Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:32 pm  

Karlos13 wrote:

Would love see Fergie show a bit of bottle and give Pogba a start but will expect to see a 38 year old left winger playing in centre midfield instead.

Was made up to see him on bench of late but it's no use leaving him there. Giggs and Carrick in the centre isn't working.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:35 pm  

Non-league is where it's going down. Premier League? give me a bloody break lol, it's all one big farce now

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:42 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

My opinion on Bent is a mixed one. You can't knock his record, but you can knock his pedigree. He's been around for years but no 'big club' have took a punt on him, largely because he's never had 'big club potential'. Bent's natural speed, 'size' and finishing ability have always meant he's got goals at this level, but he's never been the best worker and I don't think he quite understands his role 'off the ball'. i.e. He can get goals, but doesn't offer too much, whilst he doesn't quite get the goals at the level of somebody like RvN, so you generally want more than just his goals. Besides, he's nearly 28, he'd cost around £20m and his value will only go down, so I'd say no unless we could get him for around £10m. I'd prefer somebody younger, but that's just me and my 'ways'.

I think I'm with you as regards to Darren Bent, Rob. A proven PL goal-scorer is what we need, somebody to feed off Suarez. Whilst Suarez is class, obviously he isn't going to get 20 goals a season, he's a workhorse and we need assistance up front for him. I suppose, I'm fooling myself if I think we're going to land Higuian or Hazard etc, but like you say you can't knock Bent's record, the concerns are that it would be a gamble and also his age.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:55 pm  

Lord Tony Smith wrote:

I think I'm with you as regards to Darren Bent, Rob. A proven PL goal-scorer is what we need, somebody to feed off Suarez. Whilst Suarez is class, obviously he isn't going to get 20 goals a season, he's a workhorse and we need assistance up front for him. I suppose, I'm fooling myself if I think we're going to land Higuian or Hazard etc, but like you say you can't knock Bent's record, the concerns are that it would be a gamble and also his age.

I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we tried to get someone like Higuain now, an established world class striker from one of the biggest clubs in the world. Thing is, we shouldn't be employing scouts if we resort to signing players like Bent and Higuain, we should be unearthing this type of player, or getting them when they're mere unknowns in their home country. How many people knew of Higuain before Madrid? How many people even rated Higuain in his early days at Madrid? I remember seeing him under Capello thinking "he needs to get his head up, he runs with his head down and shoots from anywhere", now he's one of the best finishers in the world. There's plenty of talent around the world, every year in South America numerous talents leave for Europe and end up quality, we've just got to get amongst the pack instead of spunking money on gash players allegedly proven in the prem. Marco Reus has just gone to Dortmund for a fee believed to be less than what we paid for Downing, yet he's infinitely more talented than Downing will ever be.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:32 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we tried to get someone like Higuain now, an established world class striker from one of the biggest clubs in the world. Thing is, we shouldn't be employing scouts if we resort to signing players like Bent and Higuain, we should be unearthing this type of player, or getting them when they're mere unknowns in their home country. How many people knew of Higuain before Madrid? How many people even rated Higuain in his early days at Madrid? I remember seeing him under Capello thinking "he needs to get his head up, he runs with his head down and shoots from anywhere", now he's one of the best finishers in the world. There's plenty of talent around the world, every year in South America numerous talents leave for Europe and end up quality, we've just got to get amongst the pack instead of spunking money on gash players allegedly proven in the prem. Marco Reus has just gone to Dortmund for a fee believed to be less than what we paid for Downing, yet he's infinitely more talented than Downing will ever be.

Agreed mate. The Reus transfer just proves that there is raw, brilliant talent out there abroad at a great value. For a player of Reus' ability, the supposed fee of around 15M is a bargain. For those who haven't seen Reus, he is a fantastic wideman currently at Gladbach, scored 10 goals in 14 games on the wing, fantastic ability, pace, great passer/crosser, basically you will struggle to find a weakness in his game, I'm sure there will be various clips on YouTube of him (me and Rob rate him very highly). I think the thing that frustrates me Rob is our seemingly stuborn attitude to look for PL-based players, at Spurs Comoli, I believe signed players such as Modric, Pavlychencko, Sandro etc, obviously from abroad, therefore unless it's Kenny I can't understand why we'd go for dearer and poorer players.

Here is one for you. My mate the other day said to me, if Steven Flectcher from Wolves became available would you have him? A 24-year old, proven PL goal-scorer.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:44 pm  

CORNISH wrote: this ousely mate?? (copied and pasted from another site) Lord Ousley, who slaughtered Suarez in the press today just happens to be on the board of the Man United Foundation http://www.mufoundation.org/AboutTheFou ... Board.aspx Oh Dear. So? Does that somehow automatically mean that what he says can't be right? How can that be so? Roddy B wrote: I'm not airing my views here, I'm just trying to offer a bit of an impression of what I think most fans feel. Most of our fans believe what Suarez has said, they believe he only used the word once, they believe he didn't use it to racially abuse Evra and they believe that the 'hearing' was unfair due to the results being based on 'probability'. Most 'outsiders' won't get it, whilst I can see both sides of the argument, I do find it a little odd that people are having a go at a club/fans for standing by a person they believe is right. You may not agree with some of the statements, the t-shirts or even Suarez's 'general apology', but surely it isn't so hard to understand why somebody would stand by someone who continues to plead innocence? There are some that haven't (WFIII is a good example), but there are many others who will stand by Suarez and Dalglish, especially in their stance against calls for them to apologise for something they haven't yet admitted to. I understand the reasons why the Liverpool fans are supporting him because I imagine that 99% of other fans would do the same should one of their players be involved in a similar situation. That doesn't make it right though. It is entirely possible for somebody to feel that they are in the right and convince themselves of such even when they're not. The world is littered with such distorted views of reality, not least on an individual basis never mind the collective spartan moral and intellectual world of the football terrace. Roddy B wrote: This article is nearly a day old, but raises some outstanding points that even Catalancs hadn't raised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ocess.html Not really. It's an attempt by the Liverpool legal team to turn an internal disciplinary matter into some sort of legal initiative which would do nothing other than complicate the issue further. Matters as have happened between Suarez and Evra should be dealt with internally by the sport unless it breaks the law. Currently the process for dealing with such matters is dealt with via a tribunal process which is not subject to external verification via law (unless The FA breaks it which it didn't). Now by all means seek a clarification on what the process should be properly but to remove the "balance of probabilities" argument is to undermine the tribunal process itself and effectively turn it into a legal process which is not acceptable if you ask me. AFAIAK Suarez hasn't broken any specific laws and wasn't being assessed against such. He was being dealt with via an internal disciplinary matter. What the Liverpool lawyers are suggesting is that this isn't satisfactory which is rubbish. The FA have enough intelligent and experienced personal within their ranks to reach a satisfactory conclusion on such matters. Given the extensive report they released I would suggest that has been very much in evidence and supports that view. It is an internal disciplinary matter for the sport and as anybody will tell you who has been involved with something similar the "balance of probabilities" argument has great relevance in such. To remove it would do nothing for the sport other than complicate matters to the point that the sport will likely be unable to do anything should something similar happen in the future for fear of a long and protacted legal dispute. The sport does not and should not have that.

CORNISH wrote: this ousely mate?? (copied and pasted from another site) Lord Ousley, who slaughtered Suarez in the press today just happens to be on the board of the Man United Foundation http://www.mufoundation.org/AboutTheFou ... Board.aspx Oh Dear. So? Does that somehow automatically mean that what he says can't be right? How can that be so? Roddy B wrote: I'm not airing my views here, I'm just trying to offer a bit of an impression of what I think most fans feel. Most of our fans believe what Suarez has said, they believe he only used the word once, they believe he didn't use it to racially abuse Evra and they believe that the 'hearing' was unfair due to the results being based on 'probability'. Most 'outsiders' won't get it, whilst I can see both sides of the argument, I do find it a little odd that people are having a go at a club/fans for standing by a person they believe is right. You may not agree with some of the statements, the t-shirts or even Suarez's 'general apology', but surely it isn't so hard to understand why somebody would stand by someone who continues to plead innocence? There are some that haven't (WFIII is a good example), but there are many others who will stand by Suarez and Dalglish, especially in their stance against calls for them to apologise for something they haven't yet admitted to. I understand the reasons why the Liverpool fans are supporting him because I imagine that 99% of other fans would do the same should one of their players be involved in a similar situation. That doesn't make it right though. It is entirely possible for somebody to feel that they are in the right and convince themselves of such even when they're not. The world is littered with such distorted views of reality, not least on an individual basis never mind the collective spartan moral and intellectual world of the football terrace. Roddy B wrote: This article is nearly a day old, but raises some outstanding points that even Catalancs hadn't raised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ocess.html Not really. It's an attempt by the Liverpool legal team to turn an internal disciplinary matter into some sort of legal initiative which would do nothing other than complicate the issue further. Matters as have happened between Suarez and Evra should be dealt with internally by the sport unless it breaks the law. Currently the process for dealing with such matters is dealt with via a tribunal process which is not subject to external verification via law (unless The FA breaks it which it didn't). Now by all means seek a clarification on what the process should be properly but to remove the "balance of probabilities" argument is to undermine the tribunal process itself and effectively turn it into a legal process which is not acceptable if you ask me. AFAIAK Suarez hasn't broken any specific laws and wasn't being assessed against such. He was being dealt with via an internal disciplinary matter. What the Liverpool lawyers are suggesting is that this isn't satisfactory which is rubbish. The FA have enough intelligent and experienced personal within their ranks to reach a satisfactory conclusion on such matters. Given the extensive report they released I would suggest that has been very much in evidence and supports that view. It is an internal disciplinary matter for the sport and as anybody will tell you who has been involved with something similar the "balance of probabilities" argument has great relevance in such. To remove it would do nothing for the sport other than complicate matters to the point that the sport will likely be unable to do anything should something similar happen in the future for fear of a long and protacted legal dispute. The sport does not and should not have that.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:05 pm  

CORNISH wrote:

nob.

Sorry Oscar Wilde

Bit tetchy today, are we, over what's obviously a jokey remark.

Keep your kkkowl on

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:24 pm  

lefty goldblatt wrote:

Sorry Oscar Wilde

Bit tetchy today, are we, over what's obviously a jokey remark.

Keep your kkkowl on

Whether it is jokey or not Lefty, it's still a pretty dumb thing to say considering the circumstances.

As someone who seems alright on the Wire board, I expected better from you. Didn't think you would be one to try and score some cheap points.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:31 pm  

Shock is on at Anfield. 1-0 Oldham after a barnburner of a strike.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:32 pm  

WireFanatic III wrote:

Shock is on at Anfield. 1-0 Oldham after a barnburner of a strike.

Actually, scrap that. It's back to 1-1.