26/27 football thread

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Football is about the moment. I dont see why anyone would want to get a league title from ten years ago on their record. You cant celebrate it. If anything it's a depressing reminder of what Liverpool, Arsenal and Man United were robbed of. Those titles need to be voided. We need to look back like when Jack Tunney stripped Hogan of the title for throwing ashes in the Undertaker's face. By rights, Sgt Slaughter should have gotten the belt back, because he was the last champion before these two cheating bastards.

 

I've lost my train of thought. What we talking about again?

[SuperBacon]

1 hour ago, Devon Malcolm said:

I was going to say it's a shame there doesn't seem to be any City fans on here anymore but then I realised that nobody really wants a TapOut Tapes return.

I know one, and he was there during the League One days, and is aghast at what's happened but not arsed about what their punishment is. He thinks they should be kicked out altogether.

59 minutes ago, Ironic Indie Lad said:

Considering its only Wednesday, interesting to see where their heads are at by the weekend. 

The best I've seen is that it's racist what's happened, and United under Fergie should have all their titles stripped under FFP. You know, the rules that didn't exist then.

10 minutes ago, IANdrewDiceClay said:

You cant celebrate it.

Spurs fans: 

[Ironic Indie Lad]

As always, we are disproportionately exposed to a loud and vocal minority on social media. 
 

in one of my old jobs, there was a lot of old school City fans. People who would never dream of posting on Twitter all day, creating YouTube content etc. 

I remember one guy had a framed picture of Maine Road in his office. He still went home and away but he did used to acknowledge that it’s not ‘his’ city and felt weird playing Real Madrid etc.

Not sure exactly what my point is here. I guess that there are probably thousands of older fans that would probably welcome the ownership fucking off and starting again from the bottom.

[The Gaffer]

15 minutes ago, IANdrewDiceClay said:

You cant celebrate it.

I feel like it depends how far you go. 

Were titles ever to be redistributed - and I don't think they will be - there's definitely something very funny and gratifying about celebrating via social, seeing the records altered, throwing a party etc. 

Actually getting ex-players and managers in to do a trophy lift though (and in amongst the online discourse, there is people who genuinely think that should happen) does strike me as a bit woebegone. 

 

[Ironic Indie Lad]

Quite an embarrassing statement from Pep.

May as well have just said he is a bald fraud and his butt stinks and he likes to kiss his own butt. 

[Carbomb]

Apologies for the diversion, but was just sent this screenshot by a mate, regarding the Ireland-Israel match.

 

[johnnyboy]

Sky never getting to use the "Agueroooooooooo" clip again is surely the best part of this entire shebang.

[SuperBacon]

5 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

Sky never getting to use the "Agueroooooooooo" clip again is surely the best part of this entire shebang.

They could play it in reverse?

[Ironic Indie Lad]

The more I think about it, the more I think they should award the trophies to the runners up.

It wont mean much to the players etc. but its amazing material for the fans. In the end thats all that really matters.

[SpiritOfTheForest]

Couldn't stop thinking about this scene as I was reading that statement from the Premier League.

[Mr_Danger]

The words of Joe Hart are about as sincere as the words of convicted drugs cheat and ex City Manager/Ambassador of Tiki Taka in Abu Dhabi Pep Guardiola. What else are they going to say? Oh yeah that second bank account full of bonus money was just coincidental. 
 

[Dai]

As only a casual fan, can someone explain how Chelsea selling their women's team and hotels to themselves to 'make' money is fine, but how Man City selling sponsorship to themselves is bad? Was it just the scale that Man City were doing it/keeping it secret?

[CleetusVanDamme]

22 minutes ago, Dai said:

As only a casual fan, can someone explain how Chelsea selling their women's team and hotels to themselves to 'make' money is fine, but how Man City selling sponsorship to themselves is bad? Was it just the scale that Man City were doing it/keeping it secret?

They're not the same thing. City were sponsoring themselves, waaaaaay above market value, while pretending it was coming from an unrelated party. Chelsea transparently sold land and assets at fair market value to Clearlake. Something within the rules that had been done by other PL clubs before without much ire. A bit like players having their transfer fees amortized over five years. 

[Dai]

10 minutes ago, CleetusVanDamme said:

They're not the same thing. City were sponsoring themselves, waaaaaay above market value, while pretending it was coming from an unrelated party. Chelsea transparently sold land and assets at fair market value to Clearlake. Something within the rules that had been done by other PL clubs before without much ire. A bit like players having their transfer fees amortized over five years. 

But selling something at fair price to yourself is still surely bad, and not too dissimilar to what City have done? I know what Chelsea did was within the rules but cant get my head around it, as it seems just as crafty. Can't see how its in the same category as spreading out a transfer fee over 5 years, as amortisation happens in all businesses. Had City not did it way above market value then it seems identical to me. 

[SuperBacon]

1 hour ago, SpiritOfTheForest said:

Couldn't stop thinking about this scene as I was reading that statement from the Premier League.

I had this one: 

SHAM! DER DER DER SHAM!