Premier League 2024/25

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

You've gotta let it go mate

Oh, I have, I'm not even doing it in support or favour of him, he needed to go, i've gone on record as saying I was very nonplussed with appointment, his time in charge, sacking and that opinion remains while we're still ran the way we are, nothing will change, however, I will point out the contradictions and hypocrisies. Answer me a question, rightly or wrongly was he slagged off for playing the victim? Can't have it both ways.

 

Edited 31 December 2024 by Matt

[Bilo]

4 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Completely agree with both points.

 

I think both can be mitigated by giving Ruud more input into the transfers. If he can a) use his contacts in the game to either get some top players who aren't getting game time or some up and coming talent who'll struggle for 1st team football at their current club, and b) sells the vision of bringing in enough quality to survive the next few seasons, I think this can be achieved in a similar way to what Howe did when he first went in to Newcastle when they were staring relegation in the face. 

 

If however it's left to Rudkin, we might as well get the wheels in motion to set up a phoenix club, as there won't be much left after the EFL have had their wicked way with us. 

I like the idea, but I do worry that if they're not getting game time at Manchester United, they might just be shit. It doesn't go for all; I think Malacia could be an upgrade on Kristiansen, for example, but I would feel happier if the net were to be cast into his Dutch contacts either through Dutch players or, more broadly, the Eredivisie.

 

Aside from that, if the scouting network has been useful at all, it's been looking into the Belgian market via Leuven. We've had some joy from there in recent years, most recently with Bilal.

 

I think if we go for a loan or two from the Prem that genuinely improves us and then start looking at decent young players from the Championship, Eredivisie and Belgian leagues, I would feel a bit more comfortable. 

[Foxdiamond]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

We'll have to wait until the written reasons are published to find out why Cunha only got 2 games instead of 3.

 

Then again FA decisions don't make much sense on a regular basis. How did Joao Pedro get away with 0 games for trying to take someone's head off? 

 

 

Agreed. Why delay in written reasons? How long does it take. FA useless

[Bilo]

5 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Agreed. Why delay in written reasons? How long does it take. FA useless

FA Statement on Cunha.

 

When assessing incidents of violent conduct, the FA considers multiple factors, including intent and severity.

Evidence in Matheus Cunha's case showed that the act, while serious, did not warrant the maximum punishment.

 

While some fans may disagree, precedent plays a critical role in determining bans.

Actions similar to Cunha’s have often resulted in two-game suspensions in the past.

Not every incident is identical, but consistency in rulings must be maintained.

The disciplinary panel concluded that a longer ban was unnecessary.

 

Leicester City's fans may feel aggrieved by this decision, but the rules are impartial.

Every case is judged on its own merits, regardless of club or player.

In this instance, two games was deemed a fair and proportionate sanction.

Considering the evidence, no additional games were added to his ban.

Emotional reactions are understandable, but rules must be applied evenly.

Similar cases in the past have followed this same pattern.

Therefore, any suggestion of bias is unfounded.

Equal treatment is a cornerstone of the disciplinary process.

Regardless of external pressures, the decision reflects the panel's impartial judgment.

 

Rules exist to ensure fairness, not to cater to specific outcomes.

Every football supporter may interpret decisions differently, and that's natural.

Leicester’s current position is unrelated to this incident.

Even if the ban seems lenient, it adheres to established standards.

Given the circumstances, the punishment fits the offence appropriately.

Allowing emotions to influence decisions would undermine the integrity of the game.

The system ensures consistency, even if the outcome frustrates some.

Even-handed justice must remain the priority.

Discussion and debate are welcome, but the decision stands.

 

Please read only the first letter of each line for our honest reasoning.

 

 

[The Bear]

 

 

[Bilo]

Just now, The Bear said:

 

 

Playing the victim about VAR with the FA in your pocket is INSANE. 😂

[KFS]

Just now, Bilo said:

Playing the victim about VAR with the FA in your pocket is INSANE. 😂

Just stick him on ignore. Proper strange person 

[Bilo]

Just now, KFS said:

Just stick him on ignore. Proper strange person 

His pearl clutching at the weekend was bizarre.

 

There's also a very odd Forest fan lurking on the thread who's too spineless to engage...

[JimJams]

Apparently Jared Bowens injury is more serious than first thought.  Could see him out for a bit.

 

Apparently...

[Bilo]

Just now, JimJams said:

Apparently Jared Bowens injury is more serious than first thought.  Could see him out for a bit.

 

Apparently...

Doubt that suits us. Surely.

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, Bilo said:

FA Statement on Cunha.

 

When assessing incidents of violent conduct, the FA considers multiple factors, including intent and severity.

Evidence in Matheus Cunha's case showed that the act, while serious, did not warrant the maximum punishment.

 

While some fans may disagree, precedent plays a critical role in determining bans.

Actions similar to Cunha’s have often resulted in two-game suspensions in the past.

Not every incident is identical, but consistency in rulings must be maintained.

The disciplinary panel concluded that a longer ban was unnecessary.

 

Leicester City's fans may feel aggrieved by this decision, but the rules are impartial.

Every case is judged on its own merits, regardless of club or player.

In this instance, two games was deemed a fair and proportionate sanction.

Considering the evidence, no additional games were added to his ban.

Emotional reactions are understandable, but rules must be applied evenly.

Similar cases in the past have followed this same pattern.

Therefore, any suggestion of bias is unfounded.

Equal treatment is a cornerstone of the disciplinary process.

Regardless of external pressures, the decision reflects the panel's impartial judgment.

 

Rules exist to ensure fairness, not to cater to specific outcomes.

Every football supporter may interpret decisions differently, and that's natural.

Leicester’s current position is unrelated to this incident.

Even if the ban seems lenient, it adheres to established standards.

Given the circumstances, the punishment fits the offence appropriately.

Allowing emotions to influence decisions would undermine the integrity of the game.

The system ensures consistency, even if the outcome frustrates some.

Even-handed justice must remain the priority.

Discussion and debate are welcome, but the decision stands.

 

Please read only the first letter of each line for our honest reasoning.

 

 

Severity and intent. Cowardly elbow to back of the neck followed by snatching glasses from someone's face. Only intervention by others on pitch prevented escalation 

[Bilo]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

Severity and intent. Cowardly elbow to back of the neck followed by snatching glasses from someone's face. Only intervention by others on pitch prevented escalation 

'Please read only the first letter of each line for our honest reasoning.'

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

27 minutes ago, Matt said:

We're only a few steps away from chanting "Premier League, Corrupt as fuck" and/or hold up up "Premier League Corrupt" placards/banners.

 

Urgh, we're becoming that fanbase.

 

Always the victims. Wasn't Cooper slagged off for trying us to play the victim? Looks like it's rubbed off.

 

Who on earth is going to organise that  

[JimJams]

3 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Doubt that suits us. Surely.

West Ham get significantly weaker.  That suits me...

[Sol thewall Bamba]

6 minutes ago, Bilo said:

His pearl clutching at the weekend was bizarre.

 

There's also a very odd Forest fan lurking on the thread who's too spineless to engage...

Went quiet after we dragged up A Block's antics. 

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Who on earth is going to organise that  

True, I did think after posting, that'd mean some atmosphere and effort by fans which our fanbase simply ain't got.

 

Edited 31 December 2024 by Matt

[Bilo]

2 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Went quiet after we dragged up A Block's antics. 

Duly noted.

 

Repellent fanbase.

[Sly]

Bowen fractured foot, that’s West Ham struggling. We could sell them Wardinho for the right midfield slot, 

[Bilo]

We're 9 points behind West Ham. No way we catch them. 

[The Bear]

23 minutes ago, KFS said:

Just stick him on ignore. Proper strange person 

 

20 minutes ago, Bilo said:

His pearl clutching at the weekend was bizarre.

Luv both u guys 

[Bilo]

8 minutes ago, The Bear said:

 

Luv both u guys 

Hanging around on a forum of a team you don't support, you aren't wanted on and add nothing of substance to is inherently strange behaviour. 

[Richmondfox]

Just checked back on what Eric Dier got for jumping into the crowd a few seasons ago.  4 games and £40k fine 

 

from the FA website, “An independent Regulatory Commission subsequently found Eric Dier’s actions to be threatening and its written reasons for the decision and sanction can be accessed below.” 

 

Yet actual physical violence is less. 

[ForestAreMagic]

30 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Went quiet after we dragged up A Block's antics. 

That chanting was disgraceful and the club were right to call it out and apologise.  As far as I remember those responsible were banned.  There have been no incidents since, to my knowledge, thankfully.  
 

Happy to engage.  We have 2-3 Leicester fans on our forum and it’s interesting to hear their take on things.  (Happy also to come nowhere near your forum if you prefer it to be Leicester only). 

[Bilo]

6 minutes ago, ForestAreMagic said:

That chanting was disgraceful and the club were right to call it out and apologise.  As far as I remember those responsible were banned.  There have been no incidents since, to my knowledge, thankfully.  
 

Happy to engage.  We have 2-3 Leicester fans on our forum and it’s interesting to hear their take on things.  (Happy also to come nowhere near your forum if you prefer it to be Leicester only). 

You aren't the ringpiece lurking around like a gutless tithead. 

 

But your fans have literally had to be warned more than once since then not to start the racist chants.

 

You're more than welcome.

Edited 31 December 2024 by Bilo

[kenny]

15 minutes ago, ForestAreMagic said:

That chanting was disgraceful and the club were right to call it out and apologise.  As far as I remember those responsible were banned.  There have been no incidents since, to my knowledge, thankfully.  
 

Happy to engage.  We have 2-3 Leicester fans on our forum and it’s interesting to hear their take on things.  (Happy also to come nowhere near your forum if you prefer it to be Leicester only). 

Visiting fans that aren't WUM always add a lot to a board. Not sure why @The Bear or yourself are getting flack.