Spent a bit of time there and that might just work. Sky will not be happy though. The product.
Spent a bit of time there and that might just work. Sky will not be happy though. The product.
If they can set cameras up on the outside courts at Wimbledon, they can rig something for this.
It's a glorified training ground. The atmosphere is going to be non-existent.
Actual fans might be able to tolerate it but try selling that shit to Asia.
Have you never watched any of the Barclays Premier League Asia Cup Sponsored by Barclays or whatever it is called? Atmosphere, or lack thereof, is not an issue.
"You know, lads. I'm just not feeling this pandemic. There's no atmosphere, y'know?"
They were talking about having CGI fans inserted into the TV feed yesterday (no joke).
Yep. I'm sure the contracts will carry on rolling in for the billions they do when games are being played in what amounts to a park with no spectators.
I have no better solution I should add, I'm just enjoying the fact that the gravy train is getting fucked hard. Couldn't have happened to a nicer, more morally upstanding group of people.
Also, if anyone's in any doubt, the Asian demand for (anything) comes from underground gambling. Got to have a game for that to happen. Why is Belarus still playing, they are probably only paid in fixing fees.
I called the widespread use of West Ham's fan noise way back before any of this shit happened.Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Call me cynical(!), but using neutral venues for this will surely open the door to taking games abroad again. West Ham had Watford and [The] Villa at home as part of their run-in, and Bournemouth had a few home games they might have been looking to get something from. If they go down they could make a reasonable case for being stiffed out of home advantage.
The alternative (for Watford and Bournemouth) is probably going out of business.
I bet they would take their chances on staying in a voided post-virus Premiership, even if it meant paying back some broadcasting/ticket money, over relegation.
I've had MOTD on in the background and it's semi-watchable stuff, got a good dynamic these three and I don't know if the top 10 stuff is always this watchable but they had clips of Juninho and JayJay as it was top 10 to have never played for the top six. Even Shearer isn't making me seethe largely cause he isn't being forced to try and give serious analysis and has clearly loosened up a bit as a result.
That's the first bit of football I've been exposed to in over a month. Got such a raging boner I've just ordered a ball off amazon.
How has this 'Big Six' shit been allowed to establish itself? Did I miss Tottenham winning something? When it was the proper BIG FOUR ('Sky Four' if you supported a loser team) we would have pissed ourselves at the mere thought of including Everton.
Enjoyed reading this thread. Euro 96 and FIFA 'road to World Cup' 98 were the pinnacle of international football for me. I was either playing cricket or at my cricket club for much of it, including the Germany game and possibly the Holland one too. Spain was my birthday and I had a sleepover which I still remember pretty well. For the following World Cup, I had the game on the PlayStation (unless it was still Mega Drive back then) and simulated all the games as they were happening.
Yeah, it's an odd distinction. I never figured Chelsea much of a force in the 90s beyond the cup hijinks. As a league side, they meandered about until Ken sold up.
Is it something to do with them being title challengers when Leicester pissed all over them?
When they first got together to form the Premier League, it was the BIG FIVE doing the driving: the two from Merseyside, the two from north London, and Man U. During the 90s Everton and Spurs faded quite quickly, while Chelsea gradually improved to create the SKY FOUR. City found their way in ten years after that, at which point Spurs seemingly became re-hitched to it, having improved a fair bit relative to their 90s and early 00s nadir, and also because Arsenal and Man U had dropped off horribly by about 2015 which made it logically impossible not to include Tottenham too. However, next time Tottenham (or Chelsea, or City) are shit for a period, they will disappear off.
The conclusion I draw is that English football is all about the three Catholic Irish clubs, Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, and that will never change regardless of their lack of success, or the success of others. These are the Catholic clubs in the three biggest footballing cities (sorry Birmingham) with the large diaspora-driven working class hereditary fanbases, the others just come and go.
Last edited by Jimmy Floyd; 02-05-2020 at 10:38 PM.
Seems about right. Chelsea got eyes on them because they kept buying players you wanted to watch. Italians, nonetheless. Back when Serie A was shit hot.
Chelsea and City got in the same way, by having an angle in a big football city and spending money (whether Matthew Harding's, or Abramovich's, or the oil dollars) on good players and coaches. Tottenham exist as the yin to Arsenal's yang, the same way Rangers exist not to be Celtic, and Everton not to be Liverpool. The Scottish one has had a new lease of life from nationalism which will see it through another hundred years.
The bigger regional one-club-towns (Leeds, Newcastle, Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest) could do something if they ever got their shit together, but they very rarely do. Sheffield wastes its resources on two smaller clubs, Bristol is a rugby town, and nowhere else is big enough to sustain a huge football club. The others are just there to pad out the league and lose cup finals sometimes. West Ham could play for another five hundred years and not do anything, they are an optical illusion of a club.
Forget the nineties and the tinpot Carling Premiership, when it was just Manchester United and a designated challenger. This is a Barclays phenomenon, and there was no big-anything until the 'Sky Four' started meeting each other in Europe. Consequently, it's a bit like the UN Security Council, and the BIG FOUR have permanent membership regardless of how shit any of them get. Then you have City, who will only ever be an associate member, because there isn't a single person in that organisation who could get Karl-Heinz Rummenigge on the phone. Arsenal could, because he knows them from the G-14 days. If that isn't a working definition of modern bigness then I don't know what is.
Chelsea only have the illusion of permanent membership because of a happy combination of money, prime media-friendly location, affluent fanbase and a series of unusually decent teams. If there's a fourth member of G4, it's the England national team, representing all other football fans except those of (Catholic Irish) Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U.
You're not wrong, but Chelsea were in the right place at the right time, like France getting their permanent UN Security Council seat for nothing. 2004 to 2013 is what matters. Barclaycard giving way to Barclays, Jose Mourinho and 'Rafa' coming in (and Arsene Wenger securing permanent tenure), through to Alex Ferguson going out.
United aren't a Catholic club.
Historically it was, as was Arsenal. That stuff is largely forgotten in England now except in backwards scouseland. Although everyone's probably Catholic there, come to think of it.
Where there's mawkishness there's Irish Catholicism. If United were institutionally Catholic, rather than just associated with prominent papists, they would have folded after Munich, or at least lobbied to have the sport banned.
Maybe I'm wrong, Google has mixed opinions on the subject.
I need it to be right though for my wider theory about the potato famine being more historically significant than the French revolution.
It's a tough one, but I could do Irish Catholicism driving Australian WHINGING (which is what it was) over Gallipoli eventually leading the Americans into putting resources into the Pacific that could have prevented the partition of Germany. Either way, that Australians being the world's Scousers idea I had years ago definitely deserved a three year research project.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...65cb3663a668b8‘Australia is ideal’: Premier League clubs ‘in talks’ to finish season in Perth
Seething.
Yep. Presuming the game against Sheffield United would've been rescheduled before May (it would), five of Villa's next six games were at home. The next 10 years for the club could potentially be defined by an unfair competition.
Our supporters group is meeting with human rights people (the most technical of terms) about the proposed takeover. I still think the silence is ... maybe good for the deal not going ahead.
It strikes me the PL are showing far too little creativity with this. They and the FL need to negotiate a transitional season involving at least 24 top flight clubs with a view to a 'normal' resumption in 21/22. That way you don't have the screaming and crying regarding things from the 'ongoing' season being unfair.
Next season is likely to be a write-off anyway, so trying to shoehorn more teams into more games, in (presumably) neutral venues, behind closed doors for at least the first few months of the season seems a bit mad.
Either they come up with a format that allows them to complete this season, which they can then carry forward, or they write it off (however you want to do that) and start again in 21/22, or, I suppose, resume this season where it stopped next year - although obviously those two last solutions don't work all that well in terms of keeping the pot boiling.
It's mad we haven't had one go wallop yet.
I guess not getting tv money won't start properly kicking in until next season. Don't they get it up front?
Ah that makes sense. Would definitely be worth seeing a few semi big ones go.
Just play it once through with 24 teams. 23 games seems manageable. Then give yourself a break to organise everything before August '21.
They will 100% play behind closed doors because it's now clear that if they don't, the whole edifice will collapse.
I'm glad the Man United/Arsenal Catholicism links have been questioned. I've never considered it before but it's an interesting thought. Not sure it relates at all, but I've taught in Catholic schools for five years now, and haven't noticed much favouritism. The school I'm at now is not far from Huddersfield, therefore not too far from Manchester. It's quite mixed but there are probably more Leeds and Man United fans than anyone else. Liverpool probably next with the odd Huddersfield or Man City fan, and one or two Bradford fans.
Australians being the world's Scousers is another interesting concept. Cricket has taught me that Aussies are okay losers, but terrible winners. We're sore losers but pretty humble victors. I'm sure Jimmy could correct me.
How do you make it fair?
You don't. Just try and accommodate everyone as best you can, which probably means promoting Leeds and West Brom and going 22 teams (and doing that throughout the pyramid with no relegation). Or if this goes on long enough, scrap next season and finish this one once you're able to compete on a level playing field. Going down by a couple of points having played 13 home games to other team's 15 would be a joke. The Champions League etc (cups, basically) is different, as they start fresh for every round.
Obviously I'm biased, so taking all that away the framework should follow:
1. Health
2. Sporting Integrity
3. Money
Money is certainly one place up on that list, if you're being extra cynical possibly two.
I see three European Cups to London's one in those there regional towns me laddy
People forget the Cup Winners Cup had some clout.
Do you want it to happen?
I'm not so sure. Every new owner to me feels like an unknown quantity. At least until they stamp their authority on the place. I remember being chuffed when Mike Ashley came in because Freddie Shepherd ran the club into debt with his daft spending. Sir John Hall was fantastic but once Keegan felt he wasn't being supported, he left. Sir John departing not long after. We've had wealthy, enthusiastic backers. We've had bean counting tight gits. We've never had an overseas conglomerate on this scale.
It's worth noting that, the longer Ashley's shops stay shuttered, the more he'll feel he has to sell.
Last edited by Shindig; 03-05-2020 at 05:21 PM.
Not my fault that Arsenal and Spurs are pathetic bottle job cunts. I thought you'd be pleased I called you a one club city.I see three European Cups to London's one in those there regional towns me laddy
They are currently owned by Mike Ashley, he should.
If an arm of the current Saudi regime took over Chelsea, I (stress I) would be done with the club until they fucked off.
There’s fuck all we like or fuck all we buy any more that hasn’t something dodgy behind it. Unless you’re going to live on a hill in a tent then you can’t pick and choose the principles.
Yes you can?
That was a nice touch tbf.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote