mcmaranello Posted May 7, 2006 Posted May 7, 2006 2005/06 Premiership Standings after 38 games 1 Chelsea 91 pts ::) 2 Man Utd 83 pts ;D 3 Liverpool 82 pts :-X 4 Arsenal 67 pts ;D
dbchoong Posted May 7, 2006 Posted May 7, 2006 Chelsea 38 91 - CL Man Utd 38 83 - CL Liverpool 38 82 - CL Qualifier Arsenal 38 67 - CL Qualifier Tottenham 38 65 - UEFA Blackburn 38 63 - UEFA Newcastle 38 58 - Intertoto ;D ;D ;D Bolton 38 56 - Suckers... ;D West Ham 38 55 Wigan 38 51 Everton 38 50 Fulham 38 48 Charlton 38 47 Middlesbrough 38 45 Man City 38 43 Aston Villa 38 42 Portsmouth 38 38 Birmingham 38 34 - Bye West Brom 38 30 - Bye Bye Sunderland 38 15 - Bye Bye Bye ;D
dude Posted May 8, 2006 Posted May 8, 2006 Wud have been good to finish 2nd, but 3rd and only 9 points behind Chelsea is not that bad a result. Now, we need to maintain the consistency for next season... Of course I am referring to Liverpool.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Spunky Posted May 8, 2006 Posted May 8, 2006 congrats to bolton, west ham and wigan for finishing above the midway line!! But with the top 4 getting regular UCL spots, and $$$, I guess the gap can only widen!!
silencer13 Posted May 8, 2006 Posted May 8, 2006 Great game and fantastic atmosphere at Highbury. Congrats to Arsenal for 4th spot. :) Hoping for a closer fight next year, hopefully ManU, Arsenal and Liverpool strenghten their squads and challenge Chelsea.
armoury Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 As an aside, have a look at this:- http://www.ave-it.net/feb02.jpg Ironic, that the Totts hold the record for the shortest top-flight season (in terms of games played), whilst Arsenal hold the record for the longest (70 games in 1979/80). I of course am biased, but what is the view of the non-North London supporters out there? Should the Totts be allowed to replay their game against West Ham, as they're now petitioning for? One article wryly observed that if a club was allowed to postpone a game if it had around 10 first-team players unavailable, Arsenal would not have played any games at all between January and mid-March (at one point Arsenal had NINE defenders unavailable, never mind nine first-team members, yet still reserves and kids were fielded -- should Arsenal ask for any of those games to be replayed now?).
dbchoong Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 It all depends on how the Spurs players got food poisoning. If it is proven they were delibrately sabotaged by a hotel staff who happens to be an Arsenal fan, then I think it is fair for Spurs to demand a replay. If it was just an unlucky incident (anyone can get food poisoning - even if they ate at home), then maybe not. Best solution is for Arsenal to beat Barcelona - then end of story... ;D
Spunky Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 it's not so easy! 1st they gotta engage some PI to investigate. Then with the evidence, they make a police report. then the police investigate. then if found to be true, the police file a charge in court. The court hearing may take months or years. Only when the person(s) is found guilty in court can they have a case for the replay. that will be a long long time! 2ndly, they agreed to take on the field on the last day. Such agreement is binding. The FA will not be so stupid as to create a bigger controvesy than what it is (if any) currently!! ;D
armoury Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 The other funny thing is Spertz talk as if they would have automatically beaten West Ham. Which is very disrespectful (notwithstanding Teddy Sh!ttingham's attempt to kelong) to West Ham. And even if they'd finished fourth (and Arsenal don't beat Barca next week), it only gets them into the 3rd qualifying round of the ECL, they still have to beat some other club to get into the ECL proper, or be dumped into the UEFA Cup -- which is exactly where they are now anyway. So save yourselves the aggro and be thankful for the extra week's break, especially in this World Cup year where -- surprise surprise! -- there are several Totts involved.
SiriuslyCold Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 I must admit the circumstances are suspicious enough; eat at a public buffet and only 10 people get food poisoning? and those 10 just happen to be spurs players? one or two, maybe even 3 could be a coincidence so, replay OK - they decide tomorrow... and play Friday ;)
armoury Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 It wasn't literally a public buffet, it was a buffet spread in a private function room eaten only by the Spertz contingent, prepared by the hotel's staff but in consultation with Spertz's nutritionist.
dbchoong Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I really wonder if it was the last day of the season and 1 point seperates Chelsea and ManUtd for the top of the league. One of the team gets food poisoning like in Spurs case. What would the FA's reaction be like? Or even more sensationally, 3/4 of the Brazilian team gets food poisoning a few hours before the final. What would FIFA do? ;D
Spunky Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I think the affected team just have to stand firm and refuse to go onto the pitch! Once u go, it means u accept the condition n the result shall stand!
dbchoong Posted May 11, 2006 Posted May 11, 2006 I think the affected team just have to stand firm and refuse to go onto the pitch! Once u go, it means u accept the condition n the result shall stand! But the opposing team can "demand" that the game must go on. In Spurs case, Jol said he was "coerced" by the officials to continue with the game.
Spunky Posted May 12, 2006 Posted May 12, 2006 well, it's really too bad for him! Of course, if the same players had gone to the hospital after the match and warded for whatever reasons, then he probably has a case. ;D
Recommended Posts