The Football News Thread 2024/25
- Thread starter Deutsch Wolf
- Start date
- Status
lemonjelly
Housecoat, la
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,099
- Reaction score
- 2,682
Arteta is making a lot of noise that arsenal behaved appropriately regarding Partey (spoiler alert, no they did not).
I am hoping someone somewhere has dirt on artetas involvement, as he's becoming more of a despicable whiny cunt with every new facet to him. I really despise him and his arsenal team.
I am hoping someone somewhere has dirt on artetas involvement, as he's becoming more of a despicable whiny cunt with every new facet to him. I really despise him and his arsenal team.
Elephant Pyjamas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 17,631
- Reaction score
- 12,866
Funny how the website says that membership would "save" £40, ignoring the fact it costs more than that.
It IS better than in previous seasons though, it used to be that being a member was the only way to get a ticket and they didn't need to discount them!
jd1981
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,564
- Reaction score
- 5,688
Anything north of £30 for 90 minutes of no guarantees of entertainment is still too high.
£45 just for the privilege of getting through the turnstile with zero add ons.
Reality is simple though loads of people out there who can’t afford it regardless even if it was £20 with a pie and pint included considering the cost of living which is a societal issue.
Any responsible adult/parent will firstly shelve their own hobbies for the welfare of their family.
£45 just for the privilege of getting through the turnstile with zero add ons.
Reality is simple though loads of people out there who can’t afford it regardless even if it was £20 with a pie and pint included considering the cost of living which is a societal issue.
Any responsible adult/parent will firstly shelve their own hobbies for the welfare of their family.
Alan
…unlucky Del - No chance 😉
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2012
- Messages
- 45,177
- Reaction score
- 13,213
“We tried to get the victims to shut up but they just wouldn’t”
jd1981
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,564
- Reaction score
- 5,688
Arsenal behaving like their players work in a factory out the public eye on a low wage. So being able to keep their job whilst earning during an investigation is fine.
Reality is your players appear on tv 1/2 a week and are very much public figures, not only that you used the said player as part of a social media promotions on a number of occasions.
lemonjelly
Housecoat, la
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,099
- Reaction score
- 2,682
It's worse than that. They've turned partey into the victim here. Media interviews where they have bleated about "what he's been through" etc. They also wanted to give him a new contract etc.
They sacked a kit man for a social media post about Israel/Gaza FFS.
They sacked a kit man for a social media post about Israel/Gaza FFS.
AndyWolves
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 17,883
- Reaction score
- 8,375
Lycan
Jeff Shi's Bitch
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 19,138
- Reaction score
- 9,994
People like to take this piss out of the Forest Green owner but this is excellent. The feeling of community and belonging you can get from supporting a football team can be a massive positive for people going through tough times. It was the worst part of last summer when Fosun raised ticket prices, hearing about all the people who couldn't afford to go anymore and how they were worried about how it would affect them mentally. Months after Wolves did that stunt outside the South Bank with that rapper they had on their pretend record label.
Dire Wolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2017
- Messages
- 7,202
- Reaction score
- 5,340
Michael Reid giving us the scoop on the important stuff.
Deutsch Wolf
Sponsored by Amazon Prime. DM me for discounts...
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 111,869
- Reaction score
- 40,936
It’s 19 days until Sheffield Wednesday’s first game of the season, and this is their full list of players over the age of 21…Liam Palmer, Dominic Iorfa, Max Lowe, Yan Valery, Di’Shon Bernard, Nathaniel Chalobah, Svante Ingelsson, Olaf Kobacki, Jamal Lowe, Ike Ugbo.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 63,251
- Reaction score
- -40,825
Elephant Pyjamas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 17,631
- Reaction score
- 12,866
Fucking Chelsea
The Bear
Euro 2012 PTG Champion
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 59,702
- Reaction score
- 10,050
Hard not to agree with everything here.
Amanda Staveley’s Newcastle UNITED ·
Martin Blane ·21h ·
Let’s not forget, Alexander Isak signed a six-year contract with Newcastle United in August 2022. That deal runs until June 2028, just two months before his 29th birthday. In footballing terms, those are his peak years, and he knowingly committed them to this club.
Newcastle are under no obligation, morally or legally, to let him walk away early. If he chooses to be disruptive or push for a move, we are well within our rights to make him see out the contract from the bench. That’s not pettiness. That’s just how long-term contracts work. He and his agent were happy to sign it at the time.
As reported, Isak earns £120,000 a week. Now we’re seeing claims that he’s rejected a new contract that would have made him our highest earner, instead asking for wages the club simply cannot offer under current financial rules.
Now imagine if the roles were reversed. Let’s say Matt Targett wasn’t performing and the club tried to wriggle out of his contract halfway through. We’d be rightly criticised. But when a player does the same, it’s framed as ambition. That’s not ambition. It’s hypocrisy. Contracts should work both ways. If things hadn’t gone well, Isak would still expect every penny he was promised. So why is it unreasonable for the club to expect the same?
This whole situation is a result of the Profit and Sustainability Rules, a flawed system that punishes emerging clubs.
Newcastle United are owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, one of the most financially secure organisations in world football, with assets worth over £550 billion. Yet the club isn’t allowed to invest freely. Not because it’s unsafe, but because the rules were written to prevent new challengers from upsetting the traditional elite.
Under PSR, clubs can only spend what they generate, not what their owners can afford. That might sound fair at first, but all it really does is protect historic success. Clubs like Liverpool, who have had decades of top-tier income, global sponsors and Champions League revenue, are free to operate. Meanwhile, Newcastle, who are financially stronger in real terms today, are held back by rules that ignore the present and punish progress.
This has nothing to do with financial safety. If that were the concern, Newcastle would be the last club anyone should worry about. This isn’t about sustainability. It’s about control.
And if these rules really are about keeping football healthy, how are the following allowed?
Chelsea have posted record-breaking losses and still spend freely by handing out eight-year contracts and selling assets like their women’s team and car parks to parent companies.
Aston Villa have sold infrastructure to themselves to boost income on paper.
Manchester United continue to lose money year after year and face no pressure to scale back.
Yet Newcastle, with clean books and stable ownership, are told we must sell one of the best strikers in Europe, in his prime, to a direct rival. It makes no sense.
The media won’t question any of this because it doesn’t sell papers or attract clicks. “Isak wants to leave” is a story. “Newcastle standing firm” isn’t.
They won’t challenge the imbalance because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Newcastle refusing to be bullied doesn’t generate drama, but a transfer saga does.
We’ve gone from being everyone’s second club to being treated like outsiders for daring to compete. Now, when we stick to the principles every club should stand by, we’re labelled the problem.
The system is broken and everyone knows it. They just won’t say it out loud because right now, it benefits them. The rules are built to protect the same handful of clubs that have always been at the top and to keep others in their place.
We’re being told to sell our best players to clubs we’re supposed to be challenging, not because it makes sense on the pitch, but because the rulebook demands it.
If Alexander Isak wants to leave, that’s his right. But it will happen on our terms, for the right fee, when it suits Newcastle United. Not him. Not Liverpo ol. And not the media.
Amanda Staveley’s Newcastle UNITED ·
Martin Blane ·21h ·
Let’s not forget, Alexander Isak signed a six-year contract with Newcastle United in August 2022. That deal runs until June 2028, just two months before his 29th birthday. In footballing terms, those are his peak years, and he knowingly committed them to this club.
Newcastle are under no obligation, morally or legally, to let him walk away early. If he chooses to be disruptive or push for a move, we are well within our rights to make him see out the contract from the bench. That’s not pettiness. That’s just how long-term contracts work. He and his agent were happy to sign it at the time.
As reported, Isak earns £120,000 a week. Now we’re seeing claims that he’s rejected a new contract that would have made him our highest earner, instead asking for wages the club simply cannot offer under current financial rules.
Now imagine if the roles were reversed. Let’s say Matt Targett wasn’t performing and the club tried to wriggle out of his contract halfway through. We’d be rightly criticised. But when a player does the same, it’s framed as ambition. That’s not ambition. It’s hypocrisy. Contracts should work both ways. If things hadn’t gone well, Isak would still expect every penny he was promised. So why is it unreasonable for the club to expect the same?
This whole situation is a result of the Profit and Sustainability Rules, a flawed system that punishes emerging clubs.
Newcastle United are owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, one of the most financially secure organisations in world football, with assets worth over £550 billion. Yet the club isn’t allowed to invest freely. Not because it’s unsafe, but because the rules were written to prevent new challengers from upsetting the traditional elite.
Under PSR, clubs can only spend what they generate, not what their owners can afford. That might sound fair at first, but all it really does is protect historic success. Clubs like Liverpool, who have had decades of top-tier income, global sponsors and Champions League revenue, are free to operate. Meanwhile, Newcastle, who are financially stronger in real terms today, are held back by rules that ignore the present and punish progress.
This has nothing to do with financial safety. If that were the concern, Newcastle would be the last club anyone should worry about. This isn’t about sustainability. It’s about control.
And if these rules really are about keeping football healthy, how are the following allowed?
Chelsea have posted record-breaking losses and still spend freely by handing out eight-year contracts and selling assets like their women’s team and car parks to parent companies.
Aston Villa have sold infrastructure to themselves to boost income on paper.
Manchester United continue to lose money year after year and face no pressure to scale back.
Yet Newcastle, with clean books and stable ownership, are told we must sell one of the best strikers in Europe, in his prime, to a direct rival. It makes no sense.
The media won’t question any of this because it doesn’t sell papers or attract clicks. “Isak wants to leave” is a story. “Newcastle standing firm” isn’t.
They won’t challenge the imbalance because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Newcastle refusing to be bullied doesn’t generate drama, but a transfer saga does.
We’ve gone from being everyone’s second club to being treated like outsiders for daring to compete. Now, when we stick to the principles every club should stand by, we’re labelled the problem.
The system is broken and everyone knows it. They just won’t say it out loud because right now, it benefits them. The rules are built to protect the same handful of clubs that have always been at the top and to keep others in their place.
We’re being told to sell our best players to clubs we’re supposed to be challenging, not because it makes sense on the pitch, but because the rulebook demands it.
If Alexander Isak wants to leave, that’s his right. But it will happen on our terms, for the right fee, when it suits Newcastle United. Not him. Not Liverpo ol. And not the media.
Squeak
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2023
- Messages
- 3,654
- Reaction score
- 1,881
Yes, indeed.
Before Newcastle got their sugar daddy, we had Fosun threatening to do the same. We came, conquered the Championship and made big efforts to become a top six club. In fact, one goal separated us and Tottenham for 6th place. Then came covid and the realisation that to really compete at the top took so much more more money and effectively, a closed shop. Fosun backed off. The fans moaned.
Football is corrupt. Money conquers all.
Before Newcastle got their sugar daddy, we had Fosun threatening to do the same. We came, conquered the Championship and made big efforts to become a top six club. In fact, one goal separated us and Tottenham for 6th place. Then came covid and the realisation that to really compete at the top took so much more more money and effectively, a closed shop. Fosun backed off. The fans moaned.
Football is corrupt. Money conquers all.
- Status
