Jump to content
Melbourne Football


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by mattyh001

  1. Smurfs are down 4-0 against the welfare cheats with 15 to play. hahahahahahahahahaha.

    we're still a game clear of Adelaide, 2 games against the welfare cheats and have two games in hand (replayed derby and tomorrows game against the bullshits).  honestly believe the plate is firmly in our hands - comes down to sticking to strengths** and putting our chances away.

    ** that said, of course games are a thing of ebbs and flows; you adjust where forced to / required (eg red cards) **

  2. 3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

    This is the A-League(s) of course, where the unprecedented and the impossible are commonplace...

    Or, to put it in Aussie vernacular, "If the A-League(s) can possibly fuck it up, then they will."

    don't disagree, just hope people understand why it pisses me off.

    it truly fucks us over

    2 hours ago, malloy said:

    I feel like the decision to replay the gane with a 1 nil lead was probably chosen to avoid any questions surrounding any hint of favouritism towards City from the league (given how deep CFG's ties go these days with the board and its investors).

    as opposed to other clubs ....

    goes both ways. just think how we feel about Sydney teams ....


    edit:   after all, this is not a once a decade thing

  3. 28 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

    I'm guessing that this has occurred because there are, and were before the W-match, rules on substitutions, but before the Christmas Derby there probably were not rules covering the points that you mention concerning A-League matches- game into disrepute, causing a match to be abandoned, injury to players, due to a pitch invasion. Hence FA and APL made it up as they went along. 

    I feel that the tardiness (no pun) of FA and APL to decide what the "punishments" should be after the abandoned Christmas Derby tends to support my guess that there is or was no rule or set of rules to deal with such an event.

    certainly sounds like it is a possiblity.

    i just don't get how the severity of the points decision against Canberra means that Victory get off scot free regarding an immediate docking of points.  we are comparing what seems like an honest mistake regarding a 4th sub (which the referee endorsed too btw through allowing it to happen) against a complete and utter disgrace regarding Victory. 

    if nothing else, the Victory situation might not have had an immediate rule in place because it was so bad and so unprecedented.  if it is good enough to dock points against Canberra, then docking more points against Victory is par for the course

    of course, the APL have come across as a pack of arse hats multiple times this season so ......

    • Like 1
  4. not sure where to post this so will post here.

    can someone please explain how come Canberra lose the 3 points from their A League Womens game on the weekend for possibly an innocuous 4th sub in 90th min injury time, yet the tards aren't  forced to forfeit the Xmas derby for bringing the game into disrupt, causing a game to be abandon and injury to people on the field through the stupidity of their fans?


    edit: it just seems like complete and utter bullshit



    • Like 3
  5. 39 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

    The first one was never a red and that referee, as well as whoever was in the VAR, should never be allowed back into any sport. CCM lost the plot and will pay the price but more importantly the quality of the players continues to improve, the quality of the games continues to improve but the refereeing is going backwards.

    Thought the first red was within reason. It's not about if he did or didn't get the ball. It's about the recklessness of the challenge. Ultimately he slid in and tackled over the top of the ball. This can easily lead to serious injury, broken leg, etc.

    Could it have been a yellow, sure. That's up to the ref. Slide in like that and you're at the mercy of the ref 

    • Like 1
  6. 11 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

    I think that you'll find that FFA was making the assumption that CFG/Manchester City were going to overuse and therefore abuse a loophole in the loan player regulation(s) that allowed only a portion of the player's remuneration to be allocated to the A-League club. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that any club had been doing that before the Lampard Rule was introduced, nor any evidence to suggest that our new owners were going to do that either.

    FFA would definitely have realised that we might have a more ready supply of players available to be loaned to us, but I don't think there was any evidence that we were going to abuse the loan system.

    it's easy to say that now, but can you really blame the FFA from be pragmatic?


    20 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

    Those are normal loan deals and their full wages counted towards the cap, normal business. Unless marquee players of course.

    The Victory players mentioned weren’t marquee and 90% of their wage was paid outside the cap by their owners. That’s the loop which was close now, you play here and it will be accounted here.

    Its not the same.

    i think that proves the point if nothing else.  before what we did (which screwed the pooch), clubs could could get away with it.  are people really getting upset by this???

    • Like 1
  7. 37 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

    Sydney and Victory were doing that for years for example with Rogic and Trioisi. It was only when City started looking, both clubs felt threatened and formally complained to the FFA as CFG was going to take advantage of it even more.

    But those club didn’t know we were going to be strict with our budgets and it was going to mean very little.

    you do realise we signed both Ritchie de Laet and Ross McCormack under loan deals yeah?

    the loan structure still exists.  clubs just can't be douches about it.  for us, that means we can't abuse our connections to CFG.

  8. 1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

    We shot ourselves in the foot with Caceres. But Lampard was a deliberate FFA attack on City because other clubs had had players here on loan where only a fraction of their salary was paid locally - e.g. Hernandez with MV.

    I would say the issue with us, if there is one, would be our sponsorship by Etihad. But unless FA has some rule about that it shouldn't matter.

    think you are being a little harsh on the FFA tbh.  unlike other clubs (eh Hernandez at the tards), our CFG could easily use their money and position elsewhere to prop us up without the Lampard rule. 

    what's stopping them from loaning us three or four really good plays from NYC, etc., without that loan rule? it's not like other clubs in the league can be dodgy in that way

  9. fun fact; tonight is MacLaren's 100th league game for us if he starts / plays and will be against the team where he made his A League debut.

    coincidently, his first ever goal in the A League for Glory was actually against us in October 2013.

    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, haz said:

    Very much a puff piece from the Herald Scum.

    Nothing wrong with the Mooy transfer.

    Caceres' transfer was dodgy on the surface, but really it was just a domestic transfer fee (i'm sure CCM were thrilled that it was not a mutual termination). Either way, rules were put in place afterwards to prevent it happening again. 

    agreed thoroughly and about both transfers; nothing really in either of them and by the way we went about the Caceres transfer, we actually screwed ourselves out through things like the Lampard rule.

    that said, i'd be surprised if we weren't looked at - even if it is just some witch hunt

  11. 1 hour ago, neio said:

    Is this going to be a back 3, or are we shifting someone out to RB. Seems bloody odd when we have 2 RB on the bench of its the normal back 4 formation



    1 hour ago, Mr MO said:

    Surely 3 at the back.

    The girl just got absolutely opened up with 3 at the back today.

    IMO Nuno has been awesome at RB. Not quite as attacking as Talbot, but has virtually won everything, kept Arzani quiet and has been somewhat of an outlet 

    • Like 2
  12. 18 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

    It just says "April 2023" - no specific date.

    One tweeter suggests that they have been hit with a "limp lettuce leaf." 

    Banning 17 people (which FA admits is difficult to enforce) doesn't hurt the club one little bit. 

    550k in fines does hurt - particularly as they are apparently 6.7 mil in the red, plus (unless i have misread something else) no active bays and restrictions on ticket sales for the rest of the season.

    tbh, i do think they could and should have gone harder.  as per my previous posts regarding what i perceive as an overreaction towards our general active bay members, i can see a situation here where the APL is trying not to punish the general Victory member and fan (just to be clear, not stating that i agree with the APL approach as they should have gone harder)


    6 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

    Piss weak. Can't believe they don't get docked points 


    3 minutes ago, citypool said:

    Why is everyone saying docking points? They are already at the bottom and we don’t even have relegation lol 

    when i first heard and read about, i was the same about the lack of loss of points (and still am).  i still cant believe they are replaying the game.

    only thing i can think (again not that i necessarily agree) is that much in the way points deductions means the Victory season is over.  they are on 10 points with 15.5 games to play.  any points deduction virtually kills them making finals.  which is bullshit logic but it is APL we are talking about - chance to get a "big" team into finals and of course they will go for it.

  13. happy enough with the general sanctions, but restarting the game from the 20th minute (or there abouts) is a fucking disgrace.  storming the ground, assaulting players / match officials / camera staff, causing the game to be abandoned ; what the fuck else has to be done to forfeit a game.  total bullshit.

    btw - we were set to play the nomads on the 22nd April as a home away from home game.  do they get financial compensated due to the reschedule? again total bullshit


    edit: might have misread the date with all the 22s running around.  has the date been announced? my bad if so.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...