Exiled in Texas

Pronounce it "En-Power" sounds like a play on the word "empower - to give power or authority to"

Well that's how it appeared to me and I daresay most other people who read it. By the way, I agree Ashley is trying to get the cost structure back into line with revenue. It needs to be said again that the revenue dropped massively due to his long list of mistakes. Mind boggling that some still defend this fool. TBH not quite sure what the argument is here.....any business should run with revenues covering all costs so I would expect that revenue from fans purchases should be the largest source of revenue. Hobby businesses run on the owner putting in the majority of the finances, with revenue covering only a small amount of costs. And NUFC is clearly not a hobby business. I thought this thread was about the future direction, not the past mistakes (that are many and obvious).

Now, if the statement was meant to be that the revenue from the fans is fare greater than the amount that Ashley is investing into the company. Absolutely agree. And would expect nothing less as NUFC is a business, and the business they are in is selling football experiences/merchandise to their customer base. Ashley is trying to keep his business afloat during a period of reduced revenues. He is trying to get his cost structure back into line with his revenue stream while at the same time producing a product that the companies customer base want to purchase. It's just business, albeit one that the customer base is uniquely attached to emotionally.

I know what you mean......but it's said all wrong. They purchase products from the club - they purchase their view of the match, or a shirt or a program. And when they receive the item that they have purchased (watched the match, or got the shirt) their transaction is over. I don't invest in Heinz when I buy a tin of beans....I pay for the beans and receive the product which concludes my transaction. It's a purchase not an investment. Football fans are no different in that they purchase football products, receive them by attending the game or getting merchandise, and their purchases are immediately completed. Investing means - putting money in without receiving anything back immediately, and then hoping to receive a larger payout at some point in the future. So honestly, Ashley is the only one who is "investing" in the club. Football clubs are business selling match day experience and other merchandising. We may be fans of the club but we are really customers of the business, but investing in the club we are not.

Well put Jamesy

Agreed - and yes, we are heading in the right direction now.

Doh!!

I always saw the Shearer appointment as one done only to create an Emotional Euphoria to lift up a sagging team and scrape over the finishing line in 18th place. The team never looked like it had the ability to lift itself with coaching or tactics and they hoped that Mesiah 2 would be enough. (In effect, putting a shiny object in room so that people looked at that and not the cracks that could no longer be papered over).

I bet it was John Terry looking to earn a few extra quid. [/just kidding]

I'd certainly take Goal Line Beeper technology over replay. To me it's no different to Assistant Referees using beeper flags and head-set microphones over standard flags. All the upside and no downside. Sure, it is cost prohibitive to move the technology down to lower leagues but at £400 or so for the flag/communicator set you won't see them at Sunday Morning Pub Leagues either. Strange decision - seemly based on head-in-sand thinking

I also think that the Premier League will change over the next 2-3 seasons with the financial landscape changing for several clubs. When that happens some clubs will be better positioned than others to take advantage of it.

Exactly - steady progress. Get some good foundations and then build from strength. Much better idea than a Galactico house built on sand.

I love fish, but I tried one last Friday as it's Lent (No meat for Catholics on Fridays in Lent) and next week will just go hungry instead of eating that piece of over cooked crap.

The thought is that the punishment for a DOGSO of Penalty kick, Red Card and Subsequent suspension is too severe, and that if the Penalty is scored then the Goal Scoring Opportunity was not denied. Interesting point [PierLuigi] Referee following LOTG punishes foul and misconduct with appropriate DFK/PK and Yellow/Red, but playing league handles suspensions. It's not the referee who determines if player should be suspended, and that could easily be adjusted at the league level without changing LOTG. [/PierLuigi] My view - don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Perhaps the rash challenge that results in DOGSO PK and Red Card would be better being tempered and they stay on the field to play the rest of the game.

My referee process says: Did ball leave the penalty area - YES - OK ball is in play (if no, retake kick) Did the ball go Directly into the Goal - NO (If yes, would be a corner kick) Was the ball touched a second time by the kicker - No (if yes, IFK) So ball left the Penalty area, did not go directly into the goal, and was not touched twice by the kicker - GOAL

Not a Direct Free Kick - it's a Goal Kick Law 16 - A goal may be scored directly from a goal kick, but only against the opposing team. [/PierLuigi] This would (should) be restarted with a Corner, unless the ball never left the Penalty Area in which case it would be a Goal Kick

So Viduka did nothing wrong being where he was. So standing in an offside position is not an offense and the player in an offside position must make some other action (beyond his mere presence) to be deemed offside. Take away Viduka and what would the player have done had he been there all on his own. That's the answer on what he should have done. Then if Viduka moves and seeks to become involved in play (gaining an advantage as he would not be able to close him down had he not been in offside position) then he completes the two parts of the Offside Law - Was in an Offside position and Involved in Active Play become true.

If the Birmingham defender doesn't know that it's not an offense to be in an offside position, then he deserves being penalised.I suppose he should be able to catch a ball that was going out for a throw-in before it crosses the touchline. Seriously, the current offside rule not a hard thing to comprehend. Now there are some maddening decisions - notable examples such as the Newcastle goal against West Ham (I think) where the Newcastle forward who was in an offside position let the ball roll untouched between his legs to the far post where an on-side player slotted home.

More incompetance from Ashley - how are we supposed to compete in the Premier League if he is only bringing in Championship revenues? He has no idea how to run a football club. Out Out OUT!!! [/piss take]

Goal or no goal? You're the ref - what do you decide?

I siding with Brummie here.... Way out of control or slightly out of control? The only difference is when the end comes.

I'll say it again - the old offside was really crap.

One hindrance is that the clock isn't stopped in Football, which could make it difficult to make sure the correct time is spent there and so on. I'm all for it if they find a way to execute it in a good way without making too many changes to the existing game. (i.e. starting to stop the clock to use this rule etc.) Well there is nothing stopping a 'sin-bin clock' being started/stopped when the ball went out of play. Referees have a wrist watch to manage time - usually with stop watch that has an additional "stopwatch Add time feature". So that way they are tracking the game time, plus stoppage/injury time. Without a 4th official managing the Sin Bin times, the referees would need to start carrying something beyond a wrist watch to manage game time and sin bin time. Workable for pro-Leagues but tough to bring down to lower level leagues. All they'd need is a simple stopwatch like they handed out in PE, and a bit of practice using it (if you actually wanted to properly watch the clock, in which case games would last 120+ minute). The long and short of it is that the relationship of clock to ball-in-play time is so out of whack as it is, accurate timekeeping is not a priority, and noting player number and time is no more than refs do during bookings, anyway. You can be sure as hell the players won't let the ref forget to let their teammates back on. I think it's a great idea. It would add a new tactical dimension to the game (powerplays, isn't it?). The challenge is how do you manage multiple sin bin infractions at the same time. One guy is sent to sin bin for 2 mins, but 30 secs later guy from other team is sent in, then 45 secs later another player is sent in. That's a lot of stop watches to carry around. Even in Ice Hockey with an official scorer and a scoreboard with 2 sin-bin timers (Player # and Time remaining) there are times when additional infractions need to be noted and added manually. The scorer (and the score board) also manages the release of the players back into the game, so the referees don't need to signal the players back in. Seeing as Rugby already has this concept, I wonder how far down the leagues the Sin Bin concept is used and who manages the time.

It's all about alignment of the AR to the last defender (and therefore the relative position of the attacker). And of course the ever changing movement of the defender, AR and attacker. It's tougher than it looks and everyones an expert even from upfield/downfield of the "line"