Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jordan is a narcissistic c*nt.

He's also not very bright, although amazingly I've seen numerous claims to the contrary. I've never thought him in any way smart, but I've been living outside the UK ever since he started on talkSPORT so wondered if I might be missing something. To make that assessment, I've been monitoring for quite a while those clips that the station put out on social media to showcase what are presumably considered his more pertinent comments.

I'm glad to say I've been conclusively vindicated in my original view. His ability to construct any kind of reasoned argument is manifestly pitiable. However, even though being marginally more eloquent than the station's other pundits is really no kind of qualification, some people seem to regard him as well spoken, with an impressive vocabulary.

This notion is bollocks, as well, not least because when he tries to deploy what are big words by talkSPORT standards, he frequently misuses them. For instance, the last time I looked at one of those short videos of him making a point, he used 'patronage' as a verb. That's not indicative of someone who's articulate in any way (the word you were groping for ineffectually, Simon, was 'patronize', in the sense of being a regular customer). All this shows him up as someone who's trying desperately to look clever but is really an impostor, lacking any genuine intellectual prowess.

That's to say nothing of the fact that he's risibly proclaimed an expert in the off-field side of football when his credentials involve inept blundering to lead Crystal Palace into an insolvency event. Only in the British sports media could a demonstrable clown and weapons-grade **** like this be held up as a paragon of informed intelligence.
 
They've borrowed the money they've spent on transfers, an 800m credit facility so it's not technically their "own" money. With a further announcement from the Bank of England tomorrow interest rates are likely to rise again. This will be a Commercial loan and will attract significant interest.

Along with amortisation (fiddled in Chelsea's case), player wages, operating expenses and possible elimination from next season's Champions League they could find themselves falling foul of FFP.
Swiss Ramble on twitter said if they fail to get into The Champions League next season financially they will be in a lot of trouble.

No pressure for Potter then
 
For instance, the last time I looked at one of those short videos of him making a point, he used 'patronage' as a verb. That's not indicative of someone who's articulate in any way (the word you were groping for ineffectually, Simon, was 'patronize', in the sense of being a regular customer).
Patronise :-)
 
He's also not very bright, although amazingly I've seen numerous claims to the contrary. I've never thought him in any way smart, but I've been living outside the UK ever since he started on talkSPORT so wondered if I might be missing something. To make that assessment, I've been monitoring for quite a while those clips that the station put out on social media to showcase what are presumably considered his more pertinent comments.

I'm glad to say I've been conclusively vindicated in my original view. His ability to construct any kind of reasoned argument is manifestly pitiable. However, even though being marginally more eloquent than the station's other pundits is really no kind of qualification, some people seem to regard him as well spoken, with an impressive vocabulary.

This notion is bollocks, as well, not least because when he tries to deploy what are big words by talkSPORT standards, he frequently misuses them. For instance, the last time I looked at one of those short videos of him making a point, he used 'patronage' as a verb. That's not indicative of someone who's articulate in any way (the word you were groping for ineffectually, Simon, was 'patronize', in the sense of being a regular customer). All this shows him up as someone who's trying desperately to look clever but is really an impostor, lacking any genuine intellectual prowess.

That's to say nothing of the fact that he's risibly proclaimed an expert in the off-field side of football when his credentials involve inept blundering to lead Crystal Palace into an insolvency event. Only in the British sports media could a demonstrable clown and weapons-grade **** like this be held up as a paragon of informed intelligence.

I've said as much on here myself before, but not written it nearly as good as that. You're 100% right. He uses bigger words than the rest of the team and speaks in a manner as if to demonstrate knowledge on every subject. It's all bluster but people buy into it and look to him as some kind of bastion of intellect. He's as thick as Collymore, Mills, Murphy and co and that says something.

I don't listen to talksport much. I enjoy the breakfast show with Woods and McCoist, and I can actually take listening to Goldstein and Bent because as much as they can chat shit, they don't come across as if they're trying to pull the wool over everyone in quite the way Jordan does, can't stand him and no longer ever listen to anything he has to say.
 
I'm sure other fans will pissing themselves about us talking about transfer spending.
I think given how much we have been vilified for what we (Arab owned City) have spent, and given we are about 13th in the last 5 years net spend premier league, we have every right to discuss why US owned chelsea have not had anything like the same degree of scrutiny or criticism
 
I've said as much on here myself before, but not written it nearly as good as that. You're 100% right. He uses bigger words than the rest of the team and speaks in a manner as if to demonstrate knowledge on every subject. It's all bluster but people buy into it and look to him as some kind of bastion of intellect. He's as thick as Collymore, Mills, Murphy and co and that says something.

I don't listen to talksport much. I enjoy the breakfast show with Woods and McCoist, and I can actually take listening to Goldstein and Bent because as much as they can chat shit, they don't come across as if they're trying to pull the wool over everyone in quite the way Jordan does, can't stand him and no longer ever listen to anything he has to say.
Goldstein, you mean the gobby rag cockney ****?
 
They've borrowed the money they've spent on transfers, an 800m credit facility so it's not technically their "own" money. With a further announcement from the Bank of England tomorrow interest rates are likely to rise again. This will be a Commercial loan and will attract significant interest.

Along with amortisation (fiddled in Chelsea's case), player wages, operating expenses and possible elimination from next season's Champions League they could find themselves falling foul of FFP.
To be fair the amortisation isn't 'fiddled' - they spread the cost of transfer fees over a longer period of time because they've signed their players to longer contracts, eight and a half years in the case of Mudryk apparently. That's to their advantage in that they spread the 100 million or whatever over 8 years instead of 5, but the downside for them is that if the player is a flop they have to keep paying him 200 grand a week or whatever for 3 years longer than would be normal. So there are downsides as well as upsides to their approach, and they're probably quite fucked if they don't qualify for the Champions League as Swiss Ramble explained recently.
 
Swiss Ramble on twitter said if they fail to get into The Champions League next season financially they will be in a lot of trouble.

No pressure for Potter then

Hopefully they fail spectacularly and are led with a huge wage bill, unhappy players and no manager. Chav wankers.

Fucks me off they just spend what they like with impunity yet we can’t even find a left back, despite topping the Deloitte rich list. Why the fuck do we get so complacent and let all these rivals catch up. From the Centurions season on we should have had our or foot on these bastards’ throats and made it a one team league.
 
To be fair the amortisation isn't 'fiddled' - they spread the cost of transfer fees over a longer period of time because they've signed their players to longer contracts, eight and a half years in the case of Mudryk apparently. That's to their advantage in that they spread the 100 million or whatever over 8 years instead of 5, but the downside for them is that if the player is a flop they have to keep paying him 200 grand a week or whatever for 3 years longer than would be normal. So there are downsides as well as upsides to their approach, and they're probably quite fucked if they don't qualify for the Champions League as Swiss Ramble explained recently.
Haven't UEFA said they won't accept 8 year amoritisation?
 
Patronise :-)

That's the more common variant, I'll grant you, but I've never seen a reputable style guide say anything other than that both -ise and -ize suffixes are acceptable in British English. I tend to write for an international readership in my work, so prefer the option that works in both British and American English. :)
 
He's also not very bright, although amazingly I've seen numerous claims to the contrary. I've never thought him in any way smart, but I've been living outside the UK ever since he started on talkSPORT so wondered if I might be missing something. To make that assessment, I've been monitoring for quite a while those clips that the station put out on social media to showcase what are presumably considered his more pertinent comments.

I'm glad to say I've been conclusively vindicated in my original view. His ability to construct any kind of reasoned argument is manifestly pitiable. However, even though being marginally more eloquent than the station's other pundits is really no kind of qualification, some people seem to regard him as well spoken, with an impressive vocabulary.

This notion is bollocks, as well, not least because when he tries to deploy what are big words by talkSPORT standards, he frequently misuses them. For instance, the last time I looked at one of those short videos of him making a point, he used 'patronage' as a verb. That's not indicative of someone who's articulate in any way (the word you were groping for ineffectually, Simon, was 'patronize', in the sense of being a regular customer). All this shows him up as someone who's trying desperately to look clever but is really an impostor, lacking any genuine intellectual prowess.

That's to say nothing of the fact that he's risibly proclaimed an expert in the off-field side of football when his credentials involve inept blundering to lead Crystal Palace into an insolvency event. Only in the British sports media could a demonstrable clown and weapons-grade **** like this be held up as a paragon of informed intelligence.

"Demonstrable clown and weapons grade ****"............... comfortably the quote of the day
 
That's the more common variant, I'll grant you, but I've never seen a reputable style guide say anything other than that both -ise and -ize suffixes are acceptable in British English. I tend to write for an international readership in my work, so prefer the option that works in both British and American English. :)
Hate the creeping Americanisation of our language - as one or two posters might have noticed!
 
no idea. but I don't know why they could - if Chelsea want to lock themselves into a longer period of paying a player's wages, isn't that their look out?
Yes, but UEFA set the rules for FFP and how they treat amoritisation (even if the club treat it differently for their internal accounting purposes)
 
That's the more common variant, I'll grant you, but I've never seen a reputable style guide say anything other than that both -ise and -ize suffixes are acceptable in British English. I tend to write for an international readership in my work, so prefer the option that works in both British and American English. :)
Well that was a bit patronising! ;-)
 
Hate the creeping Americanisation of our language - as one or two posters might have noticed!

I tend to agree with you, and wouldn't limit it only to the language. It irritates me greatly, for instance, that we now need to have Proms in Britain when our kids leave school or we have Black Friday sales, in both cases just because Americans have them. I generally write in British English in my job unless we'd specifically addressing an American client. but the -ize suffix dates back in British English to the 15th century and was used by Shakespeare so I have a fairly clear conscience with that particular point even though I mostly use -ise in personal writing.

Sometimes I forget myself, though, and can mix up my forms or occasionally even use an Americanism. I remember a few years back on here when posting about the Adam Johnson trial and mentioning that he'd be "on the stand" later in the day. The poster Coleridge, whom I haven't seen on here for ages but would like to see return, quite rightly tore a strip off me for not referring to the witness box.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top