zequist

Great job, Bill! I really enjoyed reading that. Only lost one home tilt all year...well, they ain't Chelsea so it's about time they lost a second. 1-0 final: Pienaar marks his return to Premiership play by setting up Cahill in the first half, and then we pack in and ride out the City blizzard in the second half.

Saw an article today that said the Premiership is in the hunt for an extra UEFA Cup berth next year - it is currently leading UEFA's Fair Play standings, which is worth an extra bid to the country finishing first at the end of the club season. Apparently "fair play" only applies to standards of player behaviour and not referees' decisions.

Well this could end up becoming a dead letter regardless of what Scudamore and his 20 team owners want. The Australian Federation has come out and said that they're not interested because they're worried that it would harm the development of their own A-League (which is still in its infancy and probably doesn't need the local fans being reminded of how much higher the EPL's quality of play is) Likewise, the President of the AFC (Asia's governing body) has said that he recommends "rejecting initiatives of this nature," and that he would "urge the AFC member associations to protect their own national leagues and clubs within their territories." The vice-president of the Japanese FA said flat-out, "We are, in principle, opposed to having their games in Japan as we have to protect our league and clubs. I don’t think we will change our minds." The Korean Federation also said that they will not consider hosting Premiership matches unless and until FIFA approves the plan, and even then they would have to think long and hard about whether it would benefit the K-League before they'd agree to it. CONCACAF has a rule against matches from other federations being played within its own territory but expressed a willingness to negotiate with the EPL on that point, so unlike the AFC they aren't totally dismissing the idea. But the President of the US Soccer Federation says they aren't going to go against FIFA's wishes on this, also adding "there are some issues that we have got which would cause us to be very hesitant." Meanwhile MLS has similarly said that it's "intriguing" and they'd "want to be involved" if it happens, but again if and only if FIFA approves the proposal. If a Premier League game is scheduled to play overseas and no country wants to host it, does it still count in the standings?

Actually, you are wrong. The point of my post was not to suggest that BK or anyone else was our "best" option (which is not what I think anyway - I don't know who our "best" option would be and I wouldn't even try to guess). My point was to highlight the basic ownership styles and philosophies vis-a-vis the economic and personality poles. Economic: Does the owner set a generous budget, and not even sweat too much about going over it if he thinks it's necessary or if it's a short-term hit that can yield long-term benefits (B, C)? Or does he set a tight budget and refuse to break it unless there's an absolute dire emergency (and sometimes not even then) (A, D)? Personality: Does the owner believe that an organization functions best when you put football people in football positions and let them do their jobs, overseeing but not interfering (B, D)? Or is he a demanding, meddling mini-dictator who treats the team like his own personal fiefdom, demands a say in every decision, and starts giving people the chop if they disagree with him, criticize him, or lose three games in a row (A,C)? As I said in my post, a type B owner (generous but hands-off) is clearly the kind that 99% of fans (including myself) would want for their team, and BK is definitely not a B. He just doesn't have the money for it. But he's far from the worst owner in the league, and trust me, as someone who grew up near San Francisco I've seen firsthand the difference between a great owner and a horrible owner, because the SF 49ers of the NFL went from maybe the best in the league when Eddie DeBartolo (a B type) owned the team, to maybe the worst in the league when his brother-in-law John York (an A type) took over. If Everton had a John York clone in the owner's chair (incompetent, skinflint, no organizational planning, no long-term financial planning, doesn't know the first thing about running a sports team) you'd be begging for Kenwright to come back. If you still even cared, that is, because they'd probably be down in League Two by then. Kenwright isn't the best owner in the EPL, but he could be a hell of a lot worse. His long-term financial planning leaves something to be desired and he has an image problem - deserved or not - that he can't seem to shake (some of the threads on this board are proof enough of that), but his people sense and organizational planning are demonstrably better than those of many owners, and whatever else you may fault him for, you absolutely have to give him credit for sticking with Moyes in seasons 2 and 4 when probably 90% of his peers would've pulled the plug - he made the right decision to tough it out and it's paying off. And yes, I would rather have BK than Hicks/Gillette. Gillette's almost irrelevant anyway - he's the lower-profile parter, and his teams have never done a damn thing. Hicks is the big money/high profile guy, and he is notorious for turning his American sports clubs into Newcastle-equivalents: superstar signings every year, huge wages shelled out, some of the highest payrolls in his respective sports, and very poor results to show for it (he's the one who offered Alex Rodriguez a $250 million dollar contract to play baseball for Texas, and all he got for it was three straight years in last place before he finally gave up and sent ARod to the Yankees). The one championship he won (with the Dallas hockey club in '99) was more inherited than earned - except for the goalkeeper position, the nucleus of that team was already in place when he bought the team, and you could argue with the talent they had in the late 90's that they should've won at least two or three titles, not just one. The way he's run Liverpool so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up going down the same road - big money for bad results every year. If that was what I wanted when I was picking an EPL team to root for five years ago I'd be over on the Toon message board right now, not here.

In my experience there are four basic types of team owners. Type A is Spendthrift and Hands-on, or what I call the ruthless businessman. He doesn't give a crap about the team, the sport, or the fans. His only goals are to make a profit every year, and an even bigger profit when he re-sells the team someday; everything else, including winning, is secondary. Even if he's worth billions he still spends money on his team only grudgingly, and usually only when it's necessary to placate the fans or a new managerial hire, not to improve the team on the field. He won't sign off on anything that he thinks is too expensive, no matter how necessary his football people tell him it is. Any success for a team owned by the ruthless businessman is usually a lucky accident, and never lasts more than a season or two. Example: Al-Fayed at Fulham fits the bill Type B is Frugal and Hands-off, or what I call the smart businessman. He may or may not be a fan of the team or the sport, but it almost doesn't matter because he knows that other people are fans and his focus is doing his best to keep them happy. He realizes that smart spending increases the team's chances of success, and more success means more fans and a better, more profitable business in the long run. He ultimately controls the purse and sets the budget, but beyond that the smart businessman is willing to leave the football decisions to the football people on his staff, trusting them to make the right decisions. These are usually the most desirable owners (from a fan's perspective) and often - though not always - prove to be the most successful over the long-term. Examples: Steve Gibson at Boro (he's done so much for that club that the fans still love him even when they're languishing in mid-table), and so far Lerner at AV is putting himself in this group too Type C is Frugal and Hands-on, or what I call the fantasy football owner. He thinks he knows more about football than his manager or anyone else in the organization, and is willing to spend a lot of money on the biggest names he can attract to his team. He has little or no regard for team chemistry and continuity, and so is rarely successful in the long term without a strong manager who is capable of managing the wide variety of playing styles and egos his owner keeps adding to the roster. Signings, transfers, even who plays and who sits; if the fantasy owner has an opinion on those or any other decisions he's going to make himself heard, and woe betide the manager or team executive who defies his wishes. Fans initially love his willingness to spare no expense for the team, but can turn against him for his interference and meddling if all that spending still doesn't bring success. Example: Abramovich at Chelsea is the classic example, and Mike Ashley at Newcastle seems to be heading this way Type D is Spendthrift and Hands-off, or what I call the little owner that could. He wants his team to succeed, understands how a championship-winning organization should be run, and tries to model things after the smart businessman, setting the budget and letting his football people make most of the decisions, but for some reason he just lacks the revenue streams to consistently contend above a certain level. Perhaps his team has the disadvantage of playing in a smaller market, is saddled with an old/obsolete stadium, or doesn't have a big enough fan base to support his ambitions beyond a certain point. The little owner that could's teams are frequently famous for their youth development programs, and equally famous for selling off their young players once they start getting older and more expensive. If he can find more revenues somewhere he is capable of evolving into a Type B owner, but if he can't break the glass ceiling then he may end up frustrating his team's fans more than satisfying them, with the fruits of success so close but always seeming to dangle just barely out of reach. Example: Kenwright seems to fall into this category, and I'd also put Dave Whelan at Wigan here - I think he's taken that club about as far as it can realistically go with their small market and limited fan base Obviously Type B is usually the best kind of owner to have and Type A is usually the worst, but choosing between C and D often comes down to personal choice. Would you rather have a Type C owner who spends lots of money but turns the organization into a sideshow circus with all of his meddling and sometimes seemingly nonsensical decisions, who has an equal chance of bringing your team spectacular success or spectacular failure? Or would you rather have a Type D owner who doesn't have as much money to spend as a lot of other teams, but runs a solid and thoroughly professional organization that almost always gets the most out of whatever resources it has to work with?

Excellent column by Jon Carter on this issue. Two particular points he raises that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet, with the talk being more about how this might affect the title chase: "With the fact that the 'Top Four' sides are supported in droves across the world meaning that it would be more like a home fixture for the League's elite, there is no way that you could ensure a fair outcome for each side. So often are key places in the league table decided by a single point that giving away a precious three for the victor in this circus would have clubs up in arms if their season was disrupted. £5million from a trip to Asia is scant consolation if your side loses £30million having been relegated as a result of drawing Manchester United or Arsenal out of the hat." http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story...and&cc=5901

I'm backing us to grab three at Sunderland, but I'm actually a little more worried about the one right after that, even as bad as Fulham is this year. On paper we should wipe them out if we're healthy, but wasn't the last time we picked up a point at Craven Cottage like, the sixties?

But then the concern would be that you have a home/road imbalance - half the league would have 18 home games, and half would have 19. Fairer might be to do it more like a "mini-tournament" style, where four teams travel to the same general area and stay there for a week or whatever, and play a pair of doubleheaders. For instance, let's use this as a hypothetical scenario. 1. Four teams - let's say Arsenal, Blackburn, Boro, and Wigan - are assigned to travel to the "Pacific Northwest" region. 2. On Saturday they play a doubleheader in Seattle: Arsenal-Boro at 1 pm and Blackburn-Wigan at 4 pm (local time, of course). Fans can buy a single-game ticket or a double pass that gets them into both games. 3. The teams then get a few days off to train and sightsee and whatever. 4. On Wednesday they play another doubleheader in Vancouver, Canada: Boro-Blackburn at 5 pm and Wigan-Arsenal at 8 pm. 5. Then they go home. If they did it that way, then each team could be credited with both a "home" game and a "road" game, so it would even out, and teams wouldn't be jetting all the way to God knows where just to play one game and fly right back again. Something like that might be at least worth discussing, but I agree that creating one extra randomly drawn game and tacking it onto the schedule like they're talking about right now makes absolutely no sense.

Sounds like this can't go forward without approval from FIFA, which some are doubtful they'll get. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id...999&cc=5901

They're probably going to wait until just before the Liverpool rematch and then announce that he's been given a one-game suspension.

Done. 16K. That's even worse than I usually do in practice. <_< I guess I won't finish last if Yorkie no-shows it, though.

That's why I said "almost." I've always hated Yellow Submarine, and one of the most disturbing things I ever heard was one time when my local radio station played that back-to-back with Black Sabbath's "Paranoid" without even putting a station break between them. *shudders* Paperback Writer is one of my favorites, though. And so is She's Leaving Home - good call on that one, which I think tends to get a bit overlooked.

I've always completely sucked at ball and paddle games (enjoy playing them, just don't do it well). My all-time best on this one is about 20K, so I knew I was in trouble when you guys were talking about getting 25K in practice like that was a bad score. No big deal, someone has to finish last. I'll play my last game when I have time later tonight.

Good choice! Of course it is The Beatles, so it's almost impossible to make a bad choice. Revolution 9 is probably the only song that might raise my eyebrow a bit if someone picked it as their favorite, and that's mainly because it's more Yoko Ono than The Beatles. Anyway, my personal favorite is Help.

Drew with Angola, and right now they are getting pounded 3-0 by Tunisia, which will leave them last on goal differential. They aren't totally out of it, though; if they can beat Senegal (a big "if") in their last match they could still sneak into second depending on the results of the Tunisia-Angola match.

I kind of liked Gareth Southgate's perspective (think it was him, anyway), that the only thing having your best players linked to big clubs means is that they're good players. As long as the system is set up the way it is the speculation is never going to go away, so there's no point raising your blood pressure over it. Not even the "big four" are immune; they just have their best players linked to the big clubs in Spain and Italy instead of domestically. That doesn't mean we're under any obligation to sell the players in question, though, if it's not in our best interests. The only thing that makes me wonder if there's some truth in this (as opposed to some of the other scurrilous rumor-mongering) is that Lescott - unlike Arteta, AJ, Cahill, and several others who've popped up in the press - hasn't signed a contract extension since 2005, and that one was only for 2.5 years, not 5 like our latest ones. Does anyone know when his current contract is due to expire?

Yay! Great to see that we're up again!

I've just come from reading a lengthy argument over on Wikipedia about whether hockey players from Northern Ireland should actually be listed as being from Northern Ireland or all lumped into one category called Ireland - with sub-arguments also raging over whether the fact of their being born pre- or post-partition should make any difference, or whether Northern Ireland is in fact a real country at all, and one person trying to argue that "geographical entities" (i.e. Ireland the whole) should take precedence over "political entities" (i.e. Ireland divided). Good grief, I don't know how you guys are able put up with all of that stuff over there in the UK without driving yourselves crazy!

Holy $&!^!!! You predicted that result before the game started you could've made a fortune. All right then, boys. If SPURS can rout one of the "big four" like that...

It's their home tie against West Ham that was postponed from August 15, and they'll be playing it in March. Apparently the make-up date was just decided a few days ago (thank goodness for Google, eh?). http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/archivedirs...080117-1236.htm

Actually, £40M (roughly $80 mil American) for a ten-year naming rights deal is very good, especially if they're talking about putting it on the old stadium. In fact, $8 mil a year is better than every current naming rights deal in the US except one, and all of our biggest deals are attached to brand new stadiums (and run for 20 or 30 years, so they'll be worth a lot less at the end). On your side of the pond I know it's nowhere near as good as Arsenal's £134M for 15 years (£8.9M per year), but Arsenal is a much bigger brand name worldwide than we are and - again - the stadium is brand spanking new, so to a corporation those two factors make the deal worth plunking down a whole lot more. Bolton just extended their deal with Reebok - I can't find anything that says what the extension was worth, but the original deal signed in 1997 was for £3M over 10 years (£300,000 per year). I also like that the deal is only for ten years, because it gives us a chance to really enhance our value. If over the next decade we a)have another golden age wherein we b)win a couple of trophies and c)maybe a championship, and also d)continue to market ourselves worldwide in places like Thailand, the US, and elsewhere (aided by our success on the field, of course), and e)most importantly (for enhancing the value of naming rights, anyway), get ourselves a brand new, state-of-the-art stadium Then we could be looking at a massive increase in value for the next naming rights deal when this one expires.

Yep. Definitely a lot more than 183. I was never that great at Space Invaders, so I'd like to see what kind of scores our old pros (Pat?) could put up.

Thanks for the new uploads, Licker! I really like the Battle Bots game - think I'm going to be playing that one a lot!

Dang...wish I could've seen a show like that! Course I was probably about 2 or 3 at the time - little young to appreciate it. Paul Samson died of cancer in 2002, and since he pretty much was the band it basically died with him. The only other guy who was committed to the group long-term was the bassist (who's also dead now)...everyone else was a revolving door, in and out and sometimes back in again.

Well you know, Sidwell has proven himself in the Premier League and Arshavin hasn't yet...