Forum Replies Created
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
Horrific for the whole family.
I can’t pretend I enjoyed Neil Cox’s time as a manager but I had a lot more time for him as a man and I think he’s been a big upgrade on Humberside from other summarisers. I hope he & his children are coping and are able to carry on with their lives.
I’m already a big fan – check out the tackle he makes about 15 secs into these highlights. You cannot coach that.
4 users thanked author for this post.
Awaywego, we’ve moved on a fair few players out on loan.
And I’m sure Ilkeston, Farsley & Cleethorpes will all be covering a huge chunk of our wage bill….
2 users thanked author for this post.
The umpiring decisions in cricket have improved beyond measure. Not ‘like with like’ maybe, but rather, ‘like with similar’.
I agree in some respects but fundamentally I still hate that you can’t celebrate your team taking a wicket because you’ve no idea if it will actually be out or not when the umpire’s finger is raised.
The trouble with these technological approaches to refereeing/umpiring is that all you do is you narrow the window of debate: so whereas before we would look at a player half a yard beyond the last defender and all be pretty certain that he was offside, now we have to look at the leg hairs of the players to make the same decision. The same applies in cricket where run-outs/stumpings/no balls are judged by fractions of the players’ boot being behind the line – or not.
Frankly, we’ve reached this situation because as a game we weren’t mature enough just to shut up and accept decisions. You end up with Match of the Day spending no time analysing strikers missing open goals or defenders passing the ball straight to opponents, you just get loads of discussion of whether the referee’s decisions were “correct”. And a decision in football often isn’t “correct” because it’s a matter of interpretation by a human being. Pundits who talk about “correct decisions” are themselves fundamentally wrong.
When VAR was first proposed, the errors that were highlighted like Frank Lampard’s “goal” in the world cup against Germany, were such obvious errors that the solution was to work with officials and raise the general standard, not ruin the game for the sake of the odd gaffe.
6 users thanked author for this post.
Buying a lot of players from the league below suggests a certain amount of bets being hedged – give them a chance to prove themselves in a higher league but in the knowledge they are solid performers if we go down.
3 users thanked author for this post.
It will take a massive effort certainly, but our chances are much better than they were 2 weeks ago.
We’ve “bought a ticket” as Adkins would have said!
2 users thanked author for this post.
I think how you describe Man City can be applied to all the big clubs in the Premier League TBH Ferrite, it’s all about money and I don’t see Chelsea or Man U or Liverpool or Arsenal and now even Newcastle being any different.
No you can’t: Man United, Arsenal & Liverpool are owned by American investors, rightly or wrongly. But they’re not owned by a country which is accused of funding the football club through payments disguised as sponsorship. Nor are they accused to trying to cover up this illicit activity.
Chelsea is a closer case in point, Abramovich should never have been allowed to buy the club and use it the way he did.
I agree that all of the big clubs are only interested in making more money for themselves and not in the good of the game but Man United is a very different beast from Man City.
I don’t think that any of the football authorities, either in England or Int’l, will have the wallet or the desire to fight them.
Well if that’s the case why has the Premier League brought charges against its richest & most successful club?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Need 8 or 9 wins to get to 50 points (which is roughly what Oldham are on track for). That’s a huge ask.
3 users thanked author for this post.
As pointed out already, they are innocent until proven guilty.
What I want to know is why, in 2023, are they going back to 2009? Have they not checked them out since then or are they incompetent?
It’s not only City who should be getting chased. There are a number of clubs around Europe who need reviewing.
Because in situations like this a club like City will have hired the finest legal minds to represent them and therefore these things take a lot of time.
It’s no surprise to me at all that City have been up to this, look at why their ownership is there. The current Man City has nothing to do with the Manchester City of the Maine Road days, it’s just a host body for the ownership.
And whilst I get Ironfromafar’s views, these things have an impact on clubs at our levels too, whether it’s clubs over-reaching to try to keep up with the Jones, B teams in the Football League trophy, or elite academies hoovering up all the best talent and depriving the lower league clubs of one of their main sources of revenue.
I hope that they throw the book at City but most of all I hope that they rip up the rulebook on club ownership so we cannot have countries owning football clubs.
50 points is another 27 required. In 17 games, that’s 1.6 points/game. It basically means winning just over half our remaining games: not an easy ask when you’ve won 5 all season. But if we build on the last few weeks, it’s not completely impossible.
1 user thanked author for this post.
, 
