USMNT 2023

[Braff Zacklin 13676]

Given Pulisic's injury history, I actually believe his part-time use at Chelsea worked in his favor. He's got a lot of miles** left in his little frame and, with any luck, the nagging health issues are behind him and he can be a consistent contributor for his club. He might not be the world's best, but he's still too good not to play more.

 

** Case in point, @Napoleon, do you remember posting about how Canada's wingback Laryea outpaced Jedi a couple of weeks ago? Later, during the same match, Pulisic put on the jets and comfortably outpaced Laryea for a ball.

[Napoleon 8852]

7 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Given Pulisic's injury history, I actually believe his part-time use at Chelsea worked in his favor. He's got a lot of miles** left in his little frame and, with any luck, the nagging health issues are behind him and he can be a consistent contributor for his club. He might not be the world's best, but he's still too good not to play more.

 

** Case in point, @Napoleon, do you remember posting about how Canada's wingback Laryea outpaced Jedi a couple of weeks ago? Later, during the same match, Pulisic put on the jets and comfortably outpaced Laryea for a ball.

I remember thinking that Laryea was Canada’s best player. I don’t remember the specifics. 

I have noticed that after Pulisic was looking more like a super sub in late 2021 and didn’t play like he should be a starter, he has looked great since the World Cup, when playing for the USMNT. He looked pretty good against Panama in the penultimate qualifier when we “all-but-qualified” with a 5-1 win. I think that Pulisic had a hat trick that game, but even Jesús scored in that game. 

[dieucla98 2963]

Pre injury, CP10 was one of the bright spots on that Chelsea team (Kante being the other), hence why he was given the 10 jersey in the off-season. Then he got injured against Arsenal in the FA final (I think....) and it's been mediocre at best since. 

It's fair to say the injuries have fucked his career but that's part of being an athlete. He's also had a good run without injuries now so hopefully he's turned a corner. 

[ztejas 44281]

The idea that Pulisic lost a step that he'll never get back is constantly parroted and it's a silly claim. Maybe he's 95% of what he was 2-3 years ago but you'd still be talking about one of the fastest LWs with the ball at his feet - and he absolutely looked like that in Nations League. And there isn't any question that he's become a smarter and more versatile player as he's gotten older. 

The ?s are can he stay healthy and can he display that pace/burst across a full club season. If he can do that he will be one of the better attackers across Serie A. Yeah he hadn't been great for Chelsea in awhile but there wasn't one attacker on that team last season that put up even mediocre numbers (maybe Felix but he came in at the halfway point) and at times he was definitely an improvement over the starters coming off of the bench.

[The Dog 44865]

1 hour ago, tokamak said:

I don't really understand soccer transfers and contracts. Regarding Pulisic, so does every professional player have a defacto no-trade/no-transfer clause? He can just say, "I'm not going to agree to a new deal with Lyon" and prevent the transfer from happening?

 

More or less - if the team doesn't want the player then it's in the player's interest to seek a transfer destination.

once it's agreed that a player is going to be transferred the player negotiates the personal terms first then the teams have to come to an agreement on the transfer fee. 

so Lyon's offer was bogus as they had no agreement in place with Pulisic when they sent a transfer proposal to Chelsea. 

Chelsea had an incentive to move Pulisic since he was entering his last year of his contract and once the contract is over the player is a free agent (hence the term "free transfer"). 

[Bodhi 1135]

Chelsea unloaded Havertz and Mount this offseason.  Now, why those other players left to better destinations than Milan for much higher fees, perhaps Chelsea being a shit show currently shouldn't be underweighted.  Pulisic might not be starting caliber for only the top 20-25 clubs in Europe currently, that's pretty damn impressive still.  He is the best attacking player I've ever seen on the USMNT.

P.S. God I hope this doesn't turn into a debate about Pulisic vs. Dempsey vs. Donovan. 

[Braff Zacklin 13676]

I'd be surprised if anyone argued with you there.

First came Donovan, who was then outclassed by Dempsey, who was then supplanted by Puli. Soon, hopefully, it'll be Gio. Or maybe one of our other young guns.

Overall, the USMNT talent level keeps rising. It's an exciting time to be a fan.

[ztejas 44281]

8 minutes ago, Bodhi said:

Pulisic might not be starting caliber for only the top 20-25 clubs in Europe currently, that's pretty damn impressive still.

Well... he could wind up starting for Milan who is a giant club and right around that top 20ish level right now (I'd say a little higher than that but ymmv).

[Captain Ron 13133]

18 hours ago, tokamak said:

I don't really understand soccer transfers and contracts. Regarding Pulisic, so does every professional player have a defacto no-trade/no-transfer clause? He can just say, "I'm not going to agree to a new deal with Lyon" and prevent the transfer from happening?

I don't see why any player getting 1st team minutes would ever agree to a transfer if that's the case. Just play out your deal and then sign with the highest bidder, like free agents do in American sports.

I think the key thing to know is that unlike a trade that we know in American sports, where both the rights and the contract of a player are sent from a team to another team, in a soccer transfer you are only sending the rights of a player from team to team. The contract is torn up and the new team still has to work a deal with the player.

Thus there isn’t a no-trade clause, but a player only needs to not work a deal for a transfer to fail. Or the player and new team can agree to terms, but the teams fail to work out a transfer amount (or with bank rates so high, a pay structure). Basically there are a few more parts than just a trade.

Why would anyone one accept a transfer? Money. I mean guys like Cristiano Ronaldo were transferred in their prime both for big transfer money for their team and a massive new contract from their new clubs. It can be a win-win for everyone. 

At the same time many people have advocated players run their contracts down (again they can stop any transfer if they really want) and go free agent (soccer calls it transferring “on a free”). For players alone, they can make a ton more because with no transfer fees that money can be used to sign the player.

Why doesn’t that happen much? I think the current structure isn’t ready for that big shift yet. The sport is currently structured with “investments” in players either in transfers or development in academies. Some players feel loyal to their development club. And clubs like the ability to get money on their investments. 

[Napoleon 8852]

20 hours ago, tokamak said:

I don't really understand soccer transfers and contracts. Regarding Pulisic, so does every professional player have a defacto no-trade/no-transfer clause? He can just say, "I'm not going to agree to a new deal with Lyon" and prevent the transfer from happening?

I don't see why any player getting 1st team minutes would ever agree to a transfer if that's the case. Just play out your deal and then sign with the highest bidder, like free agents do in American sports.

 

2 hours ago, Captain Ron said:

I think the key thing to know is that unlike a trade that we know in American sports, where both the rights and the contract of a player are sent from a team to another team, in a soccer transfer you are only sending the rights of a player from team to team. The contract is torn up and the new team still has to work a deal with the player.

Thus there isn’t a no-trade clause, but a player only needs to not work a deal for a transfer to fail. Or the player and new team can agree to terms, but the teams fail to work out a transfer amount (or with bank rates so high, a pay structure). Basically there are a few more parts than just a trade.

Why would anyone one accept a transfer? Money. I mean guys like Cristiano Ronaldo were transferred in their prime both for big transfer money for their team and a massive new contract from their new clubs. It can be a win-win for everyone. 

At the same time many people have advocated players run their contracts down (again they can stop any transfer if they really want) and go free agent (soccer calls it transferring “on a free”). For players alone, they can make a ton more because with no transfer fees that money can be used to sign the player.

Why doesn’t that happen much? I think the current structure isn’t ready for that big shift yet. The sport is currently structured with “investments” in players either in transfers or development in academies. Some players feel loyal to their development club. And clubs like the ability to get money on their investments. 

See, in what is now the United State of America, we had over a century tradition of slavery, where humans owned other humans and the American sports landscape is still quite sensitive about that in this day and age. especially because the two biggest sports, NFL & NBA, are comprised of predominantly athletes descended from slaves. 

“Owning” players and selling players is a third rail.

So instead of saying “We are selling this player.”, American sports act like everyone is in on it and you are getting players from different teams to agree to do a work exchange, kind of like Foreign Exchange Students, where one team welcomes a guy into their home in exchange for another person getting to go experience someone else’s home. So contracts may or may not be renegotiated because it is all just a glamorous work exchange among millionaires.

Early in the 20th Century, post Reconstruction when the Klan was rising to power, lynchings were common, and no one gave a shit about the feelings of others, player sales did occur in American sports. And the ne’er-do-well son of impoverished working class German-Americans nicknamed “Babe” Ruth was sold by the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for $125,000, so it did happen in the USA sports landscape at one time. And when Ruth made it to NY, he signed a new contract for a significant pay increase… like what happens today in Europe.

[ztejas 44281]

17 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

 

See, in what is now the United State of America, we had over a century tradition of slavery, where humans owned other humans and the American sports landscape is still quite sensitive about that in this day and age. especially because the two biggest sports, NFL & NBA, are comprised of predominantly athletes descended from slaves. 

“Owning” players and selling players is a third rail.

So instead of saying “We are selling this player.”, American sports act like everyone is in on it and you are getting players from different teams to agree to do a work exchange, kind of like Foreign Exchange Students, where one team welcomes a guy into their home in exchange for another person getting to go experience someone else’s home. So contracts may or may not be renegotiated because it is all just a glamorous work exchange among millionaires.

Early in the 20th Century, post Reconstruction when the Klan was rising to power, lynchings were common, and no one gave a shit about the feelings of others, player sales did occur in American sports. And the ne’er-do-well son of impoverished working class German-Americans nicknamed “Babe” Ruth was sold by the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for $125,000, so it did happen in the USA sports landscape at one time. And when Ruth made it to NY, he signed a new contract for a significant pay increase… like what happens today in Europe.

I mean I think it's just a divergence in how leagues are run. MLS transfers players all the time. I don't see anyone complaining about that. SJWs don't make an effort understand sports to that degree anyway.

Also - you can add straight cash to deals in the NBA. Not sure about NFL and MLB. It isn't a large part of the trade market but it exists. There are also sign and trades.

[Napoleon 8852]

13 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I mean I think it's just a divergence in how leagues are run. MLS transfers players all the time. I don't see anyone complaining about that. SJWs don't make an effort understand sports to that degree anyway.

Also - you can add straight cash to deals in the NBA. Not sure about NFL and MLB. It isn't a large part of the trade market but it exists. There are also sign and trades.

1) Sensitive American society doesn’t follow soccer at all…

…other than the women’s “equal pay” fight.
 

2) The majority of soccer players aren’t descended from slaves. 
 

3) Soccer isn’t an American sport.
Football, basketball, and baseball are American sports. If things are done differently in soccer, that’s a cultural difference that is dismissed as a “that’s what they do”. But again, English speaking sensitive American society doesn’t pay attention to soccer. Especially not the men’s game. 
NOTE: The opinions here are my own. No research has been conducted to base these statements on. 

[Captain Ron 13133]

I'll just say this - it's a pretty big stretch to equate any of this stuff to slavery, etc. This is simply the evolution of business.

In the end, team owners in all sports have always wanted to, and been able to, fuck over the players as best they can. Every league around the world has done this and the leagues appear to have been happy to let the owners to do it until challenged. MLB was doing it until the 70s. The NFL still has a few levers to pull that allow fucking the players over (franchise tags). Soccer teams held players right until the Boseman decision. And this is just free agency! This doesn't even get into rookie caps.

I was just reading about the transfer system and man, this shit is shady as fuck

https://spartacus-educational.com/Ftransfer.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)

And hell, with the transfer system established as it is, they still make it in the interests of the "agents" of players (most of whom aren't lawyers) to get their players transferred around rather than run out their deals, because the teams pay their agents a fee for facilitating transfers! It's almost like the system is designed to keep the players/agents on opposing sides!

 

[tokamak 6687]

Seems like the big difference is that the contract does not transfer with the player, like it does in American sports.

It is still strange to me that 1) more players don't opt for "free agency", and 2) contract terms aren't nearly as publicized as they are here.

[dieucla98 2963]

33 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Seems like the big difference is that the contract does not transfer with the player, like it does in American sports.

It is still strange to me that 1) more players don't opt for "free agency", and 2) contract terms aren't nearly as publicized as they are here.

CP is a good case study in "opting for free agency" vs. getting a transfer with a year left on your contract. CP wasn't being used by Chelsea. If he stuck around, it was highly likely he would continue to go unused. More than other sports, being "in form" matters and a player that has played as sparingly as CP has continuing to play sparingly for another year will causes his wages on his new contract to absolutely plummet. He's incentivized to get a new deal ASAP and start playing again to stop that freefall.

Similarly, Chelsea want a fee for CP - they paid a lot for him and would like to recoup some of that. The won't recoup any of that if they wait a year and his contract expires. Similarly, CP's wages are quite high especially for the value he brings the club. That's money spent better elsewhere though Chelsea have gobs of money so this may not be as important to them.

Both parties want to move on and it's in their best interests to move on.

Now... Someone do player loans next.

[horn4life 3838]

On 7/5/2023 at 1:10 PM, Napoleon said:

After starting in the bench, Lampard started putting him into the starting lineup. 

If Lampard’s teams had been playing well, he would t have been fired. 

No other manager played Pulisic as much… and they were all fired as well. 

Maybe they all got fired because they didn't properly play Pulisic?  😉 

[tokamak 6687]

8 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

CP is a good case study in "opting for free agency" vs. getting a transfer with a year left on your contract. CP wasn't being used by Chelsea. If he stuck around, it was highly likely he would continue to go unused. More than other sports, being "in form" matters and a player that has played as sparingly as CP has continuing to play sparingly for another year will causes his wages on his new contract to absolutely plummet. He's incentivized to get a new deal ASAP and start playing again to stop that freefall.

Similarly, Chelsea want a fee for CP - they paid a lot for him and would like to recoup some of that. The won't recoup any of that if they wait a year and his contract expires. Similarly, CP's wages are quite high especially for the value he brings the club. That's money spent better elsewhere though Chelsea have gobs of money so this may not be as important to them.

Both parties want to move on and it's in their best interests to move on.

Now... Someone do player loans next.

I looked at some contracts after I posted, and it seems like in the Premier League at least, the big majority of contracts are in the 4-6 year range.

The analogue of CP here - a talented player who has underperformed a big contract - would play out his deal and then sign a 1-year "prove it" contract in hopes of rebuilding his value. What you said about CP wanting to move on makes sense, but it seems like there's significant risk for him in signing a new deal. Right now he makes 7m pounds/year. If he signs with Milan or Lyon for, say, 5 years at 3m/year, then returns to form, he's stuck during his mid-20s - his prime earning years - making less than what he's worth.

[Napoleon 8852]

7 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

CP is a good case study in "opting for free agency" vs. getting a transfer with a year left on your contract. CP wasn't being used by Chelsea. If he stuck around, it was highly likely he would continue to go unused. More than other sports, being "in form" matters and a player that has played as sparingly as CP has continuing to play sparingly for another year will causes his wages on his new contract to absolutely plummet. He's incentivized to get a new deal ASAP and start playing again to stop that freefall.

Similarly, Chelsea want a fee for CP - they paid a lot for him and would like to recoup some of that. The won't recoup any of that if they wait a year and his contract expires. Similarly, CP's wages are quite high especially for the value he brings the club. That's money spent better elsewhere though Chelsea have gobs of money so this may not be as important to them.

Both parties want to move on and it's in their best interests to move on.

Now... Someone do player loans next.

On the other hand…

CP is only 24. 

-He is making something like €5M per year.
-Milan will pay him a reported €2M per year.
-Milan has offered €20M for him .

If he were to wait until January, he could sign a 5 year contract for €5M per year (€25M total) and he would make more and cost Milan less than their buying him and paying him €2M per year for 5 years (€30M total). 

That said, he may get image rights/ a cut of Milan “Pulisic” jerseys sold and the feeling is that between that, endorsement possibilities in Italy, and Champions League winnings(?), he could make €3M to €4M and be playing.

PSG isn’t going to let Mbappe go for free next year. He is trying to squeeze one more year out of PSG before leaving on a free transfer (most likely to Real Madrid), because then he could pocket most of what he would be bought for in the form of a signing bonus. PSG’s Qatari owners are all “Fuck That!”

 

[ztejas 44281]

34 minutes ago, tokamak said:

What you said about CP wanting to move on makes sense, but it seems like there's significant risk for him in signing a new deal. Right now he makes 7m pounds/year. If he signs with Milan or Lyon for, say, 5 years at 3m/year, then returns to form, he's stuck during his mid-20s - his prime earning years - making less than what he's worth.

Except it's the opposite. There is significant risk for him continuing to ride the bench at Chelsea. It's possible his value would continue to decline over the next season and - also - no team is going to sign him for a one year contract at that age anyway. Also, it's irrelevant, because Chelsea isn't going to let a $25M player go on a free. 

If he goes to Milan and crushes it for two seasons he could get bought by another club and earn higher wages. Or, he'd just start raking in endorsements at a higher clip than he is now (which is already really high - you're also ignoring that he's one of the more marketable soccer players in the world). 

Milan is a massive club. If not as big as Chelsea they're close. It isn't like he's going from ManU to Ipswich Town. He's basically going from the Lakers to the Celtics. He'll be fine money wise - he's Christian Pulisic. Just like Messi, if he wants to go to the MLS at some point he's going to be handed a blank check (not to the same crazy extent but you get the idea).

Edited July 6, 2023 by ztejas

[ztejas 44281]

34 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

-He is making something like €5M per year.
-Milan will pay him a reported €2M per year.

He's making like 10M Euro at Chelsea and will probably make 4-5 at Milan. They're already paying 11 guys 4M+.

[Napoleon 8852]

18 minutes ago, ztejas said:

He's making like 10M Euro at Chelsea and will probably make 4-5 at Milan. They're already paying 11 guys 4M+.

Yikes!

That’s a pay cut!

[LurkingHorn 1093]

3 hours ago, Napoleon said:

Yikes!

That’s a pay cut!

My understanding is salaries in Serie A are listed post tax. Still a pay cut but slightly exaggerated. 

[MoJames 8258]

4 hours ago, horn4life said:

Maybe they all got fired because they didn't properly play Pulisic?  😉 

There are plenty of reasons. Not playing an injured Puli wasn't one of them.

[Ted Lange 16438]

Hope he gets lots of PT in Austin, he is an interesting USMNT prospect, only downside is he is really slow.   

[horn4life 3838]

I am actually most curious about why Pulisic has spent so much time injured.  About 80% of the time it's simply trying to come back too soon.  Because... you want to play. Or is he simply not durable?

Anyhow he's either in the early twilight of his international career, or about to show what he can do healthy.  He needs a new home as Chelsea is a fucking mess and has been for a while. Despite the amazing coaching... 😉

[Napoleon 8852]

22 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Hope he gets lots of PT in Austin, he is an interesting USMNT prospect, only downside is he is really slow.   

“…only downside is he is really slow.”

Well, fortunately speed isn’t very important in soccer. 
 

 

[MoJames 8258]

20 minutes ago, horn4life said:

He needs a new home as Chelsea is a fucking mess and has been for a while. Despite the amazing coaching... 😉

Thanks Putin.

Coaching has been solid upto early this season.

I agree he needs to move on. I just find it interesting he's go to land on a team with one of the most promising young talents at his favored position.

[Braff Zacklin 13676]

12 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

“…only downside is he is really slow.”

Well, fortunately speed isn’t very important in soccer. 

Is that you, Andrea? Or is it Andrés? Or possibly Juan Román?

[shadow_operative 15932]

[NoName 17171]

Pepi to PSV is official

https://www.psv.nl/nieuwspagina/artikel/transfer-psv-neemt-ricardo-pepi-over-van-fc-augsburg.htm

11m euros + sell on clause

[The Dog 44865]

 

[The Dog 44865]

18 hours ago, Napoleon said:

PSG isn’t going to let Mbappe go for free next year. He is trying to squeeze one more year out of PSG before leaving on a free transfer (most likely to Real Madrid), because then he could pocket most of what he would be bought for in the form of a signing bonus. PSG’s Qatari owners are all “Fuck That!”

 

PSG:Mbappe::Angles:Ohtani

Both should have transferred/traded the player last year but now neither has any leverage as they are both in their final years. Better chance that people realize that both end up leaving for free because their clubs gave up all of their leverage (unless Real REALLY wants Mbappe now).

Pulisic was also in the same boat (last year of contract) so he was able to pretty much pick his team and force a deal with Milan.

 

[NoName 17171]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

PSG:Mbappe::Angles:Ohtani

Both should have transferred/traded the player last year but now neither has any leverage as they are both in their final years. Better chance that people realize that both end up leaving for free because their clubs gave up all of their leverage (unless Real REALLY wants Mbappe now).

Pulisic was also in the same boat (last year of contract) so he was able to pretty much pick his team and force a deal with Milan.

 

why would RM push it at this point and spend a ton of money when they can potentially get him for free next summer?

[ztejas 44281]

34 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

Okay but what are his wages?

(Surly)

[horn4life 3838]

12 hours ago, MoJames said:

Thanks Putin.

Haha! Sorry to play in your sand box...

[alincoln 2391]

Great moves for Pepi and Pulisic.  Pepi needed a moderate step up and got it by staying in the same league but with a CL club with a history of moving players on after they further develop.  Pulisic needed to get the hell out of the EPL and move to a slower paced and less physical league while retaining CL status.  A legendary club like Milan is the icing on the cake but he isn't going to play LW there with Leao on the roster and, no,  Milan isn't moving him to accommodate Pulisic.  

[The Dog 44865]

20 minutes ago, NoName said:

why would RM push it at this point and spend a ton of money when they can potentially get him for free next summer?

Only reason is if they wanted him for this season but there's little reason to push for him - especially considering how much PSG is wanting for the fee. 

So Mbappe is going to leave on a freebie and PSG will have nobody but themselves to blame.

[Napoleon 8852]

33 minutes ago, NoName said:

why would RM push it at this point and spend a ton of money when they can potentially get him for free next summer?

RM should absolutely use the €200M to buy players to bolster their roster and whatever happens this year is fine. Then next year they get Mbappe and it’s game on. 

Mbappe has had such a full season due to playing all 7 games in the World Cup, so he should chill this summer and then whatever PSG wants to do with him, fuck ‘em.

Train, stay engaged, play Euro qualifiers, play whatever Qatar/PSG plays you in, and focus on the 2024 Euros. 

There isn’t anything that PSG can do. Mbappe is bigger than they are and he holds all the cards. 

[Captain Ron 13133]

19 hours ago, tokamak said:

Seems like the big difference is that the contract does not transfer with the player, like it does in American sports.

It is still strange to me that 1) more players don't opt for "free agency", and 2) contract terms aren't nearly as publicized as they are here.

1. I think that for many, despite this being a 30 year old concept, transfers were the way things were and a lot of people just go along with that. I think that players want to do clubs right and let them recoup some money 
That said, you are seeing a few more people do it. I think once players are more in mercenary mode (once they are 2 and 3 moves removed from their development club), they will start to do it more often.

2. This is primarily due to agents and the PA's doing what they can to publicize them. It was seen that publicizing salaries would allow for players (and agents) to have the most information to get their best contracts. To anyone that claims it's because of salary caps, they are wrong. We've know salaries long before caps ever became a thing. We've know some salaries since Babe Ruth's time. But this became the standard in 70s and 80s.

[Napoleon 8852]

Just went to ESPN’s soccer page and saw:

 

Kylian Mbappé still is not planning to extend his contract beyond June 2024 at Paris Saint-Germain despite the latest threat from president Nasser Al-Khelaifi, and he is beginning to assume he might have to leave this summer with Real Madrid as his preferred option, sources told ESPN.

Al-Khelaifi's comments have not impressed or intimidated the PSG forward. Sources told ESPN that Mbappé, who is in Cameroon for three days on holiday, is relaxed about the situation.

Meanwhile, Madrid remain hopeful of being able to conclude a deal they estimate will be worth more than €200 million ($217.87m), but they want Mbappé or PSG to make the first move before negotiations officially begin.

Madrid want to avoid last summer's drama when the Francecaptain decided to sign a new contract with PSG at the last minute despite Madrid being confident that his arrival appeared to be over the line...

[click link for full story]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37972755/kylian-mbappe-extend-psg-deal-real-madrid-await-decision-sources

[Bottlecap 1523]

Not sure how credible, but i see this guy on USMNT twitter a lot

 

[The Dog 44865]

 

[Captain Ron 13133]

And just again - fuck you Chelsea.

[ztejas 44281]

[Napoleon 8852]

21 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Paramount +

[shnsajax 3607]

Not sure how credible, but i see this guy on USMNT twitter a lot
 

Italian guy with the same thing.

[shnsajax 3607]

Damn, but appreciate the commitment.

[The Dog 44865]

That Adams stuff is bullshit.

[ztejas 44281]

TA got that dog in him. Quite possible he'll be the best player in the Championship next season. 

[ztejas 44281]

And this is already aging nicely. 

On 3/4/2023 at 10:45 AM, ztejas said:

TA is either getting sold or having a statue built outside Elland Road.