Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2010-2011


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

Agree. As soon as "English" and "Transfer" appear in the same article people go mental.

See Liverpool are going to have issues getting rid of Aquilani. Juve dont want him. Not at that price anyway. Not surprised. One of the most bizarre transfers of recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Oh no doubt, Dodgy.As.Hell, but the Bebstonian didnt cost 20 million. And people werent saying hes the Italian Zidane, best midfielder in Italy etc!

Bizarro stuff from Rafa. Kenny isn't doing much better in the transfer market by the way. And Woy got abuse for his transfer dealings!?

Kenny sold Torres, bought a 17 game wonder with an average scoring record and a Sunlun player who weighs in with a handful of good games a season. But Woy is the devil, Kenny is God.

Downing next apparently to "put the ball on Big Andys head....all were missing really" is what Ive been reading from Liverpool fans. :lol: If the game was so simple we'd all be managers/millionaires.

P.S. Bebe looks cool there, best thing hes done. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of ability theres no doubt that aquilani is a far better player than bebe. In terms of transfers thought aquilani looks like he will be the worst as neither have really contributed anything but aquilani has cost far more in transfer fee and wages to make no impact. Bebe was bought as a bit of gamble that hasnt paid off, aquilani was bought to be one of the main players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Its an expensive gamble no doubt but it was clearly a punt as there was no real track record to judge him on. In the grand scale of things 9million is a drop in the ocean to man utd. Its still half the money liverpool paid for aquilani and I imagie his wages are less than half. So with both transfers being flop the aquilani flop will financially cost liverpool more and has also had a far greater impact on the team as aquilani was clearly bought in to be a main first team player where as bebe was bought in to be a squad player. If Man utd hadnt bought bebe they probably wouldnt have spent the money, so in terms of squad strenght it makes little difference. Where as liverpool would clearly have bought a big player if they didnt buy aquilani who could have made a great impact.

surely whether Aquilani costs Liverpool more than Bebe costs Utd comes down largely to what resale value each player achieves?

While Juve don't want Aquilani there's rumours of other 'big' Italian teams being interested at a fairly decent price, while Bebe probably has a value of almost nothing - so Bebe could turn out to cause the greater loss.

As for each's skills on the pitch, I've not seen Bebe enough to comment on him, but Aquilani definitely showed touches while at Liverpool of why Rafa spunked all that money on him - and had he been able to be consistent with that good side he looked every bit a £20M player. The problem was that he wasn't consistent, but I wonder if Rafa had destroyed his confidence?

Has he showed anything better while back in Italy? I've no idea, but I certainly wouldn't be hugely surprised if he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

surely whether Aquilani costs Liverpool more than Bebe costs Utd comes down largely to what resale value each player achieves?

While Juve don't want Aquilani there's rumours of other 'big' Italian teams being interested at a fairly decent price, while Bebe probably has a value of almost nothing - so Bebe could turn out to cause the greater loss.

As for each's skills on the pitch, I've not seen Bebe enough to comment on him, but Aquilani definitely showed touches while at Liverpool of why Rafa spunked all that money on him - and had he been able to be consistent with that good side he looked every bit a £20M player. The problem was that he wasn't consistent, but I wonder if Rafa had destroyed his confidence?

Has he showed anything better while back in Italy? I've no idea, but I certainly wouldn't be hugely surprised if he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bizarro stuff from Rafa. Kenny isn't doing much better in the transfer market by the way. And Woy got abuse for his transfer dealings!?

Kenny sold Torres, bought a 17 game wonder with an average scoring record and a Sunlun player who weighs in with a handful of good games a season. But Woy is the devil, Kenny is God.

Downing next apparently to "put the ball on Big Andys head....all were missing really" is what Ive been reading from Liverpool fans. :lol: If the game was so simple we'd all be managers/millionaires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably trolling but...

Roy bought Meireles (yeah done well) to replace Aquilani (who may have equally done as well).

Roy bought Joe Cole for Benayoun- who is better than Cole.

Roy bought Poulsen who is the worst DM in the league.

Roy bought f**king Konchesky in for our promising international fullback Insua.

Roy bought Brad Jones for a few million despite the fact he isn't very good.

Not saying any of Comolli's transfers will pay off, but at least they have a chance. The only one that worked for Roy was Meireles, who had apparently been a Benitez target anyway.

Roy was shit. Mega shit. Anyone who thinks he was decent knows so little about football it's scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive seen him play a good few times this season, hes not great, but either are Juve. They finished 7th, behind Udinese, Napoli and Lazio.

I dont think it was unfortunate. He was hyped beyond belief after a handful of decent performances, scoring a goal in the Rome derby will do that to a player and this was a time when Roma were pretty good too so he was playing in a good side, but Roma had to go out and buy Pizarro as cover because he was injured so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Probably trolling but...

Roy bought Meireles (yeah done well) to replace Aquilani (who may have equally done as well).

Roy bought Joe Cole for Benayoun- who is better than Cole.

Roy bought Poulsen who is the worst DM in the league.

Roy bought f**king Konchesky in for our promising international fullback Insua.

Roy bought Brad Jones for a few million despite the fact he isn't very good.

Not saying any of Comolli's transfers will pay off, but at least they have a chance. The only one that worked for Roy was Meireles, who had apparently been a Benitez target anyway.

Roy was shit. Mega shit. Anyone who thinks he was decent knows so little about football it's scary.

while I'm not arguing that Konchesky turned out to be a bad buy, I don't think it was a bad buy at the time. He'd just had a very decent season for Fulham, where he looked to be getting back to the sort of form that had won him a place in the England squad a few years before. I think he was someone who turned out to be a bad buy (which happens with all managers at times) rather than a bad buy at the time of purchase.

As for Insua ... he was dreadful.

Cole was another one that you can't much blame Woy for - he should have been a good free signing, but turned out to be crap. Personally I think he's lost it completely as a footballer (for whatever reasons - ego perhaps), but there were plenty of clubs and managers and fans who would have been very happy to have signed him at the time.

As for the new buys, youth is clearly what Liverpool are wanting, which comes to explain the huge money paid for Carroll. While that might turn out to be huge mistake in on-the-pitch terms cos he won't be the player they hope he'll be, there aren't many options with young strikers who have actually proven themselves in the Prem, and while Carroll's Prem experience is limited it's more than any other player I can think of (bar Sturridge, who was rumoured to be part of the Torres deal for a bit, not sure why it didn't happen). Along with there being few other options with young strikers, I think the Carroll buy was as much about saying "we're still here and aiming to come back to the big time" as it was actually getting that particular player.

While that might sound a bit dumb for a club to spunk huge money on a mostly-unproven player as an image thing, I don't think the effect of that should be under-estimated. Would they have landed Henderson without having shown that ambition with Carroll? I'm not so sure they would. So the value of Carroll is about more than simply what he might do on the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I'm not arguing that Konchesky turned out to be a bad buy, I don't think it was a bad buy at the time. He'd just had a very decent season for Fulham, where he looked to be getting back to the sort of form that had won him a place in the England squad a few years before. I think he was someone who turned out to be a bad buy (which happens with all managers at times) rather than a bad buy at the time of purchase.

Edited by strummer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bebe: 2 goals in 3 starts :ph34r: ...though iirc one was a mishit or deflected cross. :lol:

Feel a bit sorry for him though. A lot of the media got on the back of him before he even played a competitive game and injuries to key members of the squad meant he was exposed before he was ready.

The guy is only 20 years old, had moved to a new country, without speaking the language & hadn't had professional training before this year so was always going to be a long term project. I didn't anticipate him even getting a game for the first team this year, but injuries to Park and Valencia forced it a bit earlier in the season and I think Fergie wanted to see how he reacted. Did ok first couple times but was pretty horrific on his Old Trafford debut (against Wolves iirc).

Seems to be two main theories with him anyways. Firstly that Queiroz/our scout felt he had the raw materials to be worth the punt. Long term project. He is a unit and athletic after all.

The alternative theory is that he was bought as a "sweetener" to gain or retain influence with Jorge Mendes (gestifute) who made 3.6m euros out of the £7m. :unsure:

Mendes being the agent to Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson, Mourinho, and one of the most influentual in the Iberian area. Also supposedly going to be De Gea's agent and the one who negotiated the deal for De Gea. De Gea switching agents to Mendes end of the month when his contract with his existing agent expires. Doesn't want the existing agent suing for compo, hence the denials that anything has been sorted already. (Think he's Ferdinand's also).

Might just be people looking for a reason for the signing though, given his apparant lack of quality, Fergie not watching him etc. Could easily have just been an innocent misjudgment by the scouting team, and apparant interest (Madrid and Benfica reportedly) accelerating our business as opposed to watching him for a year.

Btw, whilst both perhaps unlikely, not sure can really reflect on the success or otherwise of a signing until they've left either. Aquilani could return and play a key part under Kenny. Similarly not sure we'll sell Bebe yet. Think he's too far behind in any development to really make it but never know. Fergie's said he'll be a forward, and he's clearly not a winger which is where he's played so far. On evidence so far can't aerially cross for shit (rocket, f**king rocket!) but ok drilling it in. Think it's probably the case that has played more street football (foul above head height etc) so never learned the technique.

Took this nicely in the reserves though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

surely whether Aquilani costs Liverpool more than Bebe costs Utd comes down largely to what resale value each player achieves?

While Juve don't want Aquilani there's rumours of other 'big' Italian teams being interested at a fairly decent price, while Bebe probably has a value of almost nothing - so Bebe could turn out to cause the greater loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Manchester United player will always have a resale value while steve bruce is in a job.

true - he's the new Brian Robson, the latest ex-Utd mug who'll buy any old shite from Utd because they must be good cos they're from Utd. :lol::lol:

Having said that - jokingly - it does look like Bruce has a better handle on the actual quality of the players he's after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool and United look to be preparing for a possible Fifa regulation that will be 9 homegrown players in the 18 matchday squad, as opposed to the 8 in 25 man squad at the moment.

At present you could have 17 foreigners for your first XI and 6 of your subs, and then just flesh out the rest of the 25 with youth who aren't ever going to play a game. The new rules if they come in, will mean quality of "homegrown" squad options will be huge considering they'll either be your first team or making up your bench options.

Whilst Young doesn't make the cock twinge like someone like Sanchez might, it makes sense imo considering we've lost Scholes, Neville & look to be selling Gibson, Brown and possibly O'shea. Rio only fit for 50% and Giggs heading towards the end, Owen probably only for a year etc.

After Carrick, Fletcher & Rooney, the rest are pretty much youngsters really; Welbeck, Cleverly, Fabio, Rafael (both whom count), Smalling, Jones assuming he signs etc

Think Young will probably be bought more to suppplement Nani and Valencia as opposed to usurp.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jun/10/phil-jones-fifa-rules-price

(if passes EU law I guess)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...