The Footie Thread

[Deleted member 15344]

This is just another chapter in the circus that’s Man Utd this days

It’s clear that ETH has issues with some players and he is trying to stamp his authority and play the hard line , there was clearly an issue with Sancho who is now doing well again on Dortmund , can ETH risk coming down hard on Rashford , do the players respect him ? Or his authority as they say

I guess this is what happens when a big club like Man Utd employs a manager who isn’t at the top level and doesn’t have the credentials to back himself - the players wouldn’t have done it under Maureen or Van Gaal but it was bred under the likes of OGS

Whilst Man Utd have issues above the manager he is imo also part of the problem

 

[Billysboots]

I’ve said it so many times I’m even starting to bore myself. But before there is any meaningful recruitment at United the club need to move on the deadwood and the troublemakers.

That process has started, but there are so many of both that it will be neither quick nor easy.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I’ve said it so many times I’m even starting to bore myself. But before there is any meaningful recruitment at United the club need to move on the deadwood and the troublemakers.

That process has started, but there are so many of both that it will be neither quick nor easy.

And it will take time. Too many on the gravy train of high wages and no implications for poor performances. The manager hasn't got any power to impose any sanctions as has been seen and so players will be quite happy to sit it out on their long contracts (in some cases) as they know very few will be able to afford the wages and if they aren't ripping it up on the pitch very few teams will be keen on taking a punt

 

[Billysboots]

The manager hasn't got any power to impose any sanctions as has been seen

Are we actually talking about the same manager?

Sancho banished from the squad. Maguire stripped of the captaincy. Rashford dropped more than once. There are others who have doubtless been dealt with for crossing the line.

ETH is hardly powerless.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

On other matters, FFP is making this transfer window really dull. Nothing is happening, nothing looks like it will particularly happen . Where is the fun in that?

Is anyone hearing of funky moves on the cards for tomorrow?

 

[Billysboots]

On other matters, FFP is making this transfer window really dull. Nothing is happening, nothing looks like it will particularly happen . Where is the fun in that?

Is anyone hearing of funky moves on the cards for tomorrow?

Indeed, but that won’t stop Sky Sports whipping themselves into their half yearly frenzy.

I’ll be flossing my teeth.

 

[Swango1980]

This is just another chapter in the circus that’s Man Utd this days

It’s clear that ETH has issues with some players and he is trying to stamp his authority and play the hard line , there was clearly an issue with Sancho who is now doing well again on Dortmund , can ETH risk coming down hard on Rashford , do the players respect him ? Or his authority as they say

I guess this is what happens when a big club like Man Utd employs a manager who isn’t at the top level and doesn’t have the credentials to back himself - the players wouldn’t have done it under Maureen or Van Gaal but it was bred under the likes of OGS

Whilst Man Utd have issues above the manager he is imo also part of the problem

Again, this is media driven rubbish, who have you fooled that a lot of this is ETH's fault. After all, he is an easy target. Easy to pick on an individual than point fingers at the entire culture of the club (or even better, say the entire culture at the club has stunk for over a decade, yet still blame the manager for not getting them competitive with the likes of City and Liverpool, even though they beat Liverpool easily last season)

Players wouldn't have done it under Mourinho??? Do you not remember his bust up with Pogba on the training pitch? After Mourinho left, he went on record and said ""There are still people in that club, and when I say people I mean some players but also some other people that are not players, that are still there when I told [United] after two months: With these people, you are never going to do it. And they are still there,". He also said when he subbed certain players, agents accused him of bullying. Looking at some of the players Mourinho had, he had Pogba, Lingard, Rojo, Martial, Rashford, etc. I suspect Mourinho had many problems with players.

Then you have Van Gaal. I'm not sure he had all the players on board. He didn't seem to get a lot out of Di Maria. I've heard lots of stories about Van Gaal falling out with players anyway.

But, in your opinion, what manager is Top Level? Mourinho was clearly not Top Level enough as he ultimately failed, nor Van Gaal. We're obviously not going to get Pep or Klopp, if they are placed in that category? So, who? De Zerbi who's Brighton are in 7th (a club, by all accounts, seems to be run wonderfully). Potter, who didn't do so well at Chelsea?

I reckon ETH was the first manager who Utd brought in since Fergie that most fans actually felt it was a smart move. Wasn't a panic acquisition of a high profile coach, in the hope of suddenly becoming world beaters again if we splash the cash, even if football is boring to watch. He was a manager with a profile that seemed to fit our style, and had earned his stripes by doing well for Ajax. His first season, most fans were delighted. Apart from Antony, the signings were good and what we needed, and he came out generally well with Ronaldo and Maguire. What we achieved last season was way ahead of what most expected. Sure, this season has not gone well. Loads of injuries and players sulking have been a massive problem. The only benefit is that it has been a further eye opener for ETH at just how fragile the squad and certain players are. Personally, I'd rather ETH stay, and be given the chance to improve on the things, using what he has learnt over the last year or 2. What I don't want is him being kicked out, and a new manager having to come in and start at the circus from scratch.

 

[Orikoru]

On other matters, FFP is making this transfer window really dull. Nothing is happening, nothing looks like it will particularly happen . Where is the fun in that?

Is anyone hearing of funky moves on the cards for tomorrow?

FFP is broken. Much like VAR, it was a nice idea for a valid cause, but they've just completely jumped the shark and messed it up. All it does is punish smaller teams for aspiring to be more successful. Keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

 

[fundy]

On other matters, FFP is making this transfer window really dull. Nothing is happening, nothing looks like it will particularly happen . Where is the fun in that?

Is anyone hearing of funky moves on the cards for tomorrow?

Gonna be very quiet it seems, everyone clearly worried about PSR and the fact that it may actually have some teeth, which tbh isnt such a bad thing imo, the constant merry go round and reliance on constantly buying the latest and greatest

From Arsenals perspective were clearly very close to the wire so unlikely to be spending anything, wouldnt even be shocked if there was an outgoing or two if a price could be achieved too. Be good to see us actually use the squad we have rather than complaining about how thin it is but thats clearly wishful thinking........

The only move that seems to have any traction is Dewsbury Hall from Leicester to Brighton which I expect explains exactly where both teams currently sit re PSR

 

[Swango1980]

FFP is broken. Much like VAR, it was a nice idea for a valid cause, but they've just completely jumped the shark and messed it up. All it does is punish smaller teams for aspiring to be more successful. Keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

I'm not sure it really does that though. Is it not a fact of life that, in general, the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor (relative to each other). You don't need FFP for that. If FFP did not exist, I'm still pretty sure than clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool would be significantly wealthier than teams like Forest and Palace, let alone teams like Macclesfield and Maidstone Town.

Question I'd have, has FFP stopped more clubs going bust? Maybe we'll never know, but if it has then it is doing its job. It also seems to stop the top clubs spending as much money as they would ideally like (unless they break the FFP rules of course). If it wasn't for FFP, I'm sure some of the bigger clubs would splash a lot more money to get in better quality players, but it is FFP that seems to be stopping them.

Not saying FFP is perfect, maybe it has gone too far for some and not far enough for others.

 

[fundy]

I'm not sure it really does that though. Is it not a fact of life that, in general, the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor (relative to each other). You don't need FFP for that. If FFP did not exist, I'm still pretty sure than clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool would be significantly wealthier than teams like Forest and Palace, let alone teams like Macclesfield and Maidstone Town.

Question I'd have, has FFP stopped more clubs going bust? Maybe we'll never know, but if it has then it is doing its job. It also seems to stop the top clubs spending as much money as they would ideally like (unless they break the FFP rules of course). If it wasn't for FFP, I'm sure some of the bigger clubs would splash a lot more money to get in better quality players, but it is FFP that seems to be stopping them.

Not saying FFP is perfect, maybe it has gone too far for some and not far enough for others.

That misses the rather black and white striped Elephant in the room, and other clubs who have or get a state owner

 

[Orikoru]

That misses the rather black and white striped Elephant in the room, and other clubs who have or get a state owner

Exactly this. We watched as Chelsea and Man City got rich honours and became superpowers, many didn't like it, but is it fair to now deny other clubs the same opportunity? Is the goal to make it less appealing to buy football clubs? I'm not sure.

 

[Swango1980]

That misses the rather black and white striped Elephant in the room, and other clubs who have or get a state owner

I get that (partly why I caveated it by saying as long as clubs don't break the rules).

I also get that some clubs hope to win the lottery, and get a state owner who can spend vast sums of money. But, you can't change the past. If you were not a Chelsea fan when Abramovich came in, you probably hated the idea of an owner coming in and creating a manufactured club. I'm sure most fans would have wanted barriers in place to stop clubs suddenly becoming world beaters, effectively by chance, because that rich person just happened to pick their club. Of course, when those barriers do come into place, the fans that hated it will suddenly want no restrictions as soon as their own club get a billionaire owner. Classic example of wanting your cake at eat it.

So, what do fans want now (forget the past). Have restrictions to try and limit what clubs can do if a State buy them? Or have no restrictions and just allow clubs to spend monumental sums of money (even in comparison to now)? To be honest, I doubt there'd ever be another "Abramovich" impact again anyway. He was a one of a kind at the time. However, today, there are several clubs with mega rich owners. So if you allowed them all unlimited spending, they'll all cancel each other out to some degree. They can't all win the league after all.

 

[fundy]

Not sure I or anyone know what the best option is but the current version doesnt make sense to most, the rules whilst claiming to have the decent goal of stopping clubs going bust/bad owners is far from achieving that and definitely has other implications as discussed, the main one being making a closed shop (both at the top of the premiership but also the gap between premiership and yoyo clubs and the rest of the pyramid)

Theres arguably a bubble in football clubs, owners prepared to pump money into clubs and run at a loss year on year whilst attempting to increase the clubs value by far more than the annual losses they are funding (not to mention the 2 or more clubs who dont actually care about how much money they lose). Plenty fail to increase the value enough and then look to sell on but this cant go on forever and there are plenty of distressed clubs if their owners remove their funding (in the premier league but probably moreso in the championship and a few lower down). This is all very reliant on the ever increasing revenue from TV, but for how long is that sustainable? Rights arent increasing in value any more (in most markets they are declining) which will place greater pressures on clubs down the line

Interesting times ahead, plenty more arguments and I expect a change in rules as well as more distressed clubs down the pyramid sadly

 

[GB72]

My view is that club owners should be able to spend what they like as long as it does not create debt for the club. Want to spend a billion of your own money without securing that as debt on the club, fine. Perhaps secure that by putting funds in escrow for half of the agreed wages for the duration of the contract and that would seem safe whilst not restrictive.

Football has become largely a competition as to who has the deepest pockets and so that would give everyone with a wad of cash a fair shot at glory.

 

[fundy]

My view is that club owners should be able to spend what they like as long as it does not create debt for the club. Want to spend a billion of your own money without securing that as debt on the club, fine. Perhaps secure that by putting funds in escrow for half of the agreed wages for the duration of the contract and that would seem safe whilst not restrictive.

Football has become largely a competition as to who has the deepest pockets and so that would give everyone with a wad of cash a fair shot at glory.

Can just see Chelsea ponying up a billion pounds to Escrow

 

[GB72]

Can just see Chelsea ponying up a billion pounds to Escrow

True but that would perhaps be more effective in curtailing what in their case is OTT spending based on a loophole.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Allowing owners to spend what they want just opens the teams to be swept up by oil states and then you have huge deposits of unlimited funds and it becomes who has the most money - that’s going to cause a bigger gap because there isn’t too many of them

 

[GB72]

Allowing owners to spend what they want just opens the teams to be swept up by oil states and then you have huge deposits of unlimited funds and it becomes who has the most money - that’s going to cause a bigger gap because there isn’t too many of them

But is it not pretty much already about who has the most money irrespective of where it comes from

 

[fundy]

But is it not pretty much already about who has the most money irrespective of where it comes from

I think the argument currently (rightly or wrongly) is that some established clubs can compete with the state backed ones to some degree, that will go completely if you make it a free for all and youll soon end up with one or two teams winning every year (some would say thats already happening.......)