ohmelads

Bournemouth were relegated after a fuckup with goalline tech that VAR failed to correct. They also got a pointless apology and threatened legal action but it was Bournemouth so no one cared and it was quickly forgotten.

Liverpool know it won't be replayed, but through the threatening statement and now Klopp's words, they're trying to put maximum pressure on officials. The nickname LiVARpool hasn't come about for no reason. They're stunned it's now them on the end of a joke decision and useless apology. Pressuring officials is what Klopp does relentlessly. They'll get the benefit of the doubt on a string of 50/50s now, as they usually do. Fabinho could commit about 6 yellow card fouls and even a red and still be on the pitch and it made it difficult to counter them.

Seen some people saying it was a battering, horrendous performance, Brighton amazing etc. I can only guess they're going off possession stats, but generally Brighton have looked lost when teams let them have the ball, so that was clearly a deliberate tactic from us. That or I guess those comments are just exaggerated humility. The first goal is Pope screwing up his kickout putting us under immediate pressure, Trippier goes flying in and takes himself out of the game, then Pope in the same move fails to catch a shot straight at him from 25 yards which he'd catch 99 times out of 100 and we're suddenly behind. It's an unforced goalkeeping double error. If you look at the second goal, it's a complete mixup in midfield with a back four left completely unprotected and watching the highlight again it seems to be confusion over who is holding midfield. Ferguson then has all the time in the world. Gordon and Joelinton missed similar chances for us but Brighton didn't make the unforced mistakes and our finishing and decision-making was poor. We had games like this last season (Brentford away) that we won. That's not trying to take anything away from Brighton, who deserved it, but on chances it 3-1 probably flatters them. Last season they actually did batter us there and we drew 0-0. Not sure we'll risk Tonali. We've got options there and I think we'll go back to basics with a midfield unit we know works. I reckon Longstaff will come in for him. You might be right about the wingers - he's got a decision to make with the South Americans and that's the one position where we have someone or the same quality and experience to come in.

On Maguire: different managers like different types of defenders. Bruce didn't see any place for Schar because he didn't fit how he likes to play (I'm not sure what that style was meant to be, but let's not go there). Howe came in and immediately saw Schar as a key first team player. I think Southgate believes that most teams win major international tournaments through being a strong defensive unit, even when they have had squads full of attacking talent (see how France were tactically last year, for example). When he first came in I recall comments that the FA had looked at past winners and concluded that winning with swashbuckling football and outplaying everyone is the exception rather than the rule. His philosophy very much seems to be that in order to beat the elite teams, we should be defensively tight with a dangerous counter punch. That explains him sticking with two defensive midfielders even against weaker opposition, because he wants us well drilled in that system for when the big games come. Maguire for all his flaws excels in the air and is less exposed when we sit deeper, which is how Southgate wants to line up against the best opposition. That probably explains why he's been better for England than Man U, because Man U play a higher line and expect defenders to be comfortable on the ball. I don't agree with Southgate's stance personally, but I think it's more than blind loyalty. I think he's a cynic and believes that our odds of winning are greater if we can keep it tight against the best teams. He was a penalty kick either side away from being proven right. But there is also a case to say that with the kind runs and circumstances he has had, and the quality at his disposal, he was too restrained and that a tight cagey game suited a slower but hugely experienced Italian side more than it did us at home with a team full of pace and 'fret'. The Henderson one I don't get. Maybe he can't find any other DMs and needs two in his XI.

We took 4 pts from these 4 fixtures last season, with similar overall performances. I think the 3-1 scoreline flatters them in much the same way 5-1 flattered us against Villa. The table will change soon as the likes of Spurs and West Ham play the kinds of opponents we've been facing in the coming weeks, and vice versa.

It's a punch to the stomach but we need to get over it fast. We need to react the same way Villa did. Liverpool know they got away with one. Their fans aren't known for being gracious in victory and the plastic ones are all coming out the woodwork to gloat but their proper fans will know that if they don't improve performances soon, that kind of result's not sustainable. Ignore the kids/idiots/twats coming on trolling and gloating. They feel their cartel is being challenged and it worries them. I bet they don't go on Brentford or Bournemouth forums. Getting back to us, if we can go and beat Brighton, we'd still be able to call that a decent start to the season with a good run of games to follow it. One win and it's a happy place again. I doubt many Villa fans are still reflecting on our game. The main worry now is Botman's injury.

They won't struggle though. Yes they're a limited team, but look what happened with the reffing and VAR in both those games. Is there any reason to think that will change?

What's the punishment for the VAR team this time? A couple weeks after another VAR team helped Man U against Wolves.

More than a bit. Hand to face with force is a straight forward decision for VAR. Ref had his back to it. Have the rules changed this season?

It's a very well-timed and clever run as well. That's a big part of how he gets a lot of goals.

No sponsor two seasons running. Shelvey. Wood. All makes sense now.

He's been used both centrally and out wide by Howe, meaning he can potentially play across three positions. He's shown glimpses (given his limited minutes) of abilities our squad lacks in terms of his creativity and composure in front of goal. I see a real chance he breaks into the first team over the course of a long season. I think he's already forced his way into the conversation and Howe most likely kept him around last season in case of an injury crisis. This season we're playing far more games, so I'd be very surprised if his minutes don't improve. He looks ready.

We'll need him, and Miley too. I think the last time we were in Europe, injuries forced Krul and Carroll into the fold. That was Europa, but still the turnaround of games will mean increased injuries and rotation.

All fair points about his injuries, but Fabinho just had a very poor season showing visible decline and is going for £40m at 29 years old. Yes, he was once a top level player with medals to show for it, but his stock is now far lower and I can't see any other interest in him this summer. I thought Barnes for ASM would make financial sense based on the structure of the two deals and them being similar fees, but if reports are correct, it's a net £15m loss. If we're doing it for a quick transfer kitty boost based on amortisation of the Barnes fee, then we're borrowing against out future windows and that's a very short term fix which will catch up with us and affect us in every window. Considering the pressing needs in other areas of the squad, this one makes less sense now IF these reported fees are true.

That's in a normal market. The Saudis have come in and bought the player from another of their own clubs at an artificial price. Normally a selling club tries to do what Southampton are doing to us with Livramento. Or what everyone else is doing to PIF (Fabinho for 40m for example). Did we drive a hard bargain with PIF to raise the fee? Everyone knows the Premier League and cartel clubs are watching this deal like a hawk.

There'd absolutely be takers in the Premier League at £23M but it was clear early in the window the Saudis were selling the player to themselves. Who would bother bidding at that point? It's not like you're going to beat them on wages or that they'd sell to you over selling to themselves. We'll never know what the market interest would have been. We paid 38M for Barnes but where were the bids for him before that? The fee looks artificially on the low end to avoid suspicion and keep the cartel clubs happy. It's not a great financial deal for us, let's be honest. With fees at the moment, you have to spend much more than that to replace him, as we have.

Think it's the smarter move than signing a left back, personally. Yes Trippier is a level above both left backs, but look at the dropoff behind Trippier at right back. It'd weaken the team far more and it's inevitable he can't play a whole CL season. Rotation now and then will get the best out of Trippier. People seem to forget how consistently good Targett was until his injury. He would give us a 7/10 every game. His injury record is generally solid so perhaps they're banking on a return to that. With Trippier (and potentially now Livramento) as attacking options on the right side, then two less attacking left backs is fine for balance. If we face a team that parks the bus, we can start both Livramento and Trippier since they're both comfortable on the left. When Bruno/Trippier were out it hurt us and I think we've moved to address the squad depth weaknesses and done it with first-team quality players rather than signing players just to be a backup.

Would be sad to see ASM go because I think at his best he's far more electric and unplayable than Barnes, but his injury record is a major problem. According to transfermarkt: 22/23: Missed 13 games 21/22: Missed 3 games 20/21: Missed 18 games 19/20: Missed 12 games I count 5 hamstring injuries (4 if we're being kind because 1 was a setback) plus 4 muscle injuries there. These seem to be recurring and as an explosive player facing a more congested fixture list than before, I wouldn't be surprised to see him miss a dozen or more again. ASM is a better wildcard option off the bench, but I'm struggling to think of successful clubs who kept an injury prone top earner in this kind of role? Correct me if I've missed any obvious ones. ASM's fitness record means you absolutely can't plan around him being a first teamer. With Barnes you could. I saw someone comparing Barnes stats to Rashford and not only are they very close, but that's a good comparison in terms of style. Unlike ASM, Barnes is a more direct player who just wants the shortest route to goal and is more pragmatic in his play. We know Barnes isn't capable of what ASM can do but he is much more consistently effective and fit, and has a ruthlessness in front of goal which we are lacking. As for selling ASM, I don't see how we'd get away with selling to Saudi clubs, but I think some here underestimate what Premier League clubs might pay for ASM. For the same reason it's a tough decision for us to sell him, other clubs also know what he's capable of. He helped keep us up and is coming into his peak years. I absolutely could see a desperate club forking out and gambling on him, but it would probably be late in the window, because the richer clubs tend to get their business done first and then the dominoes start to fall and then panic sets in. Could we regret it? Definitely if he stays fit. He could do a Bellamy and turn a corner fitness wise, but he could also see a recurrence of hamstring issues that just keeps getting worse. We need squad depth and I'd trust Barnes to be available when the big games are coming thick and fast. If ASM could stay fully fit thoughout the season in a functional team I think he'd post similar numbers to Barnes, but what are the chances?

Could see us targeting a pacy centre back who can do a job at right back. Kills two birds with one stone in terms of progression planning for Schar and backup for Trippier. RB is arguably our weakest position in terms of squad depth, because I can't think of another player whose injury will hurt us more than Trippier (bar maybe Bruno, but we've done what we can there). If there's an up and coming pacy and versatile centre back to come in and compete for the two positions, I think it's an easier sell to the player rather than a dedicated right back like Livramento who is asked to come in and be backup and wait a season (or more if Trippier holds up and keeps going). Left back is often mentioned but Targett was very consistent up until his injury, and I'm pretty sure we were top 4 form when he was a regular in the side in the second half of 21/22 season. His injury record prior to last season was solid, so it depends if they trust his fitness. At the moment, I think I'd rather have a quality backup to Trippier because if he's out, everyone is going to target that side.

Shearer did his ACL at 23 and then his ankle at 27. Nowadays treatment has come a long way with quicker return to action and generally potential for better recovery too. People seem to think Kane can be compared on the basis he could still overtake the record, but there's no chance he would have with those injuries. Or to invert the point, Shearer would have been out of reach without those injuries. If you could choose either at their prime, there's absolutely no one picking Kane above Shearer, yet now the comparison exists because of numbers and medical advancements. There's a reason you're now seeing players like Modric starting the Champions Lge Final in his late 30s and winning it, and players pushing 40 at the top level. And Modric is for me one of the best midfielders of all time, but that longevity wouldn't have been possible a generation ago.

We'd still have someone eyeballing point of ball contact and where to place the lines with their cursor, so there'll be just as many tight decisions. On the plus side there'll be fewer special goals ruled out because human guesswork found a potential toenail offside. Could really change set pieces. Difficult as a defensive line to see if a striker who appears well offside at a glance has one toenail planted just onside with almost his whole body off.

The fact we didn't move even when we knew Liverpool would trigger the clause raises a couple of questions. Did we give up because it's a waste of time trying to compete with clubs that have a much higher wage ceiling? Or were we ever even in for Szob? There's been no word of any bids or contact between the clubs at all. If we weren't in for him, it's in our interests to let the press create a smokescreen while we negotiate elsewhere. I'm disappointed we've missed out on Szob because he looks the real deal but there's no evidence we were in for him. The Sky Six can't buy everyone and there's tons of talent still out there. We will have a list of contingencies if Szob and Maddison were targets. It seems pretty clear Isak wasn't top of our list, but it's worked out well and we might well have dodged a bullet with players like Ekitike and Calvert-Lewin and so on. I just hope we can get our deals done early like the richest clubs usually do and sign one attacking player that improves the first XI.

I do worry about the Saudis with regards to the club's future. They're buying players off rival Premier League clubs at inflated prices, which isn't in our best interests at all. That's a massive red flag. We also have very powerful enemies, not because of the Saudis but because of the perceived threat in the league. You could argue there's no other way to challenge the established elite, but we haven't exactly crept up on them and the way it's happened has forced them to close ranks and try to set up more barriers. We are in a strong position but also a precarious position, because we don't know what our owners are doing and they're so rich that they could write off a loss and ditch us very quickly. No one would have any sympathy and the league would be under pressure to leave us to suffer the consequences.

The media 'sell' news. Media reaction (and subsequently public reaction) to Newcastle's Saudi connection is considered a thousand times more public and important than the UK's massive sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia going back over a decade. How can you be outraged about Newcastle if you already knew about the context and were previously and still are silent about the far bigger direct issue? We (the UK) are the second biggest dealer of arms to the Saudis behind the US, which is a major source of revenue for our country. They're our biggest arms customer in the world in fact (and the second biggest is Qatar, not counting Ukraine). If you were totally ignorant and just get news from the BBC, then OK, but read more widely. Just because the media put massively disproportionate outrage on Newcastle, it doesn't mean you can't form your own holistic view of the situation. We just spent an entire week talking about a tiny submarine that the US navy already believed had imploded while all manner of massive important news was relegated and barely noticed. Media outrage/reaction is not proportionate to the tragedies in the world, and the media couldn't care less. Just because they tell you to be outraged about one thing, you can still have nuanced ideas and think for yourself. We all know why there is massively disproportionate focus on us. We know why Arteta and Pep don't get the same questions Howe does. We know why financial 'fair' play exists and why UEFA coefficients exist. All components of a corrupt system and the Saudis are a symptom of that, because there is no way to compete without sourcing money from people who have money to burn.

Agree that Liverpool have had periods of selling very well (Torres, Suarez, Coutinho etc), but let's not forget market inflation. Torres cost 26.5 in 2007 and left for 50 million 4 years later as a proven player. It's good business, especially in hindsight as Torres didn't work out for Chelsea, but in that period fees went up a lot for top players. Suarez was at Liverpool from 2011 to 2014 and went from 26 to 65 million. Amazing business regardless of inflation but prices did rise again in that period and he left in his prime. 3 or 4 years from now, prices will be higher again... if we get 80 million for Bruno 3 years from now, it's a huge profit but that'll probably be the going rate and it's only a good sale if he turns out shite for the buying club. I guess the lesson is to go for players around Tonali or Szoboszlai's age and not players like Maddison who are at their prime. Age-wise, I think that's a big point and we seem to be targeting that age group. If we're taking Liverpool as an example, they have shown it's not easy. They've done plenty of shite deals too but are insulated from the effects because they can spend their way out of a bad year or two, just like the other super league six. Soon we won't be able to speculate, since FFP measures your recent past and the frugal Ashley years won't be counted. We'll be hamstrung by FFP in a way Liverpool aren't, so we have more pressure to find more hits than misses.