jonny1403

End of the day, if you are an opposing CB, would you rather play against Gayselu or 6"2, 14 stone, Slimani?

 

He's presence alone means other teams actually have to be wary rather than comatosed.

Any need for the homophobia?

Was at the game today. After their equaliser Phil Bardsley peeled off and started punching the air in front of our fans for 30 secs, absolute cunt 

Here's an idea staveley puts up a few hundred million for a certain percent of the club, buys all our new players then pay's the rest on completion

Once she buys a certain percent then by city regulations she is required to make a bid for the remaining percent (think there is even some sort of rule on the remaining shareholders being required to sell).

Nope - that rule only applies to listed companies.

It is not really that vague, the person giving evidence has said under oath that he knew that Speed worked with Bennell as a kid.

 

On the other hand though I do not think it is fair on Speed or his family for this to be mentioned in the media, should have stayed in the courtroom.

Bennell would have worked with hundreds of players though - unless there's something more to it it is vague beyond belief.

Rafa makes some weird decision sometimes, seems like whenever he's made his mind up about a player there is no changing it, Krul was a prime example.

 

Krul was to free up wages. No doubt about that.

Krul hasn't played a premier league for Brighton, had no other interest in him and came off a terrible loan spell in Holland. He was great for us 5 years ago but hardly a weird decision in that context.

I work in corporate law - the above probably means nothing.

As has been mentioned these resolutions are done on an annual basis (usually just tacked on to the end of the company's AGM) and are done purely for flexibility should the need to buy/sell shares arise in the future. There's an annoying pre-emption procedure built into the Companies Act that these resolutions are designed to bypass. If you check through SD's filing history you'll note similar resolutions were passed on 26 Sep 2016 and 26 Sep 2015.

It's probably a similar story with Cantervale Limited - companies can be established at Companies House for £40 a pop and many of our clients do so at various intervals just to reserve a name for a deal that might or might not happen in 18/24 months - sometimes the company is never used at all and lies dormant for years.

Tiote's one of the biggest on-field reasons we've won so few games at home in recent years. It's written somewhere that against a mediocre side in May he gets sent off for a second bookable offence moments after gifting the opposition a goal with a wayward pass, thus sealing our relegation. He shouldn't even be on the bench.

 

Never been sent off for two yellows in the league for us IIRC.

Correct - only been sent off twice for us in his entire time here. Its an absolute myth that he has disciplinary problems.

Very interesting post by the Secret Footballer this week, not sure if already posted...

There is a manager in the Premier League right now, a manager who is causing problems for his club.

The manager wants to sell one of the club’s star players. He hasn’t been playing him but, for everyone on the outside looking in, he should have been.

It doesn’t make sense, right? Read on …

Apparently, the player has been training well, according to reports that I’ve heard. He’s got his head down lately but that might be because it’s January and he wants to leave. In fact, I know he wants to leave.

The players in the changing-room tell me that he wants to leave and they tell me that they want him to leave because he is a troublemaker. That isn’t a secret, either, because his reputation is that of a troublemaker.

But he’s a good player. And the club could really do with him right now.

The chairman doesn’t really want to sell him as he sees the player’s involvement as integral to the club’s Premier League survival. But the manager doesn’t.

But why would a manager want to sell a player who can help him to survive in the Premier League? Well, as you might have guessed, there is a reason for that.

The club in question could expect a transfer fee of around £30 million if they decide to cash in. But the chairman sees the bigger picture, namely that £30 million up front does not make up for £100 million lost if the club goes down.

However, the manager sees that he could have £30 million to spend on new talent. He can get three, maybe four, new players.

But January isn’t a friendly month for recruiting top talent. It is a stopgap month. It is a month that fills in the blanks with “ifs, buts and maybes”.

A cover in the centre-half position in case the first-choice pairing get injured? Sure, why not? For £5 million, it just might save the day.

A striker to come off the bench during the run-in to score a couple of vital goals? Sure, free transfer and a year’s contract on £75,000 a week, easy. It stacks up and makes sense.

It’s a bet that you can’t really lose so long as you can get rid of him if the worst should happen and you’re not massively overexposed for any length of time.

But this player isn’t a stopgap, he is a future star for a big club. Everybody knows it.

But this player isn’t a stopgap, he is a future star for a big club. Everybody knows it

And that’s where the problem is. The chairman knows what is happening. He knows what his manager is doing. He knows that if he gives in and sells the player, then the manager will spend the money.

That’s not an inherently bad thing. His problem is that he knows where that money is going.

He knows that if the manager is given the money, he will only buy players that are brought to the club through his agent and, in the process, he will pocket a wacking great windfall through cuts of the transfer fee that he’ll split with his agent.

The chairman knows this and is digging his heels in. Everybody in football knows this.

The chairman knows that the manager will spend the money for the sake of spending it because he may not be there in the summer, anyway, and he wants as big a slice of that £30 million pie as he can get before he’s gone and a new manager comes in and the opportunity is lost.

And this is the problem that chairmen up and down the country have when they employ managers who they know to be stopgaps themselves.

Those managers go in, make hay while the sun shines, do the best they can tactically and take anything that isn’t nailed down with them when they are inevitably fired and the managerial cycle brings about the return to the club of the five-year-plan manager a year or two later.

At this moment, there is no trust between the club and the manager.

The chairman does not want to give him any proceeds from a sale of the player because he wants to maximise his return.

And the manager is trying every trick in the book to have the player sold by making him sit very publicly on the bench while telling the world what a great lad he is and that, at the moment, he just doesn’t fit into the style and shape of the team.

The problem for the chairman, besides having a very expensive asset sat on the bench that he is neither leveraging financially or benefitting from on the pitch, is that it will look incredibly odd if he sacks his manager now.

The manager has actually done OK for the club and, in terms of results, it is certainly a case of better the devil you know when it comes to securing Premier League status this campaign.

The player will be sold one day, probably in the summer, but my guess is that it won’t be while this manager is in charge.

In the meantime, we have to watch the starvation of a talented player caught between the stars and the personal agendas of unscrupulous people at the highest level, at the heart of our game.

Read more at http://www.thesecretfootballer.com/articles/the-secret-footballer/29898/strange-case-of-star-player-caught-in-middle-of-chairman-manager-transfer-standoff/#oMvditcpkkP7KA1M.99

Given the criticism he has had he deserves some recognition for his performance at the weekend.

 

Was outstanding and Ibe didn't get past him once - to the extent that Liverpool almost completely gave up attacking that side.

Not sure that's entirely the truth

 

It actually is.

He definitely got beat a few times in the first quarter of an hour

He didn't.

Yeah he's literally just made that up.

Given the criticism he has had he deserves some recognition for his performance at the weekend.

 

Was outstanding and Ibe didn't get past him once - to the extent that Liverpool almost completely gave up attacking that side.

Not sure that's entirely the truth

It actually is.

Given the criticism he has had he deserves some recognition for his performance at the weekend.

Was outstanding and Ibe didn't get past him once - to the extent that Liverpool almost completely gave up attacking that side.

It reads like someone who hasn't watched the match/can't bear the fact that Liverpool lost to an inferior team and so the automatic default reaction is that the lesser team must have been overly physical.

We’ve struggled to deal with these big, physical teams this season.

Newcastle had nothing else apart from their physicality. The game was heading for 0-0 until Skrtel’s intervention. If we’d have got the first goal we'd have gone on to win the game I’m sure but the longer it went on I knew they’d win – I could smell it.

A centre midfield of Colback and Anita ffs.

I’m certain Steve McClaren sent them out to get stuck into us and they probably put in three really big challenges – two of them were really poor and could have seen a sending off.

Just utter bollocks 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aldridge-liverpool-fc-bullied-newcastle-10564571

 

We're a big physical team apparently

That Aldridge article is one of the worst things I've ever read