Premier League Thread

Karl Henry-
: “I see Burnley, with no disrespect to them, as being a good place to go.
“They have a tight pitch as well, and we need to be direct and press them.
“We’ve played teams in the top half of the table, but we’ve a much better chance of beating them at home than away.
"Now it’s a different kettle of fish. You can’t compare going to Burnley to Chelsea, Southampton or Arsenal, and I’d like to think we can approach this game with confidence.”

Why thank you.

 

http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/2015/jan/jose-mourinho-charged-080115

 

We do seem to irritate opposition managers and get them into trouble. Van Gaal next?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-boss-jose-mourinho-pulls-4943756
Mourinho pulls out of his press conference after being charged by the FA. No one likes to flounce as much as Jose. There is no way that there is a conspiracy against Chelsea...we all knew he'd be charged as soon as he made those comments. Stop your players swallow diving and cheating, Jose, and things won't go against you.

 

Who is Karl Henry? One of those American owners of Liverpool?

 

QPR player. Nearly took Swansea's Routledge apart with a tackle last week, and Routledge got sent off for retaliating. Remember him now..?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-york-city-after-leaving-chelsea-9966147.html


So Lampard wasn't loaned to City then? Bit of a strange one.

 

Yet the club's official Twitter account said he signed on loan: https://t.co/ykJrMsCZQb
And the story from their website the tweet links to has been removed in the past week.

Very odd.

 

Hope a hack asks Lampard who he is accusing of telling "lies" in line 1 of his statement today.

 

The New Yorkers buying season tickets thought he was going to them. Chelsea (although nothing to do with them as they let him go) thought he was going to New York. Why didn't City announce he was theirs for the season if he was?

 

Haven't read the article linked above, but my understanding was that New York agreed a deal in principle to sign Lampard, holding his rights if/when he plays in the MLS, and City then offered him a short term deal for before the MLS season started. So if he ever goes to the MLS he can only sign for New York, but he is not technically under contract with them at this moment. Think the David Villa situation is similar.

 

We certainly didn't annoy him last time we played Man U!

 

Almost killed Jordi Gomez when playing for Wolves too. And broke Bobby Zamora's leg.

 

Chelsea would not in a million years have sold him directly to City, though, so this is supremely underhand. Which I have no problem with.

 

Yeah but Chelsea didn't sell him anywhere, they didn't offer him a new contract and he left, so they had no say in where he ended up. They probably thought that none of their direct rivals would be interested in a 36 (?) year old midfielder like Lampard.

 

Haha, more fools them. If only something similar could happen to Spurs.

 

Nope didn't see that game. Didn't bother watching the FA cup highlights

 

Sunderland 0-1 Liverpool Markovic 8'

Not good, we need the Mackems to win this.

 

Meh, who cares about Liverpool.

 

Good to see all 3 ex-Saints playing a pivotal part in Liverpool's game