We dress it up, give it a name, add some feelings to it. But a lot of what passes for relationships in our world is just transactional behaviour with romantic packaging.

Both him and Yul are losers.

I have no issues at the end of the day with bouaddi. If the club says its him. I'm down. But strictly use him at 6 as lone pivot with 2 #8's beside him.

If you are not a transitional threat off the ball as a winger, you can't be an elite goalscorer. Most ball to feet wingers dont end up being elite scorers.

You can tell who hasn't actually watched Bouaddi enough. Bouaddi is closer to being a destroyer profile than a controller profile. In fact, his weakest attributes are his passing and agility to control the tempo of games... while his strongest attributes are his large space coverage and ability to disrupt the opponent via duelling, tackling, aerial dominance, etc.

Yup I watched it. It was even shot in port harcourt under NTA PH channel 10.

Had a relative who was a staunch member of AG church. Brought the video cassette to village in Xmas 1995 and we watched it. Spooky shit.

“naija no dey carry last” very stupid lie, we dey last for everything in this life!

I support him on this. A lot goes through players minds at HT. Take that american nonsense out of here.

Pregnancy is the most potent female machiavellian weapon for power hegemony. And EVERY SINGLE WOMAN on earth in a monogamy setup exploits it. No exception.

You know, a few days ago, a lady, I believe, quoted a post where a pregnant woman was showing some athleticism with the caption: "Y'all can do anything until it's time to stand in a bus." She was not wrong. But the more accurate way to put it, would have been: "Y'all can do anything until a man is on the scene." Because many pregnant women are capable of far more than they display when men are around. A pregnant woman cannot stand in a bus because there are men in sight and on the scene. Every time someone gives up a seat for a pregnant woman, it is more often a man than not. The point is that women often amplify pregnancy-related discomfort when a man is the audience. Sometimes unconsciously, sometimes consciously, it becomes a collaboration with the men's belief that women are fragile and should be protected. As a result, they are more likely to receive the response they desire from a man than from another woman. That is what I think Mr. Eazi is showing in this video. The larger problem, however, is that we men often hold women in higher estimation than they hold themselves. I'll take it a step further. This is also why the saying, "If your mama swears for you, you will suffer in this life," is directed with greater frequency and seriousness toward boy child than toward girls. Society rarely makes such warnings to the girl child. This because they know that the girl, being of similar disposition and agency as the mother, would be less inclined to believe that she possesses the power to alter another person's destiny or future by her words alone. Therefore, hardly will you see "mama" going naked to swear for daughters, or threatening to do so. The message in all of this is that men and women do not merely see the world differently; they see women differently. Men have been conditioned to assign women a greater degree of fragility and exceptionalism than women often assign to themselves. Women, knowing this, consciously or unconsciously learn to negotiate the world through that perception. And society, in turn, reinforces it. So, whether it is pregnancy, emotion, misfortune, or even superstition, what you are often witnessing is not simply female weakness or male generosity, but a long-standing social arrangement in which men overestimate women's helplessness, and women learn to live profitably within that estimation. But then, I believe I have said enough. Goodluck. Or, congratulations.

He's not a controller oga, he's a destroyer. More tendency to win the ball and break up play than dictating tempo and lay off various types of passes. A lot of you are poor at profiling.

Women never threaten their fellow women with “marry first” because they know that men are the ones ladened with the burden of leadership over a demography that is generally chaotic in nature, strong-headed and unreasonable, and manifesting their illogicality through sentiment even in grave matters. This may be unpopular but I understand the married men. “Marry first” is not a threat but an admission. Even if I know that most are making the statement from a point of masculine subservience. A woman is a woman first before she is your wife, and on a long enough timeframe, she will display the traits that make her a woman. If you want the marriage to both last AND work for you, you better discover how to keep her in check always. The problem is that what usually keeps women in check is their fear that what they have with you may not last. Their fear of loss or abandonment anxiety. Marriage as an institution takes this away (not necessarily in the fact that all marriages last, but by MAKING THE PROMISE that marriage is created to last) Our fathers sought to counter this by constructing the marriage institution in such a way that you could have plenty of them (polygamy) so that their competition anxiety would inspire their good behavior in very much the same way as their abandonment anxiety because it’s basically the same fear being activated by different mechanisms (bring the threat inside the institution, not outside it). But the modern man decided he was wiser than his father. Well, goodluck to you then. Cause the way I see it, women are not incentivized to put on their best behavior when they know that they are safe and comfortable. Hence “marry first.” Don’t hastily assume that your girlfriend who conformed to you because you wielded at the time the implicit threat that you could leave her for another babe, will also conform to you on a long enough timeframe once she comes under the umbrella of marriage. The institution as currently constructed is not in your favor. To make things worse, a lot of you men equate a successful marriage with a marriage that lasts, while intending to stick to the monogamous script. Most of you even place the responsibility for a failed marriage upon your shoulders. You think women do not know this? You think you are wiser than the generations of men who realized they couldn’t handle power? You do not still see how this can be a problem for you?

It's Rogers over Barcola for me I think. I'm realizing that we're going to face even worse low blocks next year. We don't need Barcola's pace in 90% of our games. I also think Rogers will be a success regardless whereas Barcola will require some work.

I'd rather spend 60m on James garner than bouaddi. I'm shocked clubs are not lining up for him. Duels, dead ball specialist, passing technique, versatile, ambipedal. I'm not the type to be wowed by silky legs and insha allah. I like generalists.

The most precise example on this app is that lion guy that moves he's the one that invented cultism in 1958. Light skinned and bearded.

You're in your 20s, shoot your shots and fuck them. This thing I'm saying comes with age and experience. So I won't judge you.

Brings me back to my tweet of how foolish poor people take kids to nepo schools for status signaling or hopes of connection of their kids to rich kids. Most times, the woman pushes the idiot man to such things. Only to end up poorer with kids who still might not make it later.