Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Mexico 86 was my first WC that I recall

can still remember I was sat on floor next to the heater, which was off btw coz it was a scorching summer and I saw this bloke called Maradona do some crazy magic and lots of English tears

I didnt regard myself as English back then as I was too used to being told to go back home smelly paki bastard

how rude
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD and PINKIE
It all began in June 1993 at the Old Bailey when we first heard of a 'bung'. Alan Sugar claimed in court that Terry Venables had told him that a transfer involving Teddy Sheringham leaving Nottingham Forest for Tottenham Hotspur would proceed more quickly if the then Forest manager Brian Clough was given "a bung".

That revelation that a brown envelope containing cash was to be handed over at a motorway service station, led to the bung inquiry instigated by the F.A. Only the then Arsenal manager George Graham was found to be guilty of receiving money as part of a transfer deal, although many other rumours abounded.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1616896/2020/02/21/george-graham-arsenal-sacked-25-years/

'Offshore trust funds' then joined 'bung' in football's vocabulary for the first time.The influx of foreign players on transfers that were officially regarded as "free", following the Bosman ruling, but which in effect were far from it, made the task of monitoring incomings and outgoings ever more difficult to perform as Graham Taylor pointed out. This was later followed by newspaper and media exposé when a number of agents were recorded unknowingly, revealing the "greed" in English football, and exposing allegations of an "under the table culture" that threatened to destabilise the state of the game in this country.

The advent of the Premier League in 1992 only exacerbated the sitution as English football's top division became awash with unprecedented amounts of cash, mainly from television rights deals. With such riches at stake, and cuts from some £1.5bn of transfer deals per year up for grabs, there was clear potential for agents and other middlemen, in some cases, to make secret and illegal subsequent payments to third parties to help them seal transfers.

With the top clubs now awash with cash, UEFA introduced financial fair play (FFP) in an attempt to prevent clubs that qualify for its competitions from spending beyond their means and stamp out what their then president Michael Platini called "financial doping" within football.

This led to nine clubs being found to have breached the FFP criteria in the first assessment period, most notably Man City and Paris St-Germain, and a range of fines and sanctions were imposed.
Man City were fined £49m, £32m of which was suspended, had spending restrictions imposed and could only name a 21-man Champions League squad for 2014-15.

Now, following German newspaper Der Spiegel publishing leaked documents in November 2018 alleging Manchester City had inflated the value of a sponsorship deal, misleading European football's governing body, the club have been banned from European club competition for the next two seasons and fined £25m.

You must log in or register to see images
 
... and there you have it in a nutshell - firstly there is no real financial difficulty in the first place and secondly, if there was a points deduction possibly leading to relegation ain't gonna help much, is it?

Like kicking a bloke in the mouth... then beating him up for mumbling ...<laugh>

should quit calling the measures FFP and rebrand as CLUSO:


Champions
League
Usual
Suspects
Only

or just be done with it and have the ESL - that so many were against

as I say
Let them have their product
It will either thrive or flounder

if the ask to come back to home league make them start at the bottom bottom bottom leagu
 
But if you continually spend more then you can afford at some point there will be consequences and a new rich guy has to turn up and if he doesn't you go bust and that doesn't help the PL brand so they put some rules in place. Seems fair enough to me. Break the rules you get fined and points deducted, suck it up up buttercup.

None of us lesser lights (and especially not Citeh) are spending more than we can 'afford' <doh>... it's peanuts to billionaires ... and that's the whole point ...

Did you know that Ocado didn't turn a profit for over 20 years from inception?... but continued to invest in the business model during that time - spending more and more year by year ...
 
Eh?

When the premier league was set up, everyone was equal party to it.

I have no idea where this idea United were just given money by Sky comes from, because it is utter made up bollocks.

Everyone in that league had the same opportunities with the PL and Sky etc., including City as it goes.

Ah I see, so it's the lets play ignorant here then. SKY aka Rupert Murdoch created a very lucrative market for you, one you became accustomed to and took for granted until City entered the frame. It was a market that was to leave 72 other league clubs behind. The Championship can rarely compete these days, as it's become a yoyo effect between promotion and relegation, that was why everyone was delighted when Leicester won the Prem. There was no everyone in this, there was no equal party, it was every dog for themself at the top.
 
They are doing their best...


What is an acceptable timeframe for investment to be converted to higher chance of success? The current landscape has this as a far horizon.


It's happened before, but there could easily, very easily be ways and means to have bonds to support the clubs that are able to invest heavily should circumstances change. Why shouldn't they be able to spend big on a path to ultimately, become more self sufficient if not profitable.
An eternal loss making machine should not allowed but the problem is that the level of investment needed to catch up is challenged at every turn.

The timeframe is dependent on how well a club's strategy is. But realistically the idea should be to become competitive and successful whilst remaining sustainable. That can take anything from 5-10 years, probably more in fact and would require sound investment in things like infrastructure and scouting.

The problem there though is that clubs aren't willing to put in that sort of work, they just want the promised land almost immediately and then say they're being prevented from doing so when FFP prevents them from taking a shortcut.
 
Neither Citeh, Forest, Everton, Villa, Newcastle or Leicester City have spent beyond their actual 'means' ... measuring their 'means' by reference to some arbitrary financial parameters dreamt up by some random spreadsheet jockey at the football authority is not a real test or accurate measure of that - the asset value of the owners is ... however, it is a convenient means of constraining spend needed to mount a proper challenge to the Sky faves...

Give me one example of overspending massively backfiring on any Prem team being charged under the FFP rules? ... Everton my be in flux right now - but somebody very wealthy is going to buy Everton in due course ...
Somebody who used to be rich did buy Everton .<laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: PINKIE
The timeframe is dependent on how well a club's strategy is. But realistically the idea should be to become competitive and successful whilst remaining sustainable. That can take anything from 5-10 years, probably more in fact and would require sound investment in things like infrastructure and scouting.

The problem there though is that clubs aren't willing to put in that sort of work, they just want the promised land almost immediately and then say they're being prevented from doing so when FFP prevents them from taking a shortcut.

if I didn’t know that you’re a Spurs fan

id say you’re a Spurs fan
 
1974 the first world cup I remember, properly remember that is, I remember my dad saying something about England in the year 1966, I think we must have won it or something.
 
Neither Citeh, Forest, Everton, Villa, Newcastle or Leicester City have spent beyond their actual 'means' ... measuring their 'means' by reference to some arbitrary financial parameters dreamt up by some random spreadsheet jockey at the football authority is not a real test or accurate measure of that - the asset value of the owners is ... however, it is a convenient means of constraining spend needed to mount a proper challenge to the Sky faves...

Give me one example of overspending massively backfiring on any Prem team being charged under the FFP rules? ... Everton my be in flux right now - but somebody very wealthy is going to buy Everton in due course ...

To use your own club for example, your wages to turnover at one stage was 116%... In what way is that not spending beyond means?

You'd recorded something like 5 years of straight lossess and those were largely (if not fully) attributed to player expenditure.
 
1974 the first world cup I remember, properly remember that is, I remember my dad saying something about England in the year 1966, I think we must have won it or something.

You're younger than I thought mate <whistle>
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
The timeframe is dependent on how well a club's strategy is. But realistically the idea should be to become competitive and successful whilst remaining sustainable. That can take anything from 5-10 years, probably more in fact and would require sound investment in things like infrastructure and scouting.

The problem there though is that clubs aren't willing to put in that sort of work, they just want the promised land almost immediately and then say they're being prevented from doing so when FFP prevents them from taking a shortcut.

The problem is that when a team starts to do well they start to lose players to teams who can offer 4x times the amount. Yeah teams can have the odd good season like us/Leicester/Brighton but maintaining it is a whole new thing.

There's no realistic way a smaller club can bridge the gap and maintain it under FFP. Even if their owners have the money to burn.