Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Gamba Osaka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:WikiProject iconFootball Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJapan: Sport Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 07:48, July 12, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sport task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

AFC Champions League Final

[edit]

They will face Adelaide United, who are NOT giants, but rather giant-killers. The A-League has a salary cap of AU $1.9 million dollars per team. How can a club under such financial constraints, that has NEVER even won their domestic competition, be seen as "giants"? I have edited the article to reflect this, before anyone changes it back can they please justify why Adelaide should be considered "giants"?

The justification for their status as "giant-killers" is that they defeated FC Bunyodkor, who have a single player who's salary is greater than the entire of Adelaide Uniteds yearly budget. 121.215.49.62 (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should just remove the reference together no matter how it's worded unless we see something sourced. —Borgardetalk 07:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick google search turned up this, see the third paragraph - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/03/content_10301004.htm 124.182.48.180 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]