I think it allowed us to move from the Boleyn without having to do what Spurs did in investing long term in a home. I am not sure but seem to recall at the time that Spurs pulled out of a brief bid for the London stadium as their plans to develop it for football only were refused. I have said before that I don't find all the criticism of the board warranted but the Stadium and training ground are the ones that hold most weight for me. I think our owners have considered their reign as our owners rather than the clubs longer term prospects.
I think it allowed us to move from the Boleyn without having to do what Spurs did in investing long term in a home. I am not sure but seem to recall at the time that Spurs pulled out of a brief bid for the London stadium as their plans to develop it for football only were refused. I have said before that I don't find all the criticism of the board warranted but the Stadium and training ground are the ones that hold most weight for me. I think our owners have considered their reign as our owners rather than the clubs longer term prospects.
Sullivan and Gold had the same idea with Birmingham City and a proposed stadium for the Commonwealth games; move the club into a stadium paid for by the taxpayer and save money
Spurs knew their proposal for the Olympic Stadium would be rejected but were using it for leverage to get out of various requirements from Haringey council. Those requirements were dropping after the Tottenham riots
I'm afraid I can't take anything Tony Cottee says seriously after reading his book "West Ham: The Inside Story" which covers the end of his playing career and his ham-fisted attempt to take over the club
A very good article which emphasises the ever changing nature of the game and how tactics are now changing due to the athleticism of the players.
It is natural in all sports to compare past eras but in reality the best of players from the sixties and seventies wouldn't get a look in if just placing them into today's teams. Some would still be the same player and make use of the fitness regimes but the style of some would just make them a redundant player. I am thinking mostly of the big centre backs and big centre forwards.
In Boxing everyone asks how Usyk would have got on against Ali but I think it would be no contest, Usyk is probably the best heavyweight boxer I have ever seen, almost perfect. Many good boxing people I know just can't believe how good he is yet in the media they all think Ali can't be touched. Usyk has given lumps of weight, height and power and no one has even had him in the slightest trouble in his pro career.
Claretandblue, how do you think Usyk would have managed Mike Tyson in his prime?
I think Tyson is always the difficult one as no one matched him for ferocity. I think if Usyk could keep him off for the three rounds he probably needed to work him out I think he would have broken his heart around the seventh round. I think Tysons mentality was always the weakness but not many got to test it in the way Holyfiled and Lewis did later on as he knocked them out early. So Tyson is always the question regard any fighter even though he was pretty one dimensional. I think Lewis would have given Usyk most to worry about but Usyk just seems to work them out so quickly and negate all they have before they even get a chance to hurt him with what they have.
I think the only chance anyone has of beating Usyk is going all out for four rounds and hoping to connect. Fury with his huge height and reach advantage couldn't out box him, Joshua and Dubois with their huge power advantage couldn't hurt him, but they both prepared for a 12 round fight. I think those power punchers could maybe train for an all out four round fight and know that if he isn't knocked out by then you may as well give up.
Referees seem to view corners as an entirely different sequence of play to the rest of the pitch and always seem to have done. I can only think they are afraid of the backlash during the time it takes for every second corner to be given as a foul before teams change their paly.
I would love the referee to be asked after the match about certain replayed incidents and just to ask the question. If this happened elsewhere would you give a foul? why did you not award one in this instant?
It does make a mockery of VAR also which was introduced to ensure the rules are upheld, they will give offside for the width of a sock yet you can often rugby tackle a player at a corner and nothing.
Problem is a lot of the jockeying and shoving takes place before the corner is taken. A foul can’t be committed if the ball isn’t in play. They should use VAR like the TMO in rugby so as soon as the ball is kicked he can tell the ref there’s been a foul if there has been. At the moment if the ref doesn’t see anything VAR can only decide if it’s a clear error.
Mike Dean enforced a new directive to give penalties for holding in the penalty area by the defending team but he stopped after non of the other referees did so basically hanging him out to dry.
Mike Dean enforced a new directive to give penalties for holding in the penalty area by the defending team but he stopped after non of the other referees did so basically hanging him out to dry.
Unbelievably, I'm feeling sympathy for Mike Dean of all people. We really must get a head shaking emoji.
"A foul can’t be committed if the ball isn’t in play." Yet if a player was pushed/shoved/punched while the ball was out for a throw-in does the referee do nothing?
A ref can issue a card for things like dissent, foul play (as distinct from a foul as specified in the rules) when the ball is not in play, and even after the final whistle (as you know, of course). So a punch would be (potentially) punished even if the ball wasn't in play.
And give the remit of VAR, I guess they could be expected to intervene.
It does make a mockery of VAR also which was introduced to ensure the rules are upheld, they will give offside for the width of a sock yet you can often rugby tackle a player at a corner and nothing.
VAR wasn't introduced for that reason - see the situations/types of actions which VAR can review - it's not all. They are quite severely limited. (Plus, we have the stupid 'clear and obvious thing' which was invented by the FA.)
Also, to add, with ref to C+BSky post - I absolutely agree that if something is a foul in one part of the pitch, it's a foul anywhere. (Thinking of the 'not enough for a penalty' line which gets trotted out regularly, as if there's a higher bar for fouls in the box.)
It comes under misconduct and could invoke a yellow or red card depending upon how severe it’s interpreted to be but there’s no free kick or penalty. Problem is you see it all the time at corners and sometimes the ref warns or speaks to them but as soon as the kick is about to be taken their arms go out in a “it’s not me guv, I’m doing nothing” motion. As both sides are doing it it’s not always easy to tell who the actual culprit is.
The whole corner kick situation IMO has become a bit of a farce making it almost impossible to play and referee fairly.
I was trying to think of a way to sort it out and the only thing I could think of is to limit the number of players both in the 6 yard box and penalty area until the corner kick is taken.
The maximum number of players allowed in the 6 yard box would be the same for each side including the defending keeper. I also think it would probably be easier to referee as there would be fewer players to watch. Just an idea.
Comments
I wish I had their amount of money & be as stupid as S&B.
For Sullivan it was make money in porn then invest in property
Didn’t need much financial/business talent
For Brady it was get a job with a porn baron through her father’s connections when she was 21 and spend the rest of her career looking after his money
Didnt need ANY financial/business talent
Spurs knew their proposal for the Olympic Stadium would be rejected but were using it for leverage to get out of various requirements from Haringey council. Those requirements were dropping after the Tottenham riots
Contains some comments from Tony Cottee.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvg00wx7j42o
It is natural in all sports to compare past eras but in reality the best of players from the sixties and seventies wouldn't get a look in if just placing them into today's teams. Some would still be the same player and make use of the fitness regimes but the style of some would just make them a redundant player. I am thinking mostly of the big centre backs and big centre forwards.
In Boxing everyone asks how Usyk would have got on against Ali but I think it would be no contest, Usyk is probably the best heavyweight boxer I have ever seen, almost perfect. Many good boxing people I know just can't believe how good he is yet in the media they all think Ali can't be touched. Usyk has given lumps of weight, height and power and no one has even had him in the slightest trouble in his pro career.
Well it made me laugh
I think the only chance anyone has of beating Usyk is going all out for four rounds and hoping to connect. Fury with his huge height and reach advantage couldn't out box him, Joshua and Dubois with their huge power advantage couldn't hurt him, but they both prepared for a 12 round fight. I think those power punchers could maybe train for an all out four round fight and know that if he isn't knocked out by then you may as well give up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/cp8je3qn27qo
The thing which sticks out me is what happened to the foul of obstruction?
I would love the referee to be asked after the match about certain replayed incidents and just to ask the question. If this happened elsewhere would you give a foul? why did you not award one in this instant?
It does make a mockery of VAR also which was introduced to ensure the rules are upheld, they will give offside for the width of a sock yet you can often rugby tackle a player at a corner and nothing.
They should use VAR like the TMO in rugby so as soon as the ball is kicked he can tell the ref there’s been a foul if there has been. At the moment if the ref doesn’t see anything VAR can only decide if it’s a clear error.
We really must get a head shaking emoji.
"A foul can’t be committed if the ball isn’t in play."
Yet if a player was pushed/shoved/punched while the ball was out for a throw-in does the referee do nothing?
And give the remit of VAR, I guess they could be expected to intervene.
For C+Bsky VAR wasn't introduced for that reason - see the situations/types of actions which VAR can review - it's not all. They are quite severely limited. (Plus, we have the stupid 'clear and obvious thing' which was invented by the FA.)
Problem is you see it all the time at corners and sometimes the ref warns or speaks to them but as soon as the kick is about to be taken their arms go out in a “it’s not me guv, I’m doing nothing” motion.
As both sides are doing it it’s not always easy to tell who the actual culprit is.
I was trying to think of a way to sort it out and the only thing I could think of is to limit the number of players both in the 6 yard box and penalty area until the corner kick is taken.
The maximum number of players allowed in the 6 yard box would be the same for each side including the defending keeper.
I also think it would probably be easier to referee as there would be fewer players to watch.
Just an idea.
#orsomething
I'm not someone who defaults to 'anti foreign'.
Igor Jesus another striker that we didn’t sign when strongly rumoured to have been interested in doing so.