The on topic thread 2.0

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol this is farcical:



And Barca have the temerity to appeal the fine!!
Apparently failing an appeal to have a yellow card rescinded is a worse offense than player tampering.

Atleti have been fined 350 euros for failing their appeal, a full 50 euros more than Barca was fined for negotiating with Griezmann without the required permission

 

Log in to remove this ad.

What's the deal with New Balance and Liverpool. New Balance suing?

Do they still have a contract with Liverpool or are they just trying it on?

They have an option to match Nikes deal and want to continue as the kit supplier once their current deal expires at the end of the season.

Club wants Nike for worldwide distribution as NB are constantly sold out of kit. So not sure they really can match that.
 
Apparently failing an appeal to have a yellow card rescinded is a worse offense than player tampering.

Atleti have been fined 350 euros for failing their appeal, a full 50 euros more than Barca was fined for negotiating with Griezmann without the required permission


Yellow cards can only be appealed on the basis of mistaken identity so not sure what AM expected to achieve with a frivolous appeal.
 
What's the deal with New Balance and Liverpool. New Balance suing?

Do they still have a contract with Liverpool or are they just trying it on?

They apparently have a right to extend their contract with Liverpool beyond this season if they can match the best offer we receive. They argue they can match what Nike have offered, we’re arguing that they can’t. They’ve taken us to the high court.

I do wonder whether our proposed deal with Nike is deliberately structured with all these conditions to obfuscate it’s true value and make it more difficult for New Balance to match. It’ll be interesting as a supporter to see court proceedings unfold, we’ll probably get more of an insight into how these deals are structured than we would otherwise.
 
If Nike says we'll give you a cut of shirt sales and New Balance says we'll give you the same percentage they could argue they've matched the Nike offer.

But Nike is a worth lot more to Liverpool. One for the lawyers I guess.

Will be interesting I agree.
 
If Nike says we'll give you a cut of shirt sales and New Balance says we'll give you the same percentage they could argue they've matched the Nike offer.

But Nike is a worth lot more to Liverpool. One for the lawyers I guess.

Will be interesting I agree.

Not if Nike can promise a greater volume of sales of kits and other merchandise than New Balance, which I suspect will be the crux of it. There have been reports that New Balance have struggled to meet demand during their current contract period.
 
Not if Nike can promise a greater volume of sales of kits and other merchandise than New Balance, which I suspect will be the crux of it. There have been reports that New Balance have struggled to meet demand during their current contract period.
I'm sure that'll be Liverpool's argument.
 
Not if Nike can promise a greater volume of sales of kits and other merchandise than New Balance, which I suspect will be the crux of it. There have been reports that New Balance have struggled to meet demand during their current contract period.
Any court that accepts a company guaranteeing a higher volume of sales is a farce.

1. It's a future event.
2. They can't guarantee consumers buy the product

There is absolutely no way they could know that. They could hope it happens, predict and model that it will happen but guarantee/promise. Yeah * off Nike.
 
Fat Sam on teams playing out from the back.

"I bet there are twice as many mistakes that lead to conceding goals from playing out the back, than there are goals that start from the keeper giving the ball short to the centre-half."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fat Sam on teams playing out from the back.

"I bet there are twice as many mistakes that lead to conceding goals from playing out the back, than there are goals that start from the keeper giving the ball short to the centre-half."
He's not wrong.
 
Absolutely agree. Wish Emery ditched this, it’s frustrating to watch.

Can’t even recall if/when the last time we saw a goal result out of it in the league. A goal for I mean, not conceded (Arsenal are developing a nice little highlights reel of that).
 
You've got to have the players for it.

Playing out from the back has contributed to a heap of goals for us, but Ederson is made for it and the defenders (with the odd exception) are comfortable with it.
 
Absolutely agree. Wish Emery ditched this, it’s frustrating to watch.

Can’t even recall if/when the last time we saw a goal result out of it in the league. A goal for I mean, not conceded (Arsenal are developing a nice little highlights reel of that).
Frustrating? It's ******* terrifying.
 
the problems come when you try to play out the back and just aren't good at it. just like anything else teams do. when we get passing out the back right, it shifts the opposing side and creates gaps to run into for our passers. if you dont have a keeper through to your defensive mid able to be composed on the ball it wont work. there will always be errors, but there are errors at set pieces, errors when players are running at your defenders, etc etc.
 
Reckon the FA were left with no choice. There would have been a huge outcry had they not charged him by kick it out and the like. Was clearly a joke but obviously in bad taste and stuff like that needs to be kept private in these sensitive, sanitised days
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top