Football 2023/24

[thetime]

Perhaps says more about forest green to be honest, 4 full time managers in 18 months. 

[charlierc]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Perhaps says more about forest green to be honest, 4 full time managers in 18 months. 

It does read like blind panic. Obviously they weren't expecting Rob Edwards to leave after getting promoted to League One but they are making just so many poor decisions right now.

[charlierc]

Must admit that having different journalists saying simultaneously that Trippier is on the verge of leaving Newcastle for Bayern Munich and that Trippier is staying at Newcastle makes the whole thing clear as mud. To say nothing of the surprise new rumour that Atletico Madrid want Callum Wilson, although that seems less likely.

Wonder if a defeat today leading to Bayern now being 7 points off Leverkusen in the Bundesliga title race might lead to them getting more desperate and throwing more coin to make something happen.

[lost]

Newcastle appear to be top of the rumours page each day. If this supposed firesale turns out to be true to meet FFP next season without the chumps league revenue then something is clearly wrong with the rules. How is any team supposed to push on and progress outside of Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal?

[Skip997]

Just now, lost said:

How is any team supposed to push on and progress outside of Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd and Arsenal?

Here's one method..

Do as Liverpool do and develop and introduce youth team players.

[lost]

11 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Here's one method..

Do as Liverpool do and develop and introduce youth team players.

City are under invesigation with Chelsea. Liverpool have still spent a decent chunk,  aren't Salah's wages above some clubs entire yearly transfer budget?

Its pretty boring for the neutral when only Newcastle. Leicester city and Everton have qualified for the champions league outside the usual suspects in the last 20 years. One club was forced to sell schmeichel and went down, one is probably going to go down this year with two sets of points deductions and the last appears to be in the prem's cross hairs.

 

Edited January 22 by lost

[Skip997]

Just now, lost said:

Liverpool have still spent a decent chunk,  aren't Salah's wages above some clubs entire yearly transfer budget

Yes, but all well within FFP rules and all other financial restraints put on clubs, and while their gross spend is quite high (still below Man Utd and probably Arsenal) their net spend is relatively low.

Where Liverpool have an advantage is that (since Klopp) 90% of their buy have been a success, plus Klopp has the guts to give youngsters and chance and it's paying massive dividends.

[lost]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

Yes, but all well within FFP rules and all other financial restraints put on clubs

Yes but that was the point. The only 3 clubs that can get those types of players and hold on to them within FFP are probably Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal because 95% of people support the club (and therefore spend their money on) who are doing the best when they are a kid.

Everyone else might as well switch to supporting ones of those clubs which I guess is what they wanted with the european super league.

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

Yes but that was the point. The only 3 clubs that can get those types of players and hold on to them within FFP are probably Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal because 95% of people support the club

So why not Newcastle?

They have a big ground and a very large and loyal fan base.

[lost]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

So why not Newcastle?

They have a big ground and a very large and loyal fan base.

Still dwarfed I guess by the people who have to support the winning team all the time.

I think Spurs do something with their ground and NFL for extra revenue. Villa could be in the sh*t when the Grealish money rolls out of the 3 year period.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, lost said:

Still dwarfed I guess by the people who have to support the winning team all the time.

Man Utd still have huge support.

[Neil]

25 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Man Utd still have huge support.

in surrey. 😛 

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, lost said:

Newcastle appear to be top of the rumours page each day. If this supposed firesale turns out to be true to meet FFP next season without the chumps league revenue then something is clearly wrong with the rules. How is any team supposed to push on and progress outside of Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal?

That's the point. They're not. FFP wasn't designed to ensure sensible and well-managed ownership, it was designed to keep the same teams at the top.

You have a bunch of obnoxious legal and financial trickery to get around it - such as Chelsea's long contracts, asset declaration and amortisation, particularly while loaning masses of players out - or City sponsoring themselves with another of their owner's companies. I'm sure the Saudis are going to be attempting to find something similarly dodgy and ridiculous.

The rules should have been that owners aren't allowed to be owed money by their own club. All investment must be investment, whatever form its in. That or a Europe-league wide salary cap. But the big boys of Real, Man U, Liverpool, Juve, etc wanted to keep hold of their share of the pie and shut down the likes of City/PSG and make sure no other club could do that again. They accepted Chelsea into their little clique because it was too late to keep them out.

I'm no fan of state-owned clubs buying their way to success. Even though I'll probably cheer when Newcastle inevitably win a trophy it will feel tainted by the ownership and the blood money. But FFP wasn't a solution to ensure an even playing field, it was a solution to protect the footballing status quo.

[Neil]

On 12/13/2023 at 10:59 PM, Ryan1984 said:

Also very concerned about losing Josh Stokes in January!

record fee plus a loan back, my Bristol mates are taking the piss for nicking Aldershot's best player.

[Skip997]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

That's the point. They're not. FFP wasn't designed to ensure sensible and well-managed ownership, it was designed to keep the same teams at the top.

You have a bunch of obnoxious legal and financial trickery to get around it - such as Chelsea's long contracts, asset declaration and amortisation, particularly while loaning masses of players out - or City sponsoring themselves with another of their owner's companies. I'm sure the Saudis are going to be attempting to find something similarly dodgy and ridiculous.

The rules should have been that owners aren't allowed to be owed money by their own club. All investment must be investment, whatever form its in. That or a Europe-league wide salary cap. But the big boys of Real, Man U, Liverpool, Juve, etc wanted to keep hold of their share of the pie and shut down the likes of City/PSG and make sure no other club could do that again. They accepted Chelsea into their little clique because it was too late to keep them out.

I'm no fan of state-owned clubs buying their way to success. Even though I'll probably cheer when Newcastle inevitably win a trophy it will feel tainted by the ownership and the blood money. But FFP wasn't a solution to ensure an even playing field, it was a solution to protect the footballing status quo.

This is half true and half nonsense.

Apart from the fact that they could get a good deal, the other main reason FSG bought Liverpool was because they (foolishly) thought FFP would actually be implemented (which it isn't). Liverpool are a properly run club, totally within all FFP and other financial regulations. FSG take no money out of the club, all earnings are diverted back into development.

Thus proving that success is possible without cheating (see Man City - who will eventually get off with a "slap on the wrist" and Chelsea). If Newcastle are being properly restricted, then this is good news, FFP should be taken this seriously.

I always find this paranoia that FFP was a "big club cartel invention" laughable. It actually was designed to ensure sensible and well-managed ownership, but the cheats ignored it and used obnoxious legal and financial trickery to get around it.

The proper traditional clubs, like Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool earned their place at the top in a proper fashion, and were always likely to keep it due to large fan bases and sound (legal) commercial and financial management.

Man City need to be kicked out of the league and Newcastle kept very strongly under wraps. It will be a sad day for football if/when they win a trophy under the current owners.

I don't expect anyone to agree with this, as sadly, all that 99% of football fans care about is success and don't care how it happens.

[charlierc]

5 hours ago, lost said:

Newcastle appear to be top of the rumours page each day. If this supposed firesale turns out to be true to meet FFP next season without the chumps league revenue then something is clearly wrong with the rules. How is any team supposed to push on and progress outside of Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal?

It's been an oddly busy few weeks with rumours about at least 6 players. And the ones we actually use, unlike Javi Manquillo who has been allowed to move to Spain on a free having barely played since the start of last year.

Personally I think the FFP/PSR figure of £105M over 3 years should be relaxed to, say, £125-130m, not because of my pro-Toon bias (though I accept that plays a part) but because it's unchanged since 2015, and that inflation in player wages, transfer fees and just life in general in the last decade-ish makes me wonder if using last decade economics is wise. Even moreso if the rumour is true that part of what ruined Everton's finances was the Liz Truss-induced rise in interest rates.

All Newcastle can try to do is grow revenues, which is easier said than done given we were at just over half the revenues of Spurs as per our last set of accounts. Obviously having new commercial deals, a new kit deal next season and this season of CL revenue (even if we hurt ourselves but getting knocked out straight away) will help, but it's a work in progress. Plus there was always the case that player trading has to play a part - that's effectively how Spurs got into the top 6 conversation.

[charlierc]

5 hours ago, Skip997 said:

Man Utd still have huge support.

Admittedly they're trying their best to lose it.

[Ryan1984]

40 minutes ago, Neil said:

record fee plus a loan back, my Bristol mates are taking the piss for nicking Aldershot's best player.

Good deal all round. Apparently Brentford would have got him if we hadn’t insisted on a loan back.

[charlierc]

3 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

That's the point. They're not. FFP wasn't designed to ensure sensible and well-managed ownership, it was designed to keep the same teams at the top.

You have a bunch of obnoxious legal and financial trickery to get around it - such as Chelsea's long contracts, asset declaration and amortisation, particularly while loaning masses of players out - or City sponsoring themselves with another of their owner's companies. I'm sure the Saudis are going to be attempting to find something similarly dodgy and ridiculous.

The rules should have been that owners aren't allowed to be owed money by their own club. All investment must be investment, whatever form its in. That or a Europe-league wide salary cap. But the big boys of Real, Man U, Liverpool, Juve, etc wanted to keep hold of their share of the pie and shut down the likes of City/PSG and make sure no other club could do that again. They accepted Chelsea into their little clique because it was too late to keep them out.

I'm no fan of state-owned clubs buying their way to success. Even though I'll probably cheer when Newcastle inevitably win a trophy it will feel tainted by the ownership and the blood money. But FFP wasn't a solution to ensure an even playing field, it was a solution to protect the footballing status quo.

I've always thought FFP started from a reasonable place but became damaged by the world around it. When the proposition was first made to counter things like the huge swathe of clubs (particularly lower leagues) going bust thanks to the late 2000's financial meltdown or Man City registering comically substantial losses to build their team up in their first 4 years of Abu Dhabi ownership, the idea wasn't terrible.

However, it creates this as a by-product. Of course I'd expect to find it difficult to challenge top six clubs with revenues over £500million a year that can afford to buy and retain top talent, but it's certainly an issue, one that I'm not sure people expected. And at least having a big six gives the artifice of competition, given how far away Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, PSG, Bayern Munich, etc are. Hell, even Celtic & Rangers being miles ahead of everyone else in Scotland is practically locked in at this point because they've just got humungous budgets.

We know big clubs have self-interest tbf, what with the European Super League debacle or when Liverpool & Man United's owners jointly presented an idea called Project Big Picture to revamp the English pyramid in their image, or reports the big six had a meeting in New York a few months after Leicester won the league to make sure they could tilt the league's financial redistribution in their favour and go a little way to ensuring they didn't do that again.

I'm not sure what is an answer to level the playing field tbf. Having clubs bankrupting themselves to keep up with the top six is a disaster in waiting, FFP seems to have its own problems, state-run clubs have their own issues (and there's a finite number of states willing to get involved to begin with), so what else we got?

[Neil]

18 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Good deal all round. Apparently Brentford would have got him if we hadn’t insisted on a loan back.

I'll  take the piss by pointing out how desperate city must be to go shopping at Aldershot.

I hope the fee will sort the Aldershot finances for a bit. 

[charlierc]

16 minutes ago, Neil said:

I'll  take the piss by pointing out how desperate city must be to go shopping at Aldershot.

I hope the fee will sort the Aldershot finances for a bit. 

I've heard Bristol City are pretty good at developing young players into stars tbf - Alex Scott and Antoine Semenyo got sold to Bournemouth for big cash, while Tommy Conway's goals against West Ham hint he could be a PL-level player before long. So maybe this is a decent move for Stokes.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, charlierc said:

I've heard Bristol City are pretty good at developing young players into stars tbf - Alex Scott and Antoine Semenyo got sold to Bournemouth for big cash, while Tommy Conway's goals against West Ham hint he could be a PL-level player before long. So maybe this is a decent move for Stokes.

he could have had the prem with the nylons (brentford).

[kaosmark2]

15 hours ago, Skip997 said:

This is half true and half nonsense.

Apart from the fact that they could get a good deal, the other main reason FSG bought Liverpool was because they (foolishly) thought FFP would actually be implemented (which it isn't). Liverpool are a properly run club, totally within all FFP and other financial regulations. FSG take no money out of the club, all earnings are diverted back into development.

Thus proving that success is possible without cheating (see Man City - who will eventually get off with a "slap on the wrist" and Chelsea). If Newcastle are being properly restricted, then this is good news, FFP should be taken this seriously.

I always find this paranoia that FFP was a "big club cartel invention" laughable. It actually was designed to ensure sensible and well-managed ownership, but the cheats ignored it and used obnoxious legal and financial trickery to get around it.

The proper traditional clubs, like Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool earned their place at the top in a proper fashion, and were always likely to keep it due to large fan bases and sound (legal) commercial and financial management.

Man City need to be kicked out of the league and Newcastle kept very strongly under wraps. It will be a sad day for football if/when they win a trophy under the current owners.

I don't expect anyone to agree with this, as sadly, all that 99% of football fans care about is success and don't care how it happens.

Yes yes Liverpool are the perfect club, their fans are all saints, their owners are benevolent, and the club is an entire magical fairy kingdom that will save football from all its evils.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

Yes yes Liverpool are the perfect club, their fans are all saints, their owners are benevolent, and the club is an entire magical fairy kingdom that will save football from all its evils.

Hopefully

[kaosmark2]

15 hours ago, charlierc said:

I've always thought FFP started from a reasonable place but became damaged by the world around it. When the proposition was first made to counter things like the huge swathe of clubs (particularly lower leagues) going bust thanks to the late 2000's financial meltdown or Man City registering comically substantial losses to build their team up in their first 4 years of Abu Dhabi ownership, the idea wasn't terrible.

However, it creates this as a by-product. Of course I'd expect to find it difficult to challenge top six clubs with revenues over £500million a year that can afford to buy and retain top talent, but it's certainly an issue, one that I'm not sure people expected. And at least having a big six gives the artifice of competition, given how far away Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, PSG, Bayern Munich, etc are. Hell, even Celtic & Rangers being miles ahead of everyone else in Scotland is practically locked in at this point because they've just got humungous budgets.

We know big clubs have self-interest tbf, what with the European Super League debacle or when Liverpool & Man United's owners jointly presented an idea called Project Big Picture to revamp the English pyramid in their image, or reports the big six had a meeting in New York a few months after Leicester won the league to make sure they could tilt the league's financial redistribution in their favour and go a little way to ensuring they didn't do that again.

I'm not sure what is an answer to level the playing field tbf. Having clubs bankrupting themselves to keep up with the top six is a disaster in waiting, FFP seems to have its own problems, state-run clubs have their own issues (and there's a finite number of states willing to get involved to begin with), so what else we got?

The thing is, I don't think Man City registering losses matters unless it breaks the club. I think the problem is much more clubs speculatively borrowing, particularly when owners "loan" money to their own club. Tying spending power to revenue is only fine is revenue isn't wildly unequal in the first place. 

Real Madrid and Barcelona have largely showed the big problem with there being a terminally unequal revenue system, and that the big boys will always demand more. The ability through the '00s to have their own TV deals separate from the rest of the league gave them the financial power to win everything, but because their only real competition was each other, La Liga lost demand as a product compared to the PL, and instead of seeking a way to create fair competition, they wanted to cull the PL and expand their own revenues to compete.

Maybe FFP's been more twisted and I'm not giving its initial proposal enough credit, but the never-ending chase to not just get more of the pie, but to deny it to others is the problem. The 50%+1 German model is definitely better than most of the rest of Europe, but you still had the nonsense of one team winning something like 10 league titles in a row due to differing financial power and international legacy. 

If I were to get to impose any financial regulations instantly, without all the changeover problems, I'd introduce a squad salary cap, set by division, and ban borrowing on squad investment (infrastructure investment into stadia/training grounds would be fine). It'd certainly be more interesting than locking in the same clubs into the top positions for decades.