|
Post by greyman on May 30, 2014 8:08:32 GMT
I've met loads of people from here in real life and each and every one of them has been a crushing disappointment to me.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 27, 2014 12:00:06 GMT
Text and email are for 20th Century boys like you. We Millennials are back to reality
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 27, 2014 10:09:31 GMT
Phone and tell him
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 27, 2014 5:53:06 GMT
That's exactly the point. People come on here saying buy this player and sell that one, then sell this one, play these tactics and then have a word with the chairman. About 90 percent of it these days is bollocks based on what they've done with games.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 26, 2014 22:20:12 GMT
My 15 year old son thinks these are our top transfer targets for next season.
Marc-André ter Stegen
Nathaniel Clyne, Fabien Schaer, Jamal Lascelles, Luke Shaw
Zakaria Bakkali, Marco van Ginkel, Angel Correa, Viktor Fischer
Yassine Benzia, Antony Martial
He thinks we should play in a 442 diamond formation.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 26, 2014 13:59:44 GMT
Is this somebody else basing their thoughts on FIFA 14 or Football Manager?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 19, 2014 13:14:37 GMT
Nobody can spell like you can.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 19, 2014 13:06:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 13, 2014 15:41:03 GMT
There's probably something in that but equally the England manager hung him out to dry when he was brought on as a sub against Sweden. It was no way to judge a player at International level and Hodgson should be ashamed. I don't know whether it was Hodgson or Cahill who decided he should go up against Zlatan but completely unfair to judge him thereafter. He had more than that to judge him on though, I just think he mustn't have been impressed with what he saw in training, I doubt he's being judged on a few mins against one of the best in the world after being screwed by Cahill Maybe so, but it was enough for us to judge the character of Gary Cahill alright.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 13, 2014 13:57:25 GMT
Where do you think he would go. ? this is the thing really despite many on here thinking he's the messiah and no-one on the planet even comes close to him, for him to move on then someone needs to make an offer. we've spent the last few years terrified that he'll go on somewhere else but as yet....still no offers made by any other Prem club. i think that re-inforces what MarkWolstanton has said about Ryan and his seeming God like status at CB being nothing other than a Stokie love in..that isn't slagging him off, i'm more than happy for him to spend the rest of his career here but it does seem strange that the player who is apparently "The Best CB in the Prem" hasn't been courted by anyone at all since we came up doesn't it? or have all the other 19 teams got this apparent "Anyone but Stoke" bias as well as Hodgson? There's probably something in that but equally the England manager hung him out to dry when he was brought on as a sub against Sweden. It was no way to judge a player at International level and Hodgson should be ashamed. I don't know whether it was Hodgson or Cahill who decided he should go up against Zlatan but completely unfair to judge him thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 6, 2014 9:04:47 GMT
Great write up as ever. especially the section on Matty Etherington. And it's 'minuscule'. I don't think any of us really want to know about that! But as Jeremy Beadle once said, on the other hand it's quite big.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 6, 2014 4:41:02 GMT
Great write up as ever. especially the section on Matty Etherington.
And it's 'minuscule'.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 11, 2014 2:28:40 GMT
Interesting how few Scottish based players there were in the latest Scotland international squad: just four... doesn't look that different from when Scotland were good- look at the 1978 world cup squad Scotland world cup squad 19787 out of 22 playing in Scotland, the rest in England.. Major difference is obviously standard of the players which you can judge by who they play for now compared to back then.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 10, 2014 14:13:52 GMT
Replaced by: 'I've come up with a new song'
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 10, 2014 12:04:01 GMT
Like Aslan and Jebus. Same thing.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 4, 2014 6:28:39 GMT
Financial penalties are pretty lightweight against a Premier League club, they can recoup the loss easily. It irks me how we see penniless, traditional old clubs from unfashionable towns getting points docked, or fined in excess pf their income, or being wound up because of a tax bill that amounts to less than an average premier league player's income - just because they are in a lower league. Has a Premier League club ever had points docked, especially at this crucial point in the season? You need to go back to the mess they made about West Ham and Sheffield United in 2007
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 4, 2014 6:26:31 GMT
I wonder what justification the authorities have for keeping this quiet for so long? Surely there is no valid reason for not immediately publishing the facts about the breach of the rules and the (ridiculously light) punishment meted out? My guess would be the fallout from deducting points from a club threatened with relegation. As usual, they fudge the issue because they're spineless and just cause more problems. Now every club threatened with points deductions for fielding ineligible players will expect a fine and for the FA and other authorities to keep quiet about it.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 4, 2014 5:07:53 GMT
Change the subject to John Terry. At least people only relate Shawcross to one incident, unlike Terry who has proved what an arse he is over and over again in every aspect of his life. Start with this, pausing only to mention the pathetic attempt to feign injury to try to get away with it, the odiouos little shitweasel.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 4, 2014 4:01:37 GMT
Yet another fatal blow for those who argue that the authorities don't just make 'rules' up as they go along. They should have been kicked out of the League Cup (so no Wembley final) and deducted the points they won while he was playing, pathetically only one. I think it's safe to say that the Premier League would have done this if they were safely in mid-table, but decided given their relegation battle they would rather pretend it wasn't happening.
The precedent is set. If you're struggling, field who you like and take the fine.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 3, 2014 6:08:49 GMT
"If I were a manager, I would not play this way, even though it works. I am a purist at heart and my dream would be to build a team that could beat Arsenal in a football match, not a war." What a prat. What Arsenal want is for other teams to play against them at their game, only worse. They clearly hate it when other teams don't do what they'd like them to do, which is why they are so weak psychologically. Any team who can stay organised and not do what they want, can beat them.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Apr 1, 2014 7:35:50 GMT
I had my run-in with MMLC on this subject but that's unfair. Seriously. He just has a different opinion. Dunna take it so serious mate. Just a light hearted poke at Micks ridiculously long posts and in my opinion he has come across as a bit patronising on this subject in the past. Fair enough. I have noticed he's clammed up since Scudamore's comments completely undermined his hard work on the subject. I don';t think there can be much arguing any more that the Premier League and FA view certain clubs differently to others and so take different actions with them. Here's another - Luis Suarez hung a foot out on Hugo Lloris which is far more clearly a foul than Charlie Adam's 'stamp'. But are they going to ban him with retrospective action and so throw the run-in to the season into chaos? Are they fuck.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 31, 2014 19:21:01 GMT
I just don't get some Stokies. Why do you always think there's a conspiracy. Read the rule book. Don't you know what intent means. * That was my impression of Mick Mills Love Child. A decent effort but you need to go on for about 92 paragraphs and be much more boring,condescending and patronising all in one hit I had my run-in with MMLC on this subject but that's unfair. Seriously. He just has a different opinion.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 22:15:28 GMT
And that one fails Barton's Law. The one that says cutting and pasting quotes doesn't make you an interlectewal*
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 22:04:12 GMT
Your post fails Godwin's Law. Do one.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 20:11:07 GMT
Whilst I cannot stand this statement from Scudamore, I think its being blown a bit out of proportion in terms of corruption claims on this thread. I agree. I think it would be better to limit to the fact that it is indicative of institutionalised bias within the Premier League and a failure to understand at the most senior level that a sport without competition ceases to be a sport.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 12:36:07 GMT
I hope they go down and down...a nice financial crisis in the club followed by player exodus, subsequent successive seasons of relegation.......stuff that dreams are made of. unfortunately that will never happen.There will always be a russian oligarth or playboy arab wanting to take brand Manure on. Sad but true H oligarch, you thick bastard
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 10:51:10 GMT
Leave off the personal abuse. The facts are that the 'rules' vary wildly from one decision to another. Which is why Alan Shearer can kick somebody in the head, Wayne Rooney can elbow Stoke players, Fernando Torres can gouge somebody's eyes etc etc. But if Charlie Adam and Andy Carroll catch an opponent in what may or may not be an accident, then it's a suspension. Whether you choose to see this as evidence of bias is the point to discuss. But what you're arguing is that there is a consistent set of rules, when there clearly isn't. I'm not making up any facts. You're making up some imaginary set of consistent rules. no i'm not....all i'm saying (as i have said before) is that we are accusing the FA of bias or favouritism based on OUR lack of complete knowledge of the rules (i wasn't clear on them either beforehand so i'm not saying i'm some oracle or qualified referee but they are freely available on the internet for anyone to look at). i don't necessarily agree with the rules myself mate and haven't said anywhere that i do (in fact i've stated on several occasions that they DO need looking at). the point i'm making is that 2 charges of "Violent conduct" for instance could have 2 completely separate outcomes without that meaning there is inconsistency. Violent conduct is split up into several sub-rules which make up Violent Conduct. each of these rules carry different sanctions (some are red card offences whilst others are not even though it falls under theone banner of Violent conduct) and some require intent to be present whilst some don't. unless we KNOW which of the individual rules is deemed to have been broken in each example then we can't just compare them like for like. i actually said on the Charlie Adam thread a while back that i think there should be far more transparency within the FA as to which rule they are being charged with breaking (as "Violent conduct" is a catch all term that contains different offences within it). if we have that then we CAN then compare incidents and see if this bias IS present. until we do however then all we are left with is us, joe public trying to use our own interpretation of the rules based on the years of us watching it and what the commentators and media presume are the offences (and they are just presumptions as the FA don't state which specific offence or rule has been breached, they just give a generic term like "Violent conduct") and i don't think that just our interpretation (especially when most aren't even aware of the intricacies of the rules and how many "Sub-rules" are contained within them) can be used to categorically state there is corruption and bias. instead of campaigning for consistency and lack of bias, we should first be campaigning for transparency from the FA. THAT'S the real issue here. under the strict wordings of the rules and the laws of the game as they stand they are being consistent as far as we can tell if we are aware of all the intracacies, the problem though is that we aren't permitted to see everything by the FA in the first place and that's why these kind of accusations are thrown at them by the public. so, firstly we need full and clear understanding from the FA as to what specific ruling has been broken and not just be given coverall terminology which can encompass several different offences and once we have that THEN we can (if necessary) start levelling these accusations at them as until we have that transparency then we have no actual proof whatsoever so nothing will change. We have our proof today. Out of the mouth of Premier League CEO Richard Scudamore.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 9:48:31 GMT
What utter bollox he spouts. He doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge the advantages of a more open competition. I think he does Joe, he just thinks they have to be 'balanced' against the League's need to ensure Man Utd finish in the Top Two and preferably Top One.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 28, 2014 9:29:38 GMT
Well at least this proves that there is bias, unconscious or otherwise, in the way the Premier League looks at particular clubs. Can you imagine their horror if somebody like Everton or Aston Villa ever won it or even, God forbid, somebody like Blackburn.
There should be no question of balancing the need for Man Utd to win the League with 'holding a competition'. There should only be the competition. So anybody still arguing that the game is run according to 'rules' and that every club and player is treated the same should read these words and weep.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 27, 2014 12:27:15 GMT
That I can agree with you on, but large organisations simply don't like transparency. The issue is not just about rules and procedures, but culture.
Here's an example. You recall when we were first promoted the refs would refer to players like Terry and Gerrard as John and Stevie, whereas Ryan Shawcross was '17'. I can't remember which Stoke player pointed it out in an interview. It must be even more pronounced if Spurs play Wrexham. They need to address those sorts of incidences of unconscious bias as well as coming up with new rules. I have enough experience of business and organisations to know that sort of thing will affect decision making at every level and you can see how it does in the game because of their inconsistent decisions.
It also seems well understood that you'd rather have Brian Flynn having a go at you over the phone than Alex Ferguson and that will shape the decisions you make as an organisation. You can pretend that doesn't happen all you like, but it clearly does influence things. How many years did Alex Ferguson spend ignoring his mandatory obligation to speak to the media? How many journalists did he blacklist in contravention of Premier League and FA rules? Would the manager of a lower league team get cut the same slack?
As things stand, I assume they are happier that fans think either that there is bias or at least inconsistency than finding out how the organisation actually ticks. You can introduce all the rule changes you want, but unless the culture of the organisation matches them, they won't do a damn thing. Which is why it won't happen and is also why, in my opinion, they don't want refs explaining decisions after games because it will dig a series of massive holes for them, and the odd legal challenge.
|
|