Demitri_C Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said: Love this fim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleVilla Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 lol that Tony Adam's training video cracks me up everytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Since the Safe Standing thread is closed I'll post this here instead. Quote WEST BROM SEE PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE ‘SAFE STANDING’ TERRACE AT HAWTHORNS SNUFFED OUT BY GOVERNMENT West Brom have seen their proposal to introduce a ‘safe standing’ area at The Hawthorns next season turned down by the government. The Baggies had hoped to remove 3,600 of the existing seats in the Smethwick End of the stadium and replace them with ‘rail seats’, which can be locked in an upright position to allow fans to stand. The idea wasn’t necessarily to introduce extra seating, but to use rail seats as a means to safely manage an existing problem with “persistent standing” in the Smethwick End. This from the club’s official website: After lengthy research into the safe-standing option, [West Brom] had proposed to install “rail seating” across the Smethwick in the belief that it would be safer for fans in a section of the stadium where persistent standing is a problem. Research was presented by West Brom’s director of operations, Mark Miles, who visited Celtic and Hoffenheim to watch the same system being implemented on matchdays. However, the plan has today been rejected by Minister for Sport Tracey Crouch, who told the club that the government have no plans to deviate from their all-seater policy as regards football stadiums. Speaking to the Baggies’ website, Miles expressed his frustrations thus: I find the decision from the Minister of Sport both surprising and disappointing. It will certainly be disappointing for many, many supporters I have spoken to who were in favour of what we were proposing. I think the Minister has taken a short-sighted view and is preventing the club from creating a safer environment for supporters. The all-seater policy was developed over 25 years ago and football is a very different place now. The system we proposed is well-tested across Europe and has also worked successfully at Celtic, who are governed by different legislation than in England and Wales. Miles also confirmed that West Brom had asked to run a pilot scheme in order to gather feedback from fans, but that was also snubbed. While the decision looks to be fairly conclusive, the club have written back to the Sports Grounds Safety Authority to urge a review. Unfortunately for those who believe safe standing is a viable and even necessary option for the future of stadium football, the spectre of Hillsborough still looms far too large for those in charge to take the risk. http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/west_bromwich_albion/271004/west-brom-see-proposal-to-introduce-safe-standing-terrace-at-hawthorns-snuffed-out-by-government.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Probably for another thread...way out of touch with modern football, safe standing doesnt replace seating it replaces unsafe standing, i can even look past my cynicism of the likes of utd still charging full price and cramming in another 5k fans under some sort of "utd experience" offer to tourists The amount of seemingly small stupid tweaks they keep making to fixtures and games that completely shits all over fans but this one which a lot of people want and still those that dont are usually for reasons suggesting they dont understand what it is (baggies twitter feed replies has a couple of comments such as "i dont want it because i dont want to stand all game") Its getting close to daft now that it hasnt been accepted but then these are the same people that make rules like you arent allowed a beer in a corporate box during the game 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turvontour Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 24 minutes ago, villa4europe said: Probably for another thread...way out of touch with modern football, safe standing doesnt replace seating it replaces unsafe standing, i can even look past my cynicism of the likes of utd still charging full price and cramming in another 5k fans under some sort of "utd experience" offer to tourists The amount of seemingly small stupid tweaks they keep making to fixtures and games that completely shits all over fans but this one which a lot of people want and still those that dont are usually for reasons suggesting they dont understand what it is (baggies twitter feed replies has a couple of comments such as "i dont want it because i dont want to stand all game") Its getting close to daft now that it hasnt been accepted but then these are the same people that make rules like you arent allowed a beer in a corporate box during the game Surely the whole of the Smethwick End is standing all game anyway, so replacing seats with safe standing makes it much safer. Dont understand the comments re. Dont want to stand all game when they chose to stand there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) There would still be 23k other seats in the ground to choose from Theres comments such as i dont want to stand all game, i would vote against it because it would mean i would have to move ST, we should be encouraging more women and children to come to games and then the majority of negative comments seem to be we should focus on the pitch because that would bring more fans in I havent seen anyone give a good reason as to why it shouldnt happen, even the government response is we arent moving away from all seater, no reason as to why The sad reality is it needs the backing of tv companies to make it happen Edited April 9, 2018 by villa4europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 I think it needs a Secretary of State who is an actual football fan to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Shes a qualified FA coach and runs a girls team so to be fair to her shes probably the closest thing we'll ever get to someone football minded in the position, i think shes been to celtic and seen it all in action the hillsborough families and spirit of shankley are all involved (which i dont agree with) and they all think it works, ill lazily throw out the accusation that she enjoyed her 3 course meal met celtics owners a couple of ex players shook a lot of hands and then sat in a padded seat watching people stand up all game I want a reason why it was a no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 11 hours ago, villa4europe said: Shes a qualified FA coach and runs a girls team so to be fair to her shes probably the closest thing we'll ever get to someone football minded in the position, i think shes been to celtic and seen it all in action the hillsborough families and spirit of shankley are all involved (which i dont agree with) and they all think it works, ill lazily throw out the accusation that she enjoyed her 3 course meal met celtics owners a couple of ex players shook a lot of hands and then sat in a padded seat watching people stand up all game I want a reason why it was a no To expand on what I said, which wasn't very clear: Governments usually have the instinct to control, and to increase regulation. This is because governments get blamed when things go wrong. Nevertheless, laws and regulations do sometimes get liberalised. My assumption is that liberalisation normally occurs when one or more of the following three conditions are met: 1) The status quo is broken in some way, and the government is forced into action; 2) There are powerful and influential interests ('potential donors') lobbying, publicly or privately, for the rule change; or, 3) There is a member/are members of the government who are happy to expend political capital on fighting for the rule change, either because they believe in it or because it's so popular or both. I think conditions one and two aren't met (you made this point about condition 2 yourself when you said 'The sad reality is it needs the backing of tv companies to make it happen'). If this isn't going to change in the near future, and I can't see why it would, it leaves us with condition 3, which is the weakest of the three. Now I see Tracy Crouch's name is on the headlines of the stories about this, but I would be surprised if she was the one making the final decision. Since any meaningful adoption of safe standing would require a change in legislation, the idea needs a champion at Cabinet level, willing to argue that some of the government's precious legislative time should be spent on this issue, and it's here that I was making my point about Matt Hancock (who is, unless I'm missing something obvious, more of a rugby/cricket/horse racing guy), and whose professional interests seem to be more in the regulation of digital media than anything to do with sport. You could also make a further point, that the boss's boss also seems to have no interest in football or footballing issues, and that legislative time is at a premium right now. I might be talking complete bollocks here of course, but these are my presumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 10, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 10, 2018 The Sturridge loan is hilarious. Everyone who wasn't a West Brom fan knew that was a shit signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 23 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: The Sturridge loan is hilarious. Everyone who wasn't a West Brom fan knew that was a shit signing. Has he even played 5 games for them yet? Yes it really is a huge shock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 10, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 10, 2018 Just now, Demitri_C said: Has he even played 5 games for them yet? Yes it really is a huge shock He's played about 70 minutes IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Just now, Stevo985 said: He's played about 70 minutes IIRC Thats more than i thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 So good and bad news for Brom it appears that a lot of their players has relegation release clauses with set fees. Rondon for example is on a reported £16.2 m. On the one side they will not get as much as they could for their players, but on the other hand they might get some much needed money and get rid of players on inflated salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 If they have relegation release clauses then you would like to think the club was smart enough to put relegation wage clauses in too The rumours around villa was that players such as gabby, westwood, baker etc all got new deals in the final PL years to incorporate 20%+ wage cuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 16 minutes ago, villa4europe said: If they have relegation release clauses then you would like to think the club was smart enough to put relegation wage clauses in too The rumours around villa was that players such as gabby, westwood, baker etc all got new deals in the final PL years to incorporate 20%+ wage cuts Yeah I imagine they have. But still, just like with us (or even more so) their players will still be on vastly inflated wages. No idea how reliable this is but let's say it's ball park numbers Quote PLAYER (27) POS. BASE SALARY SIGNING BONUS USD ANNUAL SALARY ANNUAL SALARY WEEKLY SALARY Jonny Evans D £3,380,000 - $4,775,264 £3,380,000 £65,000 Gareth Barry M £3,120,000 - $4,407,936 £3,120,000 £60,000 Nacer Chadli M £3,120,000 - $4,407,936 £3,120,000 £60,000 Ben Foster GK £3,120,000 - $4,407,936 £3,120,000 £60,000 Jay Rodriguez F £3,120,000 - $4,407,936 £3,120,000 £60,000 Jose Salomon Rondon F £3,120,000 - $4,407,936 £3,120,000 £60,000 Claudio Yacob M £3,120,000 - $4,407,936 £3,120,000 £60,000 Kieran Gibbs D £2,860,000 - $4,040,608 £2,860,000 £55,000 Jake Livermore M £2,392,000 - $3,379,418 £2,392,000 £46,000 Chris Brunt M £2,340,000 - $3,305,952 £2,340,000 £45,000 Craig Dawson D £2,080,000 - $2,938,624 £2,080,000 £40,000 James Morrison M £2,080,000 - $2,938,624 £2,080,000 £40,000 Matt Phillips M £2,080,000 - $2,938,624 £2,080,000 £40,000 Gareth McAuley D £1,820,000 - $2,571,296 £1,820,000 £35,000 Allan-Romeo Nyom D £1,820,000 - $2,571,296 £1,820,000 £35,000 Oliver Burke F £1,560,000 - $2,203,968 £1,560,000 £30,000 James McClean M £1,560,000 - $2,203,968 £1,560,000 £30,000 Hal Robson-Kanu F £1,560,000 - $2,203,968 £1,560,000 £30,000 Boaz Myhill GK £1,352,000 - $1,910,106 £1,352,000 £26,000 Sam Field M £520,000 - $734,656 £520,000 £10,000 Jonathan Leko M £156,000 - $220,397 £156,000 £3,000 Ahmed Hegazy D £104,000 - $146,931 £104,000 £2,000 Alex Palmer GK £104,000 - $146,931 £104,000 £2,000 Kane Wilson D £104,000 - $146,931 £104,000 £2,000 http://www.spotrac.com/Premier League/west-bromwich-albion-f.c/payroll/ All of their parachute money will go towards covering these salaries unless they get rid of many of them. Barry and Evans the first to go I assume as Evans reportedly has a very low release clause and Barry will retire. At least they'll not have to carry Sturridge and Krychowiak next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 57 minutes ago, sne said: Yeah I imagine they have. But still, just like with us (or even more so) their players will still be on vastly inflated wages. No idea how reliable this is but let's say it's ball park numbers http://www.spotrac.com/Premier League/west-bromwich-albion-f.c/payroll/ All of their parachute money will go towards covering these salaries unless they get rid of many of them. Barry and Evans the first to go I assume as Evans reportedly has a very low release clause and Barry will retire. At least they'll not have to carry Sturridge and Krychowiak next season. Barring chadil rodriguez and Gibbs, the rest of their squad is shocking 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 2 hours ago, sne said: So good and bad news for Brom it appears that a lot of their players has relegation release clauses with set fees. Rondon for example is on a reported £16.2 m. On the one side they will not get as much as they could for their players, but on the other hand they might get some much needed money and get rid of players on inflated salaries. Surely a misplaced decimal point, and even then they would struggle to get that. He's utter shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Surely a misplaced decimal point, and even then they would struggle to get that. He's utter shite. He's been pretty handy every time I've seen him. It's not his fault he's surrounded by cloggers and was coached by Tony Pulis and Alan Pardew, yet he's made it work for the most part. One of their few players worth anything to even a moderately ambitious club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Barring chadil rodriguez and Gibbs, the rest of their squad is shocking Gibbs is a shocking player 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts