₦airaland Forum

Giroud probably the biggest wasteman of the century.

Abeg who dey home?

See as dem dey press France like pure water nylon.

raumdeuter:
Viewers from outside only care about what you do in Europe and few people care about the league

When I started following Italian football, I knew AC Milan before I knew Juventus. I thought AC Milan was the most successful Italian side whereas Juventus on record has almost double Milan's league titles. It was in 96 final when they reffered to Juve as Italian record winners before I knew they were better

Same with Arsenal and Chelsea, it took Arsenal several yrs of playing in the CL before they were able to make knockout losing to smaller sides regularly while you see Chelsea standing to the top sides in Europe.

Domestically you can say Chelsea was underachieving but in Europe they were holding their side

It's very sad that it's taken you 3 full pages to finally grasp what diggz, pamcode and myself said around 7am this morning.

Ibime:
What is the problem with young niggas?

Being strongheaded is a bad trait abeg.

WTF is top 4 in the 1990s? Do you think anyone in that era cares about top 4?

Please stop drawing conclusions of olden days through 2016 eyes.

In those days, if you can't win the league and you are in 2nd place, you would rather finish 5th and concentrate on cup.

Every season Chelsea was a top 3 team for most of the season, and every season we relaxed in the league to chase Cup competitions.

Its like now no one cares whether you finish 5th or 9th.

You're the kind of nigga who if Pele boasts that he won Paulista Championship in 1965, you will start making noise that is it only common State Championship that Pele is boasting about, not knowing that Paulista Championship could be the stiffest competition in the world in 1965.

Nateevs do you remember anyone fighting for top 4 in 1990s?

Please don't quote me out of context.
I have already said at least two times that back then, it was only the top 2 in that league that were reckoned with.

You were the one that doesn't seem to know what you are arguing about. Pamcode said we are were a midtable team before Roman came....you came in and said we were never a midtable team...and your backing evidence is CUP history.


Abi is there table in Cup again?

Anyway, like I said, that same era Leicester won the league Cup twice. By your definition, they two must be big clubs.

Instead of you to focus on what was asked of you, you will start talking about age which is just irritating for a person who said he only started following EPL in 97.

I asked you who the 3rd best team in la liga is, since you said Chelsea were like Sevilla....but you cannot answer, which is quite typical of you.

Abeg take your arrogance and bounce. I'm done with you.

bykebyke:
I can not tell you guys how important it is that you win tonight.

Cause I can't have Shawn Michaels doing the work of Big Show at the finals.

raumdeuter:
There is no lie that Dessaily was a mercenary that came to collect money but he was still able to move to Chelsea, Like Zlatan DiMaria and co that went to Man Utd, They are probably there for the money but they still show Man Utd ability to atttact even money hungry mercenary

Man Utd might be the dominant team in the league but Chelsea was one of their main challenger

Chelsea in Europe was standing to the big boys in the continent, standing to Madrid, to Barcelona, to Lazio anyone, beating Man Utd 5-0 and 3-0 around those years. Which one of these can West Ham point to?

The only thing they lacked was consistency vs smaller sides in the league, But if na top team e no sure for anyone

Anybody could and still can beat anybody else in the league.

Yet in the 6 years prior to Roman's arrival, we only finished inside the top 4 twice.

Like I said, league wise we were nothing special. Nothing special at all.

Cup wins are not a true indicator of club strength. The club I supported then made 3 carling cup finals between 97 and 2000...and won 2. Against Middlesbrough and Tranmere. FREAKING Tranmere

Didn't United play against Millwall in the FA cup final around that time.

Anyfool can do well in the cup. Any fool can knuckle down and win a final. Wigan got relegated but beat the league Champions in the FA cup. Cup is not an accurate measure of your reputation/standing.

Ibime:
You can only talk retrospectively by looking at the books and drawing conclusions. I'm telling you how ninjas were feeling back then.

Then you had Juventus blocking Italian League and Manure blocking EPL.

It still didn't stop WPOTY Ronaldo leaving Barca to join Inter who hadn't won league since the days of Mussolini.

Batigol, Zanetti, Crespo. . . big big boys were playing in clubs not league winners.

People were not desperate for UCL then. Even league title does not exclude you from being a top club.

All we know is Chelsea were shaking Europe then.

When Madrid faced us in 1998 SuperCup and we beat them 1-0, you don't need Nastradamus to tell you that Chelsea is a big boy.

Newcastle, Leeds and Liverpool were not shaking anything.

Your argument seems to be based on the fact that we won Cup Winners Cup, carling cup, and FA Cup. It's like arguing that PSG was a big club in 96 because they won the tournament, or thar Portsmouth was a big club When they won the FA cup.

You likened us to Sevilla. Now let me ask you this....who is the 3rd biggest/best club in la liga right now?

raumdeuter:
Pre Roman in the continent, Chelsea was a more respected name than anyone not named Man utd, They had a fairly star studded side Zola, Desailly, Wise, Flo, Petrescu, Poyet, Vialli Gullit. Though some of them were old, they still had more name recognition and performed in European competition more than other ENglish sides not named Man utd


Europa has been degraded today thats why the winners have no respect, There are no big stars playing Europa. Currently, most people cant name anyone of note playing in the Europa

Assuming Europa of next season you have Man utd, Bayern, Barcelona and Juventus playing in Europa you would see the excitement it would gather

I remember Cup winners cup of 97 where Fioretina with Batistuta and Rui Costa was playing Barcelona with Ronaldo(Reigning WPOTY) Stiochkov(Former Balon dor) where in EUropa cup nowadays can you see that nowadays

Pre Roman I still remember Chelsea doing better in Europe than any other team not named Man utd. The won the winners cup vs Stuttgart and Chelsea had a pretty solid team then, the same team went to the CL quarters before losing to a Figo and Rivaldo Barcelona in extra time

Aside Man Utd no English team had the pedigree then in Europe, The cancelation of the CWC and increasing slots made the CL more powerful and eroded the UEFA cup

I don't really want to derail from the debate by arguing a lot of your points there. I seem to remember either yourself or Ibime denigrating Desailly a few years ago as a mercenary who came to collect pension money a few years ago...but that's irrelevant anyway.

Like I said, I will concede that Chelsea was the 3rd best team in England...but that's inconsequential anyway.

Your points there are largely irrelevant. Saying that Chelsea did better than any team not named Manyoo is as pointless as saying that Dortmund does better than any team not called Bayern.

What was the gap in reputation and success between United and Chelsea? Or you think it's beans to win a league 8 times in 11 seasons?

Roman and Jose came to topple United. And the gulf between United and Chelsea then is even bigger than the gulf between Man City and WestHam now.

It was HUGE. Christ it was huge.

Ibime:
You must be joking.

We were the 3rd best and renowned club in the late 1990s.

Your experience of Leeds is limited to 2003.

You will not get top Italian internationals like Di Matteo, Vialli, Desailly or Casiraghi leaving the best clubs in the World to join Newcastle, Liverpool or Leeds.

Our name was shaking shít back then.

I don't really agree with the whole top 3 statement, based on cup wins....but for sake of argument, let me even concede that point

Like I said top 3 is consequential, because the gap between number 2 and number 3 was a chasm that took us 49 years to cross.

The gap between 1st and 3rd best took us 54 whopping years to cross

54 years.

That's what we're talking about here. League wise, we were nothing special. Definitely not better than Leeds, Liverpool or Newcastle.

It's easier to do better in the cup than win the league. Afterall Everton had won the FA cup around that same period. Leeds was reaching the semifinals of the UCL. Newcastle was appearing in back to back FA cup finals in that era. And like I said before, we actually played Aston Villa and Middlesbrough in our FA cup final that year.

You likened us to Sevilla who cannot talk where Barca is today

You cannot tell me you don't remember when the EPL was a battle for second, cos we knew who would win.

Ibime:
Like Dayo said, there was no Madrid or Barca then.

Only 1 team qualified for UCL per league. You will usually find Madrid or Barca in UEFA Cup or Cup Winners Cup with you.

See the way Barca celebrated when they won 1996 Cup Winners Cup lime say World done end

2 years later we won the same thing.

Believe me our name was big in Europe then.

It is even small clubs from small leagues like Nantes, Monaco and Ajax that you see competing in UCL semifinals.

Big boys always fought in UEFA CUP and CWC like Barca, Inter etc.

Our name was not bigger than Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle etc.

During that era, I was supporting a mid table club, and I most definitely remember the fearsome reputation that Manyoo and Arsenal had.

I'm sure you will agree that cup game is different. Sevilla has won 3 back to back Europa leagues but what is their reputation in the global game today. Without google, how many people can randomly name their first 11?

But trust that everybody knew who that United team and Arsenal team was.

To put it in it's real context, Nateevs made a valid point that we percieved as having purchased our success.

How come nobody thought it was the result of years of gradual improvement.

We cannot use cup success as a true barometer of our standing in the game. Anybody can win a UCL final, FA Cup final etc.

The real decider is the league title.

That's why I said Sevilla cannot stand where Barca today is standing. Same way we could not stand next to Manyoo those days...never!

Zetra:
if they stay there death is sure but they can join forces with the New King JON (7kingdom) which is a better option
because as losprince said the long winter can freeze the top sea allowing the dead another route to the land of th living.

so long the Night king lives then the living is at risk so it's better to fight

I always try not speculate about any factors that have not been explicitly or implicitly expressed on the show.

This is not the long first winter, and the guys who originally defeated the white walkers and had the presence of mind to put up a gigantic wall like that, would have done the same on the coast if a frozen sea was a factor.

Also a decision to walk over a frozen sea to bypass the wall raises questions of geographic knowledge, cartography, etc. It would require specialist navigational skills...skills that the show has not hitherto hinted as being part of the night kings repertoire.

So for these reasons, I will discount the theory of frozen seas.

So far, all we know is that the dead cannot currently pass the wall due to magical barriers. We also know that the night king can bypass these protections by piggybacking on the branded stark. Finally we know that Branded stark knows these facts as well.

I think that it would be incredibly selfish for Branded to cross the wall in the knowledge that he is literally the only known channel for crossing the wall available to night king.

It appears that night king can appear to branded stark almost immediately as well, so there's no guarantee that Bran would make it to Jon before the night king decides to show up.

For that reason, I think it would be gross irresponsible for Branded to cross that wall as things currently stand 9

raumdeuter:
Well said Ibime

One of my homeboys used to support Chelsea then maybe because of Gullit or Babayaro, Chelsea pre Roman and in the 90's had many superstars like Dennis Wise, Le Seaux, Desailly, Weah, TA Flo, Zola, Gus Poyet, Gullit etc. Vialli won the CL with Juventus and reported to Chelsea

For some reason Chelsea was the most attractive club to foreigners then even more than Manure who stockpiled mainly british players

So this myth that Chelsea were mid table or garbage pre Roman isnt true. They were the clear 3rd best team in England, By Roman first season Chelsea was already beating Lazio 0-4 in Rome and making the CL semi finals, finishig 2nd in the league to invincibles Arsenal

Nobody said Chelsea was garbage, but we were definitely not the 3rd best team in England. At least not based on league positions. We were competing in a pack with Leeds, Newcastle, and Liverpool for the 'best of the rest title'.

Then Roman came and lifted us out of the Rat Race. In Roman's first year we finished 2nd...something we had not done in 49 years

By contrast in the 2 years directly preceding Roman, we finished in 6th place twice.

It doesnt even matter if we were the 3rd or 4th best team in the league, when it was really only Arsenal who had the ability to steal the trophy from Manyoo.

Claiming top 4 is irrelevant in an era that only reckoned with the top 2. It's like West Ham claiming alagbara today on top 6 basis.

The only thing you can say is that we were good in the cups....as Ibime said, like Sevilla. But dem born Sevilla to gbemu where Madrid and Barca dey?

Griffon:
C'mon brah, the transfer peccadilloes of Emenalo wasn't carried around by just SUN. I provided you with many news sites that did too many stories about our incompetent TD.

That is quite different to this very Messi report, it seems only SUN were eavesdropping when Roman met Messi's father.

You're right. The stories must be true then...

Dadehmola:
*In Ibime's Husky Voice*..

I'm similar to that to that thriller from argentina, maradona//
El messi, tax dodger, over paid prima donna//
I paid all my taxes, nobody can ignore it//
You paid the *penalty, pity you couldnt score it//
Broken records everywhere its a little messy//

#Copied#

The writer should have just stopped there imo. The bolded line is already a double entendre. Spelling it out just cheapened the verse

losprince:
Every magic has a loop hole, even if "branded" stark does stay behind the wall, It has been said that the night king will find a way to cross the wall someday and that brandon need to be prepared for that. This isn't one of those obvious shows mate, I don't think the night king crossing the wall has anything to do with brans mark.

You might be right.

But be that as it may, it would appear that the night king had hitherto been unable to cross that wall, until the show cast branded stark as a plot device that could potentially serve as a vehicle for the night king's machinations on the south.

I mean if all it took to cross the magical barrier of the wall was a branding, then craster could have served the purpose. He's not far from the wall and already has a working relationship with the nights watch. Or any one of the nights watch company could have been captured and branded during their occasional forays beyond the wall.

That's why i think that the branded stark was and is especially significant. I don't think the night king can piggy back on just anybody. Which again leaves me to think that branded stark can just avert the whole showdown by killing himself or letting himself get killed. At the very least, he can delay the invasion until another raven is born and ventures beyond the wall to get himself branded as well.

Griffon:
I'm not entertaining these Messi to Chelsea rumours. Who is smoking what?

Who hasn't been boarded in Roman's yacht? Messi's father spending time there with our owner might be a good premise but then again, we are not just well positioned to lure the Argentine to the Bridge.

I don't think it's all pie in the sky and yeah, someone better advice these SUN reporters to stop doing drugs.

But I thought you were quoting sun sources as gospel regarding emenalo the other day

Zetra:
Why is no one talking about Bran Stark and Benjen Startk? Those two
would sure have important roles to play during the great war with the
white walkers.

I really don't understand why there has to be a showdown with the white walkers and their army of the undead.

The whitewalkers cannot cross the wall due to some magical protection. They could potentially cross the wall via branded stark.

But branded stark knows that the undead can't cross the wall. He also knows that the dead can piggy back on him to pass magical security.

So why doesn't he just stay behind the wall and die? if he does that, that's pretty much the whole white walker threat eliminated isnt it?

Ibime:
Nah nigga. Utd didn't boycott anything.

English FA begged Utd to drop out of FA Cup because they were bidding for 2006 World Cup and wanted to be on good terms with FIFA.

What had happened was that Blatter had a crazy idea to hold the Club World Cup as a proper tournament with group stages and everything, that was going to take 3 weeks to a month almost. United said its not feasible to take 3 weeks out of their season to play that tournament so FA begged them to drop out of FA Cup and go to the tournament to help Englands World Cup bid.

This bit is strictly true. But it doesn't negate the fact that it was a choice. And united actually decided not to compete. Rest assured that no other team would have been offered that choice by the FA. And no other team, especially in that era could afford to boycott the FA Cup...given how difficult it was to qualify for Europe via the league.

Anyway my point is that fellow Chelsea fans should not talk down our history and make it seem that we are a bunch of gloryhunters who were nowhere before Abramovic. Before Abramovic, you could still catch fun and success supporting this club every season. Every season you were guaranteed to be in one semifinal or final or another and to win things. Its not like supporting Stoke. It's not even like supporting Spurs or Liverpool. It was like supporting Sevilla because you are guaranteed action every season.

Back then only Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea were winning trophies consistently. Liverpool only won some trophies in 2001. Apart from that, it was Chelsea, Manure and Arsenal only.

No doubt! And I get your point completely. But I also see where pamcode is coming from. dazall.

pamcode:
We won European Cup Winners Cup, European Super Cup, FA Cup twice, League Cup once, All in the 7 years before Abramovic.

So right wonderful achievement for us but fact is it was no better than what Parma achieved between 1996-2001 and guess what they were mid table and they still are mid table, they became poaching ground for stronger clubs and that would have been our story If not for Abramovich's money.

Ibimeeeeee i want you to get a picture of Abramovic or an effigy and every night before you sleep or early in the morning when you wake up, kneel before it and say Thank you 21 times with due reverence Pal.

One of the FA cup wins sef was the one that Manyoo boycotted.

If there's any indicator how stark the difference in levels was between us and United then, it is that.

We are holding on to that FA cup win as success in a year when Manyoo United decided to look past that and compete on the world stage.

Nigga that's deep.

Ibime:
Add in the cup successes and any fan would tell you Chelsea is more successful than Arsenal over the 7 year comparison.

Most seasons we were primed to finish 3rd but switched focus to Cup runs a bit like RDM in 2012.

Chelsea was almost like the Sevilla of that time in comparison which I consider more successful than just finishing in fourth every season.

Finishing 4th then didn't profit us as there was no UCL place so we became Cup specialists.

Anyway the main point is that Chelsea was no midtable team.

I agree with Sevilla. Good in the cups, almost no chance in the league.

I don't necessarily agree that we were more succesful then than Arsenal is now. In absolute terms maybe, but back then like you said 4th place didn't get you a UCL spot.

All you get from winning the FA Cup is a spot in Europa league.
A team like Manyoo who were already more or less guaranteed a UCL football qualifying place at the start of the season actually withdrew from the FA cup in 99 to play in club world championship that year, as you will no doubt remember...further exemplifying the gulf between themy and us those days.

Top 4 finish these days (almost)guarantees a UCL qualifying spot, and a cash reward that is almost 80 times more than what the winner of the FA Cup gets, making it a sort of trophy in itself

So it's kinda debatable these days if an FA cup win is actually more succesful than a top 4 finish.

Finally, I think the point pamcode was trying to make was that we were in a position where we could not launch a real title challenge from without outside help.

You likened us to Sevilla who finished 7th last season. Some could call thar midtable. Others would call it top-half. Either way, we were no way close to breaking that Arsenal/United hegemony till Roman came.

Ibime:
It's no different from United from 2010 to 2013.

Chelsea was no midtable team unlike the popular lies being peddled.

The only difference was that only 2 or 3 teams qualified for UCL back then.

In 2000 we went to UCL QF. Barca needed extra time to knock us out.

Chelsea last 7 years before Abramovic is better than Arsenals last 7 years from 2009 to 2016.

I disagree. Arsenal has consistently finished in the top 4 and UCL places since.

The 7 years before Roman I think we finished 6th 3 times and 5th once.

I only really started following footy in 99, but I remember Chelsea being no better than Leeds who also went to UCL semis and finished in top 4 on several occasions.

Arsenal was and still is expected to challenge for the title evert year. We weren't.

At best, I'd say we were like Liverpool in the mid noughties, at worst, I'd say we were like Spurs same period.

I can't stress enough how dominant Manyoo were in that era.

the 4th best team in the country those days carries as much weight as as the 4th best team in the Bundesliga today.

As at 2003, EPL had been running for 11 years. United had won the title 8 of those years.

It's not like the FA Cups that we won really means anything sef. Back then anybody could get to the final. Our two finals in that era were vs Middlesborough and Aston Villa.

Ibime:
I don't like when niggas yarn nonsense like Chelsea was a lower midtable team before Abramovic. Some of us were here then.

Chelsea was the 4th best team in England between 1997 and 2003. We never finished lower than 6th, sometimes finishing 3rd or 4th.

We won:

European Cup Winners Cup
European Super Cup
FA Cup twice
League Cup once

All in the 7 years before Abramovic.

Or do you think the likes of Zola, DiMatteo, Lebeouf, Vialli, Desailly, Mark Hughes, Albert Ferrer, Le Saux and co came here to sell akara and finish lower midtable?

Spits.

Back then though, there was nothing like big 4.

There was United. Then there was everybody else. The gap between United and the rest of the top 4 is probably equivalent to the gap between three current top 6/7 and the rest of the league.

kay9:
Dude, you're too hard on yourself. Go and buy Panadol somewhere and take two tablets with a glass of water. It helps with the vitriol.

You are one of the attention seeking roaches referred to in that post.

I had previously given that guy notice on at least 3 different occasions to drop the shade in his posts to me and discuss without prejudice, or jump and pass, until I finally paid him back in his rude coin

Yet here you are, quoting a post that was not directed to you, trying to be witty and failing hopelessly at it.

I hope you gain some satisfaction in getting the attention online that you probably don't get in real life.

Good night.

chic2pimp:
Alumni.....

Innit?

raumdeuter:
The EPL dominated Wales is crumbling like fake bricks inside rain

Goal and assist by EPL alumni though...

Ororo omo oro!!!!!

kay9:
So basically, your argurment in summary is that Jon Snow is a bad leader because his followers at one point or another did not have faith in his leadership... Am I right?

No.

raumdeuter:
Just before Mourinho arrived Chelsea already topped Man utd by 4 points in the league

So Mourinho would need an immediate 100M spending advantage in the first season and a 220M spending advantage over 3 seasons to beat the Man Utd that Ranieri already topped in the league

220M advantage over 3 seasons means you are spending more than your closest rival by 70M per season is what you need to upstage a rival that you met in 3rd place?

Barca was spending and Madrid was outspending them

So if any team hopes to upstage say Barcelona now, they can only do that by outspending Barca by 220M over 3seasons

And dont ask if spending guarantees winning, if it doesnt let him try it without spending.

This post does not even make any sense. Like zero sense.

If finishing above United on the log was the ambition, then Ranieri would not have been sacked.

I don't have time to argue nonsense tonight. United had a decade's headstart in spending and collecting titles. That Barca team is thr greatest team of the modern era.

Jose was Rocky Balboa going up against Apollo Creed and Ivan Drago.

Desperate times required heavy spending

GBR1:
There is no absolute proof as his birth certificate which would've served as that has issues shrouded in controversy but I've examined the case seriously and did my homework. He's 18 and i find the claims that he's older disgusting.

This shouldn't have been brought up at all and it goes beyond his birth certificate not being registered on time. Some folks need to understand that people are different and develop at varying rates. Sanches is black and comes from the Benefica's academy. It's easy to see why those folks at Sporting Lisbon are doing this now that Sanches is in the limelight. Sporting Lisbon president Bruno de Carvalho went as far as calling on the hospital that he was born in to confirm his birthday. Sporting Lisbon are quite jealous and spitefull since they almost have the monopoly of producing great portguese talents.

This picture, for example, was taken at a game against Porto three years ago (him being 15). He doesn't look a day older than his colleagues to mehttps://benficanoticias.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/img_770x4332016_02_10_00_27_41_1062496-1.jpg

see more here; https://twitter.com/PortuBall/status/750610183949316097

Sanches was born in Portugal(not in some African country where age scams are commonplace) and has spent over 10 years in the Benefica academy for anyone not to have realized he falsified his age. The folks accusing him have been doing it for some time now but have found nothing to use as proof against him meanwhile there are a lot of things like photo/videos on the internet to prove he's really 18. I believe he is and i stand by that.

Looks can be deceiving.

In the UK, the alcohol limit is 18. But all the big supermarket chains have signs hung up that say if you look under 25, you have to provide ID before you can buy. The only acceptable proof of your age is your drivers license or passport.

What I find fraudulent is the fact that he only registered his certificate in 2002. This is Europe not Nigeria. How did he register for school? Did he not claim a passport? Did his parents not get tax credits?

On the front page currently, there's the story of a man who simply invented 2 children, and managed to scam the government of 25k pounds in Tax credits.

When my son was born, I went to the townhall with my girlfriend to register the birth. I took my passport, and the redbook(Hospital records). They just asked me to fill in a form including his DOB. Then they checked our passports. They did not look at the hospital records. I could have added or subtracted a year or two on that form with no consequence.

I will only be convinced when I see his hospital record.

raumdeuter:
Going by transfermarkt figures

04/05 Chelsea season spent 163M , Man Utd spent 62M, Arsenal spent 12M
Chelsea 05/06 season spent 94M, Man Utd spent 38M, Arsenal spent 46M
Chelsea 06/07 season spent 88M, Man Utd spent 27M, Arsenal spent 16M

In the first Mourinho regime 3yrs (Intentionally disregarding the 07/08 season because he got fired a few months into the season)

Chelsea spent 345M, Man Utd spent 127M, Arsenal spent 74M

What this means is that assuming Man Utd was Chelseas closest rival in this time, Mourinho spent close to 3 times more than their closest rival

In Spain

10/11 Madrid spent 93M, Barcelona spent 72M
11/12 Madrid spent 55M, Barcelona spent 60M
12/13 Madrid spent 33M, Barcelona spent 33M

Total under Mourinho Madrid spent 181M , Barcelona spent 165M

So Mourinho outspent Barcelona in Spain

So nihilist when making your argument factor in these figures. We can also ignore what he inherited.
A season before Mourinho Chelsea spent 167M, Man Utd spent 53M Arsenal spent 29M. We can ignore this since Mourinho wasnt the coahc when it was spent

Dayo please don't be silly. What did you expect?

Manyoo had won the league 8 times in 11 years when Jose arrived.

Barca were the best team in the world when Jose arrived.

And they were still spending.

So Jose should just sit down and let the league leaders further strengthen while he just looks on or what?

Please don't bring your Dayoisms here tonight...