Jump to content

Football 19/20


thetime
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jyoung said:
  • From 1995 to 2003 Chelsea qualified for Europe 6 out of 8 times.
  • During those years Everton finished 6, 15, 17, 14, 13, 16, 15 and 7 (so that's a load of rubbish).
  • Newcastle finished top four 4 times (first two seasons and last two seasons) and bottom half 4 times so they're a hard one to pin down.
  • Villa you have a point as they were consistently in the top 8 but some bad decisions at the top saw them fall away.

Hardly Chelsea's fault.

As a Newcastle supporter I will say both our drifts out of the top 6 (in 1997 and in 2004) were as much down to bad internal decisions as everyone else. In 1997 it was selling Les Ferdinand in the same week Alan Shearer had a major injury, and replacing them with an over-the-hill Ian Rush & John Barnes, which Kenny Dalglish has a lot to answer for.

For the second case, it is true Chelsea turning up in 2003 with mega-millions changed the game in ways we were not prepared for - I don't think we spent anything in the 2 windows in 2003/04 - but we made so many bad on and off pitch decisions in that season that we made a lot worse with some even worse calls in 2004/05. We've never really recovered, which makes our 2011/12 season even more of a fortunate one than it was at the time.

I'm aware in another world I'd be discussing Newcastle in relation to this as apparently Sheikh Mansour and his group sniffed briefly around Newcastle among a lot of others before opting for Manchester City. Which was far - I'm aware of the troubles that the previous owner had run into in his single season running the joint and that he was desperate to sell. Clearly, they got lucky the buyer of choice was the fucking financial jackpot.

Edited by charlierc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I have always believed that FFP would fall if someone with financial muscles challenged it. Im interesting to see how this plays out.

Well if any club was gonna try, surely its the one backed by the Abu Dhabi government with extra investments from a Chinese government-controlled fund and big US capital firm bankrolling it. Intriguingly, Gary Neville seemed to think along those lines. Sky shared a post on Instagram where he suggested it'll be found in their favour. Though its weird AC Milan got a similar ban and didn't argue so vehemently, but then given that was as much down to its ownership by a Chinese billionaire who it turned out didn't have the cash, that's probably why.

I'm not sure how it'll go. Just that there's going to be a lot of to-and-fro at CAS, and likely further in other courts if they can do it (though I'm aware some stipulations and other appeals may still happen).

Could end up being win-win for the established bigger clubs in fairness - either FFP is taken down and they get to throw money away like never before, or a cash rich rival they don't get on with is kicked out of their cash cow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

Not for nothing but if City's lawyers has put in as much effort in defending them as Easty has today, maybe they wouldn't be in this mess.

To be fair Gnom I have not defended them. I have said from the off that I do not know whether City have done anything wrong. UEFA have been extremely vague in their charges and why they have reached their conclusion. The rest of us do not have a clue. Only City, Uefa and to an extent CAS have any idea of the facts.

I can only go off Citys statements where they totally deny any wrong doing and they have irrefutable evidence to prove their innocence.

I have also reiterated my total disdain for the FFP rules.

Neil just likes to argue and we went right round the houses just to come to the conclusion that none of us have a ckue what is going on yet.

I believe City, why would I not at this point? There has been no evidence produced to suggest they have done anything wrong as of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rock the clock said:

Isn't even worth moaning about var anymore. Chelsea are really slowing down now, be interesting to see if they can revive themselves before the end of the season. Still don't think they're too far away from being a very good side. 

Still, 4-0 and 2-0 losses to this UTD side is pretty embarrassing.

I think man for man Chelsea and united are pretty similar. Im not surprised to see them similar in the league table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think man for man Chelsea and united are pretty similar. Im not surprised to see them similar in the league table.

I think Chelsea are a little more promising, but I generally agree, which is why it's embarrassing to come away from two league meetings 6-0 down on aggregate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rock the clock said:

I think Chelsea are a little more promising, but I generally agree, which is why it's embarrassing to come away from two league meetings 6-0 down on aggregate. 

Surprised Lampard isn't getting any stick to be honest, Chelsea's record in the league in 2020 is woeful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zahidf said:

Strange how every man city critical article is by a biased journalist, whereas the man city press release is an amazing and truthful document.

Chemical Easty.

For the record, those two journos are much admired by me. Conn's work on Hillsborough particularly commendable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, charlierc said:

Well if any club was gonna try, surely its the one backed by the Abu Dhabi government with extra investments from a Chinese government-controlled fund and big US capital firm bankrolling it. Intriguingly, Gary Neville seemed to think along those lines. Sky shared a post on Instagram where he suggested it'll be found in their favour. Though its weird AC Milan got a similar ban and didn't argue so vehemently, but then given that was as much down to its ownership by a Chinese billionaire who it turned out didn't have the cash, that's probably why.

I'm not sure how it'll go. Just that there's going to be a lot of to-and-fro at CAS, and likely further in other courts if they can do it (though I'm aware some stipulations and other appeals may still happen).

Could end up being win-win for the established bigger clubs in fairness - either FFP is taken down and they get to throw money away like never before, or a cash rich rival they don't get on with is kicked out of their cash cow.

If Warren Buffett bought, say Forest, and chucked 10bn at them, City would be following similar legal route. Snivelling horrid little club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eastynh said:

An interesting article, be interested on your thoughts Neil. This is by a lawyer with no link to either City or UEFA.

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

how come you never find opposite viewpoint articles "interesting" easty? Is there a reason?

People sat where i am find articles interesting from both points of view, but it remains the case that no amount of bluster can remove the words in those emails.

And yes, I do think it's 'interesting' that City's defence is that UEFA doesn't have the right to investigate them, and not that they didn't break the rules.

I also think it's 'interesting' that City think because they've been found guilty of 'crime A', that it's an outrage to prosecute them for 'crime B'. 

These things show that City are c**ts with no integrity, which is also 'interesting'. 

It's almost like they're so keen to not co-operate and make idiot defences because they've got nothing to hide. :D 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think man for man Chelsea and united are pretty similar. Im not surprised to see them similar in the league table.

Im surprised to see either near the top of a division. That Utd team wouldnt get out of the championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

how come you never find opposite viewpoint articles "interesting" easty? Is there a reason?

People sat where i am find articles interesting from both points of view, but it remains the case that no amount of bluster can remove the words in those emails.

And yes, I do think it's 'interesting' that City's defence is that UEFA doesn't have the right to investigate them, and not that they didn't break the rules.

I also think it's 'interesting' that City think because they've been found guilty of 'crime A', that it's an outrage to prosecute them for 'crime B'. 

These things show that City are c**ts with no integrity, which is also 'interesting'. 

It's almost like they're so keen to not co-operate and make idiot defences because they've got nothing to hide. :D 

Neil you could not even get what  the fair value test is about correct and were totally wrong yesterday. You made up an absolutely ridiculous scenario  in your own head.You seem to think a national government can't prop up its own national airline and UEFA can rule on that.

How can I take you seriously? At least do a little reasearch before opening your mouth.

You also did not even know what CAS actually do and were still popping off as if you knew what you were talking about.

Have you even read the blog? It is by a lawyer, not some journalist with an axe to grind. That blog is not pro City. It just highlights some interesting facts. Namely one being the double jeopardy rule wjere City signed agreements that they could not be done for anything pre 15th May 2014. UEFA state that they were kooking at offences from the period 2012-16, which they can't do.You seemed to think they could, which was again totally wrong.

You have not even read the blog. 

UEFA have absolutely no right to investigate City on anything before May 15th 2014 and have signed agreements to the effect. 

If they have found infringements after that date then UEFA are well within their rights to investigate City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets have a bet Neil, nothing ridiculous. Say £30. If City get bannedd for any period of time then I will put that towards your website upkeep. If City don't get banned then you give it to MacMillan nurses.

We are just going round in circles snd it will start getting boring for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil you could not even get what  the fair value test is about

the clue is in the words "fair value". :rolleyes: 

Are you able to admit that at the time the Etihad deal was announced there was absolutely-feckin' huge skeptism about that deal, and about how it couldn't be a genuine deal because it was waaaaay out of the ballpark for similar deals....?

And then - as you've admitted - it turns out that Etihad aren't the ones funding that "fair deal".

A "fair deal" is a deal that comparable companies would make on the same terms - and (at the time of the deal) there was nothing remotely similar. Which is a bit of a give-away.

City managed to brush those away by insisting that there was nothing shady about the deal.

Turns out there was shady stuff about the deal, and that the Man City execs were in full knowledge of the shady stuff - completely different to what they'd said previously.

It may turn out that City get of on a technicality as you've been prompted to say by those honest (lol) geezers.

But that doesn't mean they've not been taking the piss big time, and that they're not c**ts.

And as it's passing you by, that's c**ts as big as anything the G14 have ever done.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You seem to think a national government can't prop up its own national airline and UEFA can rule on that.

it can prop up its airline (bu5t not without consequences, see below). What the owner can't do is feed money to the club via a fake finincial deal.

You do know that Etihad have categorically stated that they were funding the deal from their own pre-exiting funds, don't you? It's in submissions they made to claim they weren't getting the state support you now admit to them getting.

Oh dear. Someone somewhere (take your pick) has been telling porkies to hide the truth and mislead more than just the football authorities.

So no matter how the City stuff goes with UEFA goes, the UAE have been proven as liars, and have dropped themselves in some painful shit somewhere.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Have you even read the blog?

Yes. :rolleyes:

Have you?

It's interesting for the points I raised as interesting, and where you're blustering rather than addressing those interesting points. Any reason why? 

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

It just highlights some interesting facts.

yes, I raised them.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Namely one being the double jeopardy rule wjere City signed agreements that they could not be done for anything pre 15th May 2014.

PMSL

They're innocent of being lying c**ts because no one is allowed to look at whether they're lying c**ts.

Morning Donald.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You have not even read the blog. 

Funny how I had some interesting points from it that you don't want to discuss, eh?

Must be my psychic powers. :) 

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

UEFA have absolutely no right to investigate City on anything before May 15th 2014 and have signed agreements to the effect. 

PMSL

They're innocent of being lying c**ts because no one is allowed to look at whether they're lying c**ts.

Morning Donald.

 

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

If they have found infringements after that date then UEFA are well within their rights to investigate City.

PMSL

They're innocent of being lying c**ts because no one is allowed to look at whether they're lying c**ts.

Morning Donald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Lets have a bet Neil, nothing ridiculous. Say £30. If City get bannedd for any period of time then I will put that towards your website upkeep. If City don't get banned then you give it to MacMillan nurses.

We are just going round in circles snd it will start getting boring for everyone else.

My argument is that City have been c**ts, not whether or not they might get off on a technicality. :rolleyes: 

And as you admit yourself they've been c**ts - they bent the rules in your own words - we're on the same page. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

My argument is that City have been c**ts, not whether or not they might get off on a technicality. :rolleyes: 

And as you admit yourself they've been c**ts - they bent the rules in your own words - we're on the same page. :) 

If we start to list premiership teams that never act as c**ts we wont take time to write the list!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

If we start to list premiership teams that never act as c**ts we wont take time to write the list!

perhaps, but that doesn't mean they should be given a free pass for being c**ts. My view is that anyone who's a c**t should get jumped on.

Anything else is a free pass for big money at the expense of the game.

Meanwhile, a club has been caught out being a c**t. I'm with Wenger on this.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Would agree with this PT.

we can all agree there's lots of c**ts in the Prem. :) 

Next question is: what should happen? Should they be allowed to be c**ts and drag the game deeper and deeper into the gutter over time, or should actions be taken to try and stop them being c**ts?

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...