foxile5

Bivol has given Arthur a pasting there.

Anyone catch the new tannoy announcer? Another step towards NFL style match-day hysteria.

Wonder if the staunchly labour supporting scousers will employ their famous sense of integrity and decency and have a pop at him for writing for a Tory rag? Surely, anyone who's "scouse not English" will see this for what it is - contributing to the Tory media machine - and rightfully disown him even though he played for Liverpool?

There were several points where Rodgers should have been given the boot. I think the first time he spoke out against the fans and the board was warrant enough. Goodness knows what Top saw in him. The whole 'King Power were broke' schtick is tired, uninformed, and inaccurate. It won't have been with FFP in mind as we could have made savings and concessions at later points. The only thing I can attribute it to is a 20m vs 100m gamble which has backfired spectacularly.

I'm not trying to at all - I think the club are hugely cynical in their ticketing practices and they should be looking to get folks like you and your lad into the ground for the price of an admission as an investment to the 50+ years of supportership it could bring. Unfortunately, we're not ran by football people and they look at you like a statistic to extract the maximum immediate profit from for this year's books.

You're the type of consumer, user, target audience member, fan that the club dream of. The reluctant but forced. You're maximum profit in their eyes. You won't use the membership so much that others can't purchase itinerant tickets on their membership but you'll spend a few hundred quid with them.

I agree. This isn't anti-ownership, either. We're lucky to have the owners we do. They have CLEARLY been a net gain to us and the city. However, they can't be removed from legitimate criticism. That way lies idolism. Top carries the can for the relegation. He isn't naïve enough that he won't have saw Rodgers losing the plot. He would have weighed the cost of the contract vs the probability of relegation and made a very poor call to keep him longer than he did. It's fine to say that and acknowledge that the buck stops with him. People like to blame Rudkin as some kind of totem of hatred but the buck stops with Top. Top, too, can be credited with not snapping up an easy managerial choice like Parker and getting Maresca in. That's how ownership works. The team you surround yourself with advise you but the bigger decisions are ultimately yours to own. I think that the almost non-stop success we enjoyed during the first six or seven years of Thai ownership have blunted people's ability to be critical. It's great we were so successful; it shows us that these owners are capable of successful decision making. That doesn't mean that poor decision making isn't part of the human condition.

Therein lies the problem - and one there isn't an immediate and obvious fix for - to punish him would make him a martyr and consolidate the vision of him as a maligned saviour; to defeat him would take major political changes which, frankly, the Americans aren't prepared for.

I entirely agree with UEFA being corrupt and greedy. However, they still operate club competitions as a meritocracy. We faced zero opposition in qualifying for the Champions League and had access to that prize pool. The Super League wants to control access to the prize pool and, resultant of that, will have a negative impact on competitiveness in the Premier League. Where would Kevin De Bruyne of the future want to play? It's a step towards American franchising of teams and the closed shop super-bowlery that owners like Boehly want to see. It's a good job there aren't 14 American owners in the Premier League right now...

As above - the financial rewards of this will mean that the Premier League becomes effectively, a closed shop. More-so than it is even now. Make no mistake; that's what these clubs want. Us...Villa...any team challenging the monopoly NOW has a bit of a chance. The clubs signing up to this want to take that small slither away. Remove from the domestic leagues and force their hands. They can have competition or they can have wealth.

I think everyone is aware of that, aren't they? The 6 leaving should be removed from the league in my opinion rather than opting to leave. The only reason they're interested in leaving UEFA isn't because of some misguided sense of honesty and misjustice. They're not bothered about corruption. They want to leave to feather their financial nests and, in doing so, will look to become more financially stronger than any of the other 86. They want to ringfence the money pond in a way that ruins competition. I'd happily back any movement to view The Premier League as tied to UEFA competition insomuch that attempts to leave the Champions League (which still resembles a meritocracy) qualifies you for removal from your domestic league. Who cares if they 'would still like' to play domestic football? The Super League in its very planning is an attempt to denigrate domestic football.

This is an odd thread. I understand the sentiment behind it - players earn astronomical amounts and many of the clubshop employees will exist below the threshold of what most would consider comfortable. However, the players aren't responsible for rewarding the sales and marketing branch of the club by any means. It's the club's decision to operate such a large club shop selling the tat they do. The 'fashion' brands and so on have come at a cost at some point - R&D, designers, factory workers and so on. Footballers shouldn't be expected to subsidise that. Those employees have their jobs because of the clubs attempts at profiteering. It's the club shop themselves - managers and department leads - that should be responsible for any 'whip rounds' rather than the players. There isn't a correlation between club shop staff and player outcomes/financials. There's likely a direct link between club shop sales and club shop manager bonuses, however.

Did he actually name Leicester?! What did he say?

Goodness me. Don't post things like that. It was three or four seasons ago.

Whether that's their plan or not - supporters should be lobbying for removal from domestic leagues. Closed shop European competitions with increased prize revenue and income effectively ensures domestic dominance on a scale that would wreck the game of 86 of the 92. Get those clubs, and their fans, out like cancers.

Initially my reaction to this was fury and anger - I would have been 100% supportive of fans rioting at the stadiums of their clubs in order to reverse the decision. I felt like the protests didn't go far enough and said as such. But - I've been reflecting and actually I'm going to support this. The clubs that will leave the league for this 'super' league will be the ones that are tedious and boring anyway. Man United. Liverpool. Chelsea. Man City. Good - take 'em. In the era of the super-wealthy they've just bought baubles. Now they can pay through the nose to buy baubles off one another on a long-term basis. The English league will be more competitive - and therefore more interesting - for it. The fans, too, will move. And whilst I'm sure there are 'old bloke and his son been going down for thirty years' type fans amongst them - the fans of these teams are, mostly, toxic blowhards who only follow the clubs because they're successful. Let 'em go and argue with international fans over twitter who 'The Man United GOAT is' in broken English. Edge them out of the game. Couldn't care less if Dave from Pontypridd can't get to Dubai for the Super League Super Round of Super Six. Even though he's followed Man United 'because my Uncle did in the nineties' or whatever tedious excuse they come up with. Get rid of the dreadful monied clubs. Get rid of the dreadful glory hunting fans. Reset the English league and, crucially, close the doors to them. Better off for it.

On the subject of general sale - I entirely agree. But I think the rot is too deep with the current administration and their view of what a matchday should be like. Unfortunately, I think the sterile 'experience' that they think is important is too far ingrained and too deeply felt. They won't bother changing it.

It also doesn't stop known trouble-makers and those with banning orders entering the stadium. I've literally seen people I know to be banned at away and home games. Don't be fooled by the club on this one - the entire intention of the policy is to monitor, surveil, and profit.

I put Daka but I also think we need to sign someone.

I applaud that if so. We kept tielemans in the fold when he was a) playing shit and b) very clearly looking away and it cost us. If they don't want to be here then they can leave and not expect to be a part of it. I get it.

This will need explaining in it's entirety. For research purposes.

Alves is injured and Danny Ward is handy on the left wing.

Wants that budget move to Atalanta but we don't seem to want to accept a quarter of a million and some magic beans.

Daka has added something that I thought he wouldn't. I've been impressed. Hopefully, he doesn't **** off in January and sticks about. I'm unsure if that'll be the case though.

Always admired Deeney as a player. Linked to our rise as a bit of a foil. I thought he was fantastic at Watford and he'd have had England caps if he was doing that at, say, Everton or Villa. Bit of a suspect personality but can't hold that against him - we've had our share through Filbert Way.