Discussion Football (Soccer) Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

1. Manchester City: 13, 11, +35, 35

2. Liverpool: 13, 10, +21, 33

3. Tottenham Hotspur: 13, 10, +12, 30

4. Chelsea: 13, 8, +17, 28

5. Arsenal: 12, 7, +11, 24

6. Everton: 13, 6, +5, 22

7. Manchester United: 13, 6, -1, 21

8. Bournemouth: 12, 6, +5, 20

9. Watford: 13, 6, 0, 20

10. Leicester City: 13, 5, +1, 18

11. Wolverhampton Wanderers: 12, 4, -1, 16

12. Brighton & Hove Albion: 13, 4, -5, 15

13. West Ham United: 13, 3, -8, 12

14. Newcastle United: 12, 2, -6, 9

14. Crystal Palace: 13, 2, -9, 9

16. Burnley: 12, 2, -13, 9

17. Southampton: 13, 1, -14, 8

18. Cardiff City: 13, 2, -15, 8

19. Fulham: 13, 2, -19, 8

20. Huddersfield Town: 12, 1, -16, 7
 
Liverpool are just two points behind the leaders, but they had to work hard for the win at Vicarage Road.

The hosts thought they had won a penalty when Andy Robertson seemed to foul Will Hughes. However, nothing was given, and Liverpool went on to take the lead through Mohamed Salah.

It was a well-worked goal from the Reds. Roberto Firmino was fed by Robertson, he found Sadio Mane, and his pull-back was fired home first time by Salah.

Trent Alexander-Arnold curled a superb free-kick around the wall and past Ben Foster for Liverpool's second goal nine minutes later.

Henderson then picked up a second booking for a foul on Etienne Capoue, before Firmino's header sealed all three points with a minute of normal time remaining.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thanks to United for ruining my weekend. Sacrificed a night's sleep to watch that garbage because I started work at 7am. Holes everywhere in the squad and the players that we do have who are world class aren't being played to their strengths.
We're in trouble: not enough goals or creativity; too slow in the build up; no confidence.
 
Will be interesting to see the result in the North London Derby next weekend.
Big week for Spurs with the Inter game too.

Was a great win against Chelsea, Son played very well. Going to be a close season between the top 6 sides I think.


Go Saints
 
Not EPL but a huge game for the boys in the Champions League this morning - only 5 hours away! A win and we most likely go through to the knockouts, but a loss and we're in trouble.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geez we really are battling these days
Took over 90 mins to finally get the better of some kids!
On the plus side we have qualified from our group
As Jose keeps reminding us HE always does!



Mourinho losing the plot...When we finally score lol
 
Spurs won, Liverpool lost.
Liverpool can still make it but Liverpool must beat Napoli 1-0 or by two goals to guarantee going through (2-1 win not enough)


Go Saints
Spurs need to outperform at the NOU Camp.
Whatever Inter achieves against PSV, Spurs need to better.
So 11 Dec. could be either very exciting or a complete waste.

More important matters are at hand though.
Sunday game at Emirates.
 
Spurs need to outperform at the NOU Camp.
Whatever Inter achieves against PSV, Spurs need to better.
So 11 Dec. could be either very exciting or a complete waste.

More important matters are at hand though.
Sunday game at Emirates.
I think we just need to equal Inter’s result. If points are level it comes down to head to head between the two teams and we have an away goal.

So if Inter wins at home, we ONLY have to win away against Barca.
If Inter lose we’re through.
 
There was an analysis on the BBC website about salary costs for EPL team starting elevens.
Man U had the highest salary cost of £5.5mill pa.
Of the other teams, I can only recall Spurs (my interest) at £3.5mill.

I was amazed at:

1. how low these numbers are in comparison to club turnover,
2. the difference between Spurs and Man U.

So three questions to help me understand:

1. How many players are on the roster?
2. What would the total salary costs be for an EPL team?
3. And a turnover figure?

Now obviously the numbers will be different depending on the team chosen, Cardiff having a different profile to Man U.

So let’s make the comparison between the big six (Man City, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs).
 
There was an analysis on the BBC website about salary costs for EPL team starting elevens.
Man U had the highest salary cost of £5.5mill pa.
Of the other teams, I can only recall Spurs (my interest) at £3.5mill.

I was amazed at:

1. how low these numbers are in comparison to club turnover,
2. the difference between Spurs and Man U.

So three questions to help me understand:

1. How many players are on the roster?
2. What would the total salary costs be for an EPL team?
3. And a turnover figure?

Now obviously the numbers will be different depending on the team chosen, Cardiff having a different profile to Man U.

So let’s make the comparison between the big six (Man City, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs).
That's more like per week, not per annum! I think it was a figure they used for the starting eleven not the squad or even the match day squad, although there may even be $ or euro conversions, as it looks a tad high to me. The squad payroll figure for the mancs last year was 232 million pounds & their total revenue 715 million pounds.
Squad sizes vary depending on whether a club expects to play in Europe or not. If they do, you'd expect a minimum of 22 players likely to feature in a season, with a preference for 36, giving 3 good players per position. Then there's the under 23's, under 18's, players out on loan & a bunch of kids. Clubs not used to qualifying for Europe will have much smaller squads.
The scale & money involved does put AFL in perspective. As does the world wide corruption of the so called governing bodies.
 
That's more like per week, not per annum! I think it was a figure they used for the starting eleven not the squad or even the match day squad, although there may even be $ or euro conversions, as it looks a tad high to me. The squad payroll figure for the mancs last year was 232 million pounds & their total revenue 715 million pounds.
Squad sizes vary depending on whether a club expects to play in Europe or not. If they do, you'd expect a minimum of 22 players likely to feature in a season, with a preference for 36, giving 3 good players per position. Then there's the under 23's, under 18's, players out on loan & a bunch of kids. Clubs not used to qualifying for Europe will have much smaller squads.
The scale & money involved does put AFL in perspective. As does the world wide corruption of the so called governing bodies.
Many thanks
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top