Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

Typical Boro fans .... If a Huddersfield player had made that challenge we would be screaming for him to be sent off.

Just before the FA overturned the decision, means sweet FA to me... It's still a red card!

I think we only won the decision because of the linesman position and the ref mentioned in his report that he was going to give a yellow.

It was reckless and unnecessary and for anyone who has played football and been on the wrong end of one those challenges, would tell you it's a straight red. It was 'dangerous' play of injuring an opponent. Which is exactly why Brantwaite should of got sent off against his tackle of Fry. 

This argument can go round in circles because people will say overhead kicks have the potential to injure a opponent as well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/neil-warnock-obvious-choice-manage-18614026.amp?__twitter_impression=true "Gibson is a hands-on owner and Bausor is a hands-on chief exe

Posted Images

Just now, diggerlad07 said:

Typical Boro fans .... If a Huddersfield player had made that challenge we would be screaming for him to be sent off.

Just before the FA overturned the decision, means sweet FA to me... It's still a red card!

I think we only won the decision because of the linesman position and the ref mentioned in his report that he was going to give a yellow.

It was reckless and unnecessary and for anyone who has played football and been on the wrong end of one those challenges, would tell you it's a straight red. It was 'dangerous' play of injuring an opponent. Which is exactly why Brantwaite should of got sent off against his tackle of Fry. 

This argument can go round in circles because people will say overhead kicks have the potential to injure a opponent as well.

I think overhead kicks are classified in the rules as potentially lenient spaces around this. Which kind of feels like it just muddies the waters around the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

I assume that the people on here that are adamant that the appeal being successful means that it definitely wasn't a red card also believe that when someone is acquited of a crime they're definitely not guilty?

Well if a surveillance camera shows a different person killing someone than the one on trial then yes. 

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

Of course they bloody don't, have you seen the state of some of this lot? 

Just have a look at the picture thread. Sorry losers the lot of them. Especially the OP. 

  • Haha 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

Yep, my point exactly. I think it was a red card but that we probably managed to get away with it due to some kind of loophole or because of the level of doubt. Just because it got rescinded doesnt mean anyone is right or wrong is my point, and the amount of "I told you so" going is is frankly very childish.

Even I can’t find a reason to disagree with you on this one @Neverbefore 😂😂😂

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Blanco said:

I didn’t believe it was a red card at the time and I still don’t now. The appeal being successful or not doesn’t change that. Plenty of guilty people have walked away Scot free just like plenty of innocent people have been banged up for nothing. 

Indeed. By all means you can take in the new information and therefore change your stance. And this panel's judgement is new information too so you can always change your opinion because of that too if you want. It does essentially mean you'd value their opinion more than your own from what you've seen but sure, if that's how someone views it, fair enough.

I don't see the reason everyone should be expected to do that though. I'm looking at the incident, viewed all the angles we've got now and I can see what's happened and the question still remains for me about what's different between this and the Brighton red card. As I said, for Boro fans that was pretty much unanimously a red card. Circumstances are pretty similar, Stephens gets the ball first with his studs, Ramirez doesn't even touch the ball as the challenge comes in, Stephens catches Ramirez in the follow through and is sent off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GrimsbyBoro said:

Law 12 doesn’t say it has to be on purpose just  ‘A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent’ is serious foul play and a red card offence.

 

I presume the ref didn’t think the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent. Does a black eye count as endangering the safety of an opponent? probably not. 

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

Indeed. By all means you can take in the new information and therefore change your stance. And this panel's judgement is new information too so you can always change your opinion because of that too if you want. It does essentially mean you'd value their opinion more than your own from what you've seen but sure, if that's how someone views it, fair enough.

I don't see the reason everyone should be expected to do that though. I'm looking at the incident, viewed all the angles we've got now and I can see what's happened and the question still remains for me about what's different between this and the Brighton red card. As I said, for Boro fans that was pretty much unanimously a red card. Circumstances are pretty similar, Stephens gets the ball first with his studs, Ramirez doesn't even touch the ball as the challenge comes in, Stephens catches Ramirez in the follow through and is sent off.

Neither of them should have been reds mate. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

Indeed. By all means you can take in the new information and therefore change your stance. And this panel's judgement is new information too so you can always change your opinion because of that too if you want. It does essentially mean you'd value their opinion more than your own from what you've seen but sure, if that's how someone views it, fair enough.

I don't see the reason everyone should be expected to do that though. I'm looking at the incident, viewed all the angles we've got now and I can see what's happened and the question still remains for me about what's different between this and the Brighton red card. As I said, for Boro fans that was pretty much unanimously a red card. Circumstances are pretty similar, Stephens gets the ball first with his studs, Ramirez doesn't even touch the ball as the challenge comes in, Stephens catches Ramirez in the follow through and is sent off.

My memory of the Stephens incident is that he looked directly at Ramirez and deliberately put the boot in so is not the same as the Paddy one. I was in the North stand that day so not too close to it but my abiding memory is that it looked deliberate at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uwe said:

I’m as Happy as anyone that it’s been overturned. But if it hadn’t I could kind of seen why it hasn’t even though it would’ve annoyed me. 
 

The fact that Karen Nelson had to spend upwards of 8 hours graft putting together a whole dossier proved that it wasn’t as easy either way to prove/disprove and it could have gone either way. 
 

Also this “I told you so” stuff is childish as hell. We need to be a little bit more respectful of others opinions. But that’s just my opinion 🤷‍♂️

Apparently it was because they didn't know how to upload documents to pdf and attach videos to the email. Otherwise it was a 5 minute dossier.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, smogsterking the Inspirati said:

Apparently it was because they didn't know how to upload documents to pdf and attach videos to the email. Otherwise it was a 5 minute dossier.

Should’ve been a gif 🤷‍♂️

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

I presume the ref didn’t think the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent. Does a black eye count as endangering the safety of an opponent? probably not. 

Just answer me this. Can you see an injury in this photo? Is the guy hurt? Yes or No.

 

D4DBC46F-BA76-491B-80CE-1D06A353FB18.jpeg

that’s not just a black eye there’s also blood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

Sure but you can’t send someone off for swinging his foot at a ball, that’s kind of the point of football. 

you can if hes swinging his boot 6ft in air 

 

😄

  • Like 3
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

  • Latest Posts

    • I could be wrong but I'm not sure the actual accounting record would touch the P&L side (until the amortisation is accounted for). If they paid all £12m upfront the bank/cash account would take the hit, but you'd have an asset appear in the accounts. Even if they didn't pay for all £12m upfront they'd most likely record the asset in full and then have a liability account (Liverpool) which would be reduced if and when they paid (using the bank as the other side). But as @ScarBorosays the amortisation (and the expense - P&L side) would still only show as the original cost split between the contract length in this instance £2.4m regardless of when they actually paid.
    • Under normal accounting standards for intangible assets, transfer fees are amortized on a straight-line basis over the period of the players’ contracts. This was how Derby got into trouble by assigning a residual value to reduce the annual amortized cost to the club. Let's say you are allowed to defer the payment, the costs would have to be assessed over a reduced period and therefore be higher in the out years, big risk if you don't succeed.
    • Surely depends how they account for the actual transfer fee payment, can’t remember if they put it through operating costs or not (and Cba to check right now). If the transfer fee is incurred in the P+L as it’s paid then there is definitely a FFP benefit to back ending payments. 
    • It'll be a loan deal for a year as Mr_Maz says.  If it's got any link to FFP then I can only think it's to help Fulham's FFP position for the coming year.  I don't believe they've sold anyone for any serious money so far, and they would ideally want to keep the net transfer spend as close to zero as possible, as their wage bill will be higher than the parachute payments they receive.  If things don't go as they plan this season then they will probably sell players next summer, which would balance things out for FFP and also cash flow, so the transfer of Wilson then will be fine.
    • https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/cardiff-city-youngster-who-really-21140778 If I was a Cardiff fan I'd read those paragraph's as Brown will probably be gone and Boro's rejected bid wasn't far off, it would be interesting if we sign him AND Kean Bryan. It would definitely add some depth to our left side especially if we're looking to play 5 at the back more often than not.

×
×
  • Create New...