Jump to content

dsr-burnley

Member
  • Post count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Average

About dsr-burnley

  • Rank
    Reserve Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,218 profile views
  1. To be fair, Bardsley missed last night's game because of that back injury. We don't know whether he was exaggerating it, but he was definitely injured. But yes, we do waste time, as do most other clubs, and the three miutes last Sunday was definitely shorter than it should have been - especially with the VAR. My solution would be to change the law so that if a team is not taking their dead ball expeditiously - good word - the ref can give it the other way. So if they don't take a throw-in it becomes a throw the other way, if they don't take a goal kick it becomes a corner, and so forth. And it would cover things like one player moving slowly to the ball and then moving away to let someone else move slowly to the ball; standing pointing instead of taking the throw; slow goal kicks; kicking the ball in the wrong direction and walking slowly after it. Anything that is obvious time wasting but a booking is too much of a punishment. It would soon stop.
  2. They may finish the game exhausted, but aren't they supposed to? If a player looks like he hasn't been trying, it's probably because he hasn't been trying. As for miserable, there isn't a man in the side who hasn't signed at least 2 contracts with Burnley. They don't want to leave, that's why the average age is increasing,
  3. Point being that you could and probably should have had a second penalty; but you could and probably should have had your goal disallowed. Even in just the one game, it worked both ways. (Though with Taylor refereeing, it's pot luck what he gives and what he doesn't.)
  4. Is anyone remotely concerned about the tackle on Cork that led to your goal? All the Sky commentators agreed that going through the back of the man to get the ball made it a foul.
  5. Which makes it no wonder that tennis players are forever being told they are tired. Oh, hang on ...
  6. Leicester's wage bill in 2013-14 was £26.9m plus £9.4m promotion bonuses. Burnley's wage bill in 2013-14 was £15.4m plus £6.1m promotion bonuses. Nottingham Forest was £27.2m.
  7. That's the point - I don't know. I have been told that the admin deal was 2p in the pound for all creditors, and I've been told that the new owners paid all the debts in full even though there was no legal obligation to, and I have little idea whether either or both is true. Was the stadium sold to a third party, then? Who did you pay the rent to - the builders if they claimed it back for unpaid debts? The banks who took it in lieu of mortgage? (That sounds the more likely.)
  8. Rightly or wrongly, what other fans remember is that by the end of 2014, Leicester City had received approx £140 million in share capital and loans from the owners, and that under previous owners you had paid 2p in the pound towards the cost of the new stadium. (Is that second part factually accurate? It's certainly widely believed.) I know Sean Dyche is widely mocked for mentioning (perhaps more than once!) that Leicester had financial advantages over Burnley, but it's undoubtedly true that they did.
  9. Penalty? You think Burnley will get a penalty? We've already exceeded our ration for the season - we had a penalty against Watford. That fulfills our annual one-a-year quota. Barnes is probably injured, so you dodged a bullet there.
  10. They have already changed the rule. That's the problem. Thirty years ago, the offside rule was changed to allow a forward who was level with the second-last defender, to be offside. This was explicitly stated to be with the purpose of allowing more goals, and it was also explicitly stated in guidance to referees that if a player looked level to the normal human eye, then he was level. There was no need to go to the nth degree, The new rule eliminates level. According to the new rule for VAR games, a player cannot be level so the idea of being onside when level ceases to exist. Last year, Vardy would have been level, so the goal would have been legitimately given. If VAR had been used using last year's rule, the Vardy would still have been level and the goal would have been given after a cursory check - no more than 15 seconds, probably less. Under this year's ruiles, the goal was disallowed. This is deliberate policy by the VAR administrators. They think the game is better because the goal was disallowed. The people administering VAR should be sacked and replaced by football people; people with common sense; people who actually like the game.
  11. I tend to stick to facts. No need to get involved in shouting matches with other teams' fans - there's enough of that on our own board!
  12. Not quite. Population 81,548 per the last census. There were 1267 from Burnley according to the official attendance.
  13. You're wrong about Gray and Gibson. Gray cost £9m, was Championship top scorer and player of the year in the year we won it, scored 9 next year in the Premier, and was sold for £18m. That worked out. Gibson was signed as cover for Tarkowski and Mee, neither of who have missed a game in 18 months. You have to have injury cover, especially at centre half; injury cover doesn't become a failed signing just because it isn't needed. Defour was injured for most of his three years, so in that sense he was a failure; it's a bit harsh to apportion blame on anyone for that, though. We do have scouts outside the UK.
  14. He's 27, and he's under contract for another 3 years, and so unless he has got a £50m release clause to a club outside the top 6, then you won't be getting him. Though Burnley might be willing to sell for £50m to clubs like Leicester outside the top 6, if Tarkowski wants to go. We've got Gibson ready.
×
×
  • Create New...