TheBrownBottle

They’re close geographically- so it counts I reckon Same if the men’s team pulled out Gateshead in the cup. Not much of a history, but it would count as a local derby (Mind you I’m looking forward to the game vs the Mackems …)

A fit Carroll unspoiled by injuries played for Liverpool and looked like a carthorse. He wasn’t near that level - it was a poor signing by Dalglish, though of course that was something we were very familiar with. He went to West Ham because he wasn’t good enough for Liverpool, not because of injuries. I do agree though that the lad would’ve had a better career without them - like I said, he was more akin to Kevin Davies than Alan Shearer. He had a solid PL career, and would’ve had a more solid one had he stayed fit. I just don’t think he would have ever become a top notch PL centre forward - just my view, of course. Cisse’s purple patch involved him scoring a goal a game, and about 90% of those were somewhere between goal of the week and goal of the season. The lad was ‘Pardewed’, the quality was clearly there. Though as an all-round centre forward, Ba was better than either of them. Agreed re the purple patchy nature of both Cisse and Carroll - the only difference for me is the quality of the goals scored. Neither were first rate PL centre forwards. Carroll’s local lad status is absolutely the reason why so many had an emotional attachment to him - had he been from Maidenhead instead of Gateshead he have been viewed and remembered completely differently. For me, I never really reached that with Carroll - he reminded me of Duncan Ferguson; big bloke, causes problems, slow and not likely to be prolific in the long run. I’ve never been a fan of target man centre forwards - all just personal taste.

He played pretty much every game for Liverpool in the PL the following season. Was never a top PL centre forward. Within a year we had two centre forwards who were better than him (Ba and Cisse). If Carroll wasn’t from Gateshead he’d be a less than a footnote in the club’s history.

Got his insanely big money move after a short purple patch - he’s far closer to Kevin Davies than Alan Shearer in pretty every regard tbh. The only season he managed double figures in the top flight. I would’ve taken what Liverpool offered - it was an insane sum of money (and still would be a hefty sum today - if we had an Andy Carroll right now I’d still be tempted by £35m. Dalglish paying us back for Andersson, Tomasson, Pistone etc). The problem was Ashley had no intention of allowing the club to spend it.

Great stuff, still unbelievable the state of Bordeaux mind - though at least they still exist

100%, and Howe knows the players and their capabilities so I completely trust his judgement re not playing him. But it just seems like such an odd signing if the lad isn’t even third choice - they might as well have sent him out on loan until January if that’s the case

I would ask what the point of a back up striker is when he’s not selected as when your first two centre forwards are out? He’s not a back up if that’s the case

I’m one of those who thinks that you fix the present until you’re in a position to fully forward plan. I hope Osula comes good, but the lad did play a lot of PL football last season so he shouldn’t need to be eased in gradually over a few seasons - though tbf he looked miles away from PL quality last year. It’s still a head-scratching transfer for me.

While all the stadium costs are confidential, it isn’t thought to have cost much less than a regular build of similar size. There is zero chance of PIF pouring hundreds of millions into a ground which would be used for a season, or two at most. Spending £250m and bringing in £70m isn’t even on the table. It is move or a small extension to SJP (if that is possible).

The cup QF in 1995 still stings tbh. I was convinced we’d win it that year.

Agreed they are different things - was referring to Webster in terms of the potential unenforceability of players’ contracts Re PL rules - yep, ultimately that’s all we can do

This one was re contracts. The Webster Ruling was thought to be seismic at the time - it basically ruled that football contracts breached the worker’s freedom of movement rights. Nowt happened, though

Sorry mate, was being sarcastic - apologies The general point stands - this is not an open goal for Man City (and us by proxy). Folks are waiting for a magic bullet. I don’t think this is it.

I’ve read plenty on here claiming that the PL would get obliterated under commercial law without any substantiation, but I’ve got to cite case law and clauses? I respect that you know your stuff FM, but I’m suggesting that the hanging the PL on commercial law isn’t the shoo-in that many are anticipating.

Then Man City won, which is why we now have Aramco sponsoring us for £100m a season. Makes sense.

The Webster Ruling already challenged it. Webster won.

There are exemption orders re football. Feel free to google.

Punitive clauses are not enforceable - this is a standard of English law. Whether or not the contract terms are deemed punitive - that’s never been challenged.

That’s not the case though - there are exemptions under English law for specific areas including sport

It wasn’t the rules from 2021, it was the rules from Feb 2024 that they took issue with

My understanding was that Man City were going after the changes made to the rules back at the start of the year, which changed where the burden of proof lay re FMV of sponsorships. It wasn't to throw out FMV generally.

There's release clauses in my industry - I have had similar clauses in most of my contracts re leaving etc. Edit: also for training paid for by the employer, etc. But these are reasonable costs incurred and not out of sight for a well-paid professional. The issue is not whether or not the such clauses exist elsewhere, but whether or not they would stack up as fair and reasonable in an employment court - and I doubt that a person locked into an eight year contract which would take a nine-figure sum to buy out would be held to it by law. It is a basic principle of English law that punitive clauses in contracts are unenforcable.

Yep, and that would increase the chances of a leak

Yes, although it could be the case that the ruling required limited amendment to the rules, which would not be a 'win' for either side. Ultimately, the clubs are members of the PL and sign up voluntarily - the don't have to play in it. I'd still be mildly surprised if the adjudicators simply told the PL to tear up the rules that the vast majority of their members willingly voted through. It is an incorporated association.

There's lots and lots of commentary re commercial law etc, but football generally doesn't stack up vs commercial or employment law. Where else can you be held to a multiple year contract with a buyout beyond the means of any individual employed? Football's player registration system isn't in line with general employment law. But it still exists (and has been pushed back in the past, via the Eastham and Bosman cases).