Page 3 of 3

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:31 am
by Slim
Quick game of spot the difference.

Beckham--Scholes--Keane--Giggs

or

Valencia--Carrick--Fletcher--Nani


Surely they can't be surprised?

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:35 am
by CityGer
I said in the thread the other day that with their current midfield they are going to struggle. It's the worst Rag midfield of the last decade. If baconface doesn't strengthen then it's a sure sign that he has lost it completely.

Just sent a text to a rag mate of mine...Burnely 1 - 0 Rags...European champions 0 - 1 City....signs of times son, sign of the times. He's yet to reply.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:44 am
by Ted Hughes
Slim wrote:Quick game of spot the difference.

Beckham--Scholes--Keane--Giggs

or

Valencia--Carrick--Fletcher--Nani


Surely they can't be surprised?



But they've had the media declaring them big favourites for the league! Would they say the sameif that squad was at any other club? It's like any 11 they put out just has to turn up & the league is theirs because the great sorcerer says so & because opposing players believe it; it happens! Time people played against the actual 11 that's on the pitch rather than the myth.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:22 am
by Fish111
Baconface made six changes to the team he put out at the weekend, he must now realise that his squad is shit and cannot cope with rotation anymore. He cannot do without Tranaldo (68 goals in 2 seasons) & the non-stop running and harrassment that Tevez provided.
He will have to buy big before the window closes, fortunately they are £700M in debt and the yanks in charge will not/cannot release the money to buy someone like Ribery anymore.
The defence is injured for a few weeks, the midfield with Scholes & Giggs are pensioners and the front line with Rooney, who is just a thug that happens to be quite good at football, Owen is yesterdays man and berbatov hasn't got any fight in his belly. With a front line like that where are the amount of goals needed to win the league going to come from???

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:37 am
by Ted Hughes
Fish111 wrote:Baconface made six changes to the team he put out at the weekend, he must now realise that his squad is shit and cannot cope with rotation anymore. He cannot do without Tranaldo (68 goals in 2 seasons) & the non-stop running and harrassment that Tevez provided.
He will have to buy big before the window closes, fortunately they are £700M in debt and the yanks in charge will not/cannot release the money to buy someone like Ribery anymore.
The defence is injured for a few weeks, the midfield with Scholes & Giggs are pensioners and the front line with Rooney, who is just a thug that happens to be quite good at football, Owen is yesterdays man and berbatov hasn't got any fight in his belly. With a front line like that where are the amount of goals needed to win the league going to come from???


Imo the yanks HAVE to find the money. If they go past the deadline without signing anyone, they're risking a season of failure on a scale not seen since the Mal Donaghy, Ralph Milne "Ferguson out" days. The fans will kick off & because of our potential & the secret obsession they have with us, the whole thing could come tumbling down. They need new toys, fast, or the old ones will come out of the pram.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:42 am
by Dronny
As fuckin delightful as it is to see the scum get whupassed by Burnley I don't think that after two games into the new season they are to be written off. Oh lordy, lordy please prove me wrong but I'm happy to save my crowing when we have finished above the wankers at the end of the season....maybe sooner if its nailed on!!

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:17 am
by irblinx
Wasn't really interested in this last night as City were playing but reading through this morning I was surprised to see that Jensen was playing and they won, he is without doubt the worst keeper I've seen at this level and is comical when it comes to dealing with crosses. The scum must have played bloody badly not to have scored past him

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:29 am
by Vhero
irblinx wrote:Wasn't really interested in this last night as City were playing but reading through this morning I was surprised to see that Jensen was playing and they won, he is without doubt the worst keeper I've seen at this level and is comical when it comes to dealing with crosses. The scum must have played bloody badly not to have scored past him

He saved a penalty from Michael "the next Ronaldo" Carrick though so he can't be that bad.. :p

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:36 am
by Esky
Dronny wrote:As fuckin delightful as it is to see the scum get whupassed by Burnley I don't think that after two games into the new season they are to be written off. Oh lordy, lordy please prove me wrong but I'm happy to save my crowing when we have finished above the wankers at the end of the season....maybe sooner if its nailed on!!


Yep. Haven't been following football for half the time people on here have (bout 15 years now) but I've learnt in that time never to write them off.

Starting against two of the three promoted teams isn't necessarily an easy task either. New sides have a surprise factor to them and all the players have points to prove.

That said, I hope we twat Wolves on Saturday. Can't wait for it.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:38 am
by irblinx
Vhero wrote:
irblinx wrote:Wasn't really interested in this last night as City were playing but reading through this morning I was surprised to see that Jensen was playing and they won, he is without doubt the worst keeper I've seen at this level and is comical when it comes to dealing with crosses. The scum must have played bloody badly not to have scored past him

He saved a penalty from Michael "the next Ronaldo" Carrick though so he can't be that bad.. :p


oh believe me HE IS THAT BAD

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:43 am
by Piccsnumberoneblue
Burnley haven't got a terrace behind the goal have they?
Its been seated everytime I've been there.
They had a terrace running down one side (a la Kippax) which ran round the far end, but that was replaced with two new stands ages ago now.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:20 pm
by 9secondlegend
Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Burnley haven't got a terrace behind the goal have they?
Its been seated everytime I've been there.
They had a terrace running down one side (a la Kippax) which ran round the far end, but that was replaced with two new stands ages ago now.

thats what i thought but on match of the day last night the united fans were definitly all stood on a terrace

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:21 pm
by 9secondlegend
haha and how does that work? when i type united it comes astrixed out automaticaly!

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:25 pm
by Slim
9secondlegend wrote:haha and how does that work? when i type U***d it comes astrixed out automaticaly!


It's the only swear word on this site, cunt fuck shit....see?

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:29 pm
by mr_nool
sheffield united
west ham united
leeds united
scum united



it's a kind of magic!

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:30 pm
by Florida Blue
mr_nool wrote:sheffield U***d
west ham U***d
leeds U***d
scum U***d



it's a kind of magic!


United States.... great I can take the piss out of myself all the time now <shrug>

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:55 pm
by Piccsnumberoneblue
>>>The David Fishwick Stand (West) Stand
Constructed: 1969

Capacity: 4,126 (seated)

The David Fishwick Stand[2] (formerly the Cricket Field Stand, named so because there is a cricket field behind it) has been present at Turf Moor since 1969. It was originally open to the home supporters of Burnley F.C. but since the 1996/97 season has been used for away fans only, the 2009/10 season will see the stand house both home and away supporters for the first time.[3] The stand is to be replaced by a new 2,500-seater state-of-the-art stand.


Not standing I'm pretty sure.
Perhaps an optical illusion.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:38 pm
by Florida Blue
Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:>>>The David Fishwick Stand (West) Stand
Constructed: 1969

Capacity: 4,126 (seated)

The David Fishwick Stand[2] (formerly the Cricket Field Stand, named so because there is a cricket field behind it) has been present at Turf Moor since 1969. It was originally open to the home supporters of Burnley F.C. but since the 1996/97 season has been used for away fans only, the 2009/10 season will see the stand house both home and away supporters for the first time.[3] The stand is to be replaced by a new 2,500-seater state-of-the-art stand.


Not standing I'm pretty sure.
Perhaps an optical illusion
.


Perhaps they are all too fat from eating their prawn sandwiches.

Re: Burnley

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:47 pm
by Dameerto
Most of their squad is almost as old as the manager - Im convinced they're just hanging on 'til he calls time himself - if we can do our part to inflict a bad season on them with a double over them we could be waving good bye to quite a few of them by May.