Jees Veron really was shite

Fair enough, Wirral.

I disagree with Bromley, however. Football isn't just about rivalry. It's also about sportsmanship and fairness. The fact that football fans are so tribal is part of the problem. We are willing to put up with anything--Russian oligarchs, petulant, overpaid players, etc. etc. so long as we think it contributes to the immediate success of our team--or hurts a rival. It make it so so easy for the moneybags to exploit us.

Naturally I disagree with Bernard too for purely logical reasons that I won't go into now

What do you think is so logical about misusing the words deprived and ghoulish, which is what you did?

Thanks Judith.

Thank you for those kind words.

I hope that you and your family are all well.

These are very difficult times, I just hope that a vaccine or an effective treatment appears soon.

His brothers managed him more for profit than a career. He owed everything to Wenger agreed, but like the prodigal son, he wanted to return. His return would have been mutually beneficial. He may not have done well at RM but he did well at the PL sides he played for.

He was young and immature like many of us who achieved things at a young age. He was chastened. More mature when he wanted to come back. That's what happens when you are playing the Bernabau one season and then find yourself running through the mud at then Reebok Stadium...lol.

Had he not left, there is every indication he could have had a fantastic career.

I saw him at his game and he was very good in LA. First time I saw Man Utd play (and last..cough spit) but you are right, he was terrible for them. Not a bad player, just a bad situation.

I love the 'Benny Hill' style music at the beginning of the show. I haven't heard the name 'Eddie Kelly' on here. He seems a decent player. The PK from Charlie looked good to me but I'm biased. I think its also the first goal I've seen Pat Rice score.

If you want to insist that it is not ghoulish to derive pleasure from something directly caused by a crisis that has caused 275 000 deaths, you are welcome to do so. Knock yourself out. Ditto defining 'deprived' in any way you like. You won't find any argument from me.

That kind of character never stay stays at one club, so your premise is flawed. To be successful at the highest level you need more than just great talent, you need character as well. Henry is a case in point. Sadly, in Anelka's case, the degree of entitlement and petulance he displayed cannot be excused as mere immaturity. We did well to cash in.

Obviously football is completely irrelevant when cast against a backdrop of even one death - never mind 200,000 or more. Still, you'd have to have a hard heart if you didn't think that Liverpool potentially being deprived of a Premier League title so arbitrarily - after 30 years' wait, the poor dears - isn't even a little bit funny...

As I said to Wirral, I think that is fair enough.

If you agree to feel a little bit guilty when you are sniggering, I'll try not to be so sanctimonious.

Haven’t you seen the 1971 Cup Final that clinched our first ever double?

Eddie Kelly was the first substitute to score in an FA Cup final.

i've watched all manner of videos, both Arsenal and non Arsenal that I didn't recall his name. I will say I have a lot more respect for the skill level of the players of yesteryear.

Is George still claiming that one?

Ha ha. He always has done. Didn’t touch it though.

And, of course, Eddie scored in the final of our Fairs Cup win one year earlier.

Always liked him, he was a good honest player.

He was.

To my shame, in 1971 I wanted it to be George’s goal because I felt that he was one of our star players. Hard to believe that GG tried to nick someone else’s goal until you see what he subsequently got up to with bungs. Still one of us though.

I was actually talking about you misusing the words deprived and ghoulish to describe Liverpool’s hard luck in missing out on a title if the season is declared null and void. I was NOT talking about 275k deaths, if that’s the right number. I can’t believe you didn’t realise that because if you genuinely didn’t, I would question your own grasp of logic. You are deliberately stretching things. It is not ghoulish to be pleased if Liverpool miss out on this year’s title. In my view, that’s what you were trying to claim.

Perhaps he’s blocked everyone who‘s ever mentioned Kelly?

Yes, he lacked a great first touch. I thought he might have been able to make it with us. Not quite sure what happened. Oh well. He did give us one great match against the scum.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -best.html

Did he now? I've heard a lot of names mentioned on here over many years (wow, its been a couple decades hasn't it?). Eddie Kelly didn't seem to pop much if at all. But I like him. You'd be happy to hear that. haha.

A good article (in my opinion) written for the Mirror by a Liverpool fan. He makes the point that neutral venues would be grossly unfair (look at the example he gives about Brighton) because it just can’t be right when relegation strugglers, those competing for Champions and Europa League places, and so on play each other with one team already having the benefit of playing a direct opponent at home with their crowd behind them, when the return game is played at an empty neutral venue.

But a point he doesn’t really cover is a point I have made that completing the season with forthcoming matches at the home team’s own stadium but behind closed doors is also wrong. The main advantage of being at home is having your own crowd behind you, surely? Stuff like greater familiarity with the pitch size, being in the home dressing room and so on all seem a bit of a side issue in comparison to the support of your own fans.

The example I gave previously was if West Ham still have to play Aston Villa (no idea if they do but it’s a safe bet that both games against the various relegation strugglers and opponents for European places will not have already been played in every case). It is not right if West Ham have already played Villa at home with their passionate support behind them while the return match is played behind closed doors at an empty Villa Park.

Like the Mirror journalist, I think the whole season should be declared null and void, with the single exception of Manchester City adding the 2020 League Cup to their honours list as they’ve already won it. No league champions, no relegation or promotion and in my view the same clubs qualifying for next season’s European competitions who were in it this year. Terrible luck for Liverpool, Leeds and WBA as the article points out, and very fortunate for Norwich. But that’s life. Luck isn’t always spread evenly.

Also, I don’t think it makes me ghoulish to say that if it is null and voided I could possibly end up like Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard (the two wives Henry VIII had executed by them being beheaded), as my head may fall off by laughing at Liverpool so much.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... newsletter

Wouldn't argue with much of that Bern, though personally, I'd allow WBA & Leeds to come up and run with an expanded league for a couple of years.

Pretty good discussion on the best foreign players in the PL for each position.

'Extremely harsh' if Liverpool isn't awarded title, says Manchester United great

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/12/spor ... index.html

I agree. If they aren't because the season is vacated, I totally understand. Its hard to imagine any other PL club objecting to it. Even City. This wouldn't mean the clubs at the bottom get relegated but some sort of 'hybrid' solution where they get the title but as far as relegation European places, it can be re-competed for. Sounds a bit mish mash I suppose but they were having arguably the most dominant season ever.

I won't cry over it if they aren't rewarded the title but it's a tough pill to swallow that it all just goes by the wayside officially. Some sort of recognition at least.

Enjoy Bernard.

I think someone on here has got the job as publisher of Bein Sports tweets just to wind Bernard up! Is it you Niall?

I’ve never denied Ljungberg is a club legend. That doesn’t mean I rated him that highly as a player. He got into good goal scoring positions and alongside that, was a good finisher. That was mainly what his game was about, as Vieira implied on that Best of Enemies show he did with Roy Keane.

I know what you were talking about so there is no need to explain to me. I also know what I meant and what I said is an accurate portrayal of what I meant. I'm not stretching anything, deliberately or otherwise. What you need to grasp is that I simply disagree with your 'view'. Your caviling isn't going to change my view and I'm not going to argue with your because I know that it is pointless to do so when you have a 'view' on something. Clear?

If we are talking 'fairness'. What is less fair? Having to play at a neutral venue or having a 25 point lead in the league annulled?

There is no perfect solution. However, pointing out that one is mildly unfair is simply not a good argument for defaulting to the other. If you are going to talk 'fairness' you need to do a 'fair' comparison of the pros and cons of each.

And you do make yourself ghoulish ... especially with the reference to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard!!

I would say the beginning of your last sentence makes you sound exactly the same as how you are trying to portray me.

I find good or bad luck more preferable to accept than unfairness. I associate changing the rules of the competition midway through the season as nearer to unfairness than bad luck. Before the season started everyone knew the rule was that each team would play every other side twice, once at home and once away. If you play a team when their best player or players are suspended or injured, that’s good luck (or bad luck for the other team). Playing a side at home when they’ve just had a long away trip in Europe may be seen as good luck by some, but I find that acceptable too, as long as the order of fixtures were set randomly, which they are.

However to change that rule of playing all others twice, once at home and once away with team’s own crowds supporting them, so reducing the evenness of the competition partway through the season seems closer to unfairness to me, as it presumably does to that Liverpool supporting journalist. Because it lets some teams play others at home supported by the big majority of the crowd when the return fixture is either played at an empty neutral venue or even their own empty ground.

Perhaps you’re not aware of a common expression in England, or maybe the London area where I come from, about ‘laughing your head off’. My comment about being in danger of ending up like Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard was no more than a reference to that common expression. It wasn’t ghoulish at all, in my view anyway. Try lightening up occasionally.

"Laughing your head off' is a common expression here too, thanks.

To reinterate: the issue is not that we don't understand each other. It is that we disagree, about the issue and about the usage of words like ghoulish and deprived. That is why I say it is pointless to debate.

Back to the more interesting point. I don't disagree that it is less than ideal to have empty or neutral venues, and to change the rules partway through the season. However, since you are now talking about 'rules', what are the rules of the competition? Does it say anywhere that there must be crowds? And more importantly, if you scrap the season altogether aren't you changing the rules partway through the season rather drastically?

Are you seriously saying you don’t see banning fans from games partway through the season, regardless of whether games are played at neutral venues or each team’s own stadium, as a highly significant rule change? I do, because it inevitably makes the season uneven.

Sides play two games against each other, one at home and one away. Home advantage is normally a significant benefit because the big majority of the crowd will be supporting them. So teams will play opponents with one enjoying the advantage of playing opponents while enjoying the support of the home crowd. But inevitably return games from now will take place with the other team not enjoying that benefit in their home game. That strikes me as unfair, particularly when sides are in direct opposition (see my previous West Ham/Aston Villa example, though numerous others will apply just as equally).

I see null and voiding the season as more a question of bringing good or bad luck into the equation. Very bad luck on Liverpool and extremely fortunate for Norwich (perhaps the two most obvious Premier League examples). But I think good or bad luck is preferable to unfairness. You appear to disagree. Fair enough. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider your viewpoint as the right one, as I will do with my argument.

I also don’t think ghoulish is the right word to use for laughing at Liverpool’s misfortune, if it happens. I’ve heard some of their fans talk of the club’s thirty years without a league title as not just a disaster for English football but a national tragedy. Arsenal supporting fans I know from the north know of such claims too. That’s why I perceive Liverpool supporters as the most ‘up their own arse’ fans in the country.

That’s also why I am happy to use the expression ‘laugh my head off’ to describe my reaction to them not winning the title from the season being voided (obviously my head won’t literally fall off). I don’t see that reaction as ghoulish. If their fans lose the chance to celebrate a title win at home, my reaction will be tough luck rather than seeing them as so deprived of the excuse to celebrate or the club not being able to add the 2020 Premier League to their honours list. Big bloody deal. I can think of circumstances way more relevant to the words ghoulish and deprived. Hence my perception of you stretching things.

I'm not in favour of the neutral grounds, I think that does go against the fairness of the league. If a way to finish the season safely and fairly cannot be found then it needs to be voided. What they certainly can't do is award prizes and relegation based on current standings or some strange points average, there will be law suits aplenty as has already happened in France. If teams were already mathematically sure of the title or relegation then it might be a different discussion, but even if a team was already sure of relegation what do you do if a team from the championship weren't already sure of promotion. City can obviously keep the league cup because that was won fair and square.
So that brings me to what happens to next season if the entire season is voided. With no promotion and relegation we just start season 20-21 as if 19-20 had never happened, which means the European places would have to revert back to the 19-20 season. So bad luck for teams like Liverpool, Leicester, Wolves, Sheff Utd and good luck for anyone in danger of relegation and Arsenal and Spurs.
Obviously there is the side issue that with City banned from Europe that could boost Arsenal's 5th place finish last year in to a champions league spot. I would enjoy that and it would be incredibly lucky.

As everyone will know, I agree with Rich.

There is no perfect solution. Every single suggested plan will have weaknesses.

Neutral venues has obvious problems. Behind closed doors is drab. But if you rule out the behind closed doors option, you are saying football is gone until there is a vaccine or effective treatment.

If the behind closed doors option is deemed inherently unfair, next season cannot commence until mass gatherings are deemed safe. If the season starts behind closed doors, it can't be opened up because that would be unfair...if that is the overriding factor in whether or not to play games.

So wait until mass gatherings are safe and then finish the season, whenever that might be. Or maybe accept some compromise, albeit an imperfect one.

The season, that was planned must be just about over now. (mid May) Its over - full stop. It is void and I personally will not recognise anything from this season other than Man City won the League Cup.

If Liverpool somehow end up with the title, I will be making it clear to any of their fans that they did not earn or deserve it.

Fair - *%^@ fair - its football. I will recognise it if the FA recognise there was a handball in one of those cups we lost (was it Liverpool probably 20 years ago) and reverse the result and award it to us. They can also reverse the decision where Socrates scored and it was chalked off because of a supposed foul by Chalmers against Crystal Palace. Fair, fair - *%^@ me.