General Premier League Thread 2019-20

8-10

Bigger problem Newcastle will have is selling players. Lots of mad signings in recent years that you wouldn't see much of a market for:

Joelinton
Carroll
Krafth
Almiron
Merino
Muto
Manquillo
Atsu

Lots of below average players in that squad, some of which came for big money

ERG89

8-10 wrote: »

Bigger problem Newcastle will have is selling players. Lots of mad signings in recent years that you wouldn't see much of a market for:

Joelinton
Carroll
Krafth
Almiron
Merino
Muto
Manquillo
Atsu

Lots of below average players in that squad, some of which came for big money

Merino left 2 years ago and I always thought he was underrated by them.

The biggest challenge for Newcastle is getting the new owners in the door before everything returns to normal and people begin to scrutinise this when a coronavirus epidemic is not occuring.

~Rebel~

Mushy wrote: »

The analysis was on a tv station, not by Mourinho

I know.

There was a comment from someone about Jose’s woeful man-management in relation to Ndombele. (We all know what Jose did in this case, publicly blaming Ndombele)

Then there was a reply about just how bad Ndombele was that day.

I was pointing out that it doesn’t really matter how bad he was, that’s something for them to talk about together, rather than for Jose to shout to the world.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Every footballer face critics for poor performances if you can't deal with it its really not the sport for you ,

Of course, and that’s fine. But a critic talking about your poor performance is not the same as your boss doing it publicly.

Guy:Incognito

So Bournemouth, Brighton, Watford and West Ham are the 4 clubs that are against restarting.

Racking my brain trying to figure out why those clubs. Just can't out my finger on it...............

davemckenna25

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So Bournemouth, Brighton, Watford and West Ham are the 4 clubs that are against restarting.

Racking my brain trying to figure out why those clubs. Just can't out my finger on it...............

Where did they say they were against restarting?

I thought they were happy to play once it was safe to do so, the same as everyone else..

Fitz*

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So Bournemouth, Brighton, Watford and West Ham are the 4 clubs that are against restarting.

Racking my brain trying to figure out why those clubs. Just can't out my finger on it...............

David Ornstein cleared it up and said that those teams rejected the idea of neutral venues, not restarting.

Agent Coulson

KDB openly talking that he may leave City now if the ban is upheld.


Kevin De Bruyne admits two-year European ban could lead him to leave

Manchester City appealing against Uefa punishment
‘I will review everything. Two years would be long

Kevin De Bruyne has admitted he will consider his future if Manchester City’s two-year ban from European competition stands, but suggested he could stay at the Etihad Stadium even if he faced a year out of the Champions League.

City were hit with the ban for “serious breaches” of Uefa’s financial fair play regulations but have appealed against the punishment to the court of arbitration for sport. There has been much speculation over the future of key players such as De Bruyne if the ban stands, but the Belgium international said he trusted the club as they insist they have done nothing wrong and can get the ban overturned.

“I’m just waiting,” De Bruyne said in an interview with the Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws. “The club told us they are going to appeal and they are almost 100% sure they are right. That’s why I’m waiting to see what will happen. I trust my team.

“Once the decision is made, I will review everything. Two years would be long, but in the case of one year I might see.”........

He is also sure the season will be finished.

De Bruyne said he was sure the season would be finished. “My feeling is that we may be able to train again within two weeks,” he said. “The government wants to restart football as soon as possible to give people something. Everything will be finished without fans, I think. That is not really interesting for anyone, but this season will be finished.....

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/02/kevin-de-bruyne-two-year-european-ban-could-leave-manchester-city

Guy:Incognito

I'd be amazed if they end up with a 2 year ban when it comes down to it. It''ll be 1 year at the max but probably changed to a suspended ban and effectively let away with it.

Cookiemunster

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'd be amazed if they end up with a 2 year ban when it comes down to it. It''ll be 1 year at the max but probably changed to a suspended ban and effectively let away with it.

Most legal experts I've read say that city are unlikely to win the appeal. An independent body rather than UEFA heard the initial case and decided on the length of ban. The case is supposed to be pretty watertight.

Anyways its unlikely CAS will hear the case before next season starts, so they'll probably be in Europe next season. If there is a European season that is.

ebbsy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'd be amazed if they end up with a 2 year ban when it comes down to it. It''ll be 1 year at the max but probably changed to a suspended ban and effectively let away with it.

I'd say the will get a one year ban . They were probably given a 2 year ban in the first place so there would be some wriggle room.

This is important for the chasing clubs...

~Rebel~

ebbsy wrote: »

I'd say the will get a one year ban . They were probably given a 2 year ban in the first place so there would be some wriggle room.

This is important for the chasing clubs...

This was my initial thought back when it happened too... but after learning more about it in the time since I actually don't think so. I think they'll really push for the entire penalty.

I had first thought the same as you because that's what happened with Milan. They were given a 2 year ban, which they were able to get down to 1. BUT, the difference is that Milan opened their books, admitted fault and that they had been in breach of FFP, and agreed to oversight. They have the first year ban, after which point their books are again gone through thoroughly by the committee, and if all is in order, they're allowed to compete. If not, the 2nd year ban stands.

City on the other hand have gone out of the way to be as obstructionist as possible. Have denied Uefa access to their books, and have denied any wrongdoing whatsoever. On top of this, where Milan had simply broken FFP rules, City went above and beyond this by providing false information in their report. That's a bigger crime than simply breaking the rules, because it implies you know you broke the rules and you're trying to cover it up by lying.

From the various reports, really sounds like Uefa have them fairly dead to rights, and they're setting out to make an example of them for not coming clean like Milan had.

y0ssar1an22

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This was my initial thought back when it happened too... but after learning more about it in the time since I actually don't think so. I think they'll really push for the entire penalty.

I had first thought the same as you because that's what happened with Milan. They were given a 2 year ban, which they were able to get down to 1. BUT, the difference is that Milan opened their books, admitted fault and that they had been in breach of FFP, and agreed to oversight. They have the first year ban, after which point their books are again gone through thoroughly by the committee, and if all is in order, they're allowed to compete. If not, the 2nd year ban stands.

City on the other hand have gone out of the way to be as obstructionist as possible. Have denied Uefa access to their books, and have denied any wrongdoing whatsoever. On top of this, where Milan had simply broken FFP rules, City went above and beyond this by providing false information in their report. That's a bigger crime than simply breaking the rules, because it implies you know you broke the rules and you're trying to cover it up by lying.

From the various reports, really sounds like Uefa have them fairly dead to rights, and they're setting out to make an example of them for not coming clean like Milan had.

without knowing how the investigation happens, how could uefa have any evidence if they cannot access man city's records?

~Rebel~

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

without knowing how the investigation happens, how could uefa have any evidence if they cannot access man city's records?

There's a few things here - clubs that want to play in Europe have to supply a certain amount of information. ordinarily you don't need to open your books - only if you do something wrong does that happen. So City supplied a whole bunch of information to Uefa.

Now, separate to this, Rui Pinto's footyleaks revealed the extent of City's shenanigans very publicly (and so far none of those leaks about any club or individual have been found to be falsified). Of course this information is inadmissible, but the thinking is that it pointed the Uefa committee where to look, and they were able to establish the inaccuracies and falsifications through just the information City gave them. City were given the opportunity to open their books to provide any information to exonerate them if such information existed, but they declined.

The guardian (i think - though it may have been totally football) had a great podcast on it about 2 months ago that brought together a lot of the info i'd read elsewhere.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52542756

Halfs of under 45m considered. Hmm - would lead to more draws being likely. I suppose teams can go more hell for leather if they have less time to keep their reserves in check.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52542756

Halfs of under 45m considered. Hmm - would lead to more draws being likely. I suppose teams can go more hell for leather if they have less time to keep their reserves.

I doubt there is an actual consideration of that, at all. It would require Fifa and that weird international committee thing to agree on it as it is a fundemental rule change (like 5 subs). And there has been no talk of that.

This is going to end up like the no relegation thing. 1 club brought it up, it was dismissed, but 4 days later we are talking about like it has been decided to do it.

I wonder how much crap is being thrown around so that the version of football we do get (behind closed doors, 5 subs) is accepted - 'At least the halves are 45!'.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I doubt there is an actual consideration of that, at all. It would require Fifa and that weird international committee thing to agree on it as it is a fundemental rule change (like 5 subs). And there has been no talk of that.

This is going to end up like the no relegation thing. 1 club brought it up, it was dismissed, but 4 days later we are talking about like it has been decided to do it.

I wonder how much crap is being thrown around so that the version of football we do get (behind closed doors, 5 subs) is accepted - 'At least the halves are 45!'.

The reasoning behind it, presumably, would be the reduced turn around time required for games. They might copy the GAA - if 35m each half is good enough for the All-Ireland

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

The reasoning behind it, presumably, would be the reduced turn around time required for games. They might copy the GAA - if 35m each half is good enough for the All-Ireland

But it is impossible to do at this point, without FIFA and IFAB. THe FA and PL can't just decide on something like that themselves. It is also not something that only the PL could implement, they can't play football to a different rule set, so Spain and Germany etc would have to do the same and no evidence or talk of it.

as a general idea it can have merit. Has long been discussed that football should/could change how time is recorded for matches, similar to Rugby.

Reduce halves to 30 mins, stop the clock when the ball is out of play - which results in 30 mins of actual play time, which is roughly what football is anyway. No injury time played (as the clock would be stopped for injury stoppages, subs etc).

I'm not against such an idea in general, but the idea that it is a possibility for a return of the PL in June is.... laughable.

beggars_bush

Amazing city got a ban for this yet Liverpool only got a monetary fine for hacking other clubs databases

I cannot see any premier league action for a long time

gstack166

beggars_bush wrote: »

Amazing city got a ban for this yet Liverpool only got a monetary fine for hacking other clubs databases

I cannot see any premier league action for a long time

Where is that after coming from lol

Mitch Connor

gstack166 wrote: »

Where is that after coming from lol

Alleged to have hacked the City Database. They paid a settlement to City following their complaint so it was never brought to 'court', so you would still have to say alleged hacking, I think.

Remember reading that City regret accepting a settlement rather than pushing for punishment, but things between City and Liverpool was less acrimonious at the time, I believe.

gstack166

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Alleged to have hacked the City Database. They paid a settlement to City following their complaint so it was never brought to 'court', so you would still have to say alleged hacking, I think.

Remember reading that City regret accepting a settlement rather than pushing for punishment, but things between City and Liverpool was less acrimonious at the time, I believe.

No, of course I know the story, just mean it’s a post out of the blue in terms of the thread.

Edit: there’s some to be a problem with the touch site, I re-read previous posts but the heading on my phone is saying this is the coronavirus thread. Apologies

TitianGerm

gstack166 wrote: »

No, of course I know the story, just mean it’s a post out of the blue in terms of the thread.

Edit: there’s some to be a problem with the touch site, I re-read previous posts but the heading on my phone is saying this is the coronavirus thread. Apologies

Boards is going mad lately. If I search any Forum it shows up threads from 15 years ago.

TitianGerm

TitianGerm wrote: »

Boards is going mad lately. If I search any Forum it shows up threads from 15 years ago.

Liverpool have hacked Boards.ie

8-10

Deleted User wrote: »

Liverpool have hacked Boards.ie

And apparently have also pulled out of a bid for Anelka

ebbsy

beggars_bush wrote: »

Amazing city got a ban for this yet Liverpool only got a monetary fine for hacking other clubs databases

I cannot see any premier league action for a long time

Slow news day ???

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

And apparently have also pulled out of a bid for Anelka

Ffs, thought it was a done deal

~Rebel~

6 wrote: »

Ffs, thought it was a done deal

Don’t worry, we’re moving for some lad named Diouf. African player of the year... meant to be the real deal. Be grand.

Shanotheslayer

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Don’t worry, we’re moving for some lad named Diouf. African player of the year... meant to be the real deal. Be grand.

Think he'd get done for attempted murder nowadays with those spitting antics :pac:

Martin Tyler AgueroooOO

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Think he'd get done for attempted murder nowadays with those spitting antics :pac:

He probably would because he is Johnny Foreigner and not a nice guy by all accounts but Carragher did and kept one of the highest paying jobs in TV punditry without much consequences.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/GGFN_/status/1257777317394419719


"Breaking | Bayern Munich and Manchester City attacker Leroy Sané reach an agreement over a 5-year contract, according to Sport Bild. More follows."

Martin Tyler AgueroooOO

Just put a screen in every seat and have fans Zoom in.

Tippex

I think what is being touted as options for the restart of the PL are mostly unworkable including players contracts being up at the end of June.
Reduction in length of halves, thus changing the format of the competition means it is no longer a level playing field. Won't happen imo.
Neutral venues. I would be amazed if this was to be agreed especially with teams battling relation with teams they have already played an away fixture with.

I know they have to do something but the teams will have signed up to a participation agreement outlining the terms of the season etc and I would imagine none of the participation agreements will have any clauses for what the world is going through.

I can understand why teams would be saying that yes we will play out the season at neutral venues but relegation has to be off the table. However if relegation is off the table so too is promotion and also the crowning of Liverpool. Maybe I am wrong but if Liverpool were awarded the title now would it take the gloss of the title? I personally think it would, even though they totally deserve to win it after their previous 29 games.

Playing games behind closed doors also impact the home "advantage" thus no longer a level playing field as with neutral venues.

A team can and should only be champions on the completion of the competition and while Liverpool will win the league once all games are completed it is the only time a league winner should be declared.

The long term implications are concerning. Football as a spectacle is horrendous in a behind closed doors scenario as we seen with the UTD v LASK game in the Europa league.

I estimate that if social distancing were to be implemented in stadiums, the capacity would be reduced to 15-20%, which I think again would be unworkable.

~Rebel~

Tippex wrote: »

I think what is being touted as options for the restart of the PL are mostly unworkable including players contracts being up at the end of June.
Reduction in length of halves, thus changing the format of the competition means it is no longer a level playing field. Won't happen imo.
Neutral venues. I would be amazed if this was to be agreed especially with teams battling relation with teams they have already played an away fixture with.

I know they have to do something but the teams will have signed up to a participation agreement outlining the terms of the season etc and I would imagine none of the participation agreements will have any clauses for what the world is going through.

I can understand why teams would be saying that yes we will play out the season at neutral venues but relegation has to be off the table. However if relegation is off the table so too is promotion and also the crowning of Liverpool.

All this stuff is tricky... what makes it possible is that to go ahead they need 14 votes from the 20 teams, so ultimately it might not matter if the 6 closest to relegation vote against it. Really can't see the half length thing happening anyway... the neutral venue thing is a great idea, and makes the logistics of the whole thing go much easier. As above, I think most teams will agree, while of course the clubs closest to relegation will say no to anything put to them... they obviously just want to avoid relegation any way they can. That's the chief stumbling block.

Curious last line there though, it reads like your saying it as a logical fact, but its obviously entirely subjective opinion. It's a weird situation, so what's logical is to do what you can. There are 3 things to be decided each year beyond specific league positions - relegation, europe, winner. We've already gone over why the former is tough, because its the one that actually punishes those teams in a very serious way so is the one most likely to have teams throwing lawsuits all over the shop. But the latter two are quite independent of that, and don't have really have anything to do with it, or the reasoning behind it. European places are 100% being given. We already know that's a certainty, whether we finish out the season or not, so that pretty much negates the 'no relegation, no anything else', argument.

Maybe I am wrong but if Liverpool were awarded the title now would it take the gloss of the title? I personally think it would, even though they totally deserve to win it after their previous 29 games.

Quite a subjective one... I'd say generally, a pretty firm no. I mean, maybe it would've if they were, like, 10 points ahead with 9 to play or something, but the fact that after 29 games they've already got this thing sewn up without doubt keeps that glossy sheen firmly intact. What it does take the gloss off I suppose is in taking it from likely the greatest premier league season in history with a likely points record, and earliest win record, and turns in into a win closer to normal, but I don't think that'll bother fans all that much!

Playing games behind closed doors also impact the home "advantage" thus no longer a level playing field as with neutral venues.

A team can and should only be champions on the completion of the competition and while Liverpool will win the league once all games are completed it is the only time a league winner should be declared.

Don't quite understand this one... particularly given that the champion is often declared before all games are already played. So that takes the 'once 38 games are all played' argument away, and leaves us with the question of 'if you can't quite finish the season, can you name a champion'... and its another subjective one. My answer would be the same as the French and Scottish answers, which is - if the answer is already clear, sure, why not! With literally everything about football as uncertain as its ever been, why go looking for reasons to add to that? Take what you can, decide what you can - in the same way that 4 lucky teams will be in the champions league next season regardless of how many games we end up playing by seasons end, because something is better than nothing.

The long term implications are concerning. Football as a spectacle is horrendous in a behind closed doors scenario as we seen with the UTD v LASK game in the Europa league.

I estimate that if social distancing were to be implemented in stadiums, the capacity would be reduced to 15-20%, which I think again would be unworkable.

I keep seeing Utd V LASK put forward as the reason why football behind closed doors is a disaster... but maybe it was just a bit of a shit game? I mean, it was Man Utd against feckin' LASK, when was that ever going to be interesting, barring some major upset? Which very much didn't happen as Utd went on to knock in 5.

By contrast, Valencia V Atalanta behind closed doors was one of the best games I've seen this season, amazing stuff! The lack of crowd was weird obviously, and I'd waaay prefer they were there, but it was still bloody great stuff even without them. PSG V Dortmund wasn't half bad either.

Guy:Incognito

The shorter halves thing seems to be based on nothing bar a sentence in the middle of an interview that was probably replying to a question, and a clickbaity headline.

" Football League chairman Rick Parry said "there haven't been any discussions about it", but did tell a Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee hearing: "I don't think we should be ruling out any creative ideas."

Anyone discussed the drive and urgency players get from fans during the game?

Especially home teams

Alot of the excitement and passion is driven from this

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone discussed the drive and urgency players get from fans during the game?

Especially home teams

Alot of the excitement and passion is driven from this

Anyone discuss the lack of drive and urgency from them sitting at home on the couch playing Fifa for 18 months?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Anyone discuss the lack of drive and urgency from them sitting at home on the couch playing Fifa for 18 months?

?

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone discussed the drive and urgency players get from fans during the game?

Especially home teams

Alot of the excitement and passion is driven from this

What's worth discussing about it really, until it effects games?

Any football played over the next year - 18 months will be absent of fans so it is what it is.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What's worth discussing about it really, until it effects games?

Any football played over the next year - 18 months will be absent of fans so it is what it is.

There have been games been played with no fans already.

Saying 'It is what it is' is not really addressing the point.

Still doesn't make it good to watch. I'd rather not watch it without fans personally. I'm sure alot of people feel the same.

But I'm more pointing to team impact. I think fans in stadiums contribute to the game being played on the pitch more than is let on.

8-10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There have been games been played with no fans already.

Not in the EPL

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

Not in the EPL

Correct. But doesnt mean it can't be referenced. Same situation. A game without fans?

No need to be pedantic tbf

8-10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Correct. But doesnt mean it can't be referenced. Same situation. A game without fans?

No need to be pedantic tbf

So you don't automatically know that it'll be bad to watch because PSG or Valencia played games like that before.

We have to accept that we won't just to back to having full stadia from day 1. It makes no sense to do that.

hetuzozaho

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been games been played with no fans already.

Saying 'It is what it is' is not really addressing the point.

Still doesn't make it good to watch. I'd rather not watch it without fans personally. I'm sure alot of people feel the same.

But I'm more pointing to team impact. I think fans in stadiums contribute to the game being played on the pitch more than is let on.

If they could pipe in some cheering to my feed I think I'd manage. I think for the current situation I would rather some sport without fans, would really brighten the weekends up for me.

I imagine will be very strange for the players as you say. It must really up the competitiveness and pressure for the players.

ebbsy

If Aston Villa are against it then all the better for Liverpool - 3 points nearer the title.

Villa can go down.

Loafing Oaf

Ruling out relegation would take away a lot of the spice for me. Would have the vibe of a pre-season tournament in that case...

ebbsy

ebbsy wrote: »

If Aston Villa are against it then all the better for Liverpool - 3 points nearer the title.

Villa can go down.

Is that the case? Forfeit or something I assume you mean

ebbsy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is that the case? Forfeit or something I assume you mean

I'm only on the wind up bud.

or could it actually happen ?

ebbsy

ebbsy wrote: »

I'm only on the wind up bud.

or could it actually happen ?

Haha yea sorry copped it
But it's a good point

PL could strong arm teams and threaten them with the possibility of auto losing points?

I wouldn't be all that surprised given their stance on the coronavirus in general IMO

All about the money

ebbsy

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Ruling out relegation would take away a lot of the spice for me. Would have the vibe of a pre-season tournament in that case...

I dont think that is even on the table.

Voiding the season is not on the table either I would say, money wise Some clubs would go under.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

There have been games been played with no fans already.

I watched the PSG / Dortmund CL game the week before football in Europe was generally halted. Good game played with a lot of intensity despite fans not being there.

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying 'It is what it is' is not really addressing the point.

Still doesn't make it good to watch. I'd rather not watch it without fans personally. I'm sure alot of people feel the same.

Okay, not for you so. There's no objective truth to be unearthed here. You won't have to watch when it comes to it.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I'm more pointing to team impact. I think fans in stadiums contribute to the game being played on the pitch more than is let on.

Well it will be the same for everyone. Some players will react better than others. I don't believe it would be fruitful to guess at which ones.