Barclays Premier League Season 2010/2011


  

334 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will take the title this year?

    • Arsenal
      17
    • Aston Villa
      2
    • Birmingham
      0
    • Blackburn
      0
    • Blackpool
      4
    • Chelsea
      33
    • Everton
      3
    • Fulham
      0
    • Liverpool
      7
    • Manchester City
      0
    • Manchester United
      57
    • Newcastle
      1
    • Stoke
      0
    • Sunderland
      1
    • Tottenham
      4
    • West Bromwich
      0
    • West Ham
      0
    • Wigan
      1
    • Wolverhampton
      0
  2. 2. Who's getting relegated?

    • Arsenal
      5
    • Aston Villa
      1
    • Birmingham
      2
    • Blackburn
      3
    • Blackpool
      39
    • Chelsea
      5
    • Everton
      4
    • Fulham
      6
    • Liverpool
      15
    • Manchester City
      2
    • Manchester United
      8
    • Newcastle
      15
    • Stoke
      15
    • Sunderland
      9
    • Tottenham
      1
    • West Bromwich
      50
    • West Ham
      45
    • Wigan
      52
    • Wolverhampton
      57
  3. 3. Who will take the scoring title?

    • Drogba (Chelsea)
      34
    • Rooney (Manchester United)
      18
    • Bent (Sunderland)
      1
    • Tevez (Manchester City)
      8
    • Lampard (Chelsea)
      2
    • Dafoe (Tottenham)
      4
    • Torres (Liverpool)
      12
    • Fabregas (Arsenal)
      3
    • Adebayor (Manchester City)
      1
    • Agbonlahor (Aston Villa)
      1
    • Saha (Everton)
      1
    • Berbatov (Manchester United)
      25
    • Malouda (Chelsea)
      1
    • Anelka (Chelsea)
      0
    • Bellamy (Manchester City)
      0
    • Carew (Aston Villa)
      1
    • Carlton Cole (West Ham)
      0
    • Arshavin (Arsenal)
      2
    • Jerome (Birmingham)
      1
    • Other!
      14


Recommended Posts

Tom Hicks has vowed to fight the ?300m sale of Liverpool in the High Court.

The Reds board agreed the deal with New England Sports Ventures but co-owners Hicks and George Gillett claim to have sacked two directors to halt the sale. However, chairman Martin Broughton has stated that the American duo do not have the power to change the board. Both parties are now set for a legal dispute after Hicks told BBC Radio 5 live's Brian Alexander he intended to pursue the matter through the courts. The Liverpool board consisting of Broughton, managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre outvoted Hicks and Gillett in agreeing the sale.

Full Story: BBC News

would they just **** off already....

not a 'Pool supporter but I don't like this. Still it could be worse you could have our owner - Mike Ashley

I still don't understand why Hodgson got the job - never a big club manager, no proven success with a big club but has done well with little clubs with limited funding. Thought Liverpool could have done better

;)

Liverpool are likely to face a nine-point deduction if parent company Kop Holdings goes into administration.

League rules say a deduction can be applied if a parent company insolvency is caused by the club's management. Sources suggest owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett would struggle to argue that the running of the football club has not affected the holding company. Liverpool could enter administration if a sale to the owners of the Boston Red Sox is not completed by 15 October.

Full Story

Seriously, why can't they just do the right thing for the club and f*** off

Nope. Seems hicks is intent to destroy the club in his last desperate attempts to hold onto power. The only thing we can hope is that RBS can do the decent thing and hold back their deadline until the legal matters are resolved.

Re the holding company thing. It was the same with Southampton wasn't it?

It was the holding company who went into admin, not the actual Football club. They tried to fight the points deduction on that grounds, but failed.

I still can't see Liverpool going into admin though. Either Hicks will give up, or RBS will be a bit leniant.

Re the holding company thing. It was the same with Southampton wasn't it?

It was the holding company who went into admin, not the actual Football club. They tried to fight the points deduction on that grounds, but failed.

I still can't see Liverpool going into admin though. Either Hicks will give up, or RBS will be a bit leniant.

I think RBS will be lenient but Hicks won't give up he wants his money.

I think that RBS know that as long as this legal battle rages, they are unlikely to have the debt met anyway, and it would be better for them in my opinion to wait on the outcome of the legal wrangling before acting.

not a 'Pool supporter but I don't like this. Still it could be worse you could have our owner - Mike Ashley

I still don't understand why Hodgson got the job - never a big club manager, no proven success with a big club but has done well with little clubs with limited funding. Thought Liverpool could have done better

;)

that's what we are now...

doesn't get much better for Liverpool fans :unsure:

just relegate us now

With a club like Fulham, if you start from nothing and do a great job, you get noticed. With a club like Liverpool mediocrity is not good enough, which is why Roy has a very hard job ahead of him even if we resolve our financial issues.

Premier League approves Liverpool takeover

well that's good, but hicks and gillette are still going to attemp to cockblock the deal..

Man Utd reports record loss despite revenue rise

132 million loss... no one is making money

The bidding contest for Liverpool FC may not be over, the BBC can reveal.

The runner-up in the contest, Peter Lim, a Singapore billionaire, is to approach Liverpool's board with a view to making a higher offer for the club.

According to sources close to Mr Lim, he was the club's preferred bidder in the closing stages of the auction.

He had talks with Liverpool's chairman about how to announce his takeover, such was the apparent confidence that he would win the contest.

Mr Lim learned he was not the victor only a few hours before the club's chairman, Martin Broughton, announced on 6 October that Liverpool would be sold to John Henry's New England Sport Ventures for ?300m.

Mr Lim, who is being advised by the British firm of lawyers Macfarlanes and by the Wong Partnership of Singapore, still does not know why Mr Broughton went with New England Sports Ventures, owners of the Boston Red Sox.

He believes that in purely monetary terms, his offer was at least as attractive as Mr Henry's.

Mr Lim, too, was offering to repay all of Royal Bank of Scotland's and Wachovia's ?200m of long-term debt, to take on ?60m of other debt and to inject ?40m of working capital.

What's more - and Mr Lim regards this as crucial - all the money being provided by him would come from his own cash resources. He is not planning to borrow any of it.

I understand he is also offering to provide tens of millions of pounds to Liverpool's manager, Roy Hodgson, to allow him to buy players when the transfer window opens in January.

According to executives close to Mr Lim, he was told by Mr Broughton that his ability to fund the takeover for cash, and the size of his cash resources, meant he was a more attractive owner than New England Sports Ventures.

Mr Lim was told that Liverpool's board was concerned that New England Sports Ventures would have to borrow to finance the takeover - raising questions about whether Liverpool really would break free from the financial shackles perceived to have been imposed by the current owners, George Gillett and Tom Hicks.

In the event, New England Sports Ventures have insisted it will not load up Liverpool FC with debt.

But there are no guarantees that there will not be significant debt further up the corporate ownership structure of New England Sports Ventures - which could limit how much money Mr Henry and his colleagues can inject into Liverpool in the future.

Mr Lim is keeping a close eye on the court case, which starts on Tuesday.

The case is supposed to rule on whether Mr Broughton can sell Liverpool to New England Sports Ventures against the wishes of Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett.

The Singapore billionaire believes the judgement in that case may give him an opportunity to bid again, whatever Mr Broughton may wish.

Hmm

This situation is certainly getting interesting, I am not even sure which offer I prefer, although Peter Lim's offer comes with a promise of money for players which is hard to overlook given our current situation

oh i'm sorry, you expected all this drama to make sense?

lol, not really. But I don't see the benefit to anyone (apart from any new owner) of Liverpool going into administration (which is what will happen if no new money comes in to pay RBS).

lol, not really. But I don't see the benefit to anyone (apart from any new owner) of Liverpool going into administration (which is what will happen if no new money comes in to pay RBS).

all i want is the original yanks out, then from there we can figure out this cluster ****....

"seems lfc have until nov 1 to do deal with nesv - if rbs decide not to put club into admin'ion - judge says resolution this week "ambitious""

10:30am tomorrow for judgement!

all this is doing is embarrassing the club and the league with all this BS drama...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!