My reply to the above Liverpool fan.

Take a look at Chelsea's youth teams. I think, they are performing well.

It takes time to develop these young players. Some teams are better off to buy young man, loan him out and he is good enough, he receives his chance to play with the first team. If he is a mediocre player, he is sold for a profit. The most innovative solution applied by Chelsea.

It was Chelsea youth system that gave Breda rogers he's chance.

Ask the scouser about littlewoods and the money they pumped into LFC.

I won't even entertain that prick, here's just come here to cause trouble. There's a few decent opposing team fabs on here and for Pool we have Lewy & Mr Pink who I bet will be ashamed to have this joker supporting their club.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

f**k off you bell end.

I like the style and brevity of your response :-)

let him run through their 'istoree' of the 70's/80's and see who 'bought' all the talent and top players around backed by littlewoods (scarves and rattles sponsored)...

What talent came through their books that wasn't bought of some other club.....

 

Both them and utd spent millions in those 2 decades to create their sucess  compared to others.........

So really, they just bought their sucessful 'istoree' then........

 

Now Rodgers (Jose trained) or rather Toothy got them near the prem title for once...they think they're back with the big guns & so trying to buy their sucess again, millions spent on nobodys, without a system other than sir stevie mee long ball game to speed merchants to chase after.

Also, let LFC win something (anything) first and then sling mud.

let him run through their 'istoree' of the 70's/80's and see who 'bought' all the talent and top players around backed by littlewoods (scarves and rattles sponsored)...

What talent came through their books that wasn't bought of some other club.....

 

Both them and utd spent millions in those 2 decades to create their sucess  compared to others.........

So really, they just bought their sucessful 'istoree' then........

 

Now Rodgers (Jose trained) or rather Toothy got them near the prem title for once...they think they're back with the big guns & so trying to buy their sucess again, millions spent on nobodys, without a system other than sir stevie mee long ball game to speed merchants to chase after.

If you look at the Liverpool teams of the seventies and eighties the top players e.g. Keegan, Souness, McDermott, Dalglish, the two Kennedys, Beardsley and Barnes were all purchased from other clubs. Without those players, would Liverpool have been as successful - I don't think so.

 

It annoys me when Liverpool fans criticise Chelsea and other clubs about lack of history. It's a bit like people in the U.K. criticising the USA of a lack of history. You only have to read books on American history to note how they have created their own history before and after 1776.

Man Utd's profits have fallen by 84% despite record revenues in year to 30 June.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29140959

 

Manchester United has reported a sharp fall in annual profits despite record revenues for the year.

The football club said net income plunged 84% for the year to 30 June to £23.8m, from £146m a year ago.

It comes a month after Manchester United announced a £750m 10-year shirt manufacturer sponsorship deal with Adidas.

The club said revenue increased 19% to £433.2m, compared with £363.2m a year earlier.

I am not a financial guru at all, but that is quite a drop, no?

The revenues will surely keep them afloat, but next year their accounts could be even worse after spending on all these players.

I am not a financial guru at all, but that is quite a drop, no?

The revenues will surely keep them afloat, but next year their accounts could be even worse after spending on all these players.

It will be interesting to see what the impact will be on their shares. As you say, the revenues  from shirt deal etc should keep them afloat but can't imagine that sponsors, suppliers etc will be too happy about drop in profits. Pressure will be on them to qualify for the CL next season for the revenue and prestige that brings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29144491

Spurs have hit a snag with their new stadium.

If only there was another team if North London they could agree a ground share with...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29144491

Spurs have hit a snag with their new stadium.

If only there was another team if North London they could agree a ground share with...

Would Barnet take them?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29144491

Spurs have hit a snag with their new stadium.

If only there was another team if North London they could agree a ground share with...

Don't even joke about that...it's a shocking idea.

Don't even joke about that...it's a shocking idea.

Just spoken to a Spurs ST holder at work. He's not happy about the prospect.

The trailer for "one night in Istanbul" has been released.

The trailer for "one night in Istanbul" has been released.

Thats one film I won't be downloading.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29144491

Spurs have hit a snag with their new stadium.

If only there was another team if North London they could agree a ground share with...

Olympic Stadium is surely the most likely outcome

Video referral will me amazing and is much needed. When every mistake is picked up around the world and there's television coverage like never before, it is stupid to let basic mistakes remain. Instead of players crowding the referee, they can quickly resolve the situation with a quick referral. A system with a maximum of one or two wrong referrals like tennis or cricket will be good and abuse is unlikely. One will be good to start off with.

People keep comparing video referral to tennis or cricket. It's nothing like it. In those sports there are more gaps in play than there is actual play. It means referrals don't interrupt the rhythm of the game a great deal. It would be completely different in football. Decisions are also far more subjective than cricket or tennis where, for example, a ball is simply "out" or "in" in tennis and similarly objective in cricket. However, there has still managed to be controversy with the DRS (Decision Review System) in cricket. Decisions would be far more controversial in football. DRS has still been considered a success in cricket, however, due to the quicker game speed and more subjective decisions, it would not work in football.

In cricket they do have a system where under certain (quite common) circumstances, the on field umpire's decision continues to stand. This system will not eliminate every error. The whole point will be to eliminate the very obvious glaring and ridiculous mistakes. I think it is very stupid to continue with what is clearly incorrect.

In cricket they do have a system where under certain (quite common) circumstances, the on field umpire's decision continues to stand. This system will not eliminate every error. The whole point will be to eliminate the very obvious glaring and ridiculous mistakes. I think it is very stupid to continue with what is clearly incorrect.

 

As your name is Ashwin and you're from India, why do the BCCI continue to refuse to use DRS then? 

 

How often do glaring and ridiculous mistakes happen in football? Not that often, most are decisions which could be argued either way i.e. the letter of the law vs common sense. It's not worth getting rid of that one rare, really bad mistake when managers will use their review every game so it doesn't go unused, causing the game to be disrupted. 

Fwiw, I think a tv referral system (or anything that adds complication to the game) is a bad idea. In Rugby Union, anything other than a clear try seems to be referred to the TV 'ref'. That referral system seems slow, even in a sport with as many natural pauses as Rugby Union. There's little wrong with the rules of Association Football so why mess about?

Edit: there's also an infrastructure/technical/expense and scope issue: how far down leagues will a referral system go? Who will pay? Will the system extend to all competitions, etc?

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by Spudulike

Fwiw, I think a tv referral system (or anything that adds complication to the game) is a bad idea. In Rugby Union, anything other than a clear try seems to be referred to the TV 'ref'. That referral system seems slow, even in a sport with as many natural pauses as Rugby Union. There's little wrong with the rules of Association Football so why mess about?

Goal line technology has proved to be a good innovation but as for referrals I'm not sure. In both codes of rugby when it comes to a referral over a try the video ref is asked to not only look at the grounding of the ball but also at forward passes, obstructions, offsides. How far back does the referral go?

I don't see the need for big stoppages and video replays like they do in rugby.

What is quite clear for all to see is that there are TV cameras beamed to millions around the world. Why dont a few extras refs just watch the game from a room and one of them communicate with the ref at pitch side if he has made a bad call or is thinking about something. Its really not that hard!

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by Zola