Talk:2006–07 FA Premier League

Home kits
This info is a bit trivial. Almost every club changes their kit. We should only really mention a change of sponsor, or significant change of kit (i.e. Arsenal). ed g2s &bull; talk 11:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The page has been vandalised. Mexico city clearly don't play in the F.A. Premier League. Needs Attnetion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.43.67 (talk • contribs).

I've created a display of the 2006-07 Home Kits based on those displayed on the pages here. Unless someone wants to beat me to it, I will eventually get around to doing the map display like someone did last year for the Premiership.

I'm not certain it belongs in the article, so I'm not going to insert it. If someone else feels it should be included the file can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FA_Premier_League_clubs_home_colours_2006-07.png Cthomer5000 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a few additions to the section as several clubs were missed outStatto74 14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Club payroll
I heard that Chelsea F.C. has a payroll of $USD200 million? Does anyone know the club payrolls for the remainder of teams in the EPL? 138.87.213.23 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The page has been vandalised (again). Some idiot has added a league table before the season has even began. It was shown as if the final round of matches had finished and so the season over and, notably had Arsenal and Chelsea as the bottom 2 and deducted points. Chelsea's case for tapping up several players including Rooney, Ashley Cole, Adriano and Ledley King. Someone should protect this page. Also, it had Man Utd and Liverpool at the top and sharing the title --Ross1 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalized again by an anonymous user. Arsenal was top of the table and ManU ended up with -ve table position. QmunkE doing the necessary reverts. This page needs protection because I believe we will see more and more vandalism incidents as season progresses -- Tirupraveen 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be increasing, but it's not unmanageable at the current level. Page protection (or more accurrately, semi-protection) tends to be granted when a page is hit from multiple IP addresses over a short period. This seems to be from only a couple of IP addresses, one of which is either that of a persistent vandal or shared over quite a lot of users. I'd hold off on asking for protection for the time being. QmunkE 16:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 212.248.241.2 is the IP from which we have the latest vandalism. We had earlier instance of vandalism from this same IP. Putting it down here for the record. -- Tirupraveen 02:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalised again, (by 219.74.56.85). Docked Chelsea 10 points for unspecified reasons and added a spurious tour of Singapore and a defeat to the Singapore national team. -- Mr Bismarck 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

League table
It's starting in just a few days. So, I added the table. I didn't put in any teams yet because it's annoying moving all the teams around at the beginning. Kingjeff 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the table to a more traditional format, i.e. points at the right hand side, and removed a totally superfluous "%" column, but got reverted within a few minutes. Does any one else have any problems with the more traditional format rather than the one presented here at the moment? - fchd 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it can easily be understood if you take the time to understand it. Ok. The performance % might be a little overboard (This was notmy idea). But I think the points in the first column like it is shows the significance of the point total. I think all point totals should be in the first column after the teams. Kingjeff 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If that had been the way tables had been collated for over 120 years, maybe. The points as the last column convention is used, without siginificant exception, in the UK (and this is a Uk-related page) at least in all league tables and my view is that we should follow that convention rather than using a different format. - fchd 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't like the argument about the traditional use of something on here. It makes it sound like that's the only way. End of story type of thing. I think it's better where i have it. Let's see what other people think. Kingjeff 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the % column removed and the points moved to the far-right column as seen in most representations (two examples from skysports.com and BBC Sport QmunkE 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that where you have it stinks. Points on the right is, as observed, the way that league tables have been collated in the UK for over a century; and the percentage column is absolute nonsense without something stating what it's actually a percentage of (and even then, it should still bog off back across the Atlantic to where it belongs). I'm presuming it's intended to be a percentage of points gained against points available, thus providing a comparison of teams who've played different numbers of games? It's rubbish. Kinitawowi 00:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But traditional tables aren't necissarily right. But since you want to bring up the history of tables, take a look at 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying and UEFA Champions League 2006-07. If you go season by season or tournament by tournament, then you would see that historically, this is how tables have been done on Wikipedia. I also think it makes sense first, as this is the most important item to determine rankings. Kingjeff 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they all look ghastly, too. And the official websites of all six footballing confederations, along with those of most of the world's major domestic leagues, use points-to-the-right. You're right, traditional tables aren't necissarily (sic) right, but reworked ones aren't necessarily right either. Kinitawowi 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You want to delete the percentages? Go ahead. I have no objections over that. But I will make many objections over where the point total goes. I think those other tables I pointed out look good. Kingjeff 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it appears you are the only one who thinks the points total in the middle looks right. I'm going to change it to the right hand side again. - fchd 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the tabs saying "Champions League 1st round", "Relegated to Championship" and so on. Were these intentionally removed? I can see why people were complaining about percentages, but what was wrong with those? --Merretto 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If not the extra Tabs we can have color coding to represent Champions League qualification and relegation status. But, I feel that it should be a part League table. -- Tirupraveen 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add the extra tab, and you guys can edit it/change it/revert back to the former format if it doesn't look good. Keep in mind that editing the standings becomes more tricky as the comments regarding Champions League, Champions League Qual, UEFA Cup, Intertoto Cup,, and Relegation must appear in the data of the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 18th placed teams respectively. As teams move in the standings, the comments have to be re-adjusted. Juveboy 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the comments on the right regarding UEFA cup technically wrong? As far as I'm aware only the 5th place team is guaranteed a spot, along with the FA Cup and League (Carling) Cup winners. Often the spot does get bumped down when someone who has already qualified via the league table wins a cup competition, but i believe that technically speaking that it is incorrect as currently listed. thoughts?


 * I agree, I'll reduce the UEFA Cup spots to one. Someone should add some footnotes that the 6th and 7th placed teams may also qualify for UEFA cup spots if the FA Cup finalists are already qualified for Europe and/or the Carling Cup Winner does the same.  74.113.196.37 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone updated the table to assign UEFA cup spots to 5 and 6. I think this is a reasonable edit since Chelsea have won the Carling Cup and are currently 2nd in the league, and all but certain to remain in a position where there UEFA cup spot will slide down to the #6 team. I added a footnote and took a basica shot at providing an explanation. If someone would like to clean up the language a bit, feel free. But I thought some explanation would be better than none. 68.44.1.34 11:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Updating league table
It might be a good idea to not update the tables until all the games have been played in a day, especially the first few weeks. Kingjeff 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Results table
I have made a table to put all the results in, like the one in the Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07 article. Ross1 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Added table wise results with links to round in which the match was played to allow detailed access to detailed match report - Tirupraveen 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

2006/2007 Results

 * Please note that the home teams are read down the left hand side while the away teams are indicated along the top.

Just thought I would give ye guys the template that we are using this year for Serie A. I dunno but it might look a bit neater than the one ye guys are using at the moment.

Niall123 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to fix this, but on the updated one, some results are wrong. It says Arsenal drew 2-2 with Watford and beat Portsmouth 3-0, but they should be the other way around with It being Arsenal 2 Portsmouth 2, and Arsenal 3 Watford 0. Could someone change this please. There may be other results that are wrong.

What happened to the month-by-month results page? 80.2.91.233 10:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They all got deleted a while ago. Whilding87  16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We will do a one season trial in 07-08  ¢нαzα93   07:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest Developments
For Future Reference; The 'Latest Developments' should only be deleted after all 20 teams play in a week. (i.e; 19/20 August - 22/23 August, etc...) Lemonade51 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating the Table
Please don't update the league table until all the matches with the same kick-off time have finished (even if the only match is currently 3-0 or 4-0!). I say this because someone updated it at half time during today's Man City - Fulham match at half-time, when City were 3-0 up. You just never know what will happen in the rest of the match. Ross1 14:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?
i'm pretty sure man u hasn't lost 16 games this season. 207.29.128.130 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Results table..
..where is it? Whilding87 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

df
cool pageFreewilly2009 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New Colours for League Table
I think it sucks, but I guess one guy can take it upon himself to change everything just to suit his preferences. 64.231.71.176 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally: I like the idea of a colour scheme over a huge chunky box, but I don't like the colours chosen (it's impossible to tell the difference between Everton and Reading with the naked eye, for instance). I also suspect that the team names should be vertically aligned, as opposed to staggered depending on the width of the club crest... Kinitawowi 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either - the use of colour alone to siginify important elements of data would not satify accessibility guidelines. Also, the club badges have got to go - using them as decoration like this does not meet fair use criteria. - fchd 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could something like the current La_Liga_season_2006/2007 style of colours be used? 82.152.255.227 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Individual links to BBC match reports
I noticed one user has put a lot of effort into making links to the BBC match report for each and every match. While this is admirable, it (in my opinion) makes the result grid incredibly difficult to read. What do others think? (And he/she has been adding the future fixture dates, those will definitely have to go as a copyright violation). - fchd 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the links should be removed. It makes the results grid very difficult to read, and is also largely pointless. PeeJay 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, it looks very untidy now, and hard to read, if it was done in a better way I could understand, but the format doesn't work. Adzer 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll go through the table and remove all the hyperlinks. PeeJay 14:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Annual awards
Instead of writing "Steven Gerrard... won the award last year", would it not make more articular sense (making up words here) to write: "Steven Gerrard... won the award in the 2005-06 season" (or something similar)? The same with Wayne Rooney, it would be better if it were like: "Manchester United's Wayne Rooney has won the award in 2004-05 and 2005-06"

gerald is no more! 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Goalkeeper scores
In this article, under the Goalkeeper scores section, it says that "The other two were scored by Peter Schmeichel, for Manchester United against Everton on October 21 2001,...........". This is incorrect as Schmeichel left Man Utd in 1999, it was Aston Villa who he scored for. I am new to wikipedia and haven't edited articles before, so perhaps someone can correct this. chem_tom 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Champions League Qualification
Table says that if Liverpool wins the Champions League, then they will automatically into the Group Stages. Is this definately correct. And if it is, then surely Chelsea will have to play in the 3rd qualifying round which no mention has been made of. Niall123 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you got any basis for this assumption? I can't remember what UEFA's ruling was for situations like this. PeeJay 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * UEFA have stated that the Swiss champions be moved back a round to help with this, please see C/L 07-08 discussion Chaza93 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter any more now, since Liverpool didn't win the competition anyway. PeeJay 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers/Intertoto Cup
Someone put blue colouring on the Blackburn Rovers line of the table despite them not being 8th, and added an explanation of this underneath, but they did not cite the reference, please can someone find one. Funkyduncan 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reference found and added, sarge! PeeJay 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Relegated Clubs
Should a note regarding the arbitration panel on West Ham's fine be added?

No it doesnt matter unless it is points Chaza93 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Club crest for league winners
I propose that we add the club crest at the portion where the league winner is stated, must like I did with each respective world cup page by adding the country flag to the cup winners. I feel it adds more color and formality to the page. Squadoosh 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't allowed as it is a breach of the Fair Use policy used by Wikipedia. Sorry. - PeeJay 12:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

GA
Does anyone think it needs anything added to it before it gets nominated? Chaza 93  20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reckon you should take it to Peer Review for a more in-depth assessment of the quality of the article. - PeeJay 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would need a lot more prose. Lots of statistics isn't really what gets an article to GA. Mattythewhite 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FA Premier League
Seeing as the season began it should still be called F.A. Premier League 2006-07. El-  Nin  09  18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. That's the problem with re-branding mid-season. But since it was called the "FA Premier League" for the majority of the season, that's what the article should be called. I'm going to be bold and rename it now. - PeeJay 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2006–07 FA Premier League
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2006–07 FA Premier League's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "blstats": From Premier League:  From 2009–10 Premier League:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1992–93 FA Premier League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2006–07 FA Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006113019/http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/reina-nets-goalkeeping-award to http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/reina-nets-goalkeeping-award

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2006–07 FA Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0%2C%2C1544976%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209235138/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.stadium.html/liverpool to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.stadium.html/liverpool
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0%2C%2C2051488%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)