Net Spend:2-1

[Peter R]

The "obfuscator" is as usual grasping at a straw; i.e. the word ONLY, to try and score brownie points against you; pathetic really to be constantly seeking validation ! I don't know when but I think you had written the "only" way to increase squad value is to have a positive net spend... obviously you gave him too much credit for knowing the obvious...which is, market value fluctuations is a given.... but our learned friend took that and has been trying to milk it for as much mileage as he can... even after you asked to the effect:"depreciation/appreciation aside...how does squad value increase". What he fails to understand is that clubs will compare themselves to other clubs at a moment in time (end of the season say) and therefore , AT THAT TIME, the only way to increase squad value is to buy it. So while LFC's squad value might increase through market value, is it catching up the opposition?..and more importantly, is it allowing you to compete for the title year over year? I did point this out earlier...if Leicester can successfully challenge again this year and next season, and if other clubs that had genuine negative net spends (with squad values significantly below ManCity et al) can also challenge over the next few years, then this could be the new norm. But if they don't, LCFC for example, will just be an "anamoly" (sic) LOL... But you know how it is when a starving dog fin' a bone... ayyyy sah!

On a sidebar, it is good for the league that the "big" teams cannot take anything for granted in any match... but, is Watford going to challenge for the title? What was their continental manager doing when they played Chelsea and Arsenal?? him did fall asleep then?.. oh I forgot, those matches were "anamolies" (sic) But maybe they wanna be this years LCFC, or maybe Burnley does, or is it Swansea? dem supposed to bus Man City bubble neXt! Let's see.

[Peter R]

I am suggesting that LFC spent less than the big money bag Chelsea,estimated 100 million,if its negative that serves to prove my point even more so,that you can get more out of less and you and Paul need to gi mi,mi ratings

It doesn't matter to me that other sites have that figure ranging at a deeper negative net spend.

Haven't I explained my position to you before,in my initial post didn't I ask ,what was it,so why the implication of a suggestion?

What the hell does that mean?? It's ok. Don't bother..

FYI, no site that I have seen indicates that LFC has had a negative net spend this year... all I'm saying is to stop spread false information. ONLY three teams had a negative net spend. Of those that had a positive, LFC did have the least, but the fact is it was NOT NEGATIVE! Oh, I don't give a rat's rear end about your position on anything, just don't spread false information and misquote people!! Thanks.

[Paul Marin]

What the hell does that mean?? It's ok. Don't bother..

FYI, no site that I have seen indicates that LFC has had a negative net spend this year... all I'm saying is to stop spread false information. ONLY three teams had a negative net spend. Of those that had a positive, LFC did have the least, but the fact is it was NOT NEGATIVE! Oh, I don't give a rat's rear end about your position on anything, just don't spread false information and misquote people!! Thanks.

He's not only misquoting, but he *truly* is too daft to grasp the concept. For example, has he ever explained what doing "more with less" really means? Is that winning one game? Winning a cup? Winning the title? All of those have been done before by teams like Wigan (relegated and won FA Cup), Leicester won the title, Birmingham won the FA Cup etc. - if this what "more with less" means then as usual, X is late to the party. However, I don't know of any team in the premier league era consistently challenging for the title year over year with "less"? Therein lies his incapacity to grasp the basic argument at hand. If ONLY he had a brain. Yeesh...di bwoy fool. LOL!!

[Sir X]

Banned: 2nd time

Ask what rules and guidelines will protect your freedom of speech if you join the F.B forum, I say that in stating.

I was banned yesterday for asking a question from the moderator Mosiah, the questioned I asked pertained to the rules and guidelines for posting on the site and his perception that it was somehow violated .In his quest to justify his stand of my violation , he stated nothing in a positive light should be posted on Mr. Butler because of his character flaws, if you have noticed negative post have been posted by me, I brought this to his attention and I have not been banned for such, of which he basically states he is comfortable with. He then cited another forum on F.B rules and guidelines and so called approval from other moderators on the RBSC to sanction my freedom of expression or anyone who post on Mr Butler .

I replied not verbatim, that this is the RBSC and we follow our rules, 2nd I have reached out to other moderators and I have no knowledge of them approving his actions, so you actions are arbitrary and against the consent of the governed rules of the RBSC.

Again I ask what rules have I violated.

Feel free to post your ideas, comments, suggestions and messages for friends, and fanz around the world. Here are the rules: 1. No profane language 2. No threatening language 3. No abusive language 4. Do not be disrespectful. By using this forum, you are giving REGGAEBOYZSC.COM permission to publish your posting on any part of the REGGAEBOYZSC.COM website. 5. ARTICLES FROM THIRD PARTY ORGANISATIONS WILL BE REMOVED! Please do not add any advertising, whether overtly, or covertly to this board. We gladly exchange links


I will not be silenced.
• I demand to hear the position of the other moderators who are in collusion with you to violate the RBSC rules and guidelines , in fact I have privately emailed them for a response. In fact another response !

[Peter R]

Why yuh put this here? Marin is a moderator?

[Paul Marin]

Why yuh put this here? Marin is a moderator?

I think X was putting it on every post. ~sigh...politics is a beatch.