Jump to content

EPL 2021-22


maninblack

Recommended Posts

alincoln is going to be in shortly to tell us how we're all wrong to be annoyed that Man U has fans who are douchebags because if you look back at all the great runs by dominant Premier League teams, each of those club had douchebag fans. 70s and 80s- Scouser douchebags! Late 90s to early 00s Wenger douchebags. 00s-Chelski douchebags! Now- City Douchebags!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another day another fake sponsorship (this company is owned by City’s chairman). 
 

City and Newcastle are going to turn this into more of a farmer’s league than it already is. The EPL, FIFA, UEFA, are going to be shocked when their cash cow dries up due to fans tuning out on an uncompetitive league. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reddit's response is fantastic:

 

I can already see it..

Aston Villa 0-0 City.. minute 89.. Pep's boys are on their way to lifting yet another league title.. 

Cometh the hour, cometh the former Liverpool man to find redemption and free himself of the past.. cuts in on his right from the left wing, dribbles past the City defense and strikes it into the bottom left past Ederson - GOAL - runs like a madman into Gerrard and they both fall to the floor, celebrating on top of each other, reminding them of another time, another life, at Melwood 

 

Aston Villa 1-0 Man City - "Martin Tyler: With this result, City now only win the title by 17 points instead of 20 - I swear you'll never see anything like this ever again!"

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not really sure what happened to him at Barcelona and why it didn’t workout there but he simply is brilliant. I looked back at his stats for LFC when Villa announced and they were better than I remembered. 75ish goals (scored or assisted) in 150ish league games and 100ish in 200ish overall. He’s also just incredibly fun to watch with some of the ball skill. Hope it works out for him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so now the Leicester-Everton match is postponed for tomorrow because :

  • "Leicester would be unable to fulfil Tuesday's fixture at Everton due to a combination of Covid cases, injuries and players being at AFCON"

Should injuries and AFCON be factors in postponements?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12512690/everton-vs-leicester-postponed-after-premier-league-grants-visitors-request-to-rearrange-game

I mean, the Premier League should have suspended the season for a month for AFCON and winter injuries before the season started if that is the case.

Edited by yoladu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, yoladu said:

so now the Leicester-Everton match is postponed for tomorrow because :

  • "Leicester would be unable to fulfil Tuesday's fixture at Everton due to a combination of Covid cases, injuries and players being at AFCON"

Should injuries and AFCON be factors in postponements?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12512690/everton-vs-leicester-postponed-after-premier-league-grants-visitors-request-to-rearrange-game

I mean, the Premier League should have suspended the season for a month for AFCON and winter injuries before the season started if that is the case.

How is that a factor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 12:11 PM, G650 said:

Nobody likes ManU because they are douchebags.

No one likes United here because they were the Yankees when almost everyone on this board got into English football (2000-2010).  No one, particularly the stereotypical American who follows soccer, wants to be viewed as a bandwagon jumper. Hence why City still isn't very popular on this board despite dominating English football for a decade.  City was too shitty to support (other than Huck) before the takeover and almost immediately became too good to support after the takeover.  They were Villa and became United almost overnight.  

Liverpool is popular because they have a very compelling history and supporting them would not be viewed as bandwagon jumping because at the time they weren't winning very much in relation to Arsenal, United and Chelsea who dominated English soccer in the 00s.  A calculated yet justifiable glory hunt. 

Chelsea is popular here because they were the emerging London-based team with the better future compared to stale Arsenal (for those Chelsea fans who go back to the club's founding in 2003) and Pulisic (newish Chelsea supporters).  Plenty of cunts who frequently travel to London (West London, specifically) and name their message board handle after PJs chose Chelsea because of its convenient location.  They are basically City with better shopping and restaurants.  Easy to get to games from the US, will win plenty of trophies and don't have to deal with the riffraff elsewhere in London while doing it.  An extremely efficient glory hunt for the London tourist.

Tottenham is popular for all the reasons Bill Simmons summarized when he was interested in soccer for about 15 minutes in 2005 or so.

Arsenal is popular because they played a very attractive and cosmopolitan brand of football under Wenger and were the foil to United (again when most people originally selected their team).  They are now what Liverpool was (a team with a compelling history that will probably start winning trophies again at some point) and Liverpool is now what Arsenal was (the foil to the Yankees).  Accordingly, Liverpool and Arsenal continue to pick up new fans but for different reasons. 

Again, to summarize, Liverpool (Tottenham with history then, Klopp fanbois now), City (Huck), Tottenham (see Simmons article), Arsenal (Wenger fanbois then, Tottenham with history now), Chelsea (loathsome cunts and newish USMNT fans).

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alincoln said:

No one likes United here because they were the Yankees when almost everyone on this board got into English football (2000-2010).  No one, particularly the stereotypical American who follows soccer, wants to be viewed as a bandwagon jumper. Hence why City still isn't very popular on this board despite dominating English football for a decade.  City was too shitty to support (other than Huck) before the takeover and almost immediately became too good to support after the takeover.  They were Villa and became United almost overnight.  

Liverpool is popular because they have a very compelling history and supporting them would not be viewed as bandwagon jumping because at the time they weren't winning very much in relation to Arsenal, United and Chelsea who dominated English soccer in the 00s.  A calculated yet justifiable glory hunt. 

Chelsea is popular here because they were the emerging London-based team with the better future compared to stale Arsenal (for those Chelsea fans who go back to the club's founding in 2003) and Pulisic (newish Chelsea supporters).  Plenty of cunts who frequently travel to London (West London, specifically) and name their message board handle after PJs chose Chelsea because of its convenient location.  They are basically City with better shopping and restaurants.  Easy to get to games from the US, will win plenty of trophies and don't have to deal with the riffraff elsewhere in London while doing it.  An extremely efficient glory hunt for the London tourist.

Tottenham is popular for all the reasons Bill Simmons summarized when he was interested in soccer for about 15 minutes in 2005 or so.

Arsenal is popular because they played a very attractive and cosmopolitan brand of football under Wenger and were the foil to United (again when most people originally selected their team).  They are now what Liverpool was (a team with a compelling history that will probably start winning trophies again at some point) and Liverpool is now what Arsenal was (the foil to the Yankees).  Accordingly, Liverpool and Arsenal continue to pick up new fans but for different reasons. 

Again, to summarize, Liverpool (Tottenham with history then, Klopp fanbois now), City (Huck), Tottenham (see Simmons article), Arsenal (Wenger fanbois then, Tottenham with history now), Chelsea (loathsome cunts and newish USMNT fans).

Sure thing Derka

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alincoln said:

No one likes United here because they were the Yankees when almost everyone on this board got into English football (2000-2010).  No one, particularly the stereotypical American who follows soccer, wants to be viewed as a bandwagon jumper. Hence why City still isn't very popular on this board despite dominating English football for a decade.  City was too shitty to support (other than Huck) before the takeover and almost immediately became too good to support after the takeover.  They were Villa and became United almost overnight.  

Liverpool is popular because they have a very compelling history and supporting them would not be viewed as bandwagon jumping because at the time they weren't winning very much in relation to Arsenal, United and Chelsea who dominated English soccer in the 00s.  A calculated yet justifiable glory hunt. 

Chelsea is popular here because they were the emerging London-based team with the better future compared to stale Arsenal (for those Chelsea fans who go back to the club's founding in 2003) and Pulisic (newish Chelsea supporters).  Plenty of cunts who frequently travel to London (West London, specifically) and name their message board handle after PJs chose Chelsea because of its convenient location.  They are basically City with better shopping and restaurants.  Easy to get to games from the US, will win plenty of trophies and don't have to deal with the riffraff elsewhere in London while doing it.  An extremely efficient glory hunt for the London tourist.

Tottenham is popular for all the reasons Bill Simmons summarized when he was interested in soccer for about 15 minutes in 2005 or so.

Arsenal is popular because they played a very attractive and cosmopolitan brand of football under Wenger and were the foil to United (again when most people originally selected their team).  They are now what Liverpool was (a team with a compelling history that will probably start winning trophies again at some point) and Liverpool is now what Arsenal was (the foil to the Yankees).  Accordingly, Liverpool and Arsenal continue to pick up new fans but for different reasons. 

Again, to summarize, Liverpool (Tottenham with history then, Klopp fanbois now), City (Huck), Tottenham (see Simmons article), Arsenal (Wenger fanbois then, Tottenham with history now), Chelsea (loathsome cunts and newish USMNT fans).

Douchebag.

  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, alincoln said:

No one likes United here because they were the Yankees when almost everyone on this board got into English football (2000-2010).  No one, particularly the stereotypical American who follows soccer, wants to be viewed as a bandwagon jumper. Hence why City still isn't very popular on this board despite dominating English football for a decade.  City was too shitty to support (other than Huck) before the takeover and almost immediately became too good to support after the takeover.  They were Villa and became United almost overnight.  

Liverpool is popular because they have a very compelling history and supporting them would not be viewed as bandwagon jumping because at the time they weren't winning very much in relation to Arsenal, United and Chelsea who dominated English soccer in the 00s.  A calculated yet justifiable glory hunt. 

Chelsea is popular here because they were the emerging London-based team with the better future compared to stale Arsenal (for those Chelsea fans who go back to the club's founding in 2003) and Pulisic (newish Chelsea supporters).  Plenty of cunts who frequently travel to London (West London, specifically) and name their message board handle after PJs chose Chelsea because of its convenient location.  They are basically City with better shopping and restaurants.  Easy to get to games from the US, will win plenty of trophies and don't have to deal with the riffraff elsewhere in London while doing it.  An extremely efficient glory hunt for the London tourist.

Tottenham is popular for all the reasons Bill Simmons summarized when he was interested in soccer for about 15 minutes in 2005 or so.

Arsenal is popular because they played a very attractive and cosmopolitan brand of football under Wenger and were the foil to United (again when most people originally selected their team).  They are now what Liverpool was (a team with a compelling history that will probably start winning trophies again at some point) and Liverpool is now what Arsenal was (the foil to the Yankees).  Accordingly, Liverpool and Arsenal continue to pick up new fans but for different reasons. 

Again, to summarize, Liverpool (Tottenham with history then, Klopp fanbois now), City (Huck), Tottenham (see Simmons article), Arsenal (Wenger fanbois then, Tottenham with history now), Chelsea (loathsome cunts and newish USMNT fans).

Part of the reason I like Chelsea was the Drogba CL run. That put them on the map before I was really paying attention to the PL every season.

I don't care what city they are in. I've never been to England. I guess you're probably right that some folks choose to support a London team because it's London - just like the Yankees and Lakers have a ton of international fans simply due to the cities they are in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked Chelsea secondary to growing up in Manchester and dealing with so many douchebags. I also prefer to avoid locations where I am consistently worried about getting stabbed by a douchebag, vomited on by a douchebag, solicited for drugs by a douchebag. End of the day it's a shit place with shitty fans.

 

disclaimer - I didn't grow up in Manchester.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alincoln said:

Exactly!  Such an easy jaunt from Savile Row over to Stamford Bridge.  TEB -> LCY -> Savile Row -> Stamford Bridge and back again.  Easy peasy 

You are unfortunately undercutting your credibility here, shirtmakers cluster on Jermyn St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why they are waiting until tomorrow to decide, but there is talk that the NLD could be postponed due to Arsenal being down to around a dozen outfield players.

AFCON + Injuries + COVID +

52928075-10402841-image-m-28_16421786116

 

The only reason why I am surprised on the waiting is that it seems pretty clear that Arsenal can't field a team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

Conor Gallagher can play.  i'd love for him to permanently move to Palace.  he's a great fit there, and they love him.  interesting to see what his future at Chelsea is.

 

Gallagher is a great player for Palace but I think that's his ceiling. I'd be surprised if he doesn't at least get a shot at Chelsea but I think he'll struggle and want to move to a place where he's the first name on the team sheet.

Helluva season for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Captain Ron said:

I'm not sure why they are waiting until tomorrow to decide, but there is talk that the NLD could be postponed due to Arsenal being down to around a dozen outfield players.

AFCON + Injuries + COVID +

52928075-10402841-image-m-28_16421786116

 

The only reason why I am surprised on the waiting is that it seems pretty clear that Arsenal can't field a team.

 


And there is no game. Postponed.

 

Not sure why they couldn’t use U-21 players.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...