Quansah also started at CB. Nice to see few lfc players in the team. Jones now too old so can’t be involved.
Diego really doesn't want to get it. The current FIFA rules regarding maximum number of players who can be taken in by any one club is 8 and this will drop to 6 by 2025 (does not include u21s btw) the premier league in this case is actually more harsh, the magic number is 4. and no more tan one per club (so they can't take 4 fomo one saudi club) So Newcastle can take 4 players from Saudi league for free. They will have to do this by taking maximum 1 from each saudi club. So on jan 1 we could see the following: Benzema (Al Ittihad) Laporte (Al nassr) Koulibaly (Al-Hilal) Mahrez (Al Alhi) just as an example of what could be done this january. I need however to look at the rules concerning players taht left an english club insdie 12 months coming in on loan to another english club and if in fact they can be registered. You can really take your pick, swap neves for Koulibaly if they need a cm more than a cb. In effect all these players wages could be covered form Saudi and in effect Newcastle get completely round FFP. The fact Sheff utd voted against this strongly suggests that club has been given something in the back gorund or some owners or directors. Only time will tell. Newcastle are the extreme end of this loop hole. Its always possible however that a club like palace get a sister club to buy one or two players to make this dodge but its actually highly unlikley. The doping of football has been happening inthe other direction for years and years which is why fifa made some effort at rules but they are so wide open its a joke.
My boss has always said don’t bring something in you cannot manage I think that’s good advice Surely the logic is - do away with all the rules and let them have at it do it on the pitch as well Let’s go Spartan Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not gouge everything else - have at it
that kind of logic can be applied to drug taking in sport etc etc. if you want to watch that league then go ahead. As I have said one day shortly it will dawn on the "small" clubs they have lost their power and stalemate is all they can hope for. (same rules as today unless the change suits the rich 7. then what will happen is the mega rich owners of the middle clubs will decide that a deal with the devil to keep their status is a great idea. (see leicester) Let look at the list: sullivan has a new partner at west sham. They are flirting with relegation a lot. Wolves are chinese owned and also flirting with relegation Fulham owner is also loaded and into a few sports. They are dangerously close to the drop again Villa owners are richer than FSG. againt going alright now but were down there and yo yo everton new owners are gambling on the prem. palace have a guy worth 5.5billion and are always scraping by despite having a lot of very decent players Now i add these 4/5/6 billionaire owners to the 7 and where am i? 12/13? I only need 12 more to join the party folks. Then a vote can take place to reduce the premier league numbers and pull up the ladder behind them. maybe 1 promotion/relegation spot. I doesn't need to be a breakaway league any more, it just has to be a reformulated premier league and all of a sudden the power is shifted again. Even if they decided to go 18 teams, 2 regelation spots and alter the share of the money so promoted teams get half the money they do now and its a closed shop!
isn't the Sheff Utd owner a Saudi in which case he was probably worried he might get an invite to a party at the embassy
Put aside for the moment the self-serving and corruptible nature of so many rule-makers that's been shown to exist in the past and imagine a governing body that only wants the best for the game. It puts into place a set of rules to make things fair, naively expecting clubs to follow those rules. Club owners, motivated by the desire to milk the game or just driven to succeed by their egos employ a load of smart and cunning people to get round those rules, either legally or illegally, and they run rings around the law-makers. Then feed back into the equation the venality of said law-makers and you have the current situation - a complete mess. The point being that you can make - in good faith - as many rules as you like but unless everyone is willing to abide by them you're just pissing into the wind.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment You say if you want to watch that league… But what are we watching now ? Because of the salient points raised by Saint I don’t see there is much that can be done if you can’t control it fairly what is the solution ?
not true. If you don't fight the fight then you allow a total mess and within a few years whatever it is you were trying to govern totally falls apart.
In short its not nearly as bad as it could be. It is nearly unwatchable as it stands but if a free for all is allowed then it will becomes totally unwatchable. Throwing our hands up and giving up is never an option.
Is there some logic I'm missing in wondering why votes between the clubs aren't based on the majority voting in favour? I can't understand how a system was set up that allows a vote with a potential massive impact on the league, like the one in question, to be passed by just 7 clubs voting aye.
That’s fair enough I am just not sure it can be managed at all I would let them all form a league of their own….
and my guess is they will simply buy enough teams in the prem to just vote to make the prem exactly that. a domestic closed shop for rich clubs.
I know. I was asking a wider question, although I realise that I couldn't find the right words to formulate that question. Not ever having served on any committee, I acknowledge that I don't know how voting protocols go. I was wondering if it's common to have a ⅔ / ⅓ split to pass or reject a proposal. Isn't it more usual to have a majority format ie 100 people taking part needs 51 to vote in favour of acceptance or rejection of the proposal? So in terms of PL voting wouldn't it be fairer to require at least 11 clubs to be in agreement?
