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 2023/24


charlierc

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

You just felt the tournament was there for England to win, the draw opened up, USA eliminated early. Then just like the men’s team they lost against the first decent team they played against. 

You look at the age profile of their squad and think they should be contenders in 4 years time.

I don't think that was the case. Nigeria played better than England and were unlucky to lose the penalties, while the Australia game was absolutely one they could've lost - home advantage, a brilliant player in Sam Kerr, needed a substitute or two to regrasp control.

This one imo got away from them in a different way. It felt like, for all the internal strife in the Spanish team with them hating their manager and leaving several stars at home, they just got the tactical requirements spot on, and I think the half-time changes didn't work as intended.

Maybe it was just everything running out at once. Losing Beth Mead, Leah Williamson and Fran Kirby to injuries wouldn't help when they were all so important last year, plus there'd been questions about if England's attack were doing enough all tournament (save perhaps for demolishing China and the double to win against the Aussies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, charlierc said:

I don't think that was the case. Nigeria played better than England and were unlucky to lose the penalties, while the Australia game was absolutely one they could've lost - home advantage, a brilliant player in Sam Kerr, needed a substitute or two to regrasp control.

This one imo got away from them in a different way. It felt like, for all the internal strife in the Spanish team with them hating their manager and leaving several stars at home, they just got the tactical requirements spot on, and I think the half-time changes didn't work as intended.

Maybe it was just everything running out at once. Losing Beth Mead, Leah Williamson and Fran Kirby to injuries wouldn't help when they were all so important last year, plus there'd been questions about if England's attack were doing enough all tournament (save perhaps for demolishing China and the double to win against the Aussies).

The best team England beat were ranked 10th in the world. I think if they had been on the other half of the draw they could have lost earlier to 3 or 4 teams. I just felt it was a flat performance and their best players didn’t turn up.
 

As you say they were without players, but so were Spain. In some ways it reminded me of the 2006 World Cup where the France squad effectively managed themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

s you say they were without players, but so were Spain. In some ways it reminded me of the 2006 World Cup where the France squad effectively managed themselves.

that was England men in 1990 who, its widely reported sidelined Bobby Robson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statement

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/man-utd-official-club-statement-on-mason-greenwood-21-august-2023

”Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for.”

And Richard Arnold with a lengthy statement.

 

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Statement

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/man-utd-official-club-statement-on-mason-greenwood-21-august-2023

”Based on the evidence available to us, we have concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged. That said, as Mason publicly acknowledges today, he has made mistakes which he is taking responsibility for.”

And Richard Arnold with a lengthy statement.

 

Very 1984 statement.... ignore what you heard, trust us when we say didn't do it lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Very 1984 statement.... ignore what you heard, trust us when we say didn't do it lol

Well technically, legally, he didn't do it *wink wink*

Legally he was never convicted. Even though theres the audio and pics of her with bruises.

She got back together with him and withdrew the complaint so, not guilty. Legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It’s a statement written by lawyers who will have spent hours to make sure the wording covers them in the best way possible.

Oh its a very lawyered up statement. Its one step away from saying ' we wanted him back but the woke mob wouldn't let us'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Oh its a very lawyered up statement. Its one step away from saying ' we wanted him back but the woke mob wouldn't let us'

I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s a negotiated statement that has been agreed between the Man Utd lawyers and Greenwood’s legal team. It’s probably worth doing to move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Oh its a very lawyered up statement. Its one step away from saying ' we wanted him back but the woke mob wouldn't let us'

A lot of people did Tweet feeling it's basically that they were gonna bring him back until they got an almighty backlash. Not that I can feasibly see how easy it is for any other Premier League club to be a return destination when everyone else is likely going to be as hostile to him playing for them as a majority of Manchester United fans.

It is quite something for there to be a consensus they did the right thing the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, charlierc said:

A lot of people did Tweet feeling it's basically that they were gonna bring him back until they got an almighty backlash. Not that I can feasibly see how easy it is for any other Premier League club to be a return destination when everyone else is likely going to be as hostile to him playing for them as a majority of Manchester United fans.

It is quite something for there to be a consensus they did the right thing the wrong way.

It’s pretty clear they wanted him back, I always thought that was difficult. I guess they could have messed it up more by announcing it. They may feel floating the idea was worth it, not convinced there will be significant reputation damage to the club now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

It’s pretty clear they wanted him back, I always thought that was difficult. I guess they could have messed it up more by announcing it. They may feel floating the idea was worth it, not convinced there will be significant reputation damage to the club now.

Oh neville is having a massive go tonight

 

It's bad for Utds rep for sure but they've stemmed rhe bleeding by telling him to get lost

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zahidf said:

Oh neville is having a massive go tonight

 

It's bad for Utds rep for sure but they've stemmed rhe bleeding by telling him to get lost

 

I think it’s slightly bad, but won’t have any impact on the metrics they care about. Won’t cost sponsorship, fans or players. I think people will quickly move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2023 at 7:19 PM, pink_triangle said:

It’s pretty clear they wanted him back, I always thought that was difficult. I guess they could have messed it up more by announcing it. They may feel floating the idea was worth it, not convinced there will be significant reputation damage to the club now.

There's certainly been a bit of reputation damage given the criticism people have had for club figures - not least Richard Arnold. How significant it will be, I guess we'll see.

It may also be easier said than done to offload Greenwood given it's difficult to know who would want to take on the baggage from bringing him on. It's hard to imagine any Premier League club doing it, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, charlierc said:

There's certainly been a bit of reputation damage given the criticism people have had for club figures - not least Richard Arnold. How significant it will be, I guess we'll see.

It may also be easier said than done to offload Greenwood given it's difficult to know who would want to take on the baggage from bringing him on. It's hard to imagine any Premier League club doing it, for instance.

United actually handled it well initially, with the suspension. Whilst at Arsenal Partey is still playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2023 at 10:15 AM, charlierc said:

There's certainly been a bit of reputation damage given the criticism people have had for club figures - not least Richard Arnold. How significant it will be, I guess we'll see.

It may also be easier said than done to offload Greenwood given it's difficult to know who would want to take on the baggage from bringing him on. It's hard to imagine any Premier League club doing it, for instance.

utd sold on that other troubled kid just a few years ago, forget his name.(memory tells me west ham are in the mix with that other kid, i might be wrong!)

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

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...