Premier League Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatThereSaintsFan and Whiteley Saint
----HistoryRepeating---- said:
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. <ok>
Click to expand...
Who is Karl Henry? One of those American owners of Liverpool?
 
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?
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Saintmagic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pelletron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Saintmagic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Haha, more fools them. If only something similar could happen to Spurs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back