General Premier League Thread 2019-20

bangkok

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Clubs that want to win things tend not to want players that are just looking for a huge salary.

Sure why go to United then when they can go to China?

Money is an aspect of the game everyone knows that, but if a player has that has his priority I wouldn't want him.

But clubs that win things usually pay big wages. The 2 go hand in hand. Obviously no player is going to come out and say it, but when you hear players talking about joining a "project" it usually means they are going for money

Shanotheslayer

bangkok wrote: »

But clubs that win things usually pay big wages. The 2 go hand in hand. Obviously no player is going to come out and say it, but when you hear players talking about joining a "project" it usually means they are going for money

Yes, United haven't won much in recent years and look way off the pace in the near future. So that rules that reason out for joining them

charolais0153

bangkok wrote: »

Fully deserves it, best manager in the league right now

*world

.G.

TitianGerm wrote: »

I think both get around 200k now after their new contacts.

Which, to put into context, is the same as Marcus Rashford. United in a nutshell there.

bangkok

.G. wrote: »

Which, to put into context, is the same as Marcus Rashford. United in a nutshell there.

I thought rashford was on 150k a week?

.G.

bangkok wrote: »

I thought rashford was on 150k a week?

There was a thing knocking about here during the week that had all the United wages for this season, 200k it had him down for. Maybe it was twitter I saw it.

His numbers this season are excellent don't get me wrong but it's after a few seasons like that he should be moving onto that sort of money, not before.

Baggly

Wages arent based off merit. They are based off club need and player leverage.

Some players at Utd have them over a barrel.

bangkok

.G. wrote: »

There was a thing knocking about here during the week that had all the United wages for this season, 200k it had him down for. Maybe it was twitter I saw it.

His numbers this season are excellent don't get me wrong but it's after a few seasons like that he should be moving onto that sort of money, not before.

Article i seen recently had him on 150k a week.

https://www.totalsportek.com/money/manchester-united-player-salaries/

TitianGerm

bangkok wrote: »

Article i seen recently had him on 150k a week.

https://www.totalsportek.com/money/manchester-united-player-salaries/

He's on way more than £150k. He signed a new contract in the summer. The Guardian has it as £250k but I think that figure was rumoured to be including bonuses and the base salary was around £200-225k per week.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/01/marcus-rashford-manchester-united-contract-extension

Harry Palmr

Friday 10 January 2020

20:00 Sheff Utd v West Ham DRAW

Saturday 11 January 2020

12:30 C Palace v Arsenal DRAW
15:00 Chelsea v Burnley HOME
15:00 Everton v Brighton HOME
15:00 Leicester v Southampton HOME
15:00 Man Utd v Norwich HOME
15:00 Wolves v Newcastle HOME
17:30 Spurs v Liverpool AWAY

Sunday 12 January 2020

14:00 AFC Bournemouth v Watford AWAY
16:30 Aston Villa v Man City AWAY

xtal191

FitzShane wrote: »

Jurgen Klopp is named PL Manager of the Month for the 4th time in 5 months this season.

https://twitter.com/premierleague/status/1215604199133786113

Ole was robbed

gimli2112

xtal191 wrote: »

Ole was robbed

I think if he had won it there would have been riots in Liverpool. The league campaign forgotten. A city in flames.


or maybe not

Harry Palmr

Who won it the month Klopp did not?

TitianGerm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Who won it the month Klopp did not?

Lampard. Think Chelsea were unbeaten in October and Liverpool dropped 2 points.

BullBlackNova

TitianGerm wrote: »

Lampard. Think Chelsea were unbeaten in October and Liverpool dropped 2 points.

Dark days, indeed.

Martin Tyler AgueroooOO

Looking forward to the game tonight to see can Sheffield Utd put there last two defeats to City and Pool behind them or will those defeats be the start of the drop off in form for them going into the second half of the season and also interesting to see what effect Moyes has after a few training sessions with the players at West Ham.

BullBlackNova

Martin Tyler AgueroooOO wrote: »

Looking forward to the game tonight to see can Sheffield Utd put there last two defeats to City and Pool behind them or will those defeats be the start of the drop off in form for them going into the second half of the season and also interesting to see what effect Moyes has after a few training sessions with the players at West Ham.

I think they'll be fine. Even if they don't win tonight, they're a good, well-organised side. They had a tough run over Christmas and they have a small squad that doesn't allow for much rotation. It was no surprise that points were dropped, especially when the games at the end of that run were Liverpool and City.

After West Ham tonight, they play Arsenal, City, Millwall in the FA Cup before a much kinder February and March - Palace, Bournemouth, Brighton, Villa, Norwich, and Newcastle, before a trip to Old Trafford.

That first run is tough but they will surely be over the 40 point mark before that Old Trafford trip.

Im interested to see how the Moyes/West Ham bump works. Bournemouth was about the best possible start for Moyes so their run from here will tell us a lot more about them: Sheffield Utd, Everton, Leicester, Liverpool, with West Brom in the cup in the middle.

eagle eye

Just switched on the Premier league game and the only thing I can think about is how can anybody be stupid enough to sack Manuel Pellegrini and replace him with David Moyes.

Kiith

Harsh on Rice, but right call according to the rules.

Mushy

Drama at Bramell Lane anyway

eagle eye

Kiith wrote:

Harsh on Rice, but right call according to the rules.

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

CSF

I'm usually not a fan of the new handball rule, but that one looked like he gained a legitimate advantage from the ball hitting his arm. Didn't look like he could have controlled it otherwise.

Guy:Incognito

eagle eye wrote: »

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

The handball rules changed last summer.

There was a whole discussion on here where people reckoned players may well start kicking the ball at defenders arms to win penos.

Shanotheslayer

eagle eye wrote: »

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

The ball hit is arm/hand?

Kiith

eagle eye wrote: »

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

If the ball strikes the hand, regardless of intent, a goal gets ruled out. That's the current law, right or not.

Trigger

eagle eye wrote: »

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

The new handball rule that states if the ball hits a players arm or hand intentionally or not and leads to a goal, the goal is chalked off.

ShamoBuc

eagle eye wrote: »

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

The hand ball one.

TitianGerm

eagle eye wrote: »

According to what rules? He is running and a player heads the ball onto his hand.
What rule did he break?

Ball can't hit your hand in the build up to a goal. Mane against United and Laporte against Spurs two that jump out.

Guy:Incognito

CSF wrote: »

I'm usually not a fan of the new handball rule, but that one looked like he gained a legitimate advantage from the ball hitting his arm. Didn't look like he could have controlled it otherwise.

He did, but it was headed at his arm, fast. They need to go back to some semblance of intent like before. If the ball was going by him and he stuck his arm out, fair enough, but he was running and it was headed against him.

Ardent

CSF wrote: »

I'm usually not a fan of the new handball rule, but that one looked like he gained a legitimate advantage from the ball hitting his arm. Didn't look like he could have controlled it otherwise.

I think the problem is that there was a whole passage of play after the handball occurred. West ham players rightly pissed off.

Trigger

6 replies saying the same thing in under a minute.. we are better than VAR lads!

Ardent

Anyway glad West Ham didn't equalise. Moyes' bog ball is awful to watch.

Guy:Incognito

Ardent wrote: »

I think the problem is that there was a whole passage of play after the handball occurred. West ham players rightly pissed off.

He was fairly pivotal to the goal in fairness.He got the assist.

ShamoBuc

Trigger wrote: »

6 replies saying the same thing in under a minute.. we are better than VAR lads!

To be fair, it was one of the more clearcut decisions possible, but we were fairly on the ball.

CSF

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

He did, but it was headed at his arm, fast. They need to go back to some semblance of intent like before. If the ball was going by him and he stuck his arm out, fair enough, but he was running and it was headed against him.

No, it certainly wasn't intentional, but he gained a clear advantage from it. I don't have anywhere near as much of a problem with those ones being disallowed than I do some of the nonsense ones we've seen where no advantage is gained.


In the current standing of the rule you're seeing accidental handballs that would have just hit the body anyway, which is nonsense.


They're applying a ridiculously high bar to defensive handballs (they barely exist anymore in the box) so a common sense rule for attacking ones would be greatly appreciated.


IMO, accidental ones where a clear advantage is gained and a goal scored, VAR should be able to intervene, and for me this was one of those middle ground between the old, and the nonsense new.

TheCitizen

Good call from VAR

CSF

Ardent wrote: »

I think the problem is that there was a whole passage of play after the handball occurred. West ham players rightly pissed off.

It was the driving force that created that same attack. No problem at all with that part of it IMO.

eagle eye

Yeah it didn't by happen in a goalscoring situation. There was a goal at the end of it but a lot happened between that incident and the goalscoring opportunity.

GSPfan

As a Man United fan I was hoping that West Ham goal stood to prevent Sheffield United overtaking us.

Never ever thought I’d be saying that and mean it. Fúck my life.

Corholio

It was rightly disallowed according to these rules, nothing to do with VAR btw, but it's unfair imo. Clearly accidental handball is something that happens in football, I don't believe you can change the actual status of an occurrence by blanket banning all cases of it because something happens after it. If you do that, you have to allow absolutely no handballs at all.

TheCitizen

Rice isn't very clever. VAR are applying the rule.

CSF

Jesus, the more I watch that replay the more I can't understand anyone complaining about that being applied. You'd have wanted that one disallowed if spotted under the old rules IMO and complained about the rules if it hadn't been.

TheCitizen

CSF wrote: »

Jesus, the more I watch that replay the more I can't understand anyone complaining about that being applied. You'd have wanted that one disallowed if spotted under the old rules IMO and complained about the rules if it hadn't been.

In my opinion looking at it several times Rice used his arm intentionally to propel the ball forward and is lying through his teeth

TheCitizen

I have a serious problem with Rice claiming to speak for all players that VAR should be done away with. He should be called up for that. VAR is not the problem. VAR is a great tool. But in England they're making such a big deal of it. That West Ham goal was correctly disallowed.

CSF

TheCitizen wrote: »

In my opinion looking at it several times Rice used his arm intentionally to propel the ball forward and is lying through his teeth

I thought it happened too quick to be genuinely intentional myself, but if it doesnt hit his arm its on its way in the direction of the touchline and no goal.


I don't think that any touch of the hand should be no goal, but I also don't think that any accidental handball can be permissible with no common sense applied.

Corholio

Rice must have supersonic reactions to intentionally handball it. Not a chance it was intentional.

gimli2112

I think it's a harsh rule but VAR works again, cue outrage.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

In my opinion looking at it several times Rice used his arm intentionally to propel the ball forward and is lying through his teeth

I can't for the life of me understand how you could come to that conclusion. He'd have had to have known the ball was coming to his hand in advance if it happening to be able to make that decision.

RugbyLover123

Both the handball rule and offside rule need serious looking at.

VAR on the other hand, is doing its job.

~Rebel~

TheCitizen wrote: »

I have a serious problem with Rice claiming to speak for all players that VAR should be done away with. He should be called up for that. VAR is not the problem. VAR is a great tool. But in England they're making such a big deal of it. That West Ham goal was correctly disallowed.

Indeed, in this case VAR correctly called a rule that happens to be stupid. The rule is at fault, not VAR for spotting it.

I do hate that rule though. Intent being irrelevant, advantage being irrelevant - if the ball touches an attacking player’s hand in any capacity, no goal can be allowed over the following phases of attack. I’ve asked this before, but what’s a player supposed to do? It’s not a foul, so play continues until there’s a goal, so when Rica feels the contact, should he then turn around and boot the ball back to his own keeper to restart the attack?