Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Southampton' started by TheSecondStain, Jun 28, 2016.
Let me guess, the second one was day no.2?
Apparently Lampard wanted to walk out in the summer but felt he couldn't do it as he loved the club. Lot's of talk about Lampard being told how to coach from above, not signing Rice because it would "look bad" to buy an academy lad they previously released and also not being able to trust certain members of staff that he was forced to work with.
Two sides to every story of course but what is clear is that there is a toxic atmosphere at Chelsea.
Must be nice to have a job that pays you a lot of money to leave....hurt pride I could live with.
If you were running any other business where you changed your management so frequently, you would have to say that the owners of the enterprise were incompetent. I don't feel he had a fair crack of the whip but I also have to say that Lampard's appointment probably had more to do with sentiment than anything else. Part of me feels that he should have been given much more time and then perhaps Chelsea might have experienced something akin to the revival at Man Utd. However, I think whoever comes in will have their work cut out matching the two Manchester clubs. You also wonder if getting Brendan Rodgers in might have been a better option than Tuchel even if most sensible fans probably would consider better candidates for a title challenge than Chelsea at this point in time. Lampard not helped by the absence of Hazard.
I thought at the time it was to early for Lampard to take the Chelsea job similar at Arsenal and Man utd although OGS appears to have turned things around. Certainly some high profile moves not yet working at Chelsea and of course rumours of a toxic feel at the club. Lampard would have known the price for the current slump. Cue punditry options or where elsewhere in a managerial roll?
just to let you know, they’ve just issued official guidance saying that the Man City goal v Villa should have been given offside.
In future, any similar situation will be given as offside.
So we were right, the rules did favour the big club in one game only.
Well no, because the laws were interpreted correctly at the time. That incident could have happened in any game. It exploited a loophole in the law and that loophole has now been closed.
^^^ Why do you have to defend all the fu&king time. Just leave it.
Sorry didn't realise I wasn't allowed to air my views on a public forum.
You can read that how you wish.
Now then, now then. Reading various reports it appears the interpretation of the law was wrong, no change to the rule, clarification given (if that's what loophole closing is). so far as I can see, the goal shouldn't have stood. Nice cup of tea and a biscuit chaps all will be good.
So, one assumes the red card issued to Dean Smith will now be rescinded? Bet it would be if it had been Pep ......
And Jose, I would have said Klopp but he gets away with everything all the time anyway.
Seems unlikely FA Rule E3 offence got the red, from https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-smith-referee-red-card-charged-b1790903.html
" Aston Villa coach Dean Smith has been charged by the Football Association (FA) after he was sent off against Manchester City on Wednesday.
Referee Jon Moss showed Smith a red card after he remonstrated with the match official following Bernardo Silva’s 79th-minute opener at the Etihad Stadium.
“Dean Smith has been charged with a breach of FA Rule E3 following Aston Villa FC’s Premier League match against Manchester City FC on Wednesday,” an FA spokesperson said."
West Ham can just **** off.