geordiesteve710

Sods law dictates that if they did this they'd end up in a scenario with the last 2 balls (or 5 of the last 6) being European teams and they've then got to scrap it and redo the whole thing. Whole thing is shambolic mind and not helped by the revamped CL this year where teams play 8 group games instead of 6.

Subbing Isak would be the sensible option here but with pens looming can see him staying on.

"Neither manager will want extra time" Well there's some good news for them then isn't there you fucking dipshit.

Can add Lee Dixon to that list too.

This ref is clueless. Think I attended a League 2 game last season he reffed and he was shite then as well.

Our defending has been Keeganesque this half

They were chanting boo-urns, surely??

Was already booked for his first tackle, so probably wary of getting another.

Fulham look good until they see the whites in the eyes of the 18-yard line then they turn to shit

Not allowed to upset players of teams in red

How on earth is that a booking for Fulhams player?? Scandalous league

I'd have a look at that Lacroix they had lined up as a cheaper replacement, so long as Eddie fancies him of course!! And make it very public that we're doing so. Parish would start sweating then.

This!! And a coherent longterm strategy. Otherwise there's a trap of spending big each July the panicking into sales the next June, rinse and repeat.

From an accountancy perspective definitely, but I thought there were different rules on amortisation for the purposes of PSR. They definitely did *something* after Chelsea handed out those 8 year contracts. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11661/13028764/premier-league-clubs-vote-for-five-year-maximum-player-contracts Found this on a quick google. Doesn't give any detail on whether contract extensions impact the psr calculation. Would seem a little counter-intuitive to me that if the fee has been paid it's still impacting on the psr but a lot of psr seems daft to me.

Would be easy for minted owners to find a way "around" this as well. Hypothetically, if £1bn is introduced to NUFC's bank account, the paper value of the club has just risen by £1bn (unless it is in the form of a loan of course.) Would actually be a great idea if the aim of the rules was to prevent owners spending beyond their means and then pulling the plug, but we all know that's not what these rules are there for.

Might be wrong but I think they set a limit of 5 years amortisation for a transfer. After Chelsea pulled the 8-year contracts trick

And clearly so unbelievably exceptional that they have all made big-money bids to buy him rather than just waiting until his contract expires to try and get him on a free. If we're going down the route of sarcasm. I didn't mean to come across as saying he wasn't good enough btw, the signs are he would be a good addition to the squad and if he wants to come I hope we get him. Just at the same time I haven't seen or heard anything that would lead me to be overly upset if we missed out on him. There are plenty of players who play for other non-Sky6 teams who stand out more than this lad- off the top of my head Gueye who plays in the same position as well as numerous other players at Palace, his teammate Palhinha, who have all stood out on the odd occasion I've seen them (you're right, I don't watch many Palace or Fulham games) and who get more headlines than this lad. That can't just be put down to ignorance of the clubs involved.

I think if a player has been playing premier league football regularly for this amount of time it tells you he would be a solid squad option. That he's been playing regularly for this amount of time and isn't particularly noted for being exceptionally good then that tells me it's not going to be the end of the world if he goes elsewhere.

I feel like if money is the sole motivation for a player then he wouldn't be a good fit here, so I wouldn't be too upset at being rejected on those grounds. Re the bit in bold, it isn't so much a view of the players themselves imo, it's more the "industry" in general and in particular agents getting into their heads and persuading them that the best move for the player is (coincidentally) the one that brings in the most money for the agent.

I've turned it off for the same reason

That Hojlund is a right cunt.

Really poor to stop the game there. Wouldn't happen the other way around

Extremely literal use of "a hiding to nothing" as a phrase there

The rule hasn't changed, I don't think, it's the application of it. Essentially for fouls that continue into the box the ref is giving advantage until the attacker enters the box at which point there is no advantage to the attacker in playing on vs the award of a penalty.