

I still believe that we have an option to switch to 4-3-3 or 3-5-2 under Conte but it looks as though the 3-4-3 is going to be the way forward this season.

What do you think of the new formation and our performances in the last two games compared to earlier in the season?

http://www.chelseadaft.org/2016/10/antonio-contes-3-4-3-formation-is-it.html?m=0

Giles Smith’s Thursday Thoughts

It is with a sense of history that columnist Giles Smith gives his Chelsea fan’s-eye view on the week’s events…

So much stuff in the media before and after the recent so-called ‘big match’ in the Premier League. You couldn’t move without bumping your head against it: about the opening of another chapter in the rivalry between two of the game’s biggest clubs - sides twinned in title-winning greatness. About the return of a former Chelsea manager to a ground where he has known both riotous happiness and bitter despair. On and on it went.
But I reckon we’ll always get that now, when Leicester meet Chelsea – or certainly while Claudio Ranieri is in charge, anyway, and probably beyond.

Incidentally, I notice the papers and the telly also found room to give a few mentions to Liverpool v Manchester United on the Monday night. Which, I suppose, was inevitable, too, up to a point. Then again, in the case of the game at Anfield, we were talking about a meeting between a team who last won the title four years ago and who haven’t looked like winning it since, and another team who last won it… well, you’re going to need a good memory here, because we’re casting back more than 26 years, or, in other words, before five members of our starting line-up against Leicester last Saturday were even born.

Did you know that Liverpool were once a dominant force in English football? If you’re young, the chances are you can’t imagine such a thing. And they never mention it, which doesn’t help in terms of keeping the sputtering candle of history alight for future generations.

Maybe somebody should make a television documentary about that whole era, talking to the people who were there and who witnessed it first-hand. You want to get to these people before the memories fade completely.

Meantime, though undoubtedly fun for all concerned, a match between Liverpool and Manchester United can’t help but feel, in 2016, like a clash between finished empires who are nobly adapting themselves to a new reality. It’s entertaining enough, obviously, if you’ve nothing better to do. But seeing Liverpool take on United at Anfield these days is a bit like visiting Portugal and thinking, ‘Wow, back in the 16th century, this place pretty much owned the world. And now it’s mostly about golf resorts.

I’m not saying Portugal isn’t a great place, by the way. I’m just saying that history marches on, power shifts and circumstances change, and Portugal isn’t what it used to be. A bit like Liverpool and Manchester United.

Anyway, at least the clash between the two most recent winners of the Premier League lived up to the hype, unlike the game at Anfield, although, in fairness, that one would have struggled to survive Sky Sports’ ‘Red Monday’ billing for it unless it had finished 14-13 with a last-minute appearance by Elvis.

Our match against Leicester, on the other hand, yielded what was surely the best performance by a Chelsea team in at least 18 months. For practically the entire 90 minutes our players exerted deeply gratifying levels of control, in every sense. Even the manager took one out of the air and trapped it stone dead at one point.

Eden Hazard and Victor Moses were on fire, N’Golo Kante tore recent, opportunistic reports of an energy-dip into strips, a back three entirely locked out Jamie Vardy, youth products flooded on from the bench in the later stages and, over and above everything, there was the unignorable sense of a project cohering. Plus there was David Luiz hitting the post at both ends, signalling a return to the kind of 24/7 entertainment value for which we celebrated his signing on Deadline Day.

An afternoon of gratifying rewards, all in all. People will say Leicester aren’t the side they were last season. They may be right. But neither, by the very promising looks of it, are we.

Next up, of course, Manchester United at home. Cue stuff in the media about the return of a former Chelsea manager to a ground where he has known both riotous happiness and bitter despair, and about another chapter in the vital tale of two storied clubs, twinned in (see rest of opening paragraph, above). History repeats itself so quickly, doesn’t it? You can barely keep up.[/size]

CLUB'S OFFICIAL SITE

[size=14pt]Know your history[/size].
The battle of Stamford Bridge

Chelsea are poised at the crossroads as acrimony between Ken Bates (right) and Matthew Harding (left) threatens their ambitions for the club.
David Hellier reports
David Hellier Saturday 11 November 1995

It was a comment from one of his friend's wives at a christening party over the weekend that is said to have finally persuaded Ken Bates, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, to hit out against fellow director Matthew Harding, the would-be pretender to his throne.
"Isn't it time you said something back?" said the woman to Bates, who for months has, by his own standards, kept his counsel against the background of what he believes has been a Harding-inspired whispering campaign.

This week the long-awaited bust-up between the two men began in earnest. First Bates blasted Harding after Harding sent him a letter containing his resignation from Chelsea Village, the club that owns the assets of Chelsea Football Club: "This man isn't fit to run my club," Bates declared.

Yesterday Bates escalated the battle by writing to Harding, dramatically withdrawing his directors' privileges, barring him from the press lounge and players' bar and accusing him of causing the club embarrassment in the boardroom.


Harding, a lifelong supporter of the club who has spent the whole of this week away in New York on business, flew back, declaring that he was "amazed" by a series of vitriolic attacks from Bates.

"I wasn't aware it was a battle or a war. But I'm not going to pack up my kit and walk away," he said yesterday. Earlier in the week he admitted what many people have believed has been his intention ever since he lent the club pounds 5m for the building of its North stand two and a half years ago - he wants to be its chairman.

For anybody close to the action at Stamford Bridge, however, there has never been a question of if the two men fall out, but when.

Apart from a brief honeymoon period after Harding lent the first pounds 5m to the club for the development of the North stand, the two men have worked in growing disharmony.

Bates said yesterday: "He's been very nice to my face while at the same time courting young journalists, the ones who are impressed with being courted by a rich young man. What he hasn't realised is that almost step by step everything he's been doing has been reported back to me..."

When the North stand opened last November, Bates refused to acknowledge any debt to Harding in the club programme. He wrote that it would be wrong to thank one person alone for the new stand, that it had been the result of the efforts of everyone associated with the club.

More recently he used the programme to point out to supporters that the rent Chelsea now pays to Harding's company, Stardust, effectively puts pounds 3 on each person's ticket price.

Told that Harding was trying to win over the fans' support for his threatened challenge, Bates thought it prudent to let the fans know that Harding's assistance was not coming free.

On Harding's part, he is said to have been briefing sections of the media about his difficulties with Bates. He has hinted that the manager, Glenn Hoddle, has an uneasy relationship with the man and that Hoddle would be unlikely to stay on when his current contract expires at the end of the year if Bates is still at the helm.

And at the recent Player of the Year Awards evening he was openly telling people that there was only one man holding Chelsea Football Club. There were no prizes for guessing who he meant.

Behind all the huff and puff of two men with big egos falling out lies the seemingly intractable problem facing both men: how to elevate Chelsea into the group of eight to 10 football clubs that have the wherewithal to dominate English football.

The two men line up like this: Bates, who does not appear to be a terribly wealthy man in his own right apart from his shareholding in Chelsea Village, saved the club from possible extinction in 1981 when he bought it for a nominal sum and took on its debts.

He fought and won an 11 year-old battle with property developers who owned the site at Stamford Bridge and wanted to turf the football club out and replace the stadium with a residential complex. Now he plans to raise new funds to build two new stands for the part of the stadium that have not yet been modernised and add to this a hotel complex, a car park and a residential block. He speaks for 100 million of the club's 102 million shares.

Harding is said to be worth around pounds 140m, most of which stems from his 30 per cent plus share-holding in Benfield, the London reinsurance group. He was paid a salary last year of pounds 3.25m and receives millions of pounds a year in shareholders' dividends.

A lifelong supporter, he responded to an advertisement in the Financial Times placed by Bates soon after the appointment of the current manager, Hoddle. He has so far lent the club the pounds 5m for the North stand - repayable in 2008 - and he has put up another loan of pounds 5m for the purchase of new players. Each time Chelsea sell a player, this goes down to reduce the money they owe to Harding.

In addition he recently acquired the freehold site at Stamford Bridge from the Royal Bank of Scotland for pounds 16.5m. Chelsea pay him a rent of pounds 1.5m a year.

Apart from obvious personality conflicts - Harding dislikes Bates' politics and does not have time for Bates' rather forthright manner - the two men differ in their approach to how Chelsea should go forward into the future.

Bates insists the club needs to reduce its reliance on the football side. Hence he wants an income stream that brings a greater percentage of revenue from merchandising, from catering, from selling flats and running a hotel.

Harding would rather build up the team further first, adding to the considerable sums Hoddle has already spent on new signings, a strategy Bates condemns as short-term.

So far Harding has not invested a single penny in the shares of Chelsea Village, considering the value Bates puts on the shares to be too high.

Bates reckons that the assets of Chelsea, which include the players' registrations, the goodwill of the club's name and merchandising opportunities, and the potential gate revenue and the potential for development value the company at around pounds 50-60m.

Some City bankers, and obviously Harding, dispute such a valuation. They point to the fact that Chelsea does well if it breaks even in a year on a revenue not much more than pounds 10m (Manchester United made a profit of pounds 20m on turnover of more than pounds 60m last year). They say the players' registrations might fetch a valuation of around pounds 15m and that the franchise as it now stands is probably not worth much more than that.

However, Harding's problem is that Bates has no intention of selling the club - unless he is offered a premium price. Bates says that Harding would have to offer him around pounds 60m for the company and be prepared to invest another pounds 40m in players and redeveloping the stadium. Put up or shut up, is the thrust of his message.

Harding may be rich, but he is not yet in the Jack Walker league. Walker, who has pumped millions into Blackburn Rovers and walked away from the sale of his steel company with cash of more than pounds 400m.
For Harding to buy Bates out he would have to sell his holding in Benfield - it is by no means certain how much he would get for it if he did, or how much the company would be worth without him - and then use most of his wealth to take control of Chelsea. Once he has paid out Bates there is no certainty there would be any money left for players, let alone the modernising of the ground.

Where Chelsea go from here remains unclear. It seems unlikely that the two men, after this latest spat, can continue working together. But it is also unlikely that Harding, Chelsea fanatic as he is, will or even can withdraw all his money (for one thing he can not call in his money on the North stand until 2008 anyway).

But if the worst happens and Harding tries to starve Chelsea of money for transfers, Bates' loyalists were yesterday suggesting that he is determined to carry on without Harding's financial assistance.

If the two can not resolve their differences, Chelsea may struggle to raise new funds, although Bates said yesterday he was in discussion with a number of financiers concerning the development of the new south stand.
Prior to Harding's involvement Bates, using the advice of Macarthur and Co, a small City merchant bank, toured the City in search of investors to assist him in getting his development plans on the road. There was no help forthcoming until Harding emerged.

Recently he has lunched merchant bankers in the City, but not with universal success. One banker said he would have worked for Bates if he was sure he would be paid up front. Bates insisted on a success-only fee and the business relationship broke down.

In the end this might be enough to secure a truce, however unlikely that may seem right now.
Hurt though he may be by Harding's supposed sniping campaign, Bates may yet come around to the fact that his aims at Chelsea could be badly affected by turning his nose up at Harding's cash and Harding, if he is to be taken at his word, is too big a fan of the club to do anything that will cause it long-term harm.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/the-battle-of-stamford-bridge-1581435.html

Guys Abeg e Don do!!!! This argument has carried on far too long!! Only time will tell. It's as simple as that! But Mou and pep are now in the same league and both started together at the same time. Let's watch and see.
But for now, it has become quite boring and repetitive.

Don't mind nateevs!! Sheer hate has blinded his analytical interpretation.
What a shame! his bias is sooo bad.

Nihilist:
Same applies

How about posting the gifs on(from) your phone. ie local storage.

Nihilist:
1. Right click on the image you want to embed (presumably on a website) and select 'copy image address'
2. Start a new post on Nairaland and click on the 'insert image button'. It's the one next to the red A in the editing ribbon
3. Paste the image address url in the [img][/img]

c'est fini

p.s only works with http links. so drop the extra 's' if you're embedding from a website that employs encryption

Thanks, what about gifs??

Peps inflexibility is what is costing him. It's as simple as that. He got it wrong yesterday. Would it hurt to accept that?

Nihilist:
first kuwait, now ipodo...something tells me that my path must have crossed ramuzaki's at least once in this life...

Could u please give me a little tutorial on how you posts gifs or attach images directly in your posts. I would appreciate.

nateevs:
Stop arguing on the extreme of the spectrum. The introduction of Avram Grant to the debate to give a different perspective and highlight the consequence of huge spending. It simply means that if you could outspend your rivals by a certain degree, buying expensive players in almost every position, then that team will go on and dominate for a long time and even Avram Grant can get to the finals of the CL with the team.

Very different from stating that Jose is inept.

I don't think I am misinterpreting you. You said the large money mourinho spent should be worth about 60% of his successes accrued.
With that line of thought, you are subscribing to the line that people use to slate mourinho " Tony pulis with money".
That is very wrong!! Tony pulis always plays 9 men behind the ball. He tries to totally nullify the opponent, suffocate the opponent and snuff outvany space behind.

Dare I say, mourinho is an attacking manager.!! I just read that more than 82 times, a mourinho's managed team have won with more than a 4 goal difference in his career. Does that sound defensive to you??
He only sets up his team conservatively when he meets opponents who are maybe on Par with his team or better than his team!!! And that is tactical flexibility. Mourinho's team have only lost with a scoreline of more than a 3 goal difference only 11 times in his career. When compared to the other stat above, I say that is a good manager.

3 seasons ago, only Chelsea beat Mancity home and away. When he beat Mancity at ethiad, he was hailed as a tactical genius!! He was the only one who achieved that feat that year.


In summary, mourinho sets up his team to destroy smaller opponents and then being flexible, he sets them up conservatively against equal or better opponents and that is why he is the most successful manager in this decade.
An average manager cannot have the large amount of records he has.

Nateevs ejor!!

nateevs:
Jose may have spent £275m but there was a value of the team he met. There were purchases before he arrived. Maka, Lampard, Crespo Duff, Robben, Cech, Gallas to name a few. Go add the market value of those players. £400m or very close.

And it goes without saying that if you spent £400m in 2002 - 2004, that team should be best on the planet. I cannot find that article now but it explains the exponential level to which we were outspending other clubs in Europe. It was spending on an unprecedented scale. So please excuse my reluctance to show surprise about the team going on for the next 5 years at the top. I mean honestly, what else would the team have done?

In that era, no one was spending like this. No one before and none in that era until City and PSG came along. There is nothing to suggest that many managers, given the same access to huge amount of resources, wouldn't have built the same thing.

To give proper perspective, phucking Avram Grant almost won the CL with that team. Avram phucking Grant for Pete's sake!. Let no one tell me money did not play at least 60% of the job. If it didn't, let him come try that sh1t without money.

If you're trying to discredit mourinho's success at Chelsea, what about his success at Porto, Milan and to an extent Madrid??
Nateevs you baffle !! are you saying mourinho is tactically inept
For forks sake, nobody wins that amount of trophies being inept or average!! Stop this hating please. I can understand the bashing if it comes from other fans but for it to come from a reasonable Chelsea fan leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

A40:
Baba this is easy to do when you have Eto'o Messi and Henry with Iniesta and Xavi conducting the orchestra. You don't carry that pattern with a team you just started managing less than 3 months. Just look at Bravo, what silly stunt was he trying to pull there?

His last two results at the Nou Camp are 0-7. Atleti packed bus and scored twice. Playing 1-1 and 2-1, and its not even about packing bus but just showing some defensive nous and organization when faced with a team with equal or superior firepower.

Combined 360minutes at Bernabeu, Calderon, Nou Camp. 0 goals scored 9 conceded. I defend Pep on a good day but he shouldn't be getting crushed that badly with our squad and City's

Infact what these numbers show is that he is neither attacking nor defending. Just losing

Raumdeuter!! This is your fellow Bayern fan. I told baldiola isn't really revered by the Bayern fans. You were there saying what I can't comprehend.

raumdeuter:
In the last 2 weeks some Bayern fans are already wishing for the years of Pep as we are not as dominant as we used to be. Bayern management decide who becomes the coach and they all trust and wish Pep would have extended
Many Bundesliga teams are happy that Pep is gone that at they now have a chance, if Dortmund had been up to par, Bayern might not be on top of the league now

Well if you say so. Fine. But pep is still untested.

raumdeuter:
What is highly debatable about it

Its a well known fact that Bayern management did everything to persuade Pep to stay the media were simply looking for stories to write, Is the same media not on Ancelottis neck right now?

The people that matter are Bayern management and they love Pep they will have him back if he ever decides to come back

Very wrong!! The people that matter are the fans and can you boldly say, most Bayern fans revere/adore pep?. To the best of my knowledge after the consecutive deep anal rapings in 3 consecutive semis, some fans felt enough was enough. Henkenys work had been betrayed!!
Dayo can you boldly/honestly say many Bayern fans wish for peps reunion??

raumdeuter:
Yet Bayern management would do anything to resign him on another contract.

That's highly debatable! Considering the way he left. He left on acrimonious terms!
The last few months were very hectic for him with the press constantly bombarding him with questions about his future. The focus left the field of play, he walked out a few times from press conferences. There is no doubt that pep is a coach in demand but many people believe he hasn't been adequately tested.

sinizia:
His titles, his brand of football makes him a great tactician. If he's a poor tactician, most clubs won't be scrambling for his signature. United, Chelsea, PSG, etc were all chasing him. A poor tactician cannot command such respect

He hasn't been adequately tested. That's a fact.

sinizia:
I understand why you guys are hard on Pep. His lack of defensive acumen in some certain aspect of football. I agree that he'd work on that, but I feel Pep is a great tactician coz he's someone thats not in for a short term success but a long term one. He's not about just winning for the moment, he's about laying a solid foundation for future success.

He brings his own ideologies, tactics and plans aimed at changing the entire thought and playing process of a club. If such tactics succeed, he ends up revolutionizing the club's style of football. He wants to leave his mark on a club even while he's long gone. That's why he's wanted so much. The three most successful club in recent times, Barca, Madrid and Bayern are well rooted in attacking football. It's not a coincidence, and that's what he wants to impact on City. He might pull it off.

Lots of credits still go to jupp henykens(spell check) and van gal for the modern Bayern success. Pep is not really rated in Germany, many fans still feel he underachieved there. There simply wasn't any higher difference from what was earlier done there.
Records weren't really set.
He doesn't have the highest goal scored/least goal conceded or consecutive league wins. Stuff like that! He couldn't even go unbeaten at home for even a season. What jose did for nine years. Pep might be good but he hasn't really been tested.
Now is the time!! We would know his full abilities. Today, he has just failed his first big test. If care is not taken in that group., borussia moncheglabach might even come 2nd.

Ibime:
Stop exagerrating. Jose spent £275m in his first spell, some of that on Sheva who Roman signed. That same team carried us 10 years..

How many top managers in the 90s stayed at the top a decade later? Football changes and rivals adapt tactics so any manager that can win for 13 years at the top is a great manager. Even the Pep Guardiola whose been going for 8 years is planning retirement in 5 years because no be beans to stay energetic with fresh ideas for that long.

So I have news for you. Jose has already stood the test of time. You've been writing the same obituary for him since 2007, yet he has won numerous titles since then, including a 2nd UCL. Quit it!

You for use pictures dey spice am up small

Diademk07:
Let's agree that he signed Drogba even though Raineri put the plan in place, there's no way he woulda refused to play Abramovich signings which were Cech and Robben. Also, Cech just had a wonderful euro performance and was part of the euro team of the tourny.. Terry was already part of the team..

It was a very huge call dropping the former keeper for Cech. What about carvahlo, essien, Damian duff(spell check), makalele?.

I don't know what you're trying to say but there is no doubt the squad that won the league in 2005 was purely in mourinho's image.

You definitely don't know what you are saying!! Drogba was purely mourinho's signing.

Diademk07:
Let's see, did he sign Drogba, Lampard, Terry, Cech?

He signed Drogba, started using a 22 year old Cech over the older experienced keeper and made Terry the captain at a very young age.
So yes. That team had all the imprints of mourinhos on it.

raumdeuter:
2010, 2011 2013 were they in the past 2 yrs and you still failed to make the semis, Of course add 2017 to it that your park the bus coach failed to qualify you for top 4

The quarter finals isn't that bad. And Moreso the recent collapse in the Champions League is a general problem for the English league itself, it's not only Chelsea who have collapsed in Europe recently. I believe that points to an underlying factor generally. Some say the increased intensity, some say the lack of breaks. One can never know. But you must remember that for the last decade, Chelsea has the best European pedigree amongst all epl teams.

sinizia:
And you believe if City had parked the bus, they would've won? I don't believe so. Yes, they got rąped tonight, but i can see a bright future ahead if Pep gets it right. Too much respect given to Barca will earn the opposing team a rout by Barcelona.

The fact that he has been making this mistake an still refuses to change his tactics since simply shows how incorrigible he is. There is no shame in parking the bus against superior opponents.

Ibime!!!
Fire on!!!

raumdeuter:
2010 second round
2011 quarter final
2013 group stages
2015 second round
2016 second round

Dayo!! Always crafty! I clearly said BAR THELAST TWO years and you still included 2015 and 2016.

2014 semis
2012 WINNERS
2009 semis
2008 runner up
2007 semis
2006 semis

nateevs:
Because the team cost £400m.

Haba nateevs!! Wetin be your wahala?? I don't think we should have a problem with the spending so far as there was success which is the most important thing in football. Many teams and coaches have spent a lot of money without getting the necessary result.

Mourinho spent a lot of money at Chelsea, Agreed, but that team lasted Chelsea for a decade!!!! So why the complaints!!!

raumdeuter:
And how many times has the "Not getting hammered epped" you?

Maybe Guardiola will also come today and say he lost because he didnt have 11 men on the field? Not getting hammered I would have expected that will be getting you to CL semis regularly

The not getting hammered is why you probably are out of Europe altogether

I don't know what you're saying. Bar the last 2 years, Chelsea has constantly been in the semis.

One serious question though, why the Bleep did he not start Aguero

Ibime:
3 months ago after Man City's first two matches, me and my guy had discussed that we can't wait to see City face Barca, they will get hammered.

I don't need to speculate what I already know as facts. It would be naive of me to watch City doing initial gra gra in the first 30 mins, then when they inevitably get soundly beaten, act all shocked like #haneveresperredit.

After your criticisms of Jose tactics against Liverpool, this was the perfect opportunity to show ninjas how a manager should approach big games. Pepper never rest, you started hailing Peps tactics upandan because of initial gra gra, only to find they got the disgrace of their life. Don't tell me youneveresperredit!

Preach!! man preach!!!

bigkesh:
City's previous meetings against Barca
2-0,2-1,2-1,1-0


If those are hammer,this is Chain saw

Abeg no kill me with laff!!