Premier League Thread 2019/20

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, Guest said:

Can someone explain to me what the FA have done that's so vile? They've said they respect Liverpool's position r.e. the Sun and given that they've put an emphasis on strengthening the relationship between the national team and the media over the last few years, you can understand why they'd be reluctant to play at a stadium where the nation's biggest newspaper isn't allowed

Because it's the ultimatum they've given to Liverpool despite all that the city went through following Hillsborough. The Sun treated them like shit and now they want to use Liverpool as some kind of bargaining chip to further their own relations. But at the same time seem to not care about Liverpool's wishes to never let The Sun inside Anfield. 

[stripeyfox]

5 minutes ago, Guest said:

Can someone explain to me what the FA have done that's so vile? They've said they respect Liverpool's position r.e. the Sun and given that they've put an emphasis on strengthening the relationship between the national team and the media over the last few years, you can understand why they'd be reluctant to play at a stadium where the nation's biggest newspaper isn't allowed

That's fine then. There's plenty of other stadiums the FA can use, including their own one at Wembley

 

[Dorkingfox]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Because it's the ultimatum they've given to Liverpool despite all that the city went through following Hillsborough. The Sun treated them like shit and now they want to use Liverpool as some kind of bargaining chip to further their own relations. But at the same time seem to not care about Liverpool's wishes to never let The Sun inside Anfield. 

The Sun is so crap it should not be let in at any ground

[Stoopid]

3 minutes ago, Guest said:

Can someone explain to me what the FA have done that's so vile? They've said they respect Liverpool's position r.e. the Sun and given that they've put an emphasis on strengthening the relationship between the national team and the media over the last few years, you can understand why they'd be reluctant to play at a stadium where the nation's biggest newspaper isn't allowed

They 'respect' Liverpool's position yet still insist the paper that characterised their supporters as drunken killers must be present or the national team won't play at their ground? Seriously?

Another example of that weasel word 'respect' being used to mean the exact opposite.

Probably another reason why the FA is held in such 'respect' throughout the world.

[James H]

14 hours ago, ubermick said:

And we beat Leicester 2-1 at Anfield. Make sure you include yourselves in this list - you've got a Premier League trophy in the cabinet, and are on our heels 100% on merit rather either sets of those Mancunians.

 

We were discussing you lads on our own forum today, and honestly can't help but speak with admiration. Team built the right way, overcame such tragedy with the helicopter crash, and fans who prefer to spend their energy supporting their own side as opposed to cryarsing about rivals. We'd be thrilled to have ye all finish second behind us this year!

It is nice when things are run properly isn't it 😁🤔

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Stoopid said:

They 'respect' Liverpool's position yet still insist the paper that characterised their supporters as drunken killers must be present or the national team won't play at their ground? Seriously?

Another example of that weasel word 'respect' being used to mean the exact opposite.

Probably another reason why the FA is held in such 'respect' throughout the world.

I think it's entirely possible that they can respect Liverpool's attitude towards the Sun whilst at the same time not want to put themselves in a position where clubs are dictating which outlets are able to cover national team games.

 

I'm not saying they're in the right at all, it's obviously doesn't look a great move and it probably says a lot about the FA and the people that run it that, in a dispute between a club/its fans and the horrible rag that is the Sun, their instinct is apparently to side with the latter. I'd just like a bit more information on whatever negotiations/communications have taken place than half a Mail article (that the FA have disputed anyway) before I reach for the "It's A Disgrace" button

Edited 9 December 2019 by Guest

[Guest An Sionnach]

1 hour ago, Dorkingfox said:

The Sun is so crap it should not be let in at any ground

Why is the Sun crap? Because it is controlled by the most evil family on the planet.

[MarshallForEngland]

32 minutes ago, Guest said:

I think it's entirely possible that they can respect Liverpool's attitude towards the Sun whilst at the same time not want to put themselves in a position where clubs are dictating which outlets are able to cover national team games.

Bang on.

[UniFox21]

2 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

That's fine then. There's plenty of other stadiums the FA can use, including their own one at Wembley

 

Think for the friendly; Wembley is being prepared for european games, OT is busy and Etihad has maintenance pre planned in that time. 

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Dorkingfox said:

The Sun is so crap it should not be let in at any ground

It is, but they were being fed the information from a local news agency who were being fed the information from syp officers. No excuse, but if the sun hadn't printed it, another paper would have.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/12/hillsborough-news-agency-reported-faithfully-sun

[Finnegan]

2 hours ago, Guest said:

Can someone explain to me what the FA have done that's so vile? They've said they respect Liverpool's position r.e. the Sun and given that they've put an emphasis on strengthening the relationship between the national team and the media over the last few years, you can understand why they'd be reluctant to play at a stadium where the nation's biggest newspaper isn't allowed

 

Because treating any shit rag tabloid, regardless of whether its the Sun or not, with such reverence that you can't host an international unless you work with them is completely ludicrous. 

[ealingfox]

Why does it even matter? It's not as if The Sun couldn't cover the England game at all just because they couldn't have someone in the stadium.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

3 hours ago, foxfanazer said:

Everton apparently want Unai Emery as their next boss. For the predicament they're in I think that's a huge gamble. Hardly set the world alight with Arsenal despite his success in other jobs

It seems Everton are hell bent on self-destruction, the other people I seen linked with it were some Portugese guy currently managing in China and David Moyes (my mortal fear when Rodgers left was we were going to end up with him).

[Stoopid]

2 hours ago, Guest said:

I think it's entirely possible that they can respect Liverpool's attitude towards the Sun whilst at the same time not want to put themselves in a position where clubs are dictating which outlets are able to cover national team games.

 

I'm not saying they're in the right at all, it's obviously doesn't look a great move and it probably says a lot about the FA and the people that run it that, in a dispute between a club/its fans and the horrible rag that is the Sun, their instinct is apparently to side with the latter. I'd just like a bit more information on whatever negotiations/communications have taken place than half a Mail article (that the FA have disputed anyway) before I reach for the "It's A Disgrace" button

The Sun has a long and inglorious history of sucking up to whatever the establishment narrative of the time happens to be. 

The fact that the FA has sided with them is entirely predictable given their similar predilection.

More information about this doesn't seem to me to be particularly useful - the battle lines seem pretty clear.

[dmayne7]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I think he's being taken out of context in a lot of circles, particularly by people that want to pretend he's talking about money and resources. The press know what they're doing when they pick a quote to make a headline. 

 

He wasn't really talking about having the resources to compete. This is a guy that said he's happy with Fernandino in defence and the personnel was fine. 

 

What he was talking about was his players essentially needing to re-evaluate and raise their game because other clubs are performing above and beyond what his squad is currently doing. Because currently they can't compete because they aren't playing well enough. It was essentially a rocket up the arse of his squad. 

 

I think he's right, too. They have been sloppy. 

 

Claims he's underachieving are ridiculous, though. What they achieved last year was bonkers and that's despite injuries to De Bruyne. No club in the world could cover the injuries they've had in defence this year. Even one with billions to spend. You can't stockpile first team players can you? 

Really? Pep gets rimmed by the media, you can't really dress that up any other way.

 

And in reference to your last point, that's just atrocious management. They needed a CB last year, let alone when Kompany left. He has Stones and Otamendi fit yet still wants to play Fernandinho there. Even played Rodri alongside him when the other 2 were fit.

 

Maybe he shouldn't have spent £30 mil on Cancelo and got rid of adequate back up in Danilo and bought a CB.

 

Phenomenal coach. But this nonsense of not having money to spend and refusing to strengthen an area they desperately needed, says a lot about his blind arrogance.

[Papasmurf]

25 minutes ago, henrik_62 said:

It seems Everton are hell bent on self-destruction, the other people I seen linked with it were some Portugese guy currently managing in China and David Moyes (my mortal fear when Rodgers left was we were going to end up with him).

Moyes ultimately did a decent job with West Ham. He's probably just what they need right now until the end of the season.

 

Can't see the guy in China ending well.

[squarez]

On 06/12/2019 at 09:36, stripeyfox said:

Arsenal were abysmal last night.

 

Would you swap any of their first XI for ours?

 

On 06/12/2019 at 09:37, Adster said:

No.

We all know Arsenal as a team are absolutely shocking but let's not get too carried away. You'd be absolutely mad to turn your nose up at Aubameyang.

 

Gerrimin.

[Manini]

Who watches the watchmen? It’s about time there was some sort of probe or inquest in to what in the actual ****ing **** is going on behind the doors of the FA. I know it’ll never happen but it defies belief at how vile they appear to be. Totally unattached from every living, breathing football fan in the country. 

[sylofox]

On 08/12/2019 at 09:45, Super_horns said:

I think its one of those spoof joke like threads people seem to start on our forum.

 

Give it time though!

Surely even your owners would give him at least 45 mins

[Foxes1]

Nothing to see here.

[Finnegan]

59 minutes ago, dmayne7 said:

Really? Pep gets rimmed by the media, you can't really dress that up any other way.

 

And in reference to your last point, that's just atrocious management. They needed a CB last year, let alone when Kompany left. He has Stones and Otamendi fit yet still wants to play Fernandinho there. Even played Rodri alongside him when the other 2 were fit.

 

Maybe he shouldn't have spent £30 mil on Cancelo and got rid of adequate back up in Danilo and bought a CB.

 

Phenomenal coach. But this nonsense of not having money to spend and refusing to strengthen an area they desperately needed, says a lot about his blind arrogance.

 

He's not a manager, though. He's a coach. He's never been a "manager" in the old school British sense. He's always worked with a director of football and Man City have a whole transfer committee lead by Al Mubarak and Txiki Begiristain. 

 

His job is to coach the first team and pick the match day squad, not to identify and sign players. I'm sure he gets a say but holding him responsible for not having more defensive options is daft. 

 

Plus, Otamendi clearly hasn't been completely fit and the injury to Laporte was horrendously unfortunately. 

 

I'd agree that he's over estimated the ability of Fernandino and Rodri to play at centre back but you live and learn by those mistakes and I don't think he'd actually deny that in private but he's hardly going to row back in public and slate those players defensively, even if it was indirectly by blaming himself for picking them. 

 

And I didn't suggest he wasn't usually treated fairly well by the press, I was saying that in this instance he's been taken out of context in order to spin a narrative, ie trying to make them look daft by claiming he's moaning about not being able to compete due to resources. 

 

What I'm saying is that that's not really what he said, what he said was they can't compete at the moment because they're basically not playing well enough. That's hard to argue with. 

[dmayne7]

11 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

He's not a manager, though. He's a coach. He's never been a "manager" in the old school British sense. He's always worked with a director of football and Man City have a whole transfer committee lead by Al Mubarak and Txiki Begiristain. 

 

His job is to coach the first team and pick the match day squad, not to identify and sign players. I'm sure he gets a say but holding him responsible for not having more defensive options is daft. 

 

Plus, Otamendi clearly hasn't been completely fit and the injury to Laporte was horrendously unfortunately. 

 

I'd agree that he's over estimated the ability of Fernandino and Rodri to play at centre back but you live and learn by those mistakes and I don't think he'd actually deny that in private but he's hardly going to row back in public and slate those players defensively, even if it was indirectly by blaming himself for picking them. 

 

And I didn't suggest he wasn't usually treated fairly well by the press, I was saying that in this instance he's been taken out of context in order to spin a narrative, ie trying to make them look daft by claiming he's moaning about not being able to compete due to resources. 

 

What I'm saying is that that's not really what he said, what he said was they can't compete at the moment because they're basically not playing well enough. That's hard to argue with. 

I dunno though Finners. Whilst I appreciate there is that structure and he would undoubtedly see himself as a coach, more than a manager, he is treated like a deity at Man City and I guarantee he not only has the final say on transfers but also has the first word. Regardless, he's been so dismissive of the need for a centre back that I don't think you can really say they've been that unlucky. Of course, losing Laporte is massive but a club with the resources of Man City cannot really use that as an excuse because the other 2 weren't out for that long.

 

Take us next year; Wes leaves and we don't sign a Centre back. Evans gets crocked for 6 months, then Söyüncü and Benkovic are out for a few weeks. That would be ridiculous. But it wouldn't be ridiculously unlucky because you're only losing one CB for a long term. The ridiculous part is not signing a CB. Wouldn't you lay the blame at Rodgers door for not bringing in another CB? I would, even if not entirely his fault. And BR probably sees himself as a coach like Pep. That's why I can't cut him any slack.

 

Reading the comments again, you're probably right (although quite why you'd say you can't compete with a team that's still many points below you in the table is silly). However, the media love the guy and always pat him on the back. I do find he does make some really childish/entitled comments which he never gets pulled up on. I don't want to belittle his amazing achievements Man City but the guy has never had a challenging job. Took over Rijkaard's team at Barca (and he was responsible for one of the worst transfers in history by giving Inter Etoo and £40m for Zlatan), then took what I'd argue was the strongest squad I've ever seen at Bayern and took them backwards (of course still won plenty)

 

It's for those reason I don't like the guy and he'll never get any sympathy from me.

[Guest An Sionnach]

20 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

He's not a manager, though. He's a coach. He's never been a "manager" in the old school British sense. He's always worked with a director of football and Man City have a whole transfer committee lead by Al Mubarak and Txiki Begiristain. 

 

His job is to coach the first team and pick the match day squad, not to identify and sign players. I'm sure he gets a say but holding him responsible for not having more defensive options is daft. 

 

Plus, Otamendi clearly hasn't been completely fit and the injury to Laporte was horrendously unfortunately. 

 

I'd agree that he's over estimated the ability of Fernandino and Rodri to play at centre back but you live and learn by those mistakes and I don't think he'd actually deny that in private but he's hardly going to row back in public and slate those players defensively, even if it was indirectly by blaming himself for picking them. 

 

And I didn't suggest he wasn't usually treated fairly well by the press, I was saying that in this instance he's been taken out of context in order to spin a narrative, ie trying to make them look daft by claiming he's moaning about not being able to compete due to resources. 

 

What I'm saying is that that's not really what he said, what he said was they can't compete at the moment because they're basically not playing well enough. That's hard to argue with. 

Why does he keep using John Stones then , at Everton they dropped him and brought Jagielka back and last season he brought Kompany back in himself . Stones should have been switched to midfield long ago , he cannot be trusted as a centre back. Pep rarely makes mistakes but he has f**led up completely with this.

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, dmayne7 said:

Whilst I appreciate there is that structure and he would undoubtedly see himself as a coach, more than a manager, he is treated like a deity at Man City and I guarantee he not only has the final say on transfers but also has the first word. Regardless, he's been so dismissive of the need for a centre back that I don't think you can really say they've been that unlucky.

 

I have to be honest, I think you're underestimating Mubarak a little there. Whilst it's definitely true that they very much wanted Guardiola, very much built the club in the image of his Barcelona in anticipation of him arriving, I think deity is a bit much. 

 

Al Mubarak is a very hard, very, very shrewd businessman who is extremely demanding of those at the club and not at all eager to part with cash. There's been several high profile cases of City being in for players like Sanchez and Maguire over the last few years and refusing to pull the trigger because they won't be bullied for price and because they're ruthless with their cost vs benefit analysis before they do. 

 

I know they're viewed as a big spending club and they do have vast resources but they absolutely don't throw needless money around for the sakes of it. They bartered for every penny with us for Riyad and even then were slow to pay a club record fee at a surprisingly low 60 odd. They're not like United or Real or even Barca, just wastefully throwing around vast amounts based on their reserves of debt. 

 

How many Man City signings are there that were high profile flops as a result of poorly researched, high risk, high value transfers? It doesn't happen. 

 

I personally think he'll have done an appraisal of where they're at, told Pep that performances aren't good enough for what they've spent, told them this season is over, forget the title and that he's not wasting money on defenders to try and hunt down Liverpool when it's futile. I reckon they're confident in getting Laporte back for the CL knock out phases and they're just targeting that. 

 

For me, Pep claiming they don't need defenders now smacks of Arsene Wenger claiming there was money to spend after the Emirates was built but that he just didn't need to spend it. I think it's bullshit, personally, it's just the manager as the public voice of the club towing the party line for the billionaires behind the scenes. 

 

Of course this is purely speculative and subjective so who knows. Maybe you're right. 

 

TLDR: Pep might be the golden boy but Al Mubarak wears the trousers make no mistake. 

 

[Finnegan]

10 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

Why does he keep using John Stones then , at Everton they dropped him and brought Jagielka back and last season he brought Kompany back in himself . Stones should have been switched to midfield long ago , he cannot be trusted as a centre back. Pep rarely makes mistakes but he has f**led up completely with this.

 

Because Stones has one of the highest pass completion rates of any defender in the league and a Man City CB is a wall pass option just as much as a stopper. Tactically they're reliant on having good ball players to sit there and recycle possession, receiving balls back from the wide men when they're being pressed. 

 

Yeah, the ideal CB is someone that can do that whilst being fantastic defensively but how many Gérard Piques are there really in the world? 

 

Almost every quality ball playing CB in football has moments of defensive disaster. Hummels, Stones, Luiz, Maguire, all these guys have been enormous value targets for huge clubs and they're all prone to errors. 

 

I don't think Pep is wrong to want defenders that can do that. It's hard to argue his system isn't a good one when he's won so much with it. 

 

I think if you sat down and spoke to Pep and Arteta at the moment about the plight of the side, they'd tell you not to only blame centre halves and that they're not defending well enough collectively as a whole team and aren't keeping the ball and controlling the game well enough as a whole team and that if they were, there'd be less pressure and attention on the centre halves anyway. 

 

They'd probably have a point.