this guy doesn't understand or care. if uefas rules and prem rules actually work this lot have to hit a point where they simply cannot sign anyone for 2 or 3 years as they've basically spend the world of cahs.and it's all on their books over each year for the next 5 I can only presume they all think the TV money is going to double.
That why we limped into 5th after nearly doing the quad. I've said before, some on here are so scared by the h&g saga, that they don't realise they've moved from being battered to just abused.
They are milking the club, just like the glaziers are doing, but doing it in a nice way. They'll make an absolute fortune, with out putting anything in. And your applauding them for it. They are a bigger nicer version of Mike Ashley, they've tried to **** the fans at every opportunity, only to be beaten back. Yes they could be much worse, but they shouldn't be lauded because they arnt ****e
Said this for a while. Seems odd. As a player you lose all kind of control over your career. You can’t push for a pay rise if you play well. Unless some clauses added that increases over x years on stuff then seems odd. Yes long term security but just seems very odd one
New rule doesnt come into play until tomorrow. So as long as the paperwork was all signed today, they've got away with another one.
I understand what you're saying, I'm just not bothered because the club is being run exactly how I believe all clubs should be run. I'd rather not have a owner at all and that's exactly how the club is being run (actually better off since the loans are interest free) I'll leave it there as I'm not really interesting in debating this mate
Morals? have you any idea of the amount of people America and the UK have murdered to overthroe regimes they didn't like? In fairness the UK don't kill it's own criminals like some countries but America do and enjoy it. Woulds you rather be Hung, Electrocuted or Beheaded? Either way you end up dead (and occasionally found innocent afterwards).
New rule doesn't affect how long a contract can be, just how long you can amortise the transfer fee over (5 years max).
Also didn't come into effect until today. "The amendments will come into force from July 1 and will not be backdated to include transfers that have already taken place and contracts already signed." Which I think is what I said.
Thing is, yes chelsea have played the system. They’ve managed to get a huge outlay on players and spread the cost to get around ffp. But a few of those players have really failed. Koulibaly already gone. Mudryk looked pretty poor. Fofana looked average but both have potential. Cucurella was poor and prob would move on if they could. Fofana isn’t first team player. Madueke again is a prospect. Fernandez prob only one that’s done well. Now their young players may come good, but because they’re spreading costs for 7/8 years they’ve committed to at least 50/60m fees every single year for the next 7/8. That will have a huge impact on their future signings. At some point those payments will hit and unless they make some big big sales they’re going to be a bit stuck. Would also imagine these players are going to be on big contracts, so moving any of them on will be tricky and won’t get what they’ve paid so will be making a loss on them while still paying off their transfer fees.
the other thing is even if they have scammed it they have one of two issues. either thst amortisation bill is in place for 5 to 7 years or they sell at losses to remove it. if if if the ffp by revenue rules are fair and if only real revenues apply to the 70% rule then Chelsea could have absolutely screwed themselves.
Think I remember Souness touting this a few years back when VAR came in to solve its 'problems'. You still have to have a terminator and draw a line on it though, so personally, I still think you have the same problem, surely?
Similar to the daylight rule that they used to have, which tbh I preferred. Gives a bigger advantage to attacking sides.
Personally thought the linesmen used to get pretty much all tight calls right and should have just used standard TV coverage to spot the howlers but then i was always against VAR
Well they’ll still have outgoing for another 7 seasons even if they sell them unless can sell for a profit
I’ve said for long time much rather go this way than current way to rule someone offside. It’s to stop people gaining an unfair advantage. It’s not an unfair advantage if your knee is 2 inches ahead of the defender. Much better to say if you’re a whole body length ahead then yes you’ve gained an advantage. Make defenders actually defend rather than get lucky on a forward mistiming a run by a millisecond.
Don't care how they determine the offside rule as long as it's fairly and consistently refereed. Must say, I always thought the ice hockey rule of crossing two lines seemed like something easier to referee consistently and works for hockey. Not sure if it would work in football, but it would be an interesting experiment. Overall though as I said in first sentence, don't care what the rule is as long as it's judged fairly.
