Premier League 2020/21

[DavidMarrio]

Kane has perfected the art of seeing a player who has his eyes on the ball when it's in the air, looking at them rather then the ball and moving underneath the player and winning a foul as a result. 

[Adam]

@DavidMarrio some very good points, well reasoned on Liverpool/Ev.

Szumi, not so much in my opinion but hey ho. I'm not gonna accept my team being labelled "mentally weak" when realistically there have been some very decent periods in the last 15 years or so for the club and they are on an upward trajectory right now. Liverpool have lurched from nearly great to diabolical in that time under a succession of managers and regimes and have now finally got it right in a very strong way, but it doesn't mean all the failings in the Premier League prior should be forgotten by their fans - and I only say that because the recent success or lack thereof of Everton was brought up first.

TL;DR: Liverpool are very good but Everton are doing just fine. An interesting season ahead.

[Matt]

Liverpool have one of the best teams in Europe, criticising Everton for not being quite on that level is fucking stupid. Everton have the potential to achieve a higher league position than they have for years, a couple of defeats shouldn't take that away from them.

 

From what I've seen so far Everton, Leicester, Southampton, Villa, Wolves look far more like top 6 sides than Arsenal, Chelsea and the filth.

[Cymbols]

100% should be a free kick to Brighton that. 

[Colly]

Just catching up with highlights, I found the Brighton goal added an extra little bit to the VAR conversation. Did the ref use a bit of discretion in regard to the foul? It probably was a foul, but is a "probably" foul enough to disallow a good goal 7 or 8 passes later? If you gave a corner the wrong way and someone scores directly it wouldn't be disallowed.

[Jimmy]

20 minutes ago, Colly said:

Just catching up with highlights, I found the Brighton goal added an extra little bit to the VAR conversation. Did the ref use a bit of discretion in regard to the foul? It probably was a foul, but is a "probably" foul enough to disallow a good goal 7 or 8 passes later? If you gave a corner the wrong way and someone scores directly it wouldn't be disallowed.

Na, I think he just didn't wanna admit he was wrong.

He had a shocker yesterday. For both teams. 

[Colly]

Honestly I'd be steaming if they disallowed a goal for us for that.

Anyway...

Spoiler

 

 

[FLiam]

17 hours ago, DavidMarrio said:

Kane has perfected the art of seeing a player who has his eyes on the ball when it's in the air, looking at them rather then the ball and moving underneath the player and winning a foul as a result. 

He does it loads, cheating bastard. As well as being a cheating bastard, he's putting the player actually trying to win a clean header in danger of getting hurt as well.

On another note, can't believe we won away at another of the "Big Six". Special praise reserved for Elneny, Gabriel and Partey. All of them were excellent. I'm still surprised at the stick Elneny gets, he is the very definition of a 7/10 player that every squad needs. He will always put a shift in no matter who the opponent is, perfect for games like this one.  

[Colly]

Again while I have seen Kane do the backing in thing before and it probably being a foul, in this case I thought it was a pen. Keown was making a big fuss over him looking at Lallana then turning his back as if it was a big evil scheme, rather than a striker looking at what's in front of him then getting into a position to collect a ball facing goal. Lallana's coming from the wrong side and puts a knee into him. I think if he looks like he's got any chance of winning the header it's a slightly different thing, but I think he's just made a hash of his jump.

The slightly absurd thing is that if Kane was challenging a centre half making a clearing header the defender always gets benefit of the doubt and would get a free kick, but that's the absurdity of modern football, where odd things (defenders blatantly obstructing a ball to win a goal kick etc) have just become ingrained in the game despite being against the laws.

[DavidMarrio]

If it was nasty foreign Salah doing it more people would be crying bloody murder over it

[Matt]

Jesus Christ, can we buy a bit of luck with injuries. Rodrigo has been in contact with someone who's tested positive so is isolating, Raphinha has picked up a knock, Llorente and Kalvin still out. Cooper is back, lets just hope he is fully fit this time. 

 

Pablo might not be the worst option against these anyway, we're gonna need someone to pick the lock. Expecting nowt though.

[King Ellis]

Another Koch up...

[LL!]

2 minutes ago, King Ellis said:

Another Koch up...

Relax. 

[Matt]

Fuck. We've been sloppy but we've not really deserved to be 2 down. Leicester are the best of the style of team we hate to play against.

[Matt]

Not to worry, wasn't a game I expected us to get anything from. A point would have been great but individual mistakes and injuries have cost us.

 

We go again

[Lineker]

 

[Baddar]

PPV scheme scrapped after this weekend until at least the end of this season. The games will be shown on Sky or BT (and maybe Amazon?) instead.

Good work, lads.

[Colly]

Good, I was on the verge of cancelling Sky Sports again.

[Lineker]

Quote

The Football Association chairman, Greg Clarke, told senior representatives of the Premier League and its big six clubs that he supported the clubs’ efforts to secure greater voting power for TV deals, club sources have told the Guardian.

Clarke is said to have made his supportive remark in the meeting called by the league’s chairman, Gary Hoffman, with Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal on Tuesday 13 October, two days after the leaked “Project Big Picture” plans were published in the Telegraph. The Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Masters, also attended.

According to club sources, Hoffman told the clubs that he understood their argument for the Project Big Picture proposal that voting on “strategic issues”, such as TV deals, should be controlled by nine longer-term club members of the Premier League, with six carrying a majority. That proposed change to “governance”, as the Project Big Picture group termed it, was prompted by big clubs’ frustration at being outvoted on overseas TV deals by the other 14, three of whom are relegated every season so drop out of the league.

One club representative in the meeting is understood to have said that 10 smaller clubs think about their short term survival in the Premier League and not about long-term issues, so the change in governance was needed to enable a long-range view.

Clarke, who initiated the Project Big Picture process in January by inviting to discussions representatives of Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool, the EFL and the Premier League – Masters declined to attend – is said to have agreed in the 13 October meeting: “You don’t talk about value creation. Governance is key because people want distributions rather than growth.”

The Guardian put to the FA that Clarke was clearly supporting a change to “governance” – voting rights – so that the Premier League would seek longer-term creation of value in TV rights, rather than having people at smaller clubs look for the most money to be distributed to them immediately. The FA declined to comment.

On the same day that Clarke was expressing his view in the meeting with Hoffman, Masters and the six clubs, the FA published his letter to the FA council. In it he said that he had “participated in early discussions” of Project Big Picture, but had “discontinued” his involvement in late spring “when the principal aim of these discussions became the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few clubs with a breakaway league mooted as a threat”. In fact, as the Guardian has reported, Clarke initiated the process, attended every meeting as the plans were developed, cited the European or global breakaway threat himself as an opportunity to effect change, and had talks about resurrecting the stalled plans after the Liverpool majority owner, John Henry, contacted him in late September.

Hoffman is said to have told the six clubs in the 13 October meeting that he understood the case that strategic issues are best addressed by longstanding “shareholders”. The Premier League has said, and maintains, that Hoffman told the clubs that the Project Big Picture process was improper and had to stop, but club sources say that Hoffman told them their work had been “reasonable and perfectly valid”, and that he and Masters were willing participants.

Hoffman asked the clubs to participate in a Premier League strategic plan, which all 20 clubs then agreed at a full meeting the following day. The club sources say that Hoffman told them that their issues, including the case for “governance” voting control change, would be addressed in the strategic review.

Masters is understood to have said that he did not agree with the change to nine clubs having voting control, but he did recognise that some of the overseas TV deals were not satisfactory, and that the Premier League needed to have a “more sensitive model” for TV.

Hoffman is said to have told the clubs that the timing of Project Big Picture had been “terrible” because the big clubs were seen as exploiting the coronavirus crisis. The Premier League had been resisting the government’s manifesto commitment to hold a “fan-led review” of the game’s governance, he is understood to have said, but now there were “accelerated talks” for it to happen. The culture secretary Oliver Dowden had given that indication the previous day, criticising the leaked plans as a “power grab” and saying that recent events had made the fan-led review “look urgent”.

Asked by the Guardian about the 13 October meeting, the Premier League maintained that Hoffman had told the big six clubs that the Project Big Picture process had been improper, and emphasised that he had not agreed with the “governance” voting change proposals, but declined to comment on what else was said.

The FA declined to comment.

 

[Colly]

Bellends.