Football 2015/16

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Second relegation since MA took over the club. Only one man to blame.

and yet they've been a yoyo club for 40(+?) years. How long has Ashley owned them?

It's more than just him. You've had a whole series of robbers as owners.

 

[ThomThomDrum]

On 1 April 2016 at 4:51 PM, mrtourette said:

Of course they aren't a giant, and yet you agreed when pink triangle when he said that their financial clout makes them a giant? I'm not convinced you know what your point is other than trying to make digs about England not being a big team to people who know that England aren't a big team You're preaching to the converted.

Again I don't know who you're making the greatest league on earth point and stupid winkyface to, I always argue that the greatest league on earth thing is bollocks.

How many times do I have to spell it out to you? Or is it pointless to do so as you can't follow a  simple thread?

Im having a go at the FA. If you can't understand that by now there is no point further explaining any of the points made. 

[WS_Jack_III]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and yet they've been a yoyo club for 40(+?) years. How long has Ashley owned them?

It's more than just him. You've had a whole series of robbers as owners.

 

MA has been owner about 8 years I believe. 

[eFestivals]

So ... it's going to Leicester, isn't it? No doubts now.

Bloody brilliant.

 

[ThomThomDrum]

If they mess it up now it would be hard to watch. Amazing they are in such a commanding position.

It really is quite an amazing feat considering the recent history of big money clubs owning championships

Very few could begrudge them this title and if they slip up now it would be very harsh for all concerned

[The Nal]

Sunderland away, then West Ham and Swansea at home. Could have it wrapped up in a few weeks if Spurs lose to Utd or Stoke. Spurs have Chelsea too. Arsenal have an easier run in.

[ThomThomDrum]

Its utterly unbelievable to think that this day last year they were in 20th position with only 19 points, after playing 29 games............

[thetime]

I wonder if the days of the predictability of the premier league is over. More money coming into clubs through the TV deal, demise of other clubs etc etc.

We will see in the next couple of seasons if this is the case. You would say the top 4 won't be as predictable in future.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, thetime said:

I wonder if the days of the predictability of the premier league is over. More money coming into clubs through the TV deal, demise of other clubs etc etc.

We will see in the next couple of seasons if this is the case. You would say the top 4 won't be as predictable in future.

 

what's disappeared up its own arse in a puff of smoke is the idea of manager-genius's.

The only real question is why it's taken nearly 30 years for so many to realise.

[ThomThomDrum]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

The only real question is why it's taken nearly 30 years for so many to realise.

Maybe because for the guts of those 30 odd years there existed a manager who was pretty much a genius? 

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So ... it's going to Leicester, isn't it? No doubts now.

Bloody brilliant.

 

For all the talk about Vardy and Mahrez their defence have kept the clean sheets for all these 1-0 wins. A fantastic team effort throughout.  They have undoubtedly had some fortune (I think I read they have had the most incorrect referreeing decision go int heir favour) but nothing compared to the fortune the big boys have in terms of having much more money to spend.  When I think of this season if Leicester win there are 2 key matches that come to mind.  Firstly them beating city and then Arsenal bottling it against Man Utd when it looked like the momentum may be about to change

1 hour ago, ThomThomDrum said:

If they mess it up now it would be hard to watch. Amazing they are in such a commanding position.

It really is quite an amazing feat considering the recent history of big money clubs owning championships

Very few could begrudge them this title and if they slip up now it would be very harsh for all concerned

Theres nothing that suggests they will slip up, no obvious sign of nerves.  Its also hard to see Arsenal or spurs winning every game to put the pressure on.

30 minutes ago, thetime said:

I wonder if the days of the predictability of the premier league is over. More money coming into clubs through the TV deal, demise of other clubs etc etc.

We will see in the next couple of seasons if this is the case. You would say the top 4 won't be as predictable in future.

 

I suspect this season is a one off. I wonder what Leicester will consider a minimum requirement for next season.

[TheGayTent]

40 points 

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Maybe because for the guts of those 30 odd years there existed a manager who was pretty much a genius? 

I don't disagree with the idea of him being the exception, but I don't think his existence is responsible for the trend.

My take is that it grew out of the idea that Italian football was something special, when really all it was was the best league (there's always a best league!) at the time.

[mrtourette]

Great to see the likes of Leicester, Spurs and (begrudgingly) West Ham doing so well this season, at the expense of the 'big' clubs and any sense of entitlement they may have had.

I doubt it will fundamentally change any of the 'wrongs' that have infected football over the last 10 years - Leicester executives have already been talking about maximising their new status abroad, and I'm sure as soon as these clubs are exposed to greater opportunities to sign deals with 'official yoghurt/tyre/watch suppliers in South Africa/Korea/Saudi Arabia' they will - but for football fans at least it's a welcome relief to have added competition and unpredictability.

It certainly isn't the fairytale that it will be painted as - most Premier League clubs would do things exactly the same way as the Manchester clubs given the opportunity to act like massive c**ts - but it's a start.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

On 4/3/2016 at 8:26 AM, ThomThomDrum said:

How many times do I have to spell it out to you? Or is it pointless to do so as you can't follow a  simple thread?

Im having a go at the FA. If you can't understand that by now there is no point further explaining any of the points made. 

It was initially unclear where you were going, what with your use of a cheap tabloid slur to take the piss out of someone's speech impediment and trying to claim that Harry Redknapp would have been the best choice as England manager you clearly aren't a fan of Roy Hodgson. Maybe you should have mentioned the FA at the start.

But yes if you're mocking the FA for suggesting that England are 'bigger' than they are then you're right, although they're pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't. In this country the media is the biggest issue, or rather the fact that people and organisations are scared of how they will be portrayed in the media and make more of an arse of themselves trying to counter that than if they were honest in the first place.

I dare say that the FA are very aware that their public stance and assessment of the nations's status in the game is inaccurate, it's just corporate/mediaspeak.

Edited April 4, 2016 by mrtourette

[ThomThomDrum]

15 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

It was initially unclear where you were going, what with your use of a cheap tabloid slur to take the piss out of someone's speech impediment and trying to claim that Harry Redknapp would have been the best choice as England manager you clearly aren't a fan of Roy Hodgson. Maybe you should have mentioned the FA at the start.

But yes if you're mocking the FA for suggesting that England are 'bigger' than they are then you're right, although they're pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't. In this country the media is the biggest issue, or rather the fact that people and organisations are scared of how they will be portrayed in the media and make more of an arse of themselves trying to counter that than if they were honest in the first place.

We have been over this "Woy" thing on this thread before so I won't try any explain it again... believe what you wish. You do seem to get easily offended as if you search for such.

It was his pay that I spoke of initially. Its the FA that pay the man. I didnt think Id have to clarify that!?  

EDIT - Calling the FA suckers in my original post also was probably "mentioning them" 

Edited April 4, 2016 by ThomThomDrum

[mrtourette]

3 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

We have been over this "Woy" thing on this thread before so I won't try any explain it again... believe what you wish. You do seem to get easily offended as if you search for such.

It was his pay that I spoke of initially. Its the FA that pay the man. I didnt think Id have to clarify that!?  

 

I don't need an explanation, and yes it bugs me. No apology for that. 

Yes you spoke of his pay, but your initial belief that the FA are 'suckers' for paying him that much and the obviously incorrect assertion that Harry Redknapp would have done it for less seem to put the focus on him.

Like I said you're right about the FA (although they're always going to act the way they do, it's nothing new or surprising), you just seem to be unfairly holding Roy Hodgson responsible for it as well.

 

[mrtourette]

On 4/2/2016 at 0:46 AM, kaosmark2 said:

I stopped watching at halftime, but yeah, it isn't just recruitment. Also management, morale, defensive organisation. There's a lot wrong at the club and has been for years.

Yeah Steve McClaren was a poor choice and everyone knew it, but the Newcastle 'good players but don't give a shit' situation is a lot older than that. Maybe Ashley has just made poor choices with managers. The Joe Kinnear thing was a joke and I remember thinking Chris Hughton's sacking was particularly harsh, but when Pardew was there it was relatively (for Newcastle) stable and successful. Then came the minor blip that was John Carver and McClaren. 

Was Pardew really that bad? I know it was mainly fan pressure that made him want to leave, but was it justified?

[The Nal]

11 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

Was Pardew really that bad? 

Have a look at his CV. Initially does ok and then.....

Reading - Decent

West Ham - Sacked after their worst run of results ever

Charlton - Got relegated with them and then sacked after they fell into the bottom 3 in the Championship.

Southampton - Sacked after issues with the board

Newcastle - Did ok at first and then got sacked when they had a meltdown and were rock bottom

Palace - Initially did well with a stuttering team and now in meltdown and 16th. They haven't won in 14 games.

So yeah, hes fairly shit.

Edit - And a c**t.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by The Nal

[mrtourette]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Have a look at his CV. Initially does ok and then.....

Reading - Decent

West Ham - Sacked after their worst run of results ever

Charlton - Got relegated with them and then sacked after they fell into the bottom 3 in the Championship.

Southampton - Sacked after issues with the board

Newcastle - Did ok at first and then got sacked when they had a meltdown and were rock bottom

Palace - Initially did well with a stuttering team and now in meltdown and 16th. They haven't won in 14 games.

So yeah, hes fairly shit.

Edit - And a c**t.

 

I meant at Newcastle. I thought he quit rather than was sacked, but my memory is terrible. I also don't remember it being that bad at the end but if they were bottom at the time then I guess its understandable - they just did an awful job of replacing him.

[The Nal]

7 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

I meant at Newcastle. I thought he quit rather than was sacked, but my memory is terrible. I also don't remember it being that bad at the end but if they were bottom at the time then I guess its understandable - they just did an awful job of replacing him.

Sorry you're right, he wasn't sacked. He left. But the fans weren't happy for a lot of his time there.

http://sackpardew.com/

And to be fair, he did turn it around before he left, over 5 games or so but had lost 21 from 38 previously with 37 points. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by The Nal

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

I meant at Newcastle. I thought he quit rather than was sacked, but my memory is terrible. I also don't remember it being that bad at the end but if they were bottom at the time then I guess its understandable - they just did an awful job of replacing him.

 

4 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

I meant at Newcastle. I thought he quit rather than was sacked, but my memory is terrible. I also don't remember it being that bad at the end but if they were bottom at the time then I guess its understandable - they just did an awful job of replacing him.

he wasnt sacked from newcastle: newcastle were on 34 points, around 14th. crystal palace wanted pardew as manager, so they let him go there mid season. john carver was bought in and almost got them relegated!

[TheGayTent]

I dislike Pardew a lot, but that history of him is bias at best and inaccurate at worse...

[TheGayTent]

Conte announced as Chelsea boss then

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I dislike Pardew a lot, but that history of him is bias at best and inaccurate at worse...

The "c**t" part?!

Conte announced as Chelsea boss then

Interesting. Potentially explosive stuff. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by The Nal