BBC Blog Network

User Profile

kris

Listed below are comments made by kris between Wednesday, 13th May 2009 and Wednesday, 14th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

England cannot replace Rooney 10:14am on 14 Oct 2009 Let's be honest we have the best set of attacking midfielders in the world with Gerrard, Lampard, Walcott, Joe Cole, SWP etc... If Rooney was injured in the world cup the very simple fact is that we could not win the world cup with the current formation. Rooney is integral to a formation that remotely resembles a 4-4-2. If he were injured there would be a very strong case to switch to a Barcelona or Arsenal kind of 4-3-3. Barry playing the Toure holding role, Gerrard and Lampard playing the Xavi and Inestia roles in central midfield, Walcott playing the Messi wide right role, Joe Cole playing the Henry role wide left and one of Calton Cole or Darren Bent playing the Ibrahimovic role.
Ok we'd rather go for the tried and tested with Rooney in the 4-4-2 but when we're simply looking at a team on paper that side could win the world cup.
The ramifications of the Singapore race fixing verdict 1:44pm on 05 Oct 2009 I think the main person I've lost respect for in this whole scandal is Martin Brundle. His attacking of Piquet is totally incorrect as it is pretty dam clear to everyone who doesn't wish to defend Briatore that Piquet is the innocent party in all of this. In Piquet we have a driver who was under immense pressure in F1 to come in and perform like Luis Hamilton had done, after all the two were neck and neck in the feeder series. The fact his dad was such a good driver also obviously adds to the pressure. Yet it became instantly apparent that Piquet was not going to become the instant success Hamilton or his father was. This meant that Renualt were frequently talking about getting rid of him and a driver, in that situation, was always going to follow team orders. It's all well and good Brundle saying 'he's a man, he makes his own decisions', maybe in Brundle's day, but not now. Can anyone genuinely say they believe Piquet would have kept his seat for so long if he had of gone against Briatori? No, because if Piquet hadn't of done it he'd have been out at the end of the season for not following team order's. The guy is pretty much innocent and I really hope someone else gives him a drive.
Carl Baker and Stockport - an example to us all 3:25pm on 14 Sep 2009 A great article and a truly touching story that was well worth bringing into public view with this blog. I'd only say, in response to one particular poster, that there are a lot of premier league clubs with fans that would behave exactly like those of Stockport, should a similar case happen to one of their own players. To simply use this story as a way of attacking Arsenal fans for being rightly upset with the actions of Adebayor isn't really on.
Life in the old dogs yet 4:26pm on 30 Aug 2009 'undisputed in reality' - were you watching the same penalty decision as everyone else? Your picture shows exactly what happened. Rooney dived and made contact with Almunia when his body was already 90% of the way to the floor. The only difference between this incident and that which Eduardo has widely been attacked for was that Rooney was lucky enough that his dive made contact with Almunia's arms. Also well glossed over our own stone-wall penalty. The fact that Arshavin scored only seconds after Carrick both took him out and handballed it does not make the issue irrelevant because we've all seen enough football to know a referee thinks twice before giving two penalties in one game.
Broad's Ashes spot no longer secure 8:49pm on 03 Aug 2009 I think this article is really harsh on Broad. It's like your forgetting why he's in the team in the first place, which is because he has been very good with both bat and ball. Just because Dominic Cork says that Broad's runs should only be regarded as a bonus doesn't mean that's the right way to look at it. Cricket's a team game and Broad has, in reality, been an all-rounder for England over the last year or so - contributing in both ways. Also let's be perfectly honest, if we're going to drop a young cricketer just because their out of form we should be dropping Ravi Bopara, whose average in this series is lower than broad's. Surely the main debate should be whether we put in Rob Key to bat at three instead of Bopara, rather than if we put in a dodgy Harmison instead of Broad or worse a bowler like Sidebottom who, like Onions and Anderson, won't exactly do anything if the ball isn't swinging - it would be almost akin to playing three spinners on a non-spinner's wicket.
Goldman: Recession? What recession? 08:58am on 15 Jul 2009 Can people not accept a simple and obvious concept? When the banks do well capitalism itself succeeds meaning there is more credit available, meaning business increases, meaning there are more jobs, meaning existing jobs are better paid, meaning everyone benefits. Whether you disagree with capitalism or not this is the way 20th and 21st century capitalism has worked. So is it not fair to congratulate this bank on turning itself around, where so many have failed? In addition is it not worth noting that the banking disaster can be attributed to the failings of a select few american banks bringing down most of the industry. Almost all banks had to take out loans because of this, but Goldman Sachs I hardly remember being the worst. Also with regard to the big bonuses and wage packets is it not possible to ask this question - when such large profits have been made why is it people have been paid so little as opposed to so much?
Has Arsenal borrowed too much? 7:31pm on 14 Jul 2009 Now the last thing that I want to do is suggest that the BBC's business editor doesn't understand his economics but there does seem to be two aspects in this article that are completely ignored. Firstly, that a right's issue would be easy and right. There is a bit of an assertion, and there has been on a lot of websites and forums regarding the right's issue, that it is simply like taking £150 million or so of free money. Please correct me if Im wrong but a right's issue allows current share holders to either reject or exercise the ability to buy newly released shares at a set price. Thus three outcomes would occur. Firstly capital would be raised via the purchasing of the new shares. Secondly the % owned of the company buy those who bought the new shares would rise. Thirdly because there were new shares the value of the current shares would fall because there are more available so each would be worth less. Now, I'm no business expert, but surely this is unfair on the minority shareholder. It would be great for people like Uzmanov and Kronke who want to increase their shareholdings anyway but surely for those Arsenal fans, and there are hundreds and thousands of them, who own only a few shares (remember they are worth £10,000+ each) they would be losing their own money. I'm sorry but i refuse to ever vindicate my own football club literally taking someone's money - especially when these people probably aren't that well off. I think we seem so fixated by how great £150 million would be that we ignore the underlying morals of the issue - especially when it is taken into account most of these people and those like Lady Nina (who we believe to be looking to get out) would want to sell, pushing either Uzmanov or Kronke over the 30% that would trigger a takeover bid.
Again Im no economics expert but I just think the rights issue is fundamentally unfair and would result in either Uzmanov or Kronke taking full ownership of the club?
Secondly is it not obvious that the conclusions of the investment bank Lazard Brothers are either assumed or wrong?
In point one) I agree there are clauses written into contracts saying players get paid % more per year but do we actually have proof that wages will increase 'as a result of players being compensated for tax changes'. Is this a clause written into contracts or simply an assumption that players will want more money because of the new 50% tax rate? In addition this point fails to take into account players like Adebayor, who get paid huge amounts and will leave.
In point three) What point does this point even make? Your business editor - that should be a positive point. Arsenal sells out for all their matches and, as Glazdis has recently said, the demand is such for Arsenal tickets that he could have easily raised all the prices. Not a single ticket went on general sale two seasons ago and last year it only happened for Carling Cup games. Are you saying we should lower prices despite the fact fans like myself still can't go and see most games due to such high demand?
In point 4) That point is entirely irrelevant this season as we've just seen Manchester United spend only £21 million and receive £80 million - what does that do to the averages? Surely, again, this should be seen as a positive point that we have kept up without spending so much money we must sell our best player?

Essentially would you not agree that this document is making similar points to that which Rothschild makes. In point one Rothschild would note this and expect wages to be reduced, in point one Lazard Brothers notes the rising wages and believes capital must be produced to counter it. In point three Lazard Brothers sees how much fans are spending on tickets and thinks how fans should pay less, Rothschild sees this and thinks how brilliant it is that the club can charge such high amounts yet still sell out the stadium. In point 4 Rothschilds sees how effectively Wenger has managed his budget and how the club can be run well with this budget. Lazard Brothers sees this and thinks how much more could be achieved with a bigger budget. Ultimately therefore its which one as a fan you prefer. Rothschilds represents Glazdis the American capitalist observing and wanting the continuation of self-sustainability. Lazard Brothers represents Uzmanov the person who thinks in terms of immediate success and potential disregarding what the future may hold. Ultimately we all love Lazard Brother's and Uzmanov now, but should we look into the future we must accept that Glazdis and Rothschild's stratergy is the right one, especially with Wenger at the helm.
(P.S. I make a lot of points here but i'd love a few of them cleared up!)
Gomes sets sights on World Cup 11:28am on 13 Jul 2009 You state that Gomez 'has the talent, dedication and character to be a top class goalkeeper'. If Gomez has that ability then so do 10,000 other goalkeepers...
Is it not true that Gomez was the single reason that Spurs were in the relegation zone at the start of the season? Is it not true that Gomez was the reason Spurs sacked their goalkeeping coach in November? But then again, your article does stand up in the context of Brazilian goalkeepers because who is Brazil's third choice goalkeeper at the moment? The answer a bloke called Renan who isn't even first choice goalkeeper at Valencia because he's behind, you've guessed it, César Sánchez. If you don't remember him he's the guy Spurs signed in the summer of 2008 and released in January 2009, with Harry Redknapp stating due to a mixture of injury and Gomez's pathetic performances 'We need another good goalkeeper and if I'd had confidence in the Spanish keeper [Cesar Sanchez] then I would've played him'. Ouch. Surely the point in your article shouldn't be about how wonderful and what a fairy tale Gomez is but how, with Júlio César's exception, Brazil are incapable of producing any half decent goalkeepers.
Getting away with it 11:11am on 13 Jul 2009 The great pity about all this is that it was a fantastic sporting finish that would have attracted a lot of people to test cricket - only most people either didn't realise it was going on or found out after the highlights on channel 5 had finished. It's really disappointing that the ECB has sold out to sky and cricket fans or potential cricket fans or indeed the same people that were so taken by the ashes in 2005 can't actually watch what's going on. I respect the BBC's coverage but ultimately its not the same as watching it live. I've been watching the highlights all week but the really great thing about test cricket is the fact that there was 69 balls that Monty and Anderson had to survive together - not the five or so I saw on T.V! People talk above about how easy it is for Wales to fill a ground for an ashes match, keep the coverage on sky for a few years and even that will be an achievement.
F1 battle lines are drawn 5:29pm on 13 May 2009 What i simply can't understand is why the most popular sports such as football and f1 are run by such incompetent people. I wonder who'd be against me if i said that figures such as Blatter, Mosley, Ecclestone and Platini were all axed from world sport to put power in the hands of a general body composed of members from teams? Frankly the four men i've mentioned above are idiots and seem to strive consistently to destroy the sports they are supposed to represent. Sport is effectively governed by hated monarchs and teams are beginning to rise up just as whole nations once did. As far as i'm concerned these men are all digging their own graves.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

kris