The9

I guess it'll also be a question whether we can wear the navy away shorts/socks against Sunderland, who have black shorts/socks with their home kit. I can see us breaking out some yellow shorts/socks as mentioned above. We at least know they exist as the away keeper kit is yellow.

I've been looking and I think we can actually wear either home or away without problems in every match this season - though QPR and Palace will be a little bit clashy. Though Prem regulations don't ask for it (though League Cup and FA Cup rules do), I'd be very surprised if we didn't wear some kind of alternate shorts and probably socks combinations with the appropriate kits this season to avoid general clashes. Palace are in red/blue stripes again next season with blue shorts and socks, bit tricky with all the red on the home and the blue on our away... I have no idea which kit Swansea will wear at St Mary's though, all white home, black/red halved away... probably the home kit as we have red socks this season. QPR have a black/red striped away and all white third so I think they could probably get away with all white to play us too, we could actually wear either kit up there despite both sides having a lot of white on the shirts.

I think it looks pretty decent - the white/yellow top with the grey shorts doesn't really work, but the t-hirt on it's own looks good, and the grey top with the grey shorts/socks combination looks good too. I think the main problem is that there's not quite enough grey on the white/yellow shirt and not enough white/yellow on the grey stuff to pull it all together, but the fit looks good. I'm surprised we don't have Veho and MUVI logos on the training kit though.

Zoltan Liptak Stumbled

Or you could wait and actually see it in person. No training kit is going to look good on a fat bloke.

Yeah, looks like the green with red for home, and yellow with black for the away. Will see if they have alternate versions with the away sponsor on the home GK kit and vice versa for opponent/opposing keeper/ref clashes or if they just go with different sponsors on the keeper kit to the outfielders (which I'm pretty sure is against Prem regulations). Hopefully they'll be on sale too (may not buy them, just like to have the option to), maybe the trim on the away kit is navy and they'll use the yellow keeper kit as alternate outfielder away shorts and socks too.

Oh and some other stripey efforts that came out recently. Chivas Guadalajara Red Star Belgrade Nautico Athletic Bilbao

Interesting to see that the new Newcastle home shirt (top left here) seems to be the same design as the rumoured shirt Gemmel mentioned a while back. Maybe someone got a glimpse of a Puma sample?

I noticed the use of Co-man there too.

Ah yeah, fair point. Though seeing as Brazil need a centre back...

And "Pochettino's Renwhiarmy"

Ok fine, in which case, it doesn't matter whether he lives in Chilworth or not either way.

Can someone repost the reasons why the Skates are not the "largest fan owned blah blah" please? Something something now that they are only 20(?)% fan contribution there are lots of other clubs with HNW "owners" which are bigger (eg Swansea)?

From the highlights, it looked like Reed could be stepping up to start more regularly, McQueen did pretty well without being spectacular, Sinclair and Mayuka were wasteful, Targett has a decent range of two-footed passing and hits a better cross than Shaw but doesn't run with the ball as much, Davis hit an incredible shot, and Gallagher looks fitter and more positive. Didn't get much chance to check out what our defending was like.

Pochettino chose to leave and didn't have to, stop trying to blame others.

Yeah, that seems viable on a daily basis...

Shame Southampton doesn't fly direct to Turin then.

I have a mate who refers to last season's manager as Pinocchio and the goalkeeper as Borat.

I would enjoy Juventus poaching Pochettino from Spurs quite a lot.

I think they'll mostly use him in rotation against lower half Prem sides. Will be interesting to see if he or Lambert get picked against Saints opening match, pretty confident both of them will be bit-part players in Liverpool's 60-game season but they'll still get regular outings due to the volume of fixtures. I suspect Lallana's ego might get a bit of a hammering next season.

The PFA specifically mentions they don't get involved in Player v Player situations, which is at least part of the issue here... Not sure what passes for "just cause" but in most cases FIFA's need to preserve contracts is the main driver, so it really does have to be "just cause".

There's also a bunch of FIFPro FAQ questions here, though nothing much specifically on "what a player needs to do to meet contractual requirements". http://www.fifpro.org/en/players/legal/frequently-asked-questions There's also the Andy Webster case, where he cancelled his contract with Hearts basically after Hearts deliberately didn't play him in order to force him to sign a new contract. Two points of interest here, the first that there is a "protected contract period" of 3 years from signing - which Webster was outside, but it is believed that he wouldn't have been able to terminate within the first 3 years, which of course Osvaldo is within - so he's not able to cancel his contract unilaterally as Webster has, not that there's any suggestion he would. The other point of interest is that (according to the legal document), "in the final weeks of June 2006, Hearts had rejected an offer of GBP 1.5 million from Southampton Football Club for the transfer of Andrew Webster, in the belief that Player’s market value was higher." http://www.fifpro.org/attachments/article/5281/Webster%20CAS%20ENG.pdf

Excerpt from a sports law blog on the subject: http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/termination-of-contract-of-employment.html "FIFA's regulations on the Status & Transfer of Players make it clear that the parties to a football contract must respect and observe such contract. Rule 13, in particular, identifies that parties must observe the maintenance of contractual stability. As FIFA’s Commentary of Article 13 states, “unilateral termination of a contract without just cause, especially during the so called protected period, is to be vehemently discouraged.” However, the principle of respect for the contract of employment is not an absolute one. Article 14 allows for the unilateral termination of the contract with ‘just cause’, as long as there is a valid reason. There is no standard definition of ‘just cause’ and the application of such principle depends on the merits and the particular circumstances of each case. As the FIFA Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players explains: “However, should the violation persist for a long time or should many violations be cumulated over a certain period of time, then it is most probable that the breach of contract has reached such a level that the party suffering the breach is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally.” Although in a non-football contract situation, the liable party may have to face, depending on the facts and the remedy sought, damages for breach of contract and/or specific remedies against them, in a football contract of employment, the party found to have breached such contract, may also have to face additional sporting sanctions, pursuant to Article 17 on the Status & Transfer of Players. Caution, therefore, must be exercised when one advises clients in relation to a possible termination of the contract of employment. Finally, the various obligatory terms set out in the relevant Regulations, and referred to above, are fundamental to FIFA’s regulatory system and ability to control and have jurisdiction over the contractual stability of such system. The failure of the contracting parties to follow and apply such obligatory provisions and to comply with these fundamental requirements means that the agreement, which the parties signed, has been breached. Consequently, such situation would force advocates, acting for either party, to argue that such breaches may allow parties to escape their contractual responsibilities and such situation, therefore, would wholly undermine FIFA’s regulatory regime."

Pretty sure the PFA controls what's regarded as reasonable within the parameters of football in England in their role as the players' union. As well as directing that players can't be fined more than 2 weeks' wages when they are fined, they also have guidance on what's required for players who are out of favour - though these are almost certainly restricted by specific contractual clauses. As Winston Bogarde proved at Chelsea, if he turns up to training as directed (and Koeman was clear he was to train on his own at Staplewood), there's nothing much the club can do. I seem to recall there are some details about what the minimum and maximum required is, might have got that from The Secret Footballer.

On the bright side, I knackered my ligaments in 2000 and scored 9 goals in a county level match about 6 weeks later, so you can bounce back. The tackle DID utterly sod my knee cartilage and I now have arthritis in it, but the ligaments are fine and only lack of inclination has ruined my pace.