Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:35 am  

andym1988 wrote:

... Can also see Dzeko being moved on in the summer, he's not looked interested for a while.

He moaned about not getting a regular starting berth but when he gets one, he never seems capable of any consistency.

Our poorest player on the park yesterday by a country mile.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:29 am  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7RPnWRkIE At least Pardew wasn't as bad as this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7RPnWRkIE At least Pardew wasn't as bad as this guy.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:38 pm  

Is it just me that thinks he should be banned for life for doing that? There is no room at all in football for non playing staff confronting playing staff from the other team. If that happened at amateur level he'd be looking at that kind of punishment.

And on Suarez, I see Liverpool's owner has admitted that Luis did indeed have a buyout clause in his contract. So does it mean that:

a) Liverpool lied and Arsenal were given permission to speak to Suarez, but he turned them down
b) Liverpool illegally turned down the offer from Arsenal
c) The contracts, as the owner is making out, basically don't stand up legally, so Liverpool did nothing wrong in rejecting the offer

Can someone tell me why Suarez couldn't bring legal action against Liverpool if they did reject the offer without giving him permission to speak to Arsenal or why Arsenal couldn't bring legal action? Is that just point C above?

Either way, it makes the Liverpool owners seem rather untrustworthy. It seems a very strange time to bring this up, kicking the coals of a potential disaster when the club is potentially about to win the Premier League?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:44 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

And on Suarez, I see Liverpool's owner has admitted that Luis did indeed have a buyout clause in his contract. So does it mean that:

a) Liverpool lied and Arsenal were given permission to speak to Suarez, but he turned them down
b) Liverpool illegally turned down the offer from Arsenal
c) The contracts, as the owner is making out, basically don't stand up legally, so Liverpool did nothing wrong in rejecting the offer

Can someone tell me why Suarez couldn't bring legal action against Liverpool if they did reject the offer without giving him permission to speak to Arsenal or why Arsenal couldn't bring legal action? Is that just point C above?

Either way, it makes the Liverpool owners seem rather untrustworthy. It seems a very strange time to bring this up, kicking the coals of a potential disaster when the club is potentially about to win the Premier League?

Yawn.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:11 pm  

WireFanatic III wrote:

Yawn.

Why yawn? Answer the questions?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:59 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Is it just me that thinks he should be banned for life for doing that? There is no room at all in football for non playing staff confronting playing staff from the other team. If that happened at amateur level he'd be looking at that kind of punishment.

And on Suarez, I see Liverpool's owner has admitted that Luis did indeed have a buyout clause in his contract. So does it mean that:

a) Liverpool lied and Arsenal were given permission to speak to Suarez, but he turned them down
b) Liverpool illegally turned down the offer from Arsenal
c) The contracts, as the owner is making out, basically don't stand up legally, so Liverpool did nothing wrong in rejecting the offer

Can someone tell me why Suarez couldn't bring legal action against Liverpool if they did reject the offer without giving him permission to speak to Arsenal or why Arsenal couldn't bring legal action? Is that just point C above?

Either way, it makes the Liverpool owners seem rather untrustworthy. It seems a very strange time to bring this up, kicking the coals of a potential disaster when the club is potentially about to win the Premier League?

Suarez clearly wanted to move, he just didn't want to move to Arsenal. I don't know if John Henry expressly came out and said the clause didn't exist, he just tweeted asking what they'd been smoking at Arsenal and LFC pretty much came out and said Suarez wouldn't be leaving no matter how much money LFC were offered.

LFC and Henry were pretty much just bluffing on a duff hand and it worked out for them.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:34 pm  

The Pardew 'incident' has to be the most laughable, overblown non-event of the last few years - When I heard the initial reaction on Soccer Saturday, I thought he had knocked the guy off his feet, when, in reality, he hardly touched the bloke.

Yes, there was a margin of intent, but all it actually did was emphasise once more how football is now the ultimate in a sport played by pussys.

Doesn't anybody in football actually know how to throw a proper head butt any more?? - Imagine the uproar if somebody did a proper job on somebody like Duncan Ferguson did, busting the guy's jaw and ending up in prison - Yes, Ferguson's actions could never be condoned, but if you are going to stick head on somebody then do it properly, instead this laughable wetting of knickers over some southern nancy boy who couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:39 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Doesn't anybody in football actually know how to throw a proper head butt any more?? - Imagine the uproar if somebody did a proper job on somebody like Duncan Ferguson did, busting the guy's jaw and ending up in prison - Yes, Ferguson's actions could never be condoned, but if you are going to stick head on somebody then do it properly, instead this laughable wetting of knickers over some southern nancy boy who couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding.

You are being very kind to Duncan Ferguson. His butt was just a standard nancy footballers butt. He was sent down because he was a mental case who had three previous criminal convictions for nutting people off the field.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:58 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

You are being very kind to Duncan Ferguson. His butt was just a standard nancy footballers butt. He was sent down because he was a mental case who had three previous criminal convictions for nutting people off the field.

No arguing he was a nutcase, but I was more trying to emphasise about how ridiculous it is that the football world is in such a state about a 'headbutt' which was nothing of the sort.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:08 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

No arguing he was a nutcase, but I was more trying to emphasise about how ridiculous it is that the football world is in such a state about a 'headbutt' which was nothing of the sort.

He wasn't provoked and yet chose to have a go at a player. How far would he have to actually go to get into real trouble in your eyes? Make him cry, draw blood, hospitalise him, kill him?

Although the incident itself isn't that severe, in how many other professions would it be acceptable? If Pardew was working at Tesco for example and Meyler was rushing past to get to the whoopsies section and he did that would he get away with it? If he was a teacher and Meyler a mature student? Office worker? I really can't think of another job, bar possibly the armed forces, where that sort of behaviour would be judged to be acceptable.