tempobet tipobet Instagram Profiles
Official PROC Champions League semi-final thread - Page 47 - Peoples Republic Of Cork Discussion Forums

Go Back   Peoples Republic Of Cork Discussion Forums > Sports Forum
User Name
Password
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #461  
Old 04-05-2007, 01:23 AM
st finnbar st finnbar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,003
Default

Liverpool today have bought the great dutch 17 year prospect uleague bottler, has signed a 9 year contract
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 04-05-2007, 01:42 AM
wat_boy wat_boy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: cork city
Posts: 7,547
Default

very funny! how long did it take ya to come up with that one?
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 04-05-2007, 06:14 AM
ho chi feen ho chi feen is offline
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vigo, Spain
Posts: 27,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philby View Post
The current United side has been built up by Fergie over many many years..it is his side. It is chock-full of expensive signings (e.g. Rio, Rooney, Ronaldo and countless others no longer at the club who were bought for top dollar) the like of which Liverpool have rarely been able to lash out.

Rafa walked into a club with a set of playing staff that he largely didn't rate. A huge chunk of that squad had no future under Rafa and the only thing on his mind was how quickly he could offload both them and their strain on the wage bill. As I said on a previous thread only this year is this starting to become even vaguely a Benitez side in terms of personnel.

I've had my say on counting the Mikel transfer from Lyn to Chelsea as a legitimate Utd sale in the past...
He was a United player, they had to pay us to take him off our hands. Things could hardly be any clearer. We wanted the fucker, but then it all went messy.
__________________
My TWITTER.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 04-05-2007, 09:12 AM
KolaKubes KolaKubes is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 26,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ho chi feen View Post
He was a United player, they had to pay us to take him off our hands. Things could hardly be any clearer. We wanted the fucker, but then it all went messy.
I'm at a loss to understand the boys on this one. We even had his signature like.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by auch View Post
No I never said people who go to collage deserve to get good jobs I was only asking who spent all those years in college to be left without a job in there givin area.
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 04-05-2007, 09:16 AM
xvis xvis is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KolaKubes View Post
I'm at a loss to understand the boys on this one. We even had his signature like.
He signed a contract with united, he was a United player...


The end result effectively sorted it out as we gave Oslo £4m and Chelsea gave us £16m. ....seems simple enough to figure out, and United are £12m in net profit from the deal.
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 04-05-2007, 09:32 AM
KolaKubes KolaKubes is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 26,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xvis View Post
He signed a contract with united, he was a United player...


The end result effectively sorted it out as we gave Oslo £4m and Chelsea gave us £16m. ....seems simple enough to figure out, and United are £12m in net profit from the deal.
We'd still be better off with the player. He looks a great prospect if he can knuckle down and stop being such a nob.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by auch View Post
No I never said people who go to collage deserve to get good jobs I was only asking who spent all those years in college to be left without a job in there givin area.
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 04-05-2007, 09:44 AM
RonnyB RonnyB is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KolaKubes View Post
We'd still be better off with the player. He looks a great prospect if he can knuckle down and stop being such a nob.
True. There was no way he was worth £16m til Chelsea cam in and kidnapped him or whatever his reasons were for disappearing.

Also to all those Pool fans who say "ye hardly budgeted for the £12m from Chelsea" I'll put it to ye this way. If Mikel had joined United and kept himself in check behaviour wise I dont think £20m odd of this years transfer kitty would be going on a certain Canadian.

But then never let the facts get in the way or an arguement.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actin The Sham View Post
Cork first, fuck everything else.
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 04-05-2007, 09:53 AM
Sound Sound is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Its on like donkey kong
Posts: 9,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnyB View Post
True. There was no way he was worth £16m til Chelsea cam in and kidnapped him or whatever his reasons were for disappearing.

Also to all those Pool fans who say "ye hardly budgeted for the £12m from Chelsea" I'll put it to ye this way. If Mikel had joined United and kept himself in check behaviour wise I dont think £20m odd of this years transfer kitty would be going on a certain Canadian.

But then never let the facts get in the way or an arguement.
So a hypothetical situation can be expanded into a fact?

Jog on.
__________________
Roman Abramovich- Messi is getting world class put next to his name.The guy is a talented park.If he becomes world player of the year ill eat my jocks.
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 04-05-2007, 10:12 AM
Sound Sound is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Its on like donkey kong
Posts: 9,621
Default

I enjoy Rob McNichol's Referee365 column usually, but I felt my age when I read his critique of my take on decisions in the Liverpool v Chelsea game, because having qualified as a referee when Chelsea were in the Second Division, Paul Ince was a West Ham hero and goalkeepers could pick up back-passes, I lived through things that are largely forgotten and inadequately recorded.

Rob objected to my claim that the linesman had ignored "the ruling that the benefit of the doubt should got to the attacker" when disallowing Dirk Kuyt's "goal", saying "there is no rule (or law) that stipulates benefit of doubt to the attacker".

No, it's not written down in the laws, because it shouldn't have been needed. But back in the day it was needed and was issued and the reasons still apply.

On every single decision, the benefit of the doubt should go to the view that nothing has happened - no foul, no goal, no ball out of play - unless you're sure. But across time linesmen started to assume, under pressure,that if, say, the Arsenal back four appealed in unison for offside then you had to be certain it wasn't offside not to raise your flag. And when did the Arsenal back four of the Eighties not appeal in unison?

Italia 90, when officials who were usually referees ran the line much of the time, produced a host of plainly incorrect offside calls in matches where the cameras offered proof, without the need for computers drawing virtual lines across the pitch. There were fewer televised league games then and with less technology present, so it needed cock-ups on the global stage to force action.

David Platt's England career took off with his last-gasp volley against Belgium, but he may not have had the chance to score that goal had John Barnes not had a pearler ruled out when a good two yards onside in normal time.

So, not that long afterwards, there was a reminder sent out and written about:
the benefit of the doubt is always that no offence has taken place, so when it
comes to offside it goes to the attacker.

I saw ITV's freeze frame and did not find in it conclusive proof that Kuyt was leading by a short head; there's a good reason why the photo finish for a horserace is taken on the line itself. Rob said the linesman had a good view but he didn't see that freeze frame and, given the impossibility of looking in two different directions simultaneously and the speed of the travelling objects, it's plain he took a guess.

"Benefit of the doubt to the defence" was an unwritten rule that was wrong. "Benefit of the doubt to the attacker" is now an unwritten rule that is right.

Rob also disagreed with my view that Kuyt should have been booked for his deliberate foul on John Obi Mikel in the build-up to Daniel Agger's goal. "Unsporting behaviour" is in the eye of the beholder, so there's no right or wrong there. But in looking at Kuyt's foul, Rob cited the clash between Ashley Cole and Steven Gerrard, where the former blocked off the latter.

"If that is a foul preventing a goal," Rob wrote, "then we'll have a penalty for Ashley Cole shepherding a ball out for a goal-kick but 'impeding' Steven Gerrard."

There are all sorts of problems with this. First, "impeding the progress of an opponent", what used to be called obstruction, is punishable by an indirect free-kick so a penalty is out of the question. It's a bit odd, but that's what the laws say.

Second, though I didn't write about Cole v Gerrard, had I done so I would have said it should have been an indirect free-kick to Liverpool. And if, as Rob said, old directives don't apply, I wonder if he can find anything in the laws of the game about shepherding the ball out of play?

"If a player covers up the ball without touching it in an endeavour not to have it played by an opponent, he obstructs but does not infringe Law XII para 3 because he is already in possession of the ball and covers it for tactical reasons whilst the ball remains within playing distance. In fact he is actually playing the ball and does not commit an infringement..."

That's what it used to say in Decision 7 of the International Board under Law XII. Though the lawmakers took that section out some while ago when they simplified the rules, referees still act as if it was there.

Perhaps it has been buried in another section of the laws that I haven't found, but if you don't imagine that that para is still there, then shepherding is not legal even "whilst the ball remains in playing distance" and everyone attempting it should be penalised.

I would have given an indirect free-kick against Cole because the ball was very quickly not in playing distance and he carried on impeding Gerrard. But certainly not a penalty.
__________________
Roman Abramovich- Messi is getting world class put next to his name.The guy is a talented park.If he becomes world player of the year ill eat my jocks.
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 04-05-2007, 10:17 AM
RonnyB RonnyB is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound View Post
So a hypothetical situation can be expanded into a fact?

Jog on.
Well the fact was United got £12m for a player who they signed. Ye rubbished the validity of the transfer wit records United's net transfer spend as if it shouldnt be counted.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actin The Sham View Post
Cork first, fuck everything else.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All forum comments are the sole responsibility and property of forum users. PeoplesRepublicOfCork.com and its sponsors disclaim all liability for content posted by users of the forum. PeoplesRepublicOfCork.com and its sponsors do not necessarily share the views expressed in this forum. Use the report post system to have comments considered for edit or deletion. All users are IP logged. Website hosted by Hostrocket USA.