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

10 hours ago, thetime said:

Newcastle would do well to distance themselves from city. 

‘Mail Sport understands that Chelsea, Aston Villa and Newcastle all believe the champions have valid concerns ahead of a hearing on Monday at which City will attempt to get rules that limit how much companies linked to club owners can spend on sponsorship deals thrown out.

‘While Chelsea have provided a statement which challenges the updated rules on associated party transactions (APT), especially with regards to multi-club ownership, it is understood that Villa co-owner, the Egyptian billionaire Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak and that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.’

 

But the Daily Telegraph claims that Newcastle are expected to take a neutral stance over Man City standing against APT rules to ‘avoid being caught in crossfire of bitter dispute over financial rules’.

‘Newcastle United are reluctant to outwardly join forces with Manchester City in the Premier League civil war over state-sponsored spending freedoms.

‘The Saudi-owned club are expected to take a neutral stance in other competition-wide financial discussions on Thursday to avoid being caught in the crossfire of an escalating dispute.

‘Club sources also refused to be drawn on whether Newcastle are the undisclosed team backing City at their landmark legal hearing next week.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

‘Mail Sport understands that Chelsea, Aston Villa and Newcastle all believe the champions have valid concerns ahead of a hearing on Monday at which City will attempt to get rules that limit how much companies linked to club owners can spend on sponsorship deals thrown out.

‘While Chelsea have provided a statement which challenges the updated rules on associated party transactions (APT), especially with regards to multi-club ownership, it is understood that Villa co-owner, the Egyptian billionaire Nassef Sawiris, is close to City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak and that he shares frustrations over imposed limits on spending.’

 

But the Daily Telegraph claims that Newcastle are expected to take a neutral stance over Man City standing against APT rules to ‘avoid being caught in crossfire of bitter dispute over financial rules’.

‘Newcastle United are reluctant to outwardly join forces with Manchester City in the Premier League civil war over state-sponsored spending freedoms.

‘The Saudi-owned club are expected to take a neutral stance in other competition-wide financial discussions on Thursday to avoid being caught in the crossfire of an escalating dispute.

‘Club sources also refused to be drawn on whether Newcastle are the undisclosed team backing City at their landmark legal hearing next week.’

One paper saying Newcastle are all in on backing City's crusade and another saying Newcastle aren't quite as invested. Clear as mud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

I thought it would have been Grealish over Gordon or Eze (as much as the latter is in scintillating form).

 

The new partner to Stones and the lack of a fit left back are concerns…

Left-back is unquestionably the problem area. Plan B appears to be sticking either Trippier or Gomez out of position into the role. It's why I was a little surprise that Chilwell wasn't taken, despite his poor form at Chelsea, or that one of the 83 Crystal Palace players being taken a chance on was Tyrick Mitchell, who was one of the many players who impressed at the end of the season just gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some strange decisions. I would think an early exit and he won't be able to talk his way out this time.

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2024 at 8:13 PM, lost said:

Some strange decisions. I would think an early exit and he won't be able to talk his way out this time.

It's seemingly harder to get knocked out of the Euros now then it is to progress from the group, given that in 4/6 groups, the top three progress.

 

Serbia, Denmark and Slovenia are possible banana skins, or at least certainly have potential for England to stumble against judging by the slog against Iceland that England are playing out as I write this. Though given Danish fans think they've gone backwards since being semi finalists at the last Euros and Slovenia lack quality beyond 2/3 players, 4 points from those two should avoid that scenario.

 

... maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2024 at 8:16 PM, thetime said:

Off to united anyway.. 😃

I mean, there's about 40 different names linked with that.

 

Be something if they do the equivalent of Leeds randomly hiring Dave Hockaday, whose only previous experience before taking the Leeds job was midtable in the National League with Forest Green Rovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, charlierc said:

I mean, there's about 40 different names linked with that.

 

Be something if they do the equivalent of Leeds randomly hiring Dave Hockaday, whose only previous experience before taking the Leeds job was midtable in the National League with Forest Green Rovers.

Given some of the names being bandied about, I hope we stick with ETH for another year. 

 

I certainly don't want Southgate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Neil said:

were not going to win the euros when we cant beat Iceland.

Portugal won the Euros in 2016 while only beating Wales in 90 minutes, while Greece have won the whole thing. Ridiculous things can happen in tournament football.

 

Saying that, I don't feel convinced that England's defensive options are robust enough to win this tournament. I see lots of people claiming Southgate is wasting the squad, but to me it feels unbalanced with the attackers being of higher quality.

 

Still, guess we'll see what turns up against Serbia next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2024 at 10:13 PM, Neil said:

were not going to win the euros when we cant beat Iceland.


Not so sure. These pre-tournament friendlies are hopeless. Scotland game was awful last night. Resting players, avoiding injuries and getting “minutes” into players who might not feature is often the name of the game.

Looking forward to the tournament starting next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Comfy Bean said:


Not so sure. These pre-tournament friendlies are hopeless. Scotland game was awful last night. Resting players, avoiding injuries and getting “minutes” into players who might not feature is often the name of the game.

Looking forward to the tournament starting next week.

good to see your goalies are still sh*t. 😛 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2024 at 1:56 PM, charlierc said:

Portugal won the Euros in 2016 while only beating Wales in 90 minutes, while Greece have won the whole thing. Ridiculous things can happen in tournament football.

 

Saying that, I don't feel convinced that England's defensive options are robust enough to win this tournament. I see lots of people claiming Southgate is wasting the squad, but to me it feels unbalanced with the attackers being of higher quality.

 

Still, guess we'll see what turns up against Serbia next week.

Absolutely this, 100%. Southgate has enough nous to know the only way to win tournaments is to keep clean sheets/concede very little, like Portugal and Greece both did, hence the focus being on dour shitbag football when in the knockout stages.

BUT england just dont have the defenders good enough to do that - and most definitely not without a left back who isnt broken, or out of position. My prediction - standard tournament where england are knocked out by the first decent team they face, wherever that may be - second round, quarters, a lucky run to the semis- they just cant do it when it really gets to the coalface. Pretty much every tournament winner has to win a penalty shootout too, and england are very lacking at those historically. (though those runs do come to an end, at some point) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
19 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Just a shame England are playing below average.  Last night was a little more encouraging, but still pretty bad.

 

 

Southgate just needs to put his faith in Mainoo and Palmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the festival have said no to officially showing it in a field etc but I wonder of they end up listing all the smaller venues that might have it on. Could be tweeted out for example Sunday morning. 

 

OR will they just not mention at all to avoid massive crowds flooding smaller bars etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
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...