Would it work with Chamakh?

SCREAM AIM FIRE · Post by **SCREAM AIM FIRE** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:31 pm

Only thing that will work with him is fire...lots & lots of fire!

SWLGooner · Post by **SWLGooner** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:32 pm

Fuck all would work with Chamakh excepting a shemale

STLgooner89 · Post by **STLgooner89** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:36 pm

Gunnersaurus wrote:
STLgooner89 wrote:
Gunnersaurus wrote:
STLgooner89 wrote:What the fuck would it even matter if he wasn't sponsored anymore? Wenger has him on 60k a week anyway.
As much as I now detest Chamuck comments like this are so far off the mark, he came on a free, for no fee, hes gonna get good wages, he would be a mug otherwise and you don't really understand the game if you think otherwise.
What? That run on sentence you produced was pretty hard to comprehend so I'm really having a hard time trying to understand what point you were trying to defend. It was pretty obvious what I was stating; that losing a boot sponsor, or something of that matter, shouldn't affect someone that greatly.

What don't you understand?

You moan at Chamakh for getting 60k a week, whether he is worth it or not is irrelevant, he came for no fee, he's gonna get bigger wages, that's how the system works.

Why else do you think players run their contracts down for?

He hasn't been given 60k because he's amazing, he's got it as there was no fee.

For fucks sake, I wasn't talking about his wages or how he came here on a free. I was simply elaborating on the original talking point of this thread, his sponsorships! The only point I was tring to make was if he would really care if he lost a sponsorship as he is on a good weekly wage at the club. Damn!

arsenal1985 · Post by **arsenal1985** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:32 am

When i read news in newspaper, i think they are not fair to Chamakh. he is good at header,he is not luck when Van Persie scored more and more goals and Arsenal use formation 4-5-1 so he had not more match to play. For player if not more match to play, he can not do the best of him.

littlefire · Post by **littlefire** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:56 am

"He's not white..."

George25888 · Post by **George25888** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:03 am

Pointless thread! Michael Clarke was hardly dropped from Slazenger. He's contract run out just before the test and Slazenger are fucked financially so cant keep up with the pay he wants. Hence why Mike Ashley sponsors st James park. Difference with Clarke and Chamakh is monumental. Clarke is a pin up in oz. And girls love him. Chamakh is fucking ugly and a shit footballer.

SteveO 35 · Post by **SteveO 35** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:26 am

What would work best for me is if he forgot to book a return ticket from the African Cup of Nations, the useless tosser.

MadRich · Post by **MadRich** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:36 am

Demun210 wrote:I was never convinced with the signing of Chamakh from day one, and really didnt understand why we were so intent on signing him. He was good enough at Bordeaux but one of those players that was playing at his peak there and it was never going to be replicated in the Premiership. I don't think he's got enough about him physically to do it week in, week out in this league. That said, I thought he did well at the beginning of last season, but even then I never believed he was good enough to lead the line for us on a permanent basis. I've got nothing against Chamakh, he's just not good enough, and I expect him to be sold by the summer.

He was shit!!!
He was the 17th goal scorer.
He only came here because of his aerial ability, and even that wasn't great..