Jump to content
IGNORED

The old Man Utd Thread

ThePixelbarks

By ThePixelbarks
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

oli

oli

Posted
Posted

Go for the win = opening up and getting horsed. Walter decided he wanted to stick with a more counter attacking approach which, with better passing and hold up play from Miller might have come off. We created arguably the best chance of the match in the first half when Van Der Sar saved from Miller at his near post, when a cutback would have been the better option. I think Walter played it absolutely right with what he had at his disposal. As I said earlier, it was a pretty effective approach against Valencia. Fair enough, that match ended in a draw, but you should have seen the sitters we were missing. Positively Rooney-esque.

Edit - the one decision by Walter that I disagreed with was the substitution of Weiss who was looking lively and entertaining. He ripped the pish out of a fair few United players at times.

Were you at the match last night, I swear I saw someone in the crowd that looked exactly what (I think) you look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Posted
Posted

The quickest of Googles suggest otherwise.

Rangers FC 2008 Turnover was 65M, making a small profit.

Fulham FC's turnover in the same period was 52M. They lost 7.5M

Edit- Latest 2010 figures, from Rangers site:

Turnover of £56.3m (2009 - £39.7m), an increase of £16.6m or 41.8%

As much as I hate to defend the old firm Rangers have/had a debt that by EPL standards is low, but due to limited avenues of them getting any more in the SPL than they currently do has crippled them. Look at how much they've spent on players over the last couple of years, it's almost nothing. The likes of Fulham at least have the EPL money and it's marketing hype to secure more debt should they wish, and a big rich prick that owns them. Hell in the last few seasons the old firm have been raiding the Championship for players, and haggling over price. That's the finacial level they're at these days. That's why they so desperately want in to the English leagues.

That said they're minging to watch, but they always would play that way. What they planned, hit you on the break. It's work reasonably well for them in the past. They can be as negative as hell, but had they knicked a goal to win the game Smith would have been basking in tactical glory.

I avoided watching the game. I knew exactly what type of game it would be. Although by the sounds of it I need to see this tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Posted
Posted

So? The score made no difference.

The locals would have gathered with pitchforks demanding the blood of a virgin (or a hundred celtic fans which ever they come across first). Hell they're probably in a state of shock that a player headbutting a Rangers players boot didn't result in his sending off and three goals awarded to the mighty 'Gers, but by some flaw in the system resulted in a penatly against them!

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
phresh

phresh

Posted
Posted

As much as I hate to defend the old firm Rangers have/had a debt that by EPL standards is low, but due to limited avenues of them getting any more in the SPL than they currently do has crippled them. Look at how much they've spent on players over the last couple of years, it's almost nothing. The likes of Fulham at least have the EPL money and it's marketing hype to secure more debt should they wish, and a big rich prick that owns them. Hell in the last few seasons the old firm have been raiding the Championship for players, and haggling over price. That's the finacial level they're at these days. That's why they so desperately want in to the English leagues.

I though most of that was down to overspending for a number of years leaving them with high levels of debt? If the club had been run more astutely they would have had less money then but most likely more money now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Posted
Posted

I though most of that was down to overspending for a number of years leaving them with high levels of debt? If the club had been run more astutely they would have had less money then but most likely more money now.

Part yes, part Setantas collapse and the new tv deal being worse than the last so less cash coming in than expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallace

Wallace

Posted
Posted

Regarding the penalty, the referee messed up.

If he gives a penalty, then it's "serious foul play" and he should send Stevie off, as it's a red card offence.

Otherwise it's an indirect freekick for dangerous play (eg. high foot) and a yellow card.

Take your pick, ref. It's either a penalty and a red card, or an indirect freekick and a booking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallace

Wallace

Posted
Posted

An indirect free kick in the area? Maybe it's in the rules to do that, but I honestly can't think of any occasion where I've seen one awarded.

Arsenal had one against them last season in a European match? Sol Cambell's pass back I think.

Offences that result in indirect freekicks outside the box shouldn't become penalties if it happens inside the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallace

Wallace

Posted
Posted

It's down to opinion. If you think Naismith deliberately tried to kick Fabio, then you should rule it as serious foul play, red card for Naismith and a penalty to Man Utd.

If you think his foot was dangerously high, but with no intent for serious foul play, then you should rule it as dangerous play, yellow card for Naismith and an indirect free kick awarded.

Why wasn't it a foul rather than dangerous play? The referee rules it as both, he gave a penalty for something that (going by the yellow card) should have been an indirect free kick. He got the two mixed up, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MojoChin

MojoChin

Posted
Posted

If there is contact with a player then a direct free kick must always be given, if it is decided by the ref that it was a foul. If he didn't catch Fabio it would have been an indirect free kick in the box for dangerous play. The contact is what determines that it was a penalty. The caution is at the referee's discretion. But by the letter of the law, it was a direct free kick or, in this case, a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckny

ckny

Posted
Posted

All about goal difference now. Throw Hernandez on at half time and let's go for it.

If I see one more square ball from Carrick I'll fucking scream. What's happened to him? He's like Darren Fletcher eight years ago. Floats around the pitch doing absolutely fuck all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

The new Schmeichel that the old Schmeichel said was shit.

According to a BBC rumour, yeah. Besides, why would we trust the old Schmeichel after he went and played for City. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept