Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2015/16 UEFA Champions League


Goondal

Recommended Posts

I did not see a thread, which is surprising.  First legs of the Ro16 are completed.  Gotta say, not happy with the final half hour the other day.  Should have left with a victory and two away goals.  Still the favorite returning to Munich but the injuries on the back line are definitely effecting things.  Kimmich is not good enough at all to win the CL with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the oher match-ups, I found it interesting to see that Atletico failed to get an away goal again Einhoven, that would crack me up.

The other two teams that are in danger heading home are Zenit and Chelsea, each down a goal to Benfica and PSG respectively (although Chelsea has an away goal)

Barca, Real, and City all lead by multiple goals while Wolfsburg has a one goal lead and three away goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting statistic.  In three of the past four years Bayern, Barca, and Real were in the semi-finals.  The exception was two years ago when Bayern and Real were both in it.  Those teams have never met in the finals though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pantherphan96 said:

Can't believe Juve didn't have a clause in Coman's loan contract that made sure he couldn't face his parent club. His goal was the nail in the coffin.

Chelsea had that a few years back with Atletico if I recall correctly.  I think UEFA let the guy play anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goondal said:

Is it just me or does Real play Bundesliga teams a lot?

At least four years in a row, so it's not you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...