2 hours ago, ashwin said:

The ONLY thing we need are video referrals.

I don't really get that tbh it will slow the game down. Also I think it's good to accept that controversy is part of the game, it's part of the interest. I think goal line technology is enough and for me retrposteice bans for things like divining are where it should end.

For a city that love to go on and on about their great sense of humour, it's interesting how they struggle to take a joke...not just gerrard and mcmanaman here, but outcry on social media, local paper over this tame bit of banter is laughable 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/watch-steven-gerrards-reaction-neil-12475630

 

 

9 minutes ago, The Brit said:

For a city that love to go on and on about their great sense of humour, it's interesting how they struggle to take a joke...not just gerrard and mcmanaman here, but outcry on social media, local paper over this tame bit of banter is laughable 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/watch-steven-gerrards-reaction-neil-12475630

 

 

Last line from the article:

"One day Warnock will let it go. But not last night."

The staggering lack of self awareness of that is just brilliant. 

The Echo is hilarious, it reads like a fanzine. 

i want whatever marco's smoking when he came up with those ideas

 

36 minutes ago, Bobbywoodhogan said:

I don't really get that tbh it will slow the game down. Also I think it's good to accept that controversy is part of the game, it's part of the interest. I think goal line technology is enough and for me retrposteice bans for things like divining are where it should end.

 

I reckon what could work is giving managers 1 unsuccessful challenge per game, this will give them the opportunity to challenge any bad decisions and hopefully shut them up in post match interviews.

14 minutes ago, havelschayes said:

i want whatever marco's smoking when he came up with those ideas

 

Well he is dutch after all.......sorry Val no offence...

3 hours ago, Snedger said:

In the football rich list issued yesterday http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38655480, Man City are now 5th. How on earth have they got there so quickly? When you compare them to us, they have had a fairly similar attendance until last season (and even then, their tickets are generally cheaper), they haven’t had as long a period of ‘top club’ status and haven’t had as big a trophy haul and they aren’t in the prime tourism spot that we are. In addition to that, I read the other day that there official website is miles behind us in visits. We even managed to get some briefly record breaking sponsorships in the last couple of years.

I know that this kind of thing doesn’t really matter, but it does make me wonder how they are generating such income. Despite some completely ineffectual punishment a couple of years back, they have seemed pretty immune to FFP and it’s almost certain that they will spend perhaps more than has ever been spent by any club this summer to give Pep the kind of superior squad he is used to.

I appreciate our own rise up these kind of lists was initiated by the money that Roman pumped into the club, but it has taken over ten years and many trophies, including a European Cup, to get amongst the longer established elite.

When you sign dubious business deals with your rich friends and family it makes things easier. 

Could it be last year's CL run that brought in that extra revenue for us? I don't know, I agree it does seem cooked up but what's even more iffy is how PSG is ahead of Arsenal, Chelsea and Juve, PSG have done diddly squat in the CL, Don't have the tv money we have and haven't got a superstar who's shirt or image money could even bring any legitimacy to them being on that list.But what does the list above even prove or mean? To me i'd rather be in Leicester City's position and be bottom of this rich boys list but Premier League champions, This is all that modern day c-rap, 'Oooh my club has more twitter followers than yours, S-ck it'. 

That's the problem with Man utd, they are simply too rich to ever really fall far from the top. They've had a couple of seasons of average performances, but so much money still coming in they can just spend spend spend until they get it right again.

5 hours ago, Snedger said:

In the football rich list issued yesterday http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38655480, Man City are now 5th. How on earth have they got there so quickly? When you compare them to us, they have had a fairly similar attendance until last season (and even then, their tickets are generally cheaper), they haven’t had as long a period of ‘top club’ status and haven’t had as big a trophy haul and they aren’t in the prime tourism spot that we are. In addition to that, I read the other day that there official website is miles behind us in visits. We even managed to get some briefly record breaking sponsorships in the last couple of years.

I know that this kind of thing doesn’t really matter, but it does make me wonder how they are generating such income. Despite some completely ineffectual punishment a couple of years back, they have seemed pretty immune to FFP and it’s almost certain that they will spend perhaps more than has ever been spent by any club this summer to give Pep the kind of superior squad he is used to.

I appreciate our own rise up these kind of lists was initiated by the money that Roman pumped into the club, but it has taken over ten years and many trophies, including a European Cup, to get amongst the longer established elite.

City have been in CL regularly and against the big teams, won cups and in recent years have done better than us. Commercial and marketing don't care about your history, it's all about exposure. This is why Leicester have shot up the table.

I'm more surprised at United, I know they signed a few new deals and such but that's still quite a significant difference from last year.

30 minutes ago, Remodez said:

City have been in CL regularly and against the big teams, won cups and in recent years have done better than us. Commercial and marketing don't care about your history, it's all about exposure. This is why Leicester have shot up the table.

I'm more surprised at United, I know they signed a few new deals and such but that's still quite a significant difference from last year.

Yes but Chelsea won the CL only 4/5 years ago and won the league 2 years ago not  to mention signed that mammoth shirt deal, I'm surprised they are behind Arsenal/PSG and ourselves, It is weird how they calculate all of this nonsense. I guess United signing big nose and dab boy helped bring in some shirt revenue but like you i am surprised how they are ahead of Real and Barca, Given the array of sponsors, superstars they have and the success they both had last year.

Edited January 19, 20179 yr by Kinkladze1871

58 minutes ago, Kinkladze1871 said:

Yes but Chelsea won the CL only 4/5 years ago and won the league 2 years ago not  to mention signed that mammoth shirt deal, I'm surprised they are behind Arsenal/PSG and ourselves, It is weird how they calculate all of this nonsense. I guess United signing big nose and dab boy helped bring in some shirt revenue but like you i am surprised how they are ahead of Real and Barca, Given the array of sponsors, superstars they have and the success they both had last year.

5 years ago we were most likely ahead of you given that CL victory but you've won more in the past 2 years/seasons and been a constant face in the CL since so the figures would reflect that. 

Arsenal isn't weird really, they have been in the CL for a long time and will make a decent push for a cup or so here and there. They are practically a safe bet commercially. Don't know enough about PSG to be honest, the league itself isn't watched as much as the others so maybe it's down to them being the only french team that can actually advance deep in CL competitions thus maximising their value.

I think United have gotten to the point where they are more of a brand than a football club so things like losing out on CL that has affected us wouldn't make much of a dent for them, they can still negotiate big deals. 

Edited January 19, 20179 yr by Remodez

Jose Fonte is close to joining West Ham apparently.

It's a shame to see him make such a step down.

Edited January 19, 20179 yr by Huttsey

I thought he wanted to move to try and win something before his career ended?

8 hours ago, Womble said:

Well he is dutch after all.......sorry Val no offence...

Dutchist 

4 hours ago, Zeta said:

That's the problem with Man utd, they are simply too rich to ever really fall far from the top. They've had a couple of seasons of average performances, but so much money still coming in they can just spend spend spend until they get it right again.

True, but 5 - 6 more years of no Premier League trophies or CL, then expect the brand to suffer. I read thewhole Pogba situation as a ry for attention "We are a big club with loads of money! Nothing has changed".

9 hours ago, Bobbywoodhogan said:

I don't really get that tbh it will slow the game down. Also I think it's good to accept that controversy is part of the game, it's part of the interest. I think goal line technology is enough and for me retrposteice bans for things like divining are where it should end.

I don't know... my gut feeling is that we can reach a compromise with respect to time with 1/2 challenges or whatever. It is worth a try. The problem with controversies nowadays is that everyone knows the truth through TV and incidents are replayed again and again. I already see several people (rightly or wrongly) suspecting foul play (or corruption) or incompetence but video referrals can ensure the perception of justice even if there is still some scope for injustice.

The main reason, in my opinion, that football authorities are ignoring the matter is not because of time but because they believe it will undermine the authority of the referee. Such a move will replace some of their arrogance with humility when it becomes statistically clear how error prone referees are. 

Too much technology nowadays, we cannot ignore non-monetary and non-entertainment benefits in any sport for too long.

7 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

When you sign dubious business deals with your rich friends and family it makes things easier. 

I think both PSG and City's owners basically sponsor their own clubs at a level that they would never be able to attract otherwise. They have done this to propel themselves rapidly into the football elite.

1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

I think both PSG and City's owners basically sponsor their own clubs at a level that they would never be able to attract otherwise. They have done this to propel themselves rapidly into the football elite.

City got what like 200m for naming rights from ETIHAD? Nowhere near a correct valuation at that time. 

I thought he wanted to move to try and win something before his career ended?

Well he won the European Championship. So it's not all bad.

For those who remember the Chelsea site from the late 1990s, there's this gem from the quotes section:

"If you're Marco van Basten, I'm Father Christmas"

-to Marco van Basten at the training ground

What do folk think the outcome of the City v Spurs game will be? Have done as 1-1 in my predictions. City and Guadiolla need to bounce back with a good performance and result but I can't see Spurs losing and think a tough fought draw is the best we can hope for.

 

Spurs 3-1

10 minutes ago, Nibs said:

What do folk think the outcome of the City v Spurs game will be? Have done as 1-1 in my predictions. City and Guadiolla need to bounce back with a good performance and result but I can't see Spurs losing and think a tough fought draw is the best we can hope for.

 

Spurs are pretty much at full strength whereas City are losing some key players, I would be surprised if Spurs don't win. Especially given their form.