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!

     

Barclays Premier League- 2017/18 Season Thread


Ja  Rhule

Recommended Posts

Manchester United looks very good.  Extremely physical with now pace upfront but their D is still a suspect.  Manchester City looks lost...  horrible passing game and they get absolutely bullied by big physical United players.  City need to control midfield area better, they lose ball way to easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ARSEN said:

Manchester United looks very good.  Extremely physical with now pace upfront but their D is still a suspect.  Manchester City looks lost...  horrible passing game and they get absolutely bullied by big physical United players.  City need to control midfield area better, they lose ball way to easy.

United did play well last night. With Micky running things in the middle along with Rashford and Lukaku providing a little more pace, I'm really looking forward to this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in PK's, I'm glad United was still able to get the win. I will say that, none of the high profiler's showed up today. If I had to pick the best 11 for today it would have been Rashford, Martial, Pereira, McTominay, Lingard, Carrick, Blind, Jones, Bailly, Fosu-Mensah, and De Gea. That's not exactly ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MillionDollarCam said:

Even in PK's, I'm glad United was still able to get the win. I will say that, none of the high profiler's showed up today. If I had to pick the best 11 for today it would have been Rashford, Martial, Pereira, McTominay, Lingard, Carrick, Blind, Jones, Bailly, Fosu-Mensah, and De Gea. That's not exactly ideal.

One thing that I learned from preseason is it means nothing.  When real season starts then we can evaluate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little preseason match between Tottenham and Roma starts in 5 minutes in NY. 

I'd like to see Wimmer play instead of Carter-Vickers but it's preseason and I get it. 

Yeah it's the International Champions Cup...still preseason nonetheless lol.

COYS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, djp14 said:

Very similar to what FOX has for the Bundesliga.  I use to be envious of you guys because you did not have to pay for the extra games.  Now your situation is worse.  You will still have more coverage as FOX does not use all their channels like NBC so sometimes it is four games a week not one but Bayern and Dortmund are both always on.  This three games a year per team thing would suck.  I still pay for it because I like the whole league but if I only wanted to watch Bayern and had to pay the whole thing for three games I would be pissed.

Another way yours is worse is you still have to pay for the other channels to get the other games.  With FOX every game comes through whether it is on regular TV or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...