Page 2 of 2

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:27 pm
by theadore
I thought he signed a new contract just before he moved? Whether it wasn't long enough or not I can't really remember.

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:44 pm
by Rover the Top
He signed a one-year extension about 6 months before the move. Can't really check at the moment, but I think both Friedel and John Williams said his reason for moving was because Villa offered him a two-year deal and Rovers didn't want to commit that far ahead. Of course, that may be a cover up. But if true, it's a terrible misjudgement - he was crucial to the team and we should have tried all we could to keep him.

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:07 pm
by Rovertheseas
This may be something I've dreamed up, but there were also rumours about him not getting on with Ince at the time, right?

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:33 pm
by theadore
Again - not that I remember, although that is no indicator to what actually happened.

http://www.football.co.uk/blackburn_rov ... 8264.shtml

Not quite the reliable link I was hoping for but this is pretty much how I remember it. I do remember there being talk of a longer contract off from Villa, but what I don't remember was that being a factor or request when Friedel signed his one year deal.

Either way its largely irrelevant... as Gibbon points out you won't find many rovers fans today who think we got the good end of the deal. All I'm arguing is that there were a number of factors not just his age that made the deal far from an obvious disaster at the time.

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:35 pm
by Rover the Top
Rovertheseas wrote:This may be something I've dreamed up, but there were also rumours about him not getting on with Ince at the time, right?
There were rumours, but they didn't seem to be based on anything other than they were at Liverpool at the same time for a while. And Villa made their first approach before Ince was appointed anyway.

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:52 pm
by Gibbon
The way I remember it was that Villa offered him a lot of money at a time when his soccer academy was in deep financial trouble. I'm sure we could and should have done more to keep him though. Even at the time I couldn't believe we were letting him go.

I reckon he was worth at least 10 points a season to us.

Re: europa league

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:22 pm
by Rover Ryan
Rover the Top wrote:He signed a one-year extension about 6 months before the move. Can't really check at the moment, but I think both Friedel and John Williams said his reason for moving was because Villa offered him a two-year deal and Rovers didn't want to commit that far ahead. Of course, that may be a cover up. But if true, it's a terrible misjudgement - he was crucial to the team and we should have tried all we could to keep him.
You mean the same John Williams that Venky's hating 'fans?' talk about as if he is some folk law Legend and the sun shines out of his arse John Williams!? :o

Re: europa league

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:26 pm
by theadore
So... done my tidying for the impending visit of the inlaws... thought I'd flick on the Chelsea match... little did I know that Inter v Spurs was the one to watch.

:shock:

Win or lose this is a cracking result for Inter.

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:25 am
by Hudson
4-1 to inter in the end, Spurs go through on away goals :shock:

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:24 am
by Rover the Top
It's always seemed dodgy to me that away goals in extra time still count. If the away team get a goal, then the home team need 2, or else they're out. If the home team get one, then the away team still only need one to go through.

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:54 pm
by Hudson
I've always disliked the away goals rule, it seems a rather random way of seeing which is the better team over 2 legs. Like if the teams draw 0-0 then 1-1, then both teams should be equal, i don't see why depending on what ground you score at should make any difference to the result.

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:12 pm
by theadore
It wasn't introduced to be fair... it was supposed to stop away teams turning up with 10 defenders and boring the crap out of everyone.

I kind of agree with ditching it after 180 minutes though... if nothing else it gives 1 team an extra 30 minutes of 'power play'

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:37 pm
by mrblackbat
theadore wrote:It wasn't introduced to be fair... it was supposed to stop away teams turning up with 10 defenders and boring the crap out of everyone.

I kind of agree with ditching it after 180 minutes though... if nothing else it gives 1 team an extra 30 minutes of 'power play'
What about with a minute of normal play remaining?

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:19 pm
by theadore
what about it?

Maybe instead of away goals we should just invite the owners of each club into the centre circle for a money fight?

Re: europa league

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:33 pm
by -BARON-23-
Away goals in general is a crap rule, it takes a lot of fun out of the ties! That Inter - Spurs game was great but when Spurs scored in extra time it just killed the game when it could have been so much more exciting had away goals not counted.