Jump to content

Premier League 2016/17


Lineker

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Big Gazz said:

Spurs are looking to offload Moussa Sissoko in the summer because 'he lacks work ethic and end product on the pitch'.

We did warn you...

They should wait until after the World Cup so they can get £60m for him

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lineker said:

So we miss out on Dembele for the sake of a couple of million and flush £30m down the dunny for Sissoko. Leading to Paul Mitchell quitting. Most definitely not a blinder, Mr. Levy!

You've already got Dembele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In new developments, he's apparently threatened to leave the club unless Poch leaves / gets sacked. :lol:

Pick your battles Moussa.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Tottenham moved one step closer to playing home games at Wembley next season after their application to host 27 matches at the stadium’s full 90,000 capacity was approved on Thursday night.

Brent Council’s planning committee voted in favour of the proposal by a majority of five to one after a heated meeting, lasting three hours and 32 minutes during which frustrated local residents were allowed to air their views.

Spurs now have until 31 March to activate their option to play at the national stadium, which has already been agreed with the Football Association.

The club, however, are likely to use all their available time to decide, as they assess whether their new stadium next to White Hart Lane will be completed in time for the start of the 2018-19 season.

Tottenham could yet stay at their current ground next season and play home games at Wembley in 2018-19, before moving into the new stadium for the 2019-20 campaign.

One resident broke down in tears midway through the debate at Brent’s Civic Centre while representations made by Tottenham’s executive director, Donna Cullen, and Wembley operations manager, Chris Bryant, were regularly interrupted by heckling.

Wembley’s current regulations meant Spurs could play any number of games there with the upper tier left empty, but this would mean a restricted capacity of 50,835.

The club were desperate, therefore, to be granted the full 90,000 for all their games and avoid the dampening effect on atmosphere involved in playing in a half-empty stadium.

Cullen said: “Brent is the proud home of Wembley but we would need to make it our proud home here.

“We would need to create a vibrant home advantage in the stadium. The impact of support is well-acknowledged, hence our application tonight for full capacity.”

But the issue of full capacity proved particularly contentious with objectors, who expressed concerns about anti-social behaviour, the extra strain on transport and the negative impact on local businesses.

Transport expert and local resident Fatema Karim-Khaku said Tottenham’s concerns about the atmosphere at matches “was not a material planning consideration and should not be considered by the committee”.

Councillor and non-member Sam Stopp, a Spurs supporter himself, said the residents’ wellbeing should come first.

“While in my heart I would love to see Spurs play at Wembley, I cannot do anything but implore you to take the alternative decision,” Stopp said.

“It would suggest a very wealthy football club might matter more to this council than the residents of Wembley and the residents of Brent.

“There is also a danger Wembley ends up simply being treated like a cash cow, and a cash cow the residents of Brent don’t actually receive any benefit from.”

The frustrations of the objectors fell on deaf ears, however.

At least two councillors appeared to favour approving the proposal but only on the condition that the capacity be reduced from 90,000. A compromise option of 61,000 - the capacity at Tottenham’s new stadium - was suggested.

It was decided, however, that to propose a new figure, more analysis would be required and a deferral was not an option.

Councillor Barbara Pitruzzella was the only one to vote against the proposal while Councillor Michael Maurice approved, although admitted to feeling “between a rock and a hard place”.

If Tottenham host more than 27 matches next season, in theory the extra games could only be played to the reduced attendance of 50,835.

Bryant, however, suggested Spurs could yet play even those fixtures at full capacity. “We would look to absorb those matches into the existing Wembley calendar,” Bryant said. “Spurs will be made the priority.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mad Jack said:

You weren't ever going to get Ousmane Dembele...

Apparently we were interested but his contract situation was too fucked up, there was a Guardian article about it. 

So, uh, take that, I guess? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wanted to do a FM game where I managed to field a first eleven all called 'Smith' or something.

Anyways, Man City have violated the FA doping code three times in the past five months and because the FA are massively into stamping out even any hint that there may be doping going on in English football, they've come down on City like a ton of bricks and fined them a bank busting £35,000.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Big Gazz said:

I always wanted to do a FM game where I managed to field a first eleven all called 'Smith' or something.

Anyways, Man City have violated the FA doping code three times in the past five months and because the FA are massively into stamping out even any hint that there may be doping going on in English football, they've come down on City like a ton of bricks and fined them a bank busting £35,000.

Some of the violations can be a simple as a player not being in the right place at the right time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what they are, one is they gave the FA the wrong address of the hotel they were staying in, one was because they'd moved to put on extra training sessions in the summer and one was because they'd given six players the day off without informing the FA. So that's two instances were the entire first team squad was unavailable for testing.

The magnitude of the offences isn't the point, the point is if the club has something to hide, they know they can fuck around with the FA and get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Big Gazz said:

Yeah, that's what they are, one is they gave the FA the wrong address of the hotel they were staying in, one was because they'd moved to put on extra training sessions in the summer and one was because they'd given six players the day off without informing the FA. So that's two instances were the entire first team squad was unavailable for testing.

The magnitude of the offences isn't the point, the point is if the club has something to hide, they know they can fuck around with the FA and get away with it.

Clearly the doping isn't working. Or maybe they have been using performance enhancing hashcakes going by some of their performances recently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Former England captain Rio Ferdinand has told the BBC that his children would not talk about the death of their mother.

Speaking to BBC Radio 5 live, he said his children would "shut me down" when he asked them how they were feeling.

He said he did not know the best way to talk to his three children, now aged 10, eight and five.

Ferdinand's wife, Rebecca, was 34 when she died of breast cancer in May 2015. The couple got married in 2009.

The ex-Manchester Utd defender was speaking to 5 live ahead of a BBC One documentary about grief on Tuesday at 21:00 BST.

He told 5 live's Emma Barnett: "I didn't know any techniques to speak to the children. I didn't know what buttons to push.

"I'd been starting conversations with them to try and get how they were feeling out, and they would just shut me down, walk away, close the conversation down completely."

In the BBC One programme, Ferdinand starts a memory jar for the family, enabling the children to talk about the happy moments when their mum was alive.

He said: "It kind of opened everything up and it was a beautiful moment just seeing them talk happily and being joyful about their mum rather than it being sad and negative moments.

"It switched it from dark to bright."

Ferdinand also said that, in the wake of Rebecca's death, he now understands why people contemplate suicide.

He told 5 live: "When you come into this situation you understand suicide, you understand people who do that and have those thoughts.

"I didn't think about it myself but I understand now how people get to that situation.

"I can't judge people like that now, whereas before I'd be sitting there, probably with Rebecca, saying that guy is so ignorant and selfish how has he just done that - left three beautiful kids.

"Now I could say I understand how he got to that point. I wouldn't do it, but I understand how he's there. You do get to those levels - and so it's a work-in-progress.

Ferdinand said: "At the beginning I'd sit and think how am I ever going to be happy?

"I can't see a point where I'm ever going to be able to smile, because I can get happy over here, but then I look at my children - and that brings you right back into sadness again because they haven't got a mum."

Throughout Tuesday's programme, he meets other widowers and talks to them about rebuilding a life and moving on.

But he would not be drawn on his own relationships, saying he was "disappointed" that there had been speculation about his private life, after recent photos in a tabloid newspaper linked him with a reality TV star.

He told 5 live: "That's disappointing... protecting my children is always the biggest thing for me... and that's what I'm fearful of with things being in the press.

"But the documentary has taught me there isn't a right time for anything like that, for if you're going to move on in a relationship... there is no right time.

"The only person who knows the right time is the person in those shoes. I've never spoken about my relationships in the past, in the public eye, and I'm not going to start talking about relationships or potential relationships that people are reporting on."

Commenting on how long it takes to recover from bereavement, Ferdinand said the government was "wrong" to cut back on the length of time widowed parents can receive a benefit.

Changes mean that from 6 April 2017, bereaved parents will only receive payments for 18 months. Previously, the payment lasted until children were 16 years old.

He said: "If I'm honest, I don't understand how the government can actually say there's a timescale on it because there is no timescale on anything to do with bereavement - every individual is different.

"One person may take six months another person may take 10 years. There isn't a time when you can say, 'Yeah I'm over it'. Putting a number on it is the wrong thing to do."

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said the Bereavement Support Scheme was designed to help protect families from sudden financial difficulties.

He said: "We are updating an old system that was based on the outdated assumption that a widowed parent relied on their spouse for income, and would never work themselves. This does not reflect people's lives today.

He added: "Once the payments come to an end, there are means-tested benefits which can continue to support the bereaved, especially those who are bringing up children.

"The new payment is easier to claim, won't be taxed and does not affect the amount received from other benefits, helping those on the lowest incomes the most."

Really recommend that people watch this tomorrow night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy