₦airaland Forum

nateevs:
Two things could be true at the same time. You generally have more time than most people to repeat your stance. It doesn't really mean that people kept quiet. It probably means they don't have as much time as you do.

Second point. I can tell you confidently, nobody in here kicked against replacing Jackson. Not one single soul.

You know, the misinterpretation here is mind blowing. Once your opinion differ from Airmark's, he will relentlessly push the agenda that you are 100 percent at the other end of the spectrum.

We support and back the striker we have now means we don't want another striker in CFC.

It's pathetic.

@airmark

I genuinely don't have the time to go back and look for posts, and I mean that very respectfully.

If you look back at most of my posts, what you will find is me saying explicitly, that pound for pound, Jackson's output has been the best investment of 30m. My data-led argument was that it is okay to spend 100m or thereabout on a striker, but output cannot be marginal over Jackson's. It must be significantly better. And all the names you kept recommending were around that price mark, but with very marginally better output. It is a perfectly logical argument.

Just because it is not an outright "Jackson out" point of view does mean it doesn't consider a part of your view.


You will also find that I argue that if we had strong support cast, and follow the model of Madrid, Liverpool, you will find that a top 100m striker may not be necessary......I cited the successes of Liverpool and Madrid to back up this argument. I also cited how Spurs had the best striker in the country for years, and never won anything. Again, data-led argument.

Another perfectly logical argument that doesn't refute the purchase of a striker, but saying concentrate first on building other departments.



The third one was, "what's the point abusing Jackson every week?" He's not Haaland. He's not Kane. He was a 21yo, picked out of Spain, with little experience for 30m, by our owners' management strategy. You can decide you don't like him without coming for him every week.

This, and the other arguments don't equal a "don't replace Jackson" stance.


And you will find the same logical arguments from the likes of Kimbeast, Timbros, Singapore1 et al. I take time to read these fellas' POV and I can see the nuance in their respective arguments.


What you are doing is taking a complete anti-Jackson position, and repeating over and over that anyone who doesn't stand where you stand never wanted Jackson replaced. ............ This is a complete misrepresentation of our POV. And as you can see, you have now corrupted the views of these other guys who never followed the debate.

nateevs:
@airmark

I genuinely don't have the time to go back and look for posts, and I mean that very respectfully.

If you look back at most of my posts, what you will find is me saying explicitly, that pound for pound, Jackson's output has been the best investment of 30m. My data-led argument was that it is okay to spend 100m or thereabout on a striker, but output cannot be marginal over Jackson's. It must be significantly better. And all the names you kept recommending were around that price mark, but with very marginally better output. It is a perfectly logical argument.

Just because it is not an outright "Jackson out" point of view does mean it doesn't consider a part of your view.


You will also find that I argue that if we had strong support cast, and follow the model of Madrid, Liverpool, you will find that a top 100m striker may not be necessary......I cited the successes of Liverpool and Madrid to back up this argument. I also cited how Spurs had the best striker in the country for years, and never won anything. Again, data-led argument.

Another perfectly logical argument that doesn't refute the purchase of a striker, but saying concentrate first on building other departments.



The third one was, "what's the point abusing Jackson every week?" He's not Haaland. He's not Kane. He was a 21yo, picked out of Spain, with little experience for 30m, by our owners' management strategy. You can decide you don't like him without coming for him every week.

This, and the other arguments don't equal a "don't replace Jackson" stance.


And you will find the same logical arguments from the likes of Kimbeast, Timbros, Singapore1 et al. I take time to read these fellas' POV and I can see the nuance in their respective arguments.


What you are doing is taking a complete anti-Jackson position, and repeating over and over that anyone who doesn't stand where you stand never wanted Jackson replaced. ............ This is a complete misrepresentation of our POV. And as you can see, you have now corrupted the views of these other guys who never followed the debate.

Who and who?


Name them

timbros:
You know, the misinterpretation here is mind blowing. Once your opinion differ from Airmark's, he will relentlessly push the agenda that you are 100 percent at the other end of the spectrum.

We support and back the striker we have now means we don't want another striker in CFC.

It's pathetic.

timbros:
I challenge you to quote ANY of my post where I specifically said we ONLY need to fix the defence and NOT touch the attack. And later change mouth.

I challenge you to pull out such posts.





I challenge you to bring out any of my post like this. Pro defence 100 percent. No balance, no attack, just fix defence. Period.

Dig it out.

You are shameless, always 'changing mouth'. What's this rhetorical question for?

timbros:
77 goals last season. Top scorers in the League currently.

Is attack the problem?

timbros:
This is the exact reason why I stop responding to you - the lies and misinterpretations.

1. Telling you to be ready to watch loads and loads of Jackson this season doesn't mean I am against signing another striker. I want to help you pull out of that your fantasy and come back to reality. But here you are, either deliberately misinterpreting me or too dull to understand that being realistic does not mean I support entirely what is going on.

You are a dirty liar. I remember how you and Nateevs were dancing, tagging me to your posts when Jackson wasn't replaced by a better striker at the beginning of the season and scoring cheap goals.

timbros:
Anyhow this game end, I cook Airmark

3-0... I remind airmark how clean sheet is important in football. The attack continues what it has always been doing from last season.

3-1...... I remind airmark that Jackson is on 3 goal contribution in this match.

3-2.... I remind airmark how useless the defence is to nearly throw this game away.

3-3.... The rest is history

Either way, I cook Airmark at 90 minutes.

Now, you are claiming to be strongly in support of a new striker. So why this post at the beginning of the season? You are shameless.

airmark:
You are shameless, always 'changing mouth'. What's this rhetorical question for?

Continue making my point for me.

LOL.

nateevs:
@airmark

I genuinely don't have the time to go back and look for posts, and I mean that very respectfully.

If you look back at most of my posts, what you will find is me saying explicitly, that pound for pound, Jackson's output has been the best investment of 30m. My data-led argument was that it is okay to spend 100m or thereabout on a striker, but output cannot be marginal over Jackson's. It must be significantly better. And all the names you kept recommending were around that price mark, but with very marginally better output. It is a perfectly logical argument.

Just because it is not an outright "Jackson out" point of view does mean it doesn't consider a part of your view.


You will also find that I argue that if we had strong support cast, and follow the model of Madrid, Liverpool, you will find that a top 100m striker may not be necessary......I cited the successes of Liverpool and Madrid to back up this argument. I also cited how Spurs had the best striker in the country for years, and never won anything. Again, data-led argument.

Another perfectly logical argument that doesn't refute the purchase of a striker, but saying concentrate first on building other departments.



The third one was, "what's the point abusing Jackson every week?" He's not Haaland. He's not Kane. He was a 21yo, picked out of Spain, with little experience for 30m, by our owners' management strategy. You can decide you don't like him without coming for him every week.

This, and the other arguments don't equal a "don't replace Jackson" stance.


And you will find the same logical arguments from the likes of Kimbeast, Timbros, Singapore1 et al. I take time to read these fellas' POV and I can see the nuance in their respective arguments.


What you are doing is taking a complete anti-Jackson position, and repeating over and over that anyone who doesn't stand where you stand never wanted Jackson replaced. ............ This is a complete misrepresentation of our POV. And as you can see, you have now corrupted the views of these other guys who never followed the debate.

Just this single post of yours below is enough to collapse what you constructed above, with thousands of words. I knew a day like this would come when you would deny Jackson.

nateevs:
Name the 30+ goal striker you can find that is better than Jackson.

airmark:
You are a dirty liar. I remember how you and Nateevs were dancing, tagging me to your posts when Jackson wasn't replaced by a better striker at the beginning of the season and scoring cheap goals.



Now, you are claiming to be strongly in support of a new striker. So why this post at the beginning of the season? You are shameless.

Continue making my point for me..

LOL.

timbros:
Continue making my point for me.

LOL.

Is attack the problem?

You are shameless.

After the Barca Vs Inter 7:6 game, I knew the attack Vs defence argument will resurrect. Evidence everywhere from both parties

Liverpool won 25 games in the EPL this season, and of those 25 wins, almost half were either 1-0 or 2-0 victories. They also kept 15 clean sheets, meaning in over 50% of their wins, the opponents didn’t score.

Then there's Chelsea, who had only kept about 4 clean sheets before that Everton game.

Funnily enough, we're now in the top-four conversation because we managed 1-0 wins against Everton and Leicester.



I am using Liverpool as an example because they never play with striker and half of their entire GA in EPL comes from Gakpo and Salah. If our wingers have the same output then we wouldn't have to worry about Jackson.

Everyone agrees Jackson is wasteful, but saying his replacement is solution to our problem is pure undiluted lie, especially if you claim to be chelsea fan and watch our match week in week out. But i believe some of you only watch highlights

Our junior brother from the North London na our women una dey compete with now ...

AirBere:
After the Barca Vs Inter 7:6 game, I knew the attack Vs defence argument will resurrect. Evidence everywhere from both parties

Scoring goals is the royal road to victory.

"They played in a clever way, but in the two legs we scored more than them and that is the most important thing in football.
Luis Enrique 2025

FBS:


Scoring goals is the royal road to victory.

"They played in a clever way, but in the two legs we scored more than them and that is the most important thing in football.
Luis Enrique 2025

💯

Singapore1:
Liverpool won 25 games in the EPL this season, and of those 25 wins, almost half were either 1-0 or 2-0 victories. They also kept 15 clean sheets, meaning in over 50% of their wins, the opponents didn’t score.

Then there's Chelsea, who had only kept about 4 clean sheets before that Everton game.

Funnily enough, we're now in the top-four conversation because we managed 1-0 wins against Everton and Leicester.



I am using Liverpool as an example because they never play with striker and half of their entire GA in EPL comes from Gakpo and Salah. If our wingers have the same output then we wouldn't have to worry about Jackson.

Everyone agrees Jackson is wasteful, but saying his replacement is solution to our problem is pure undiluted lie, especially if you claim to be chelsea fan and watch our match week in week out. But i believe some of you only watch highlights

This is gibberish.

Why was Slot benching Nunez in most matches if fielding a wasteful striker is not a big problem for a team?

airmark:
This is gibberish.

Why was Slot benching Nunez in most matches if fielding a wasteful striker is not a big problem for a team?

they won the league with it. PSG also in final with Ramos not starting.

if Neto Madueke Sancho turn up, we won't have time to blame jackson just as no one had time to blame Nunez and Ramos

FBS:


Scoring goals is the royal road to victory.

"They played in a clever way, but in the two legs we scored more than them and that is the most important thing in football.
Luis Enrique 2025

The same Arsenal that Timbros and co were using their defence to ginger, crashed at the Emirates airport stadium and went to 'see Paris and die'.

airmark:


The same Arsenal that Timbros and co were using their defence to ginger, crashed at the Emirates airport stadium and went to 'see Paris and die'.

I have never seen someone who is as cunning as you on this thread.

i attached both lineup. PSG with Pacho mendes Hakimi and Marquinos

compare it o Arsenal.

EDIT

I just noticed none of them had a stirker

Singapore1:
they won the league with it. PSG also in final with Ramos not starting.

if Neto Madueke Sancho turn up, we won't have time to blame jackson just as no one had time to blame Nunez and Ramos

We shouldn't blame a striker that had 27 shots and none entered the net. You and Jackson dey craze.

Jackson 10 goals in 29 matches and missed 19 big chances (In matches where we lost 2 and 3 points).

Gucciboy:
Good lord what are you saying?..... What about lordfalcao,kimbeast and their pack of mediocrity dancers even you sef be their chief drummer?

Unbeaten
Record points 💯

anytime e no get anything sensible to say again he result to insults

we gave you at least 3 top teams playing without striker, you dey vex

Southampton holding on..

But it's man City.

Dem sabi all those weyrey late late smash and grab goals.

Singapore1:
But you didn't say this to Air marky dey try recruit you . Anybody wey sabi watch football go know Jackson is our second best player after Palmer.

Jackson will come to the midfield to support. hold up, create runs

Na koboko you deserve for this talk. See person wey i dey follow argue

Singapore1:
anytime e no get anything sensible to say again he result to insults

we gave you at least 3 top teams playing without striker, you dey vex

It's a waste of time. I spent a full year explaining to him how Madrid, Liverpool, Arsenal, City.... had multiple successful seasons without a striker. He will quote you out of context, refuse your talking points, deliberately misunderstand you....... then rinse and repeat.

OgheneMoyes…well done sir!

Southampton nice one

7mins is too much, City please don't win.

2 mins more.

City drop points.