Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2010-2011


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Apart from Madrid having a shitload of cash, whereas Barca a bit more limited. Equally Ronaldo was Madrid's priority and they were willing to pay whatever it took to get him so as to try and close the gap, whereas Guardiola yesterday when asked whether a midfielder or forward was the priority, replied the latter (ie. Sanchez). Also Wenger has already played his "one more year" whereas Fergie hadn't at the time.

1. a player is worth what a player is worth, surely? And no one sensible think that Barca are making anything like a fair offer.

2. what Pep says at one moment is not what he necessarily means. I think the amount that gets talked of Cesc from Barca says everything about their priorities.

3. at which point Utd got silly money for Skippy, not a cut-down fee.

About Skippy, you were saying you wanted an offer - fair enough. But the missing word there is really "reasonable", as in "reasonable offer", surely? If Real had come in with a pathetic fee you'd have said they were taking the piss, that they weren't serious.

You expected the player to go, but to go at something around 'fair value'. The continual pursuit of just one player by the best team in the world says something about what that 'fair value' might be, I reckon, and your suggestions of what Arsenal will 'settle' for don't get close to that (just to make clear, I'm not suggesting Skippy-style silliness in the other direction).

(having said that, I could see Arsenal settling for that too - but it's a piss-take amount. I just don't see you taking the suggestion that Utd could have settled for similar for Skippy quite as calmly)

and we had an debate on transfer prices going down, with you saying the market was deflated, and me saying that I didn't think it had.

I'd maintain that I was right about that, but if you've easy access to the numbers we could see if they bare that out? The average spend per-player transfer for Prem clubs for the last decade would be the relevant thing to look at I reckon, but if you have another suggestion for what numbers should be crunched to prove the transfer prices trend, I'm all ears. :)

(I'd also say that the few transfers so far this summer probably suggest that they're on the rise again from when I made that statement in April '09)

Anyway, back to Cesc .... I'd say that the fee should be nudging towards £45M to be in the fair price bracket - cos while he's perhaps not in the really silly price bracket of Kaka and Skippy (there's another one or two I think, I forget), Barca's single-minded pursuit, and them already being the best team in the world, says that he's worth having above just about any other player in the world.

I read something the other day (in the Observer, I think) which said that Arsenal were far closer to over-taking Barca than Utd are, on the basis of Arsenal being the one team with skills nearly good enough to over-come them. It wasn't something I agreed with at the headline level, but the detail made for interesting reading, and I ended up thinking it made a fair point. I think this has a fair bit of relevance when it comes to the price for Cesc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

  • Admin

I said if proceedings are as stated (one bid £26m) then that's what I expect could happen, not necessarily what I believe should happen. As said, I think his value is over £40m in todays market, but Barcelona hold the better cards.

Yeah, I was perhaps a little harsh, and took it more as what you believe should happen. Soz.

But all the same, I still can't see you rationalising the situation (as was) around skippy downwards, as you've done here. In what you've just quoted of yourself, you were talking it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. a player is worth what a player is worth, surely? And no one sensible think that Barca are making anything like a fair offer.

2. what Pep says at one moment is not what he necessarily means. I think the amount that gets talked of Cesc from Barca says everything about their priorities.

3. at which point Utd got silly money for Skippy, not a cut-down fee.

About Skippy, you were saying you wanted an offer - fair enough. But the missing word there is really "reasonable", as in "reasonable offer", surely? If Real had come in with a pathetic fee you'd have said they were taking the piss, that they weren't serious.

You expected the player to go, but to go at something around 'fair value'. The continual pursuit of just one player by the best team in the world says something about what that 'fair value' might be, I reckon, and your suggestions of what Arsenal will 'settle' for don't get close to that (just to make clear, I'm not suggesting Skippy-style silliness in the other direction).

(having said that, I could see Arsenal settling for that too - but it's a piss-take amount. I just don't see you taking the suggestion that Utd could have settled for similar for Skippy quite as calmly)

I'd maintain that I was right about that, but if you've easy access to the numbers we could see if they bare that out? The average spend per-player transfer for Prem clubs for the last decade would be the relevant thing to look at I reckon, but if you have another suggestion for what numbers should be crunched to prove the transfer prices trend, I'm all ears. :)

(I'd also say that the few transfers so far this summer probably suggest that they're on the rise again from when I made that statement in April '09)

Anyway, back to Cesc .... I'd say that the fee should be nudging towards £45M to be in the fair price bracket - cos while he's perhaps not in the really silly price bracket of Kaka and Skippy (there's another one or two I think, I forget), Barca's single-minded pursuit, and them already being the best team in the world, says that he's worth having above just about any other player in the world.

I read something the other day (in the Observer, I think) which said that Arsenal were far closer to over-taking Barca than Utd are, on the basis of Arsenal being the one team with skills nearly good enough to over-come them. It wasn't something I agreed with at the headline level, but the detail made for interesting reading, and I ended up thinking it made a fair point. I think this has a fair bit of relevance when it comes to the price for Cesc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

£37m is still a ridiculous amount of money, especially for someone who quite possibly isn't going to walk into the first team - which kinda defeats the point about him being worth having above just about any other player in the world.

I agree that he probably won't be an automatic starter. But all the same they're pursuing Fabregas in a way that just about no player ever gets pursued - apart from the very best. That's not an irrelevance.

Perhaps Barca's rationale is that if Arsenal keep Cesc they have a chance of over-hauling Barca within a few years, and Barca don't want that to be able to happen. Who knows, really? There's a thousand different possible motivations for Barca, but they're ultimately of little relevance - what is relevant is that they want Cesc, and just Cesc. There's no other player they would be happy to take in his place.

So while he might not be a starter, what I said holds true. They believe him worth having above just about any other player in the world.

2. ...and that they were quite happy to splash whatever was needed to get Sanchez, yet appear to be haggling as much as they can on Fabregas could be construed as arguing differently.

oh c'mon - there's nothing unusual about this. No team pays more than they have to, and if there's factors in their favour (as there is in this case) then a team exploits them to get a lower fee.

The only really unusual circumstance here is that Barca have been happy to take a "if not now then soon" attitude, because they don't need Cesc (in the way that Chelsea might be said to 'need' Modric to be a better team), they merely want him, but want him desperately.

And yet they now appear to be past the 'prepared to wait' stage. Those words of Pep seem to say that they're determined to get him this summer, but on their terms and not the terms of the selling club. It's vastly different to (say) Utd's pursuit of Berba, because in that case - despite Spurs not wanting to sell - Utd at least met the valuation. Barca are taking the piss here.

3. Regards me accepting Ronaldo. Depends on the disparity really. If Arsenal are asking for £45m and get £37m instead then it's about 18% off the asking price. Applying that percentage to Ronaldo's fee would still mean £65m, which would've still smashed the transfer record and been a huge amount of money. Might have liked higher, but it would've been hard not to accept (on a supporter's level, not boardroom) a world record fee for a wantaway player as a reasonable offer, even if you felt he was worth more.

the thing is there is that you've worked things on the basis of everything being equal, when it's not. One club will give a valuation which is their immovable selling price, while another will take a punt with setting a stupid price that they'll come down on.

Utd didn't really need to keep hold of Skippy, because they could afford to lose him while still staying the strongest Prem team - and so they were in the position to ask for a stupid price but a price they could afford to move from; Arsenal meanwhile would be losing the heart of their team (and whatever Skippy was for Utd, he wasn't that), and particularly with the situation around Nasri too, it's a loss they can only sensibly take if their valuation is met (of course, Cesc's desire to go to Barca then also comes into the mix and means they might have to settle for less - but from Arsenal's side they've been shafted if that's what happens). If Utd had taken just £45M for skippy, while it might be much less than they'd have wanted, they could have taken that and moved on. It's not anything like the same situation at Arsenal for Cesc.

regards the deflated market talk. Not sure average spend per player would really back up the point made at the time which is that you felt the top level signings had decreased and so Ronaldo wouldn't fetch an astronomical amount. It was 2008 you said that, by the end of the window Berbatov and Robinho had both had £30m+ moves. In the prem 2008/2009 we had Nasri, Arshavin, Paylyuchenko, Modric, Keane x2, Defoe, Elmander, Jo, Fellaini, Bellamy, Bridge, De Jong, Crouch, Bentley, Andy Johnson, Milner, Coloccini also go for £10m-20m deals. Muntari was sold to Inter for around 16m euros, Lassana Diarra for around £20m to Madrid.

The following summer Ronaldo, Ibra, Kaka etc.

As I said at the time, I think it was just a case that perhaps we'd had a lull in the top players not transfering between top clubs.

(I don't think that Robinho's transfer can be considered in the mix of the others - that was at a huge premium cos he was going to a crap [at that time] club)

If it was that lull then I'd guess there's not really any way to compare prices season to season.

But all the same, the players you list were nearly all around the £20M bracket. IMO, a season before some the same players would have gone for a fair chunk more. I reckon the market has (or had) been depressed by the sheer number of players coming thru academies (which would have peaked for the first time since the introduction of those academies in around 2008), meaning that there were many more player options for clubs, and not enough clubs for the players (I know that's always happened to a degree, but it's got much worse because of the numbers coming thru academies). The academy factor depressed the market all the way thru the skill range, at least until the market adjusted to the changed situation caused by those academies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I see that the Arse have had a £10M bid for Jagielka turned down.

That seems to have wrong-footed every footie gossip column as that's not one I've seen floating around this summer - tho it's a bid of £2M less than they made last summer.

So it looks like Wenger wants a defender but isn't prepared to go the distance to get one, the stupid git.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that the Arse have had a £10M bid for Jagielka turned down.

That seems to have wrong-footed every footie gossip column as that's not one I've seen floating around this summer - tho it's a bid of £2M less than they made last summer.

So it looks like Wenger wants a defender but isn't prepared to go the distance to get one, the stupid git.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

He moans about Barcelona taking the piss on Fabregas and then goes and does this!

He's not got a leg to stand on

While I get where you're coming from - it's a stupidly low offer - it's not even in the same ball park.....

1. Wenger or his players haven't been going around saying that Jag wants to join Arsenal, that he's being held hostage, etc, etc.

2. any club is perfectly entitled to make any offer they fancy for any player, just as the selling club is entitled to tell them to bugger off if the offer is too low in their opinion. He's made an offer, it's been rejected - end of (unless he wants to go back with a bigger offer).

While you might (and I do) consider the offer to be derisory, he's still allowed to try his luck with it if he wants - and offers like this are actually needed at the end of the day, for there to be a form of market value for players, as the market value (the best as it gets in football, anyway) is set by the rejected offers as well as the accepted offers.

There's a difference between trying your luck at getting a bargain as Wenger has tried here and trying to force thru an unreasonable and already-rejected offer which Barca are trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there not a point that a derisory offer from a "more glamourous" club may turn a players head?

Jags to Arse? Or by way of balance Benj lad... Reina to Arse?

While I also agree that a 10mill valuation of PJags is insulting there could be more to it than the initial "hands off you cheap kents" rejection it receives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Wenger needs a defender though, pay the extra 2 million for f**ks sake.

I reckon he'd need to go a fair bit further than that.

But he might not want to. It might be the case that he can land that Bolton defender (name has slipped my mind) that he's supposedly after at (say) £15M, but he'd consider Jag to be a better value buy at £10M but not at (say) £12M. So having had the bid for Jag knocked back he might now go for the other player instead.

It's all about relative value with these sorts of players. It only changes to 'must get that particular player' when you get into buying 'special' irreplaceable players, in the way skippy was for Real and Cesc is for Barca.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Is there not a point that a derisory offer from a "more glamourous" club may turn a players head?

Jags to Arse? Or by way of balance Benj lad... Reina to Arse?

While I also agree that a 10mill valuation of PJags is insulting there could be more to it than the initial "hands off you cheap kents" rejection it receives.

Anything is possible.

But I'm not seeing this offer in that way, I think it's just about getting one of a number of possible players for that position, with this offer a part of what sets the market price (as good as it gets in football, which isn't very good) for whichever player he ends up with.

It's probably more about trying to keep the price of that Bolton player low than Wenger wanting Jag and just Jag - tho presumably he'd have been happy to have Jag at £10M if Everton did accept the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I get where you're coming from - it's a stupidly low offer - it's not even in the same ball park.....

1. Wenger or his players haven't been going around saying that Jag wants to join Arsenal, that he's being held hostage, etc, etc.

2. any club is perfectly entitled to make any offer they fancy for any player, just as the selling club is entitled to tell them to bugger off if the offer is too low in their opinion. He's made an offer, it's been rejected - end of (unless he wants to go back with a bigger offer).

While you might (and I do) consider the offer to be derisory, he's still allowed to try his luck with it if he wants - and offers like this are actually needed at the end of the day, for there to be a form of market value for players, as the market value (the best as it gets in football, anyway) is set by the rejected offers as well as the accepted offers.

There's a difference between trying your luck at getting a bargain as Wenger has tried here and trying to force thru an unreasonable and already-rejected offer which Barca are trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there not a point that a derisory offer from a "more glamourous" club may turn a players head?

Jags to Arse? Or by way of balance Benj lad... Reina to Arse?

While I also agree that a 10mill valuation of PJags is insulting there could be more to it than the initial "hands off you cheap kents" rejection it receives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

put him in my dream team. might be coming out if he's moving to arsenal. the scores from their defence was piss poor last year. and i don't expect them to do any better this term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Fair points, he's mentioned in the past (perhaps not this year) though that Barcelona's offers have been embarassing yet he supposedly undercuts his own offer from a year ago.

I'm guessing that Jag has a year less on his contract this year compared to last, plus he's a year older (for youngsters that adds to value, but at 28 it works the other way), so there's all sorts of good reasons why the bid might be down - including Wenger thinking him less of a good player than he did a year ago.

I'd say that Wenger is very good compared to other managers at not talking about players - but that might be just because he buys so few 'names' anyway :lol: ..... But he's not infallible, and sometimes if the press ask him about a player (as they've tended to do in regard to defenders for the last couple of years) he feels he needs to answer - but even then it generally doesn't go much further than "he's a very good player" or "he's a player I like".

And actually, to be fair, I don't think there's too many managers who've been blabbing this summer - other than Barca, and Steve Bruce ... tho Barca actually have something interesting to say :lol: ..... and *if* Wesley ends up at Utd this summer then we'd have to add some cunning by Fergie to the list as well :lol: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that Jag has a year less on his contract this year compared to last, plus he's a year older (for youngsters that adds to value, but at 28 it works the other way), so there's all sorts of good reasons why the bid might be down - including Wenger thinking him less of a good player than he did a year ago.

I'd say that Wenger is very good compared to other managers at not talking about players - but that might be just because he buys so few 'names' anyway :lol: ..... But he's not infallible, and sometimes if the press ask him about a player (as they've tended to do in regard to defenders for the last couple of years) he feels he needs to answer - but even then it generally doesn't go much further than "he's a very good player" or "he's a player I like".

And actually, to be fair, I don't think there's too many managers who've been blabbing this summer - other than Barca, and Steve Bruce ... tho Barca actually have something interesting to say :lol: ..... and *if* Wesley ends up at Utd this summer then we'd have to add some cunning by Fergie to the list as well :lol: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

click manchester and the mirror on line are both saying man city have agree a 38mill deal with atletico madrid for sergio aguero. im not sure how true this is, but im pretty sure that city are in advanced talks with madrid.

i don't see any complications to the deal as kun is happy to go to manchester,& as we no madrid want a quick sale. with city happy to offer big bucks i could see this deal being wrapped up by the end of the weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Barca's rationale is that if Arsenal keep Cesc they have a chance of over-hauling Barca within a few years, and Barca don't want that to be able to happen. Who knows, really? There's a thousand different possible motivations for Barca, but they're ultimately of little relevance - what is relevant is that they want Cesc, and just Cesc. There's no other player they would be happy to take in his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Of the thousands of possibilities, being worried that Arsenal would usurp them is whatever-thousand on the list, and that’s a particularly insular view of the importance of English football.

I pulled that out as a possibility, not as something I particularly believed in.

But all the same, Arsenal are the closest of any team in Europe to being able to usurp Barca - despite Utd being stronger than Arsenal, they're further away from being able to get the better of Barca than Arsenal are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pulled that out as a possibility, not as something I particularly believed in.

But all the same, Arsenal are the closest of any team in Europe to being able to usurp Barca - despite Utd being stronger than Arsenal, they're further away from being able to get the better of Barca than Arsenal are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...