Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Non-Boro Football


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Changing Times said:

I don't know what you mean about EFL approved valuation?  The EFL don't get to set a value on Pride Park

You said previously "The EFL have already passed the valuation of their stadium as being ok. There is no issue with that at all."

We all know that the EFL don't value property but they accepted it along with everything else while DCFC were being run into the ground and it would have been ignored had it not been for Gibson refusing to leave it. The valuation of anything ultimately is what a buyer will pay for it or can be reasonably expected to pay for it which isn't and never was circa £80M.

The EFL "passed the valuation of the Stadium as being OK" because they couldn't be bothered or they hadn't a clue what was going on when it was glaringly obvious (I'm not sure which is worse or more damning). The "issue" is that it was the elephant in the room which should have flagged up concerns from the EFL instead of them passing it otherwise what is the point of their FFP compliance requirements.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    1582

  •  

    1478

  •  

    1365

  •  

    1232

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their is a fascinating article about the Boro in today’s Athletic... Nine championship games in 29 days.  Following a team in their maddest run ever.    Neil Warnock was on the pit

Centuries ago Villages had ducking stools whereby if the person drowned they were innocent and if they lived they were guilty and sentenced to death. Nowadays not much has changed sadly. Idiots postin

Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers. I probably shouldn’t have made things public, but I was at as very low ebb. It’s been a difficult year, not made better by COVID. Lockdown bucket lists aren’t

Posted Images

12 hours ago, Brunners said:

They've only not been on the tele in the FA cup like once in a decade. It's almost a guarantee that we'll be a TV game.

They are probaby still the biggest pull in the world market, so there is no surprise there. We will definately be on TV, at least abroad. I'm not sure whether you get the same games as the rest of the world? On saturday we could pick from something like 6-10 games or so duringthe day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Will said:

Either the body check from Ramsey was called a foul, or it was called offside due to Ramsey coming from an offside position and interfering with play by blocking Cavani. Either way I think it was the right decision.

I just saw this back on the BBC and this was kind of my view of it. I think it really could be given for either.

There's just no way Ramsey is stood there to be an inactive participant, the ball is floating in behind for Konsa and Villa don't want the ball to be challenged. So they put a block in the way of Konsa's man which makes his position behind the United defensive line active as the ball is played.

And whether or not you believe Cavani could have reached the ball to challenge, Ramsey has actively tried to prevent him from having any chance of doing it and so, in my eyes, illegally. So foul, offside, whatever you want to call it based on the info, the goal shouldn't stand, it's the correct call.

I can only think, watching it back, people are annoyed about the time it took to get to the right decision and whether that means it was 'clear and obvious'. In my eyes, it is clear and obvious, I'm not sure why it took so long to make the call with the knowledge of the rules they have. The ruling for offside seems pretty obvious to me too, even without the full written explanation. Still, I think it's as good a case as any for refs to be mic'd up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

Still, I think it's as good a case as any for refs to be mic'd up.

When refs can't even speak to the media after a game to clarify contentious decisions, there's no way in hell the FA or PL will let them wear mics.

Plus, can you imagine how many times commentators would have to apologise for a player's voice being captured on the ref or assistant ref's mics shouting "my ***, I never touched him"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

I just saw this back on the BBC and this was kind of my view of it. I think it really could be given for either.

There's just no way Ramsey is stood there to be an inactive participant, the ball is floating in behind for Konsa and Villa don't want the ball to be challenged. So they put a block in the way of Konsa's man which makes his position behind the United defensive line active as the ball is played.

And whether or not you believe Cavani could have reached the ball to challenge, Ramsey has actively tried to prevent him from having any chance of doing it and so, in my eyes, illegally. So foul, offside, whatever you want to call it based on the info, the goal shouldn't stand, it's the correct call.

I can only think, watching it back, people are annoyed about the time it took to get to the right decision and whether that means it was 'clear and obvious'. In my eyes, it is clear and obvious, I'm not sure why it took so long to make the call with the knowledge of the rules they have. The ruling for offside seems pretty obvious to me too, even without the full written explanation. Still, I think it's as good a case as any for refs to be mic'd up.

It did take a ridiculous amount of time, especially when one replay really should have been enough as it was clearly both a foul and interfering with play having come from an offside position. 

I agree on mic'ing them up. I did like that Michael Oliver went and explained his decision to the Villa captain before indicating what it was to the rest of the players and obviously the fans. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RiseAgainst said:

When refs can't even speak to the media after a game to clarify contentious decisions, there's no way in hell the FA or PL will let them wear mics.

Plus, can you imagine how many times commentators would have to apologise when a player is caught on the mic shouting "my ***, ref, I never touched him"?

I honestly thought the segment they did with Jarred Gillett over in the A-League before he came here was superb and showed refs in a better light. I think they'd get plenty more respect if we got to hear what was going on. It's not like they have a stellar reputation within the game. Michael Oliver is quite a well respected ref but I bet he got plenty of crap for last night in the midst of all that. It's not gonna make the relationship between fans and refs any worse, put it that way.

I really don't think we should hold off on doing it because of swearing either. Just don't *** swear? 😄 It's not so much an issue for broadcast anyway as broadcast already adjusts sound levels for that from within the crowd. And the mic itself would have to be quite close to pick it up. Also really, if the laws of the games are actually followed (which on this we surely know they aren't very often) cursing at the ref is at least a bookable offence. If it becomes a problem, that rule just gets enforced. I really don't see it as much of an obstacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wilsoncgp said:

I honestly thought the segment they did with Jarred Gillett over in the A-League before he came here was superb and showed refs in a better light. I think they'd get plenty more respect if we got to hear what was going on. It's not like they have a stellar reputation within the game. Michael Oliver is quite a well respected ref but I bet he got plenty of crap for last night in the midst of all that. It's not gonna make the relationship between fans and refs any worse, put it that way.

I really don't think we should hold off on doing it because of swearing either. Just don't *** swear? 😄 It's not so much an issue for broadcast anyway as broadcast already adjusts sound levels for that from within the crowd. And the mic itself would have to be quite close to pick it up. Also really, if the laws of the games are actually followed (which on this we surely know they aren't very often) cursing at the ref is at least a bookable offence. If it becomes a problem, that rule just gets enforced. I really don't see it as much of an obstacle.

If players knew refs were mic'd up, they'd stop swearing sharpish like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Redcar Rioja said:

You said previously "The EFL have already passed the valuation of their stadium as being ok. There is no issue with that at all."

We all know that the EFL don't value property but they accepted it along with everything else while DCFC were being run into the ground and it would have been ignored had it not been for Gibson refusing to leave it. The valuation of anything ultimately is what a buyer will pay for it or can be reasonably expected to pay for it which isn't and never was circa £80M.

The EFL "passed the valuation of the Stadium as being OK" because they couldn't be bothered or they hadn't a clue what was going on when it was glaringly obvious (I'm not sure which is worse or more damning). The "issue" is that it was the elephant in the room which should have flagged up concerns from the EFL instead of them passing it otherwise what is the point of their FFP compliance requirements.  

It was also passed by an independent panel after being investigated.  This has nothing to do with the EFL not being bothered or not having a clue, it's simply that it's within the rules to sell your ground, and as long as it's independently valued then there's not a great deal that the EFL can do about the actual valuation side of things.  There is no elephant in the room, what they did was perfectly ok even though it was clearly done for FFP purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

It was also passed by an independent panel after being investigated.  This has nothing to do with the EFL not being bothered or not having a clue, it's simply that it's within the rules to sell your ground, and as long as it's independently valued then there's not a great deal that the EFL can do about the actual valuation side of things.  There is no elephant in the room, what they did was perfectly ok even though it was clearly done for FFP purposes.

I don't think it is within the rules anymore is it? I thought they'd closed that particular loop hole recently, or am I mistaken?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that we have claimed for £45 million from Derby as compensation. That figure is based on Premier League revenue multiplied by our odds of winning the play offs.

via Rob(fmttm)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Humpty said:

It appears that we have claimed for £45 million from Derby as compensation. That figure is based on Premier League revenue multiplied by our odds of winning the play offs.

via Rob(fmttm)

I'd read somewhere that it was simply the potential £180M Premiership money divided by 4 (the amount of sides in the Play Offs). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Humpty said:

It appears that we have claimed for £45 million from Derby as compensation. That figure is based on Premier League revenue multiplied by our odds of winning the play offs.

via Rob(fmttm)

I wonder what the odds were considering we didn't have any chance at all apparently...🤭

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...