The Barclays Premier League Thread 2014/2015

[TCO]

Why wouldn't they just announce Lampard signed a 1 year deal with City and sign for New York at the end of the season?

Just curious as to why all the shenanigans was necessary.

[The Lusophone]

Financial fair play.

[Colly]

Financelol fair plolay.

[DavidMarrio]

So...Gordon Taylor has come out and compared the Evans case to Hillsborough.

What a fucking tit.

[TCO]

Financial fair play.

Why would they need to keep Lampard off the books but go and spend £30mil and god knows how much on wages for Bony?

[Colly]

So...Gordon Taylor has come out and compared the Evans case to Hillsborough.

What a fucking tit.

How, what, huh? He is a penis though, I already knew that...

Just saw it. Good lord. Potential resignation coming!

Edited January 8, 2015 by Ultra Rare Colly

[TCO]

Wow, just saw what he said.

That's really beyond comprehension. What an utter knob.

[Gazz]

I'd suggest he cancels any trips to Merseyside he had planned to.

Absolutely no way he should keep his job after that comment.

[Plubby]

So...to recap.

July 2014 - NYCFC announce on their website that "New York City FC signs Frank Lampard to a Designated Player contract ... a two-year contract which starts August 1st.”

August 2014 - It is announced that Lampard will join Manchester City "on loan".

Lampard refers to being "on loan" several times in interviews during the first half of the season.

December 2014 - It's revealed that Lampard will continue with Man City until the end of the season, rather than returning to New York in January as originally claimed.

January 2015 - Having been questioned about the deal, the MLS say that Lampard was signed by City Football Group [CFG], aka Sheikh Mansour's company that owns Man City, NYCFC, etc., and that the original intention was that Lampard would be with Man City for all of 2014/15 and then join NYCFC for the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

The Premier League ask Man City if this thing about CFG is true, because if so it would seem to contravene Third Party Ownership rules (in that CFG fits the definition of a 'Third Party' in that it is "a person or entity that is not a Club or an Overseas Club" - even though they of course own several clubs).

Man City assure the Premier League "that there is no agreement in place between the club or City Football Group with New York City FC relating to the player". In other words, Lampard is Manchester City's player and nothing to do with NYCFC.

This isn't shady at all. No sir.

Oh, shut up. You guys have half of Europe doing this for you

[stokeriño]

Actually we have none of Europe doing whatever the fuck this is.

[Ant]

I think the Gordon Taylor comment has been blown way out of proportion to be honest. He didn't compare Hillsborough and Evans case at all. He stated that the justice system has been wrong in the past when an entity/player has proclaimed innocence all the while and the system had been proven wrong and he used the Hillsborough example to back his claim

[TCO]

He still compared the plight suffered by Hillsborough victims' as a means of comparison for the way in which noted rapist Ched Evans is currently being treated by the media/general public.

That is very much a comparison and very much deplorable.

[Ant]

I don't think he is. He is just saying not all original decisions are correct and used Hillsborough as an example where it took a considerable amount of time for the truth to be known. He used it in a footballing context rather than anything else in my opinion

Having read the transcripts of the court case, the woman in question actually tried to accuse a rugby player of rape four weeks or so earlier unsuccessfully.

Not condoning what happened in any shape or form here. I'm just saying from the court transcripts etc and what I've read Ched may have a case with his appeal.

Speaking of which, when is the outcome expected of that?

[Baddar]

I don't know every detail about the case, but it's strange to me how McDonald got a not guilty verdict, while Evans was guilty. She was somehow able to consent to McDonald but not Ched Evans.

And her supposedly being too drunk to walk upon arrival to that hotel was also bollocks. She's walking perfectly in 6 inch heels, and even crouches down to pick up a pizza box and casually walk back through the main doors. Not to mention that originally, the only evidence of intercourse at all was through the admission of the two men involved.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy. But, at the same time, he was found guilty, and he hasn't exactly handled things well since his release. It's taken until now for any kind of apology, for example. I understand that he feels he's innocent, so she doesn't warrant one in his eyes, but it would have been the thing to do upon release, not offer an apology when your career hangs in the balance.

[Colly]

Ched may or may not have a case with his appeal, but as it stands he is a convicted rapist and to compare that (or anything for that matter) to the plight of families who've lived for 20 years with an accidental death verdict is disgusting. It belittles their cause and practically implies Evans' innocence which is a) far from a foregone conclusion and b) even if he's innocent of rape what he actually did still remains a hideously cunty thing to do.

I had a think about the whole thing while they were discussing it on Question Time last night. My view remains sort of the same, I'm fully in favour of rehabilitation and don't feel there should be a salary cap on 'jobs you can do when you've been in prison', but as I think I've said previously I wouldn't want him at my club. That's not an issue of him being a role model to kids (when I was 12-13 Tino headbutted Keith Curle, it didn't make me do it in the playground) as I'd like to think I'm a better parent than that, it's simply the case that I wouldn't want my season ticket money paying his wages.

With that in mind in my view the correct approach for any club is to poll its season ticket holders and if a large proportion objects (and I'm not talking 50-50, I mean 20% or so) you don't sign him. Ignore the Twitterspace, or petitions that have nothing to do with your club, act in the interest of your own fans.

[Whisper]

The only thing I would say on the Gordan Taylor thing, is that he is clearly speaking from a union stand point. Legally, Ched Evans has a right to go back into work and, legally, a business has a right to employ him. Currently, because of a media/public/national outcry, he isn't able to do that. He should never have mentioned Hillsborough, and it was idiotic to do so, but I can see his point from a legal perspective.

I'm not suggesting I want to see a convicted rapist playing football. Far from it, and I certainly wouldn't support him if he played for my team, but as has been said, I don't recall such an out cry when Lee Hughes came back into football. There have been countless footballers come out of prison, after committing varying degrees of crimes, who have played again. Why has football decided to find some morals only now? I also find it strange to see companies like talksport practically campaigning against Ched Evans returning to work, yet they willingly employ people with a history of violence towards women.

I'm also with Colly on the role models thing, if a child watches Ched Evans score a goal and thinks "rape is ok", that's a parenting issue. In much the same way that playing GTA doesn't make you want to kill people.

tl;dr - Ched Evans is a convicted rapist, and I couldn't care less if he never plays again. But I think we need to accept that, legally, he has every right to do so.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Whisper in the Wind

[Colly]

I don't even think it's football finding its morals, I genuinely think that rightly or wrongly Lee Hughes might not have found his way back into football if social media was what it is now at the time. It's one of those things where I'd genuinely love us to have the German style fan ownership section that means that all decisions aren't just foisted on us as football fans.

[Lineker]

Taylor shouldn't have even said the two things in the same sentence. What a plum.

[Matt]

I don't think there's anything wrong in what Taylor said when you actually read what he's saying but it's an incredibly dumb PR move to mention Hillsborough in that sort of context because it doesn't really add any weight to his argument and it's likely to get misconstrued

[Jimmy]

The only thing I would say on the Gordan Taylor thing, is that he is clearly speaking from a union stand point. Legally, Ched Evans has a right to go back into work and, legally, a business has a right to employ him. Currently, because of a media/public/national outcry, he isn't able to do that. He should never have mentioned Hillsborough, and it was idiotic to do so, but I can see his point from a legal perspective.

I'm not suggesting I want to see a convicted rapist playing football. Far from it, and I certainly wouldn't support him if he played for my team, but as has been said, I don't recall such an out cry when Lee Hughes came back into football. There have been countless footballers come out of prison, after committing varying degrees of crimes, who have played again. Why has football decided to find some morals only now? I also find it strange to see companies like talksport practically campaigning against Ched Evans returning to work, yet they willingly employ people with a history of violence towards women.

I'm also with Colly on the role models thing, if a child watches Ched Evans score a goal and thinks "rape is ok", that's a parenting issue. In much the same way that playing GTA doesn't make you want to kill people.

tl;dr - Ched Evans is a convicted rapist, and I couldn't care less if he never plays again. But I think we need to accept that, legally, he has every right to do so.

I don't think anyone is disputing this, or they shouldn't be. Legally he can play football again, but that doesn't mean football clubs have to sign him.