The Footie Thread

[Bdill93]

Very odd but living 45 mins from stadium by train we delighted, I'm off and he retired lol so we looking forward to it without getting back late

Thats a big positive to be far!

8pm for Villa means getting home around 11.30 for me - and that's without added time or penos!

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Thats a big positive to be far!

8pm for Villa means getting home around 11.30 for me - and that's without added time or penos!

Yeah I figured worst case with pens, extra time and delays coming home I'll be in bed by 2230

 

[Don Barzini]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767246446686883915

So what's everyone's understanding of this?

Everton and Forest to still be punished under existing rules, but anyone else who might possibly find themselves falling afoul of them will probably be ok?

How will this affect Man City's 115 charges? Will they still be charged under the existing rules, or under these new ones?

And as for the new rules....most people's initial thoughts (that I've seen on Twitter anyway) seem to be that it adds another several layers to the already ten-foot thick concrete ceiling separating everyone else from the Big Six. Anyone have a different take?

 

[Bdill93]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767246446686883915

So what's everyone's understanding of this?

Everton and Forest to still be punished under existing rules, but anyone else who might possibly find themselves falling afoul of them will probably be ok?

How will this affect Man City's 115 charges? Will they still be charged under the existing rules, or under these new ones?

And as for the new rules....most people's initial thoughts (on Twitter) seem to be that it adds another several layers to the already ten-foot thick concrete ceiling separating everyone else from the Big Six. Anyone have a different take?

Well, this makes our rules more in line with EUFA's - they have a margin of 70% spend and this seems to be 85%

Yes, it benefits the big boys more, but I cant see a system that doesn't unless the system is "do what you want" - but even then the majority of them have mega rich owners too.

 

[clubchamp98]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767246446686883915

So what's everyone's understanding of this?

Everton and Forest to still be punished under existing rules, but anyone else who might possibly find themselves falling afoul of them will probably be ok?

How will this affect Man City's 115 charges? Will they still be charged under the existing rules, or under these new ones?

And as for the new rules....most people's initial thoughts (that I've seen on Twitter anyway) seem to be that it adds another several layers to the already ten-foot thick concrete ceiling separating everyone else from the Big Six. Anyone have a different take?

If they are aligning with EUFA they let City off the hook.
So will the new rules let them off or can they still be done for the rules in place when the offences happened.?
Sounds very dodgy to me.
Everton won’t be happy and rightly so.

 

[Swango1980]

If they are aligning with EUFA they let City off the hook.
So will the new rules let them off or can they still be done for the rules in place when the offences happened.?
Sounds very dodgy to me.
Everton won’t be happy and rightly so.

Don't know anything about any of it. Except the authorities will be happy to get tough with teams not at the top of the table, but i suspect will be happy to find ways to let the big teams get away with it.

I'm guessing the many people that run football clubs are not stupid people, and so the fact clubs like Everton and Forest are getting caught breaking the rules (and probably Man City), suggests that these things are pretty easy to do. After all, I'm sure most clubs play as close to the line as they can, and sometimes cross the line when they take too big a risk or think they found a loophole that doesn't exist. In that sense, it wouldn't surprise me if a club like Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, etc end up crossing a line sooner or later. And I'd imagine handing out massive penalties to such clubs, especially in terms of points deductions, would be very undesirable for the Premier League.

So, if I was to predict what was going to happen, City will never get a points deduction unlike "smaller" clubs not competing for silverware. Or, at best, they'll manage to wait with 2 or 3 months left of season, and if City don't look like they are competing to win the league at that point, quickly go ahead with the charges, give them a points deduction that will put them mid to bottom half of table, and therefore the penalty doesn't cost them a title but also doesn't relegate them. Maybe they miss out on Europe for a season.

 

[Bdill93]

If they are aligning with EUFA they let City off the hook.
So will the new rules let them off or can they still be done for the rules in place when the offences happened.?
Sounds very dodgy to me.
Everton won’t be happy and rightly so.

From what ive read - any historical breaches will still be concluded under the old rules. So City will still face all charges.

 

[nickjdavis]

And as for the new rules....most people's initial thoughts (that I've seen on Twitter anyway) seem to be that it adds another several layers to the already ten-foot thick concrete ceiling separating everyone else from the Big Six. Anyone have a different take?

No. Those that got rich early will stay rich. Provision of the Status Quo and self interest.

 

[Tashyboy]

All this is confirmation of what I said a couple of months ago, yet no one picked up on it

So I will say it again, UEFA FFP is different to the premier leagues eh. But now it’s more in line as I mentioned a lot of the prem league teams play in UEFA comps every year and are subject to there rules. So to an extent it don’t bother them.

But bottom line you are running a football club/ business and the financial rules are changed again. ( Bit like VAR, in the sense it is fantastic but we have changed it to make it even more fantastic) Really.

I am under no illusion that this is in place to protect the top clubs, what was once 4 clubs is now 6 or 7. I am under no illusion that City have broken FFP rules, and had they not, these changes would be in place to protect the still top 4 in England and the top 10 in Europe.

FFP for me is complete and utter tosh.

Whilst all this is going on Gary Neville is having a meltdown at the Premier League for being greedy when it comes to passing on money to the EFL teams.
Premier league protecting football clubs. As Jim Royle would say “ My Rrrrs”.

 

[Aztecs27]

From what ive read - any historical breaches will still be concluded under the old rules. So City will still face all charges.

I'll believe that when I see it

 

[Aztecs27]

Well, this makes our rules more in line with EUFA's - they have a margin of 70% spend and this seems to be 85%

Yes, it benefits the big boys more, but I cant see a system that doesn't unless the system is "do what you want" - but even then the majority of them have mega rich owners too.

They will always be benefitted more - but the current system is actually fine...with the only issue being that those teams coming up are given less of a threshold for losses - meaning they can't do much, given the limitations of coming from a poorer standard of football in the EFL to the Premier League.

If the losses permitted over the 1st season were increased (not unlimited, but a realistic amount) - to allow teams to recruit better quality players to allow them to compete with the rest of the premier league, it would provide more parity, better competition and (potentially) less yo-yoing of teams.

But the Premier League don't care about the teams in bottom half of the table - just those that are at the top, with the most money - that is more clear than ever.

 

[Bdill93]

They will always be benefitted more - but the current system is actually fine...with the only issue being that those teams coming up are given less of a threshold for losses - meaning they can't do much, given the limitations of coming from a poorer standard of football in the EFL to the Premier League.

If the losses permitted over the 1st season were increased (not unlimited, but a realistic amount) - to allow teams to recruit better quality players to allow them to compete with the rest of the premier league, it would provide more parity, better competition and (potentially) less yo-yoing of teams.

But the Premier League don't care about the teams in bottom half of the table - just those that are at the top, with the most money - that is more clear than ever.

Good points.

I don't think it would be ridiculous to suggest promoted sides get 5 years of higher spending before they must fall in line with longstanding premier league clubs.

 

[Aztecs27]

Good points.

I don't think it would be ridiculous to suggest promoted sides get 5 years of higher spending before they must fall in line with longstanding premier league clubs.

I don't even think 5 years is necessary to be fair as there should be an effort to increase profitability by way of gate revenue, merchandise sales, increased sponsorship revenue etc plus you get the TV rights money etc which all helps - but a period of time for additional spending to account for the initial jump up from Championship to Premier League - to allow for quality recruitment (or 42 players if you're forest ) to bolster your squad, I don't think is unreasonable

Forest were in a unique situation when we were promoted in that we only had 16 (I believe) players on the books going into the off season last year - so we needed squad members desperately.

Ironically, we could have prevented any FFP issues, had we not needlessly spent on some players, but then at the time, you don't know who's going to be quality and who isn't and hindsight is great. For example, Remo Freuler, "The Conductor" at Atalanta looked like a sure thing for improving the midfield, but turns out he's not cut out for the pace of the Premier League as he was pretty much awful the whole time he was here - but has now gone back to Italy to play at Bologna and is excelling again.

 

[Tashyboy]

They will always be benefitted more - but the current system is actually fine...with the only issue being that those teams coming up are given less of a threshold for losses - meaning they can't do much, given the limitations of coming from a poorer standard of football in the EFL to the Premier League.

If the losses permitted over the 1st season were increased (not unlimited, but a realistic amount) - to allow teams to recruit better quality players to allow them to compete with the rest of the premier league, it would provide more parity, better competition and (potentially) less yo-yoing of teams.

But the Premier League don't care about the teams in bottom half of the table - just those that are at the top, with the most money - that is more clear than ever.

And that is exactly where City were and to break into the top Six had to break the rules.

So how is that a good system, furthermore City are now one of the richest clubs in the world. Irrespective of the owners. He has bankrolled them to get there. They are now self financing.

As I have said ,FFP is not fit for purpose.

 

[GB72]

I guess another issue for the newly promoted clubs is that the top half of the table and making it even more difficult. Due to their spending £100 million is now normal. That has bumped up the cost of the average player by a significant percentage. As such, the cost of player recruitment has increased almost beyond what they can spend.

It is almost as if the bottom have of the league is being groomed as feeder clubs for the top. They go out and scout and recruit to find the talent, they develop the talent and prove that the players can perform in the Premier League and then the top table clubs swoop in a sign them on wages the bottom clubs could not even consider.

 

[Bdill93]

I guess another issue for the newly promoted clubs is that the top half of the table and making it even more difficult. Due to their spending £100 million is now normal. That has bumped up the cost of the average player by a significant percentage. As such, the cost of player recruitment has increased almost beyond what they can spend.

It is almost as if the bottom have of the league is being groomed as feeder clubs for the top. They go out and scout and recruit to find the talent, they develop the talent and prove that the players can perform in the Premier League and then the top table clubs swoop in a sign them on wages the bottom clubs could not even consider.

Do it well though, and you end up like Brighton...

244m profit in 2 years

 

[Aztecs27]

I guess another issue for the newly promoted clubs is that the top half of the table and making it even more difficult. Due to their spending £100 million is now normal. That has bumped up the cost of the average player by a significant percentage. As such, the cost of player recruitment has increased almost beyond what they can spend.

It is almost as if the bottom have of the league is being groomed as feeder clubs for the top. They go out and scout and recruit to find the talent, they develop the talent and prove that the players can perform in the Premier League and then the top table clubs swoop in a sign them on wages the bottom clubs could not even consider.

Yep.

We scouted some really good talent the last few years and have (at least) two players that will be going to pastures new before long;

Morgan Gibbs-White
Murillo

the former - yes we paid a pretty penny for him, but he's without doubt the most all round player I've seen at Forest in 20 years. He'll be sold for profit in the summer if we go down (and maybe even if we stay up).

Murillo has played 1st team senior football for about 5 minutes and is already one of the best CB's I've seen in some time. He will go to Madrid, Barca, City or someone similar for no-less than £70-75mil in the summer, I expect.

You could argue that Andrew Omobamidele, who we got from Norwich, will be off to a top half side in a year or so as he's been superb since coming into the starting lineup earlier this (calendar) year.

It's a real issue - but the circle of life for lower clubs - BUT if recruitment is solid and consistent and you invest that profit wisely, then you can do what the likes of Villa, Brighton etc have done in recent seasons.

 

[Aztecs27]

Do it well though, and you end up like Brighton...

244m profit in 2 years

Just need to sell to Chelsea. Easy peasy.

 

[Bdill93]

Yep.

We scouted some really good talent the last few years and have (at least) two players that will be going to pastures new before long;

Morgan Gibbs-White
Murillo

the former - yes we paid a pretty penny for him, but he's without doubt the most all round player I've seen at Forest in 20 years. He'll be sold for profit in the summer if we go down (and maybe even if we stay up).

Murillo has played 1st team senior football for about 5 minutes and is already one of the best CB's I've seen in some time. He will go to Madrid, Barca, City or someone similar for no-less than £70-75mil in the summer, I expect.

You could argue that Andrew Omobamidele, who we got from Norwich, will be off to a top half side in a year or so as he's been superb since coming into the starting lineup earlier this (calendar) year.

It's a real issue - but the circle of life for lower clubs - BUT if recruitment is solid and consistent and you invest that profit wisely, then you can do what the likes of Villa, Brighton etc have done in recent seasons.

Literally never heard of him... But I always said this about Grealish and people didn't believe me... Hope he makes you some bank!!!

 

[GB72]

Yep.

We scouted some really good talent the last few years and have (at least) two players that will be going to pastures new before long;

Morgan Gibbs-White
Murillo

the former - yes we paid a pretty penny for him, but he's without doubt the most all round player I've seen at Forest in 20 years. He'll be sold for profit in the summer if we go down (and maybe even if we stay up).

Murillo has played 1st team senior football for about 5 minutes and is already one of the best CB's I've seen in some time. He will go to Madrid, Barca, City or someone similar for no-less than £70-75mil in the summer, I expect.

You could argue that Andrew Omobamidele, who we got from Norwich, will be off to a top half side in a year or so as he's been superb since coming into the starting lineup earlier this (calendar) year.

It's a real issue - but the circle of life for lower clubs - BUT if recruitment is solid and consistent and you invest that profit wisely, then you can do what the likes of Villa, Brighton etc have done in recent seasons.

Going back a few years but imagine the team that Southampton could have had if they had retained the talent they were developing. I think they are a case in point that there will come a time when the next batch on the production line are not up to standard and that is when the trouble starts.