it's a feeding frenzy in the media. I really don't know who would have any insight into fsgs thought process
It's going to be like this until the new manager arrives... and we probably won't even know that until the season is over. Whoever is replacing him won't want to rock the boat at their own respective club. (I'm quite surprised Klopp did)
i reckon it'll calm down when they get their next big story. usually the attention span is 10 days max.
So president of fifa wants transfers to be decided by an algorithm rather than clubs being able to negotiate. Is this guy ok?
no, he's in the suadi's pocket and the suadis want cheaper prices when they tap up all the european players. salah 150mil? hang on the algorithm says he's only worth 5 due to age.
will the authorities be able to hold the line on ffp? villa now reported as having to sell this summer as the jack grealish scandalous fee finally drops off their 3 year numbers. as a result their spending in 21/22 will come home to roost and they won't be able to balance the ffp book without selling someone. it seems to me that either the rules change or a lot of clubs that were ignoring sustainability or even just ignoring gorwing revenues will have to just cut back on spend and wages.
either that or increase revenues to match their spend. the reality is the prem lower half clubs have revealed he's ranging from 200 to 170mil. some spend like thry have double that on transfers. the point is to cut the spend to 70% of revenue to protect clubs from themselves. the problem is increasing revenue = squeezing fans again
I do think it’s a bit silly as say you sold a player in year 1 for £100m and brought no one year 1 - £100m profit year 2 - spend that £100m. Net spend - £0 year 3 - spend nothing, receive nothing. That would mean you are perfectly fine and you’ve spent exactly what you’ve earned. Year 4 - that first year £100m profit disappears off the record and suddenly you’re -£100m because of that year 2 and suddenly have to sell load more to break even again.
it's more like this. say year 0 you are at 0 for ffp amd make this simple. you sell for 100mil. thats great. year 1 shows that 100mil in anad if you spend say 100mil and amortise it over 5 years you've 20mil that year. very simplistically that's 80mil up. year 2 you go and do the same. 20mil from year 1 and another 20mil on top. 40mil in the hole. year 3 I do the same another 100mil down the pan. 20+20+20 now as I'm now looking at year 1 +80 year 2-40 year 3 -60 so all of a sudden I'm reporting a -20mil loss over 3 years. year 1 vanishes and if I do absolutely nothing I am still -60mil then it's year 2,3 and 4 adding up to -160mil. I took in 100 and spend 300 but the burden of the 300 mil hits 3 years. so I have to balance it over thr 3 years via revenue. this is the issue chelsea are going to face. they've spent absolutely massively are are just trying to balance off the thing year by year until the burden kills them
I've thought similar before. Why not just do a annual review that includes a brought forward figure? Each year is reviewed and X is the amount the next year's accounts start with. Rather than being allowed £130m deficit over 3yrs, you're allowed a £40m deficit per season (I'd prefer it to be zero but unfortunately I'm yet to acquire a genie lamp)
the 3 years thing is to allow for ups and downs in fortunes with Europe etc. the -105 is actually enabling doping as a rich owner can dump thst in there while a regular club can't afford to lose 105mil every 3 years. -40 per year every year is just saying let the rich throw it about.
it'd be better I hope to go to 70% of revenue target as that is quite a strict measure. I would actually like the pie in the sky salary caps, transfer limits and let clubs compete on making good players and really showing what they can build.
