BTRFTG

We used to....

3 hours ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

It was a neat line, and was lapped up by the likes of Barnsley's "Parky" and other dinosaurs it being the 1970s, but the truth was Best was a sad and pitiful wreck of a human being. I think we have moved on a bit from that sort of nonsense now. A bit.

I read this week that by the age of 22 Best had won his last trophy. 

Possibly, but I alluded to folks criticizing JET for squandering his talents, which undoubtedly he did, but more power to his elbow for the life he's enjoying.

36 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

It was, indeed, dating back to their Doncaster days.

I well remember his wonderful, MotM performance for Doncaster at Ashton Gate.

 

Couldn't miss it given the boots he wore that day.

Swazzy.

Loved watching JET's 'training' social media when in Thailand. Recalls the Spanish waiter / George Best story, he delivering a UK newspaper headlined 'George Best, Where Did It All Go Wrong?' to the man himself. Best reclined on the suite's gigantic bed piled high with tens of thousands of dollars casino winnings, quaffing fine champagne whilst lying in the arms of Miss World.

54 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I remember there being a picture of Engvall when he signed, with about 4 "agents/liggers" with him and thinking this doesn't look right at all.

I would love to know what Ashton was getting out of these deals with people no one had ever heard of 

As Johnson openly discussed at a Senior Reds luncheon shortly after Engvald made his debut they'd made a 'panic signing' days ahead of the season, knew next to nothing of him other than raw stats, had never seen him play and when finally getting the chance so to do immediately realised the huge mistake they'd made.

18 hours ago, Agard Days Night said:

it didn’t work out for him here for all manner of reasons.

It didn't work out for him for one reason and one reason only. He's devoid of footballing talent.

Loving the Barca fans who screamed for & celebrated De Jong's signing now standing at the training ground gates screaming not his name but the fact they now consider him a greedy ****er who should take a wage cut & **ck off.

1. Frenkie de Jong – £470,156 per week
2. Sergio Busquets – £354,591 per week
3. Jordi Alba – £335,733 per week
4. Robert Lewandowski – £302,208 per week
5. Miralem Pjanic – £251,760 per week
6. Ansu Fati – £224,842 per week
7. Ousmane Dembele – £221,619 per week
8. Franck Kessie – £218,235 per week
9. Raphinha – £201,472 per week
10. Jules Kounde – £201,472 per week
11. Pierre Emerick-Aubameyang – £184,710 per week
12. Gerard Pique – £167,947 per week
13. Andreas Christensen – £167,947 per week
14. Memphis Depay – £167,947 per week
15. Pedri – £151,185 per week
16. Marc-Andre ter Stegen – £145,060 per week
17. Ronald Araujo – £112,824 per week
18. Ferran Torres – £100,735 per week
19. Samuel Umtiti – £100,735 per week
20. Neto – £96,707 per week

Quite a few of these haven't been paid of late....

€1.2bn in debt.

Marca reporting today the TV deal with Sixth Street was 'over-reported' by Barca to the tune of €150m.

That deal is for 25 years  (for every € they've taken upfront they've given €3 away in future revenue.)

They've also given away a sizeable share in their own content provider.

6 of their 8 highest earners aren't yet registered to play this season. 

Madness.

52 minutes ago, redapple said:

Ashton Park was a more than decent pitch. Flat and lots of grass. 

Flat? The egg-chasers pitch had a slope running from the bypass side down.

That said, the kid I thought I'd killed didn't roll down it all the time he was unconscious so it wasn't as severe as some.....

Give it a couple of months and they'll be starring in 'Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!'

But what to seize...?

£16.5k - fine by me......

22 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Well aren’t you just an absolute delight. You’ve really captured the mood.

Bore off and let the rest of us just enjoy a rare moment of international success for our national sport.

So it's a crime not to be a glory hunter, to not feel obligated to follow the masses.

I've done or said nothing to stop you and others enjoying your moment of glory (sic). I even offered my own congratulations to the Lionesses. 

All I did was highlight the folly of comparing the women's game to the men's. And that's now a crime? What, under your totalitarianism, would you have me do to mark the occasion?

1 minute ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Just 31 minutes of another game will beat your record!  

I said attend, not watch....

25 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

What does any of that actually mean?

The mens game could be self sustaining? As it stands, the majority of mens clubs face utter financial ruin if their wealthy backers get bored of their toy.

The same goes for the womens game, they are reliant on cash from their parent club. 

Football's finances are a mess, no matter the sex of the players.

Football is no exception and as with any business if the directors are of an opinion the operation may no longer be self funding then they must immediately takes steps to mitigate others losers by winding up the company.

Unlike many ungratefuls on here I remind why we've everything for which to thank Mr Lansdown as without his beneficence City would already be history. City cover this by having SL convert loan to stock. No longer club loses they'll be SL's if crystalized.

In football's case (men only) there are active controls (of which City may shortly fall foul,) that mandate long term sustainability and removal of the contrivance of ownership. The other difference between men's and women's football is, I suggest, that there are critical mass income streams within the men's game (and likely always will be, though not supportive of present rates of spend,) which may sustain the men's side but which are unlikely to materialise within the woman's game. I could be wrong, but history doesn't suggest I will be.

Just now, TonyTonyTony said:

For someone not interested in it, you sure do like to talk about it

Given today's wall to wall bandwagon jumping it's hard not to.

But I'll be open. I'll commit to attending as many women's matches next year as I did this. (In my case that's not difficult.) Unlike others I won't scream women's football is the greatest thing since slice bread then do nothing until success is next in the horizon.

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

And are these parent clubs self sustaining and well run monetarily, or do they for a large part also make eye watering losses and are mostly propped up by sugar daddy billionaires?

I'd also argue that something making money or not has almost NO bearing on it's legitimacy or worth.

Who cares if they currently need outside funding, and if the men's game is contributing? Surely the goal is for both to reach an equal footing, so anything which can aid that should be seen as a progressive and good thing rather than a stick to beat them with.

Self-sustaining? They have to have the potential so to be else immediately must enter administration.

Agreed /, profit and merit have no correlation.

Equal footing? Ah, to the point of my original response, you'll recall, the comparison that the Lionesses had done something no men's team had done since 66. Should they both have the opportunity to provide outlets for both sexes to play? Of course they should. Should success in both be recognised? Again, of course it should. Should the entertainment and skill levels across the sexes be considered equal? Historically the populous would suggest not. Doubtless a few more will have changed their opinion since yesterday, perhaps there will be a boom in attendances across the women's game and good if there is. But for those who demand equality in everything, even where it doesn't exist, there are always those who highlight that folly. Having spent a lifetime watching football, and not the greatest standard either, I've absolutely no interest in watching football of lower standard. Whether that's women, kids, walking or disabled unless one has a personal interest, why bother? England's women won a women tournament. Great. Congratulations. But no need for unfounded extrapolation.

55 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

The mens game where most clubs are, er, mostly bankrupt and dependant on funding from billionaire owners?

Indeed. The difference being there are income streams whereby men's professional football could be made to pay it's own way. It isn't (yet) bankrupt and why it may keep trading.

That isn't the case for women's professional football where the rules allow larger clubs to pass costs to related entities but where those without patronage have been known to forfeit cup ties because an unkind draw has made the journey unaffordable.

19 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

This is incorrect. The sponsorship the womens game recieves is greater than the money that is received from the EPL that would never cover the costs of the WSL and its teams.  

Virtually all women's 'professional' football is funded by parent clubs. At the top end to the tune of many millions of pounds each year. I think it had been reported Chelsea, as WSL champions, to the tune of upward of £200k per week. Sponsorship is presently around £10m a year for the top two tiers, The Premier gave a similar amount from the last TV deal for the overall development of the women's game (all tiers,) not sure if the EPL contributes (other than allowing cross subsidy from men's football.) But if that last measure is all it'll outstrip all other sponsorships by miles.

In City's case and in the last accounts the women's team had debts of around £93k, of which around £22k were EBITDA in year and thereafter consumed within the overall losses. Small change? Oh the 15 employees, all their wages, all their costs and expenses were reported against the overarching account, not the women's team. The woman's game reports it's income but not it's expenses on the pretext the club offsets such losses from FFP/P&S calculations. 

5 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

You watched 30 minutes of the whole tournament, deduced Spain were the only team close to the mens game, and then posted on here to tell us about it like some kind of footballing oracle.  Embarrassing.

It doesn’t matter whether they are better or worse than any standard of the mens game because it’s not the mens game, not that you would know as by your own admission you only watched 30 minutes of it.  Very poor post.

 

My 'very poor' post simply highlighted the blind adulation, bandwagon jumping  that pervades today, in this case the phrase 'done something no men's team could do since 66'. As I highlighted there is NO comparison, though clearly reading whilst wearing rose-tinted glasses is difficult for some.  For one the 'professional' men's game is required to publish accounts that meet certain criteria. The 'professional' women's game is that in name only. Wholly bankrupt, minimal revenue (why might that be,) and dependant upon funding provided by, er, the men's game.

I posed the rhetorical question if there was a comparison just how comparable are the two, then proffered my own answer? Few were brave enough to suggest an answer knowing they'd be shot down if so doing. That's the nature of debate these days.

I congratulated the woman several times for their achievements and for the impact they'll have on the development of woman's football.

But we'll leave it to the bandwagon jumpers who, if true to their word, will ensure a massive expansion in attendance at woman's football this season. They sure as hell need the money.

2 hours ago, Bas's perfect hattrick said:

Disrespectful comment. They've just done something no men's team could do since 66 and that's the best you can come out with. Seriously 

To be fair well done, bravo and all that but they haven't 'done something no men's team could do since 66', for men aren't permitted to play in woman's tournaments (at least not yet.)

Admittedly I only watched about 30 mins of the whole tournament, but that was sufficient. By all means celebrate a great achievement for woman's football but in all seriousness answer this: Against which City representative side do you think the Lionesses would remain competitive? I reckon they might give the boys U16s a game but by U19s they'd struggle. U23s they'd be played off the park. And that's City.

From the few bits I did see the Spaniards were technically light years superior to anybody else and attempted to play something resembling adult men's football. England may well be champions of Europe and good on them. But if comparing to men's football, lack of ball control, ball retention and kick and rush, there is no comparison. I trust their success has women and girls rushing to pull on their boots to get involved, for that can only be a good thing  Just spare any conflation with the men's game as the two have little in common. 

Remember to turn it off when trying to conduct any type of secure interaction within the UK.

Norton's anything but smart.

2 hours ago, gl2 said:

All the best ,from a bowel cancer survivor; mine was attacked from the bottom..literally; the only cut was around the tumor which luckily was reachable from the rear on the op table and via a rather large tube/ pipe. The hole cut in bowel wall was also sewn up from the inside.

Many MRI/CT/Ultra sound scans and 3yrs passed by since then all clear of any spread, in fact we went away to Dorset 2 days after op for a week.

Certainly puts other things like bills, debts, noisy nieghbours and even football into perspective.

I thank the Docs/nurses etc who first referred me to Chelt Hospital and those who removed that killer thing from me in the knick of time.

So again Marvin hope you really smash this now and are now on the road to recovery.

To the rest of you readers, whatever age, pain and or blood down there get it looked at asap time is so important; get it checked wasting time could cost you your life

 

Awful news particularly in somebody so young ( I recall watching Marvin's debut.) As you correctly highlight age is no respecter when it comes to this form of cancer. If you've ANY concerns and your GP fobs you off, go back and go back and go back and give them hell, it might well save your life. If they tell you you're 'too young' or have 'no familial history', tell them to look where the sun don't shine, really, take a LOOK. I promise you won't regret it.

Early prevention is not embarrassing, nor painful, nor a waste of time. It's conducted by professionals who do this day in day out, with good humour and discretion. If dubious, think of your family and friends. Like me they'd prefer to share a glass or two with you in person on your birthday rather than when buffing the plaque on your park bench (as I now have to for good friends gone far too young )

Here's to a full and speedy recovery Marv.....

45 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Just listened to the post match comments from Barton, he gave the impression that it was career ending. Hopefully it isn't, but you fear the worst.

Fingers crossed it is a good news story.

A good news story would be for Mr Anderton to live a long and healthy life amongst his family. That's all that matters.

I don't like Barton though suspect from the reported form of Mr Anderton's cancer he's trying to take pressure off and manage fan expectation. If so, he should be applauded in allowing the player to wholly focus on treatment and recovery without ever worrying about football.

Can't move for train lines near me.

Pointless when there's no sod willing to drive, guard, staff, maintain trains regularly on them. If public purse is to underwrite any investment then it needs a quid pro quo from those that staff the railways. Sweet FA chance that will happen anytime soon.

Football matters not. I wish Mr Anderton, his family and friends positive outcomes over the following months.

16 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I went there as well - we won 1-0, but wasn't it played at Selhurst Park?

Forever known as 'The Gus Caeser' game.

For one night only he was utterly magnificent.