The Barclays Premier League Thread 2014/2015

[TCO]

Ozil and Fabregas are completely different players anyhow, I don't see how Wenger could think that. Ozil is the Oscar of Chelsea's system. Also he's been shit when he's been there or out wide, looks like he couldn't give the slightest fuck. Ramsey/Wilshere would've been a fairer comparison, depth wise.

Fabregas and Matic are such a magnificent midfield pairing. Fabregas has rightfully gotten all the praise recently but Matic is a ludicrously brilliant centre midfielder. Just does everything well and so tidy on the ball.

Edited October 8, 2014 by TCO

[FLiam]

Özil out for 10-12 weeks.

Sigh.

I feel this is a good time to bring this Fabregas quote back up:

"Arsenal were the first option due to a clause in the contract. We spoke with Wenger and he said that with Ozil they had this position well covered."

Lots of people bringing this up. Don't see why it's all that relevant. As has already been mentioned, they play in different areas of the pitch. Fabregas would have replaced Ramsey if anyone anyway.

Cazorla can fill in for Özil. Shit timing as Walcott should be back in the next few games, and they haven't played together much, but when they have they have shown a great understanding. He would have thrived with Walcott, Sanchez and Welbeck in the team in my opinion.

[stokeriño]

Evidently Wenger thought it was relevant. And Fabregas was playing in positions more like Ozil's during his time in Spain. As he says in another (more recent) interview:

"I haven’t played [deep in midfield] since my Arsenal years, since 2008/2009, so for me to go back deep and experience again this position [this season], it took me a while."

So to say that Wenger couldn't possibly have had it in mind to play Fabregas in an advanced position (and thereby clash with Ozil)...is a nonsense.

[Colly]

At the end of the day Arsenal were never likely to sign him based solely on the fee/wages and the fact they do have a fair few attacking midfielders, even if they aren't quite Fabregas quality. If they had the money spare he'd have fit in, as it stands Wenger is praising his own player.

[FLiam]

The fact Özil is injured shouldn't bring up the whole Fabregas thing again. I couldn't see us having two players on £150,000 a week fighting over the same position. Fabregas now plays for Chelsea, simple as that.

The money was better spent elsewhere. Like, centre half and defensive midfield.

[peteypirahna]

Arsenal didn't need Fabregas, they had Jack 'FUTURE ENGLAND CAPTAIN AND GREATEST ENGLISH PROSPECT SINCE PAUL GASCOIGNE' Wilshere

[Lineker]

The international round of games will never happen. Of course, the obvious thing to do is to just play the Community Shield abroad, but of course that won't happen until Wembley is paid for...

[Baddar]

If real, Keane is in my good books again;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bza4xAZCYAIfYBB.jpg

[Lineker]

Koscielny has been sent back from the France squad apparently, adding to Arsenal's problems.

[Colly]

He's been replaced by 'poor mans Mike Williamson' Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa.

[Costanza]

I'm sure France & Newcastle fans would rather see Boumsong.

[peteypirahna]

Manchester United wanted to explore the possibility of introducing sponsorship on the back of replica shirts, but the idea was rejected by rival Barclays Premier League clubs, The Times has learnt.

Sponsorship on the rear of jerseys is banned under Premier League rules, although it is allowed in the FA Cup and League Cup. United were interested in discussing the potential for a second shirt sponsor at a Premier League meeting, but it is understood that the other 19 top-flight clubs were opposed to such a move.

The consensus was that there was a risk of diluting the impact of a club’s main shirt sponsor, according to Premier League sources. There was also thought to be a desire to avoid the risk of football shirts becoming similar to their Formula One counterparts, which are often plastered in sponsorship logos.

The news has only recently come to light, although the matter never went to a formal vote of the 20 Premier League chairmen and chief executives and was one of several areas of discussion on the subject of sponsorship. Under FA kit and advertising regulations, which apply to the FA Cup, sponsorship is allowed on the back of a shirt in one single area, as long as it does not exceed 100 square centimetres. The same applies to the front of a jersey, but the maximum allowable size there is 200 square centimetres.

United declined to comment. Sources at two other Premier League clubs said that they thought it was something that could be raised again. In United’s latest accounts for the year ended June 30, 2014, commercial revenues had increased by 24.1 per cent to a record £189.3 million, which accounts for almost 44 per cent of the club’s total revenue of £433.2 million.

United’s seven-year shirt sponsorship deal with Chevrolet, which took effect from the start of this season, is worth £357 million. In July, United announced a ten-year kit deal with adidas worth £750 million — the biggest of its kind. United were also the first Premier League club, in 2011, to have a training kit sponsor.

[stokeriño]

The most ridiculous shirt sponsorship deal ever (twice that anybody else, including Real Madrid), not enough for them eh?

I can't tell if it's funny or sad.

[Cheeky Hughes]

And I remember debating with some United fans who took moral high ground about the fact that "At least we didn't hand over our stadium to a sponsor". And now it comes out that they want even more sponsors on their kits. Silly really. I think City Women have Nissan on the back of their kits (to go with Etihad on the front) and it's stupid.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Hughes

[The Lusophone]

The most ridiculous shirt sponsorship deal ever (twice that anybody else, including Real Madrid), not enough for them eh?

I can't tell if it's funny or sad.

It's neither. It's good business sense and something that already happens, both in the Championship downwards and abroad.

[TCO]

The most ridiculous shirt sponsorship deal ever (twice that anybody else, including Real Madrid), not enough for them eh?

I can't tell if it's funny or sad.

It's neither. It's good business sense and something that already happens, both in the Championship downwards and abroad.

It's not, it's greedy. Lower league clubs have neither the earning potential or existing revenue steams of Man United or any other Premier League club.

It's a stupid idea. It would ruin shirts by making them look like billboards and big companies would know full well that their existing deals would be diluted. These sponsorships happen so lower league clubs can have a bit more income. The fact that Man United signed the biggest kit manufacturing deal in history and were still the ones to breach this speaks volumes.

Probably doing it because it's almost time to give Rooney another contract. He's probably angry and confused again and needs another £100k a week to feel better.

[Colly]

It was the bit that highlighted quite how big Leeds' decline a decade ago was, the point where they suddenly had arse sponsors. The Premier League have to keep blocking it, last thing their 'brand' needs is Central American style 12 sponsor kits.

[The Lusophone]

The most ridiculous shirt sponsorship deal ever (twice that anybody else, including Real Madrid), not enough for them eh?

I can't tell if it's funny or sad.

It's neither. It's good business sense and something that already happens, both in the Championship downwards and abroad.

It's not, it's greedy. Lower league clubs have neither the earning potential or existing revenue steams of Man United or any other Premier League club.

It's a stupid idea. It would ruin shirts by making them look like billboards and big companies would know full well that their existing deals would be diluted. These sponsorships happen so lower league clubs can have a bit more income. The fact that Man United signed the biggest kit manufacturing deal in history and were still the ones to breach this speaks volumes.

Probably doing it because it's almost time to give Rooney another contract. He's probably angry and confused again and needs another £100k a week to feel better.

Shirts are already billboards. Football clubs are businesses and part of that is identifying areas where you can increase profitisation. It's no different than selling the name of your stadium or slapping the logo of a loan shark company onto the front of your shirt.

[Gazz]

Now, we can have two loan shark company and a shit clothing company logos!

WELCOME TO THE ST. WONGA QUIK QUID SPORTSDIRECT JAMES' DOME!

Football is fucking shit.

[TCO]

The most ridiculous shirt sponsorship deal ever (twice that anybody else, including Real Madrid), not enough for them eh?

I can't tell if it's funny or sad.

It's neither. It's good business sense and something that already happens, both in the Championship downwards and abroad.

It's not, it's greedy. Lower league clubs have neither the earning potential or existing revenue steams of Man United or any other Premier League club.

It's a stupid idea. It would ruin shirts by making them look like billboards and big companies would know full well that their existing deals would be diluted. These sponsorships happen so lower league clubs can have a bit more income. The fact that Man United signed the biggest kit manufacturing deal in history and were still the ones to breach this speaks volumes.

Probably doing it because it's almost time to give Rooney another contract. He's probably angry and confused again and needs another £100k a week to feel better.

Shirts are already billboards. Football clubs are businesses and part of that is identifying areas where you can increase profitisation. It's no different than selling the name of your stadium or slapping the logo of a loan shark company onto the front of your shirt.

At a certain point profitisation comes at a cost to brand image and that's what the Premier League are trying to protect. It's all well and good to have Man United having signing another ludicrous sponsorship deal with a multi-national company so they can sign continue to spend at astronomical rates and stay within fairplay, which all this is about. It's when you have newly promoted sides plastered in small hideous logos, it starts to hurt the image of the Premier League. I have a Leeds shirt from a few years ago that has an asbestos removal company on the back for christ's sake!

Great example with Wonga and the Sports Direct Arena, it's not that different. You saw how much of an overwhelming success that's been for Newcastle and hasn't tarnished the club's or owner's image at all!