Football: VARying degrees of dissatisfaction inside.

[BigFatCoward]

2 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Relegation, innit?

I think you will be OK even with another 10 points to be honest. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So how many points wil they deduct Chelsea in one, two, three, four, five years?

[Consigliere]

Roma have sacked Mourinho.

[BigFatCoward]

oh god, please don't let us fire Eddie and replace him with that boring fuck. 

Also, FFP is a fucking joke, its just a completely closed shop to stop anyone getting near the top 6 and maintaining the status quo.  And i'd feel the same if we weren't richer than croesus. 

Villa should be able to go out and really push the chips all in if they want, but no, the established teams can spend fortunes to keep them where they belong.  its like making private school not only unaffordable for poor people, but actually illegal. 

one of the reasons was to stop issues like Portsmouth, spending more than they can afford, how is that applicable to us?  We aren't going to the wall if we buy the whole Brazil, Spain and France squads. 

Edited January 16 by BigFatCoward

[baxus]

19 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Obviously. But at the ame time, I don't think Maradonna could pull off half the stuff he did and compete for as long as he did. But I think you are a bit glorifying the older generation. Players had more leeway in terms of professionalism back then. Prosinecki chainsmoking in the dressing room as a player wouldn't fly today (presumably).

Like I said, I think this generation is a lot more professional than our childhood heros.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Sure, today's players are living a lifestyle that is improving their performance and longevity, their habits are healthier overall and all that, but it's not because players of yesteryear were refusing the rules but rather that the rules were different in their day.

35 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

one of the reasons was to stop issues like Portsmouth, spending more than they can afford, how is that applicable to us?  We aren't going to the wall if we buy the whole Brazil, Spain and France squads. 

And what would happen to Newcastle United if they bought "the whole Brazil, Spain and France squads" and Saudis just stopped pouring in the money one day? For whatever reason. It might happen in a year because they just got bored, or it could be in 10 years because they didn't need any more promotion for Saudi Arabia World Cup, or in 50 years when Saudi king decides to invest in American football instead. Now, I'm not saying whether any of those scenarios is likely or not, but clubs need to be protected from their owners whims.

Remember Chelsea's situation that forced Abramovich to sell? Who would've thought back in 2005 that would happen?

[Consigliere]

https://twitter.com/johncrossmirror/status/1747187585884017065

Quote

The Premier League is effectively a collective. The 20 member clubs are shareholders. They vote through the rules, including profit and sustainability rules which have been in place for more than a decade. So, for all that time the vast majority have spent within their means and obeyed the rules. No-one has complained, they’ve all lived within the rules that they voted for. Basically, you can’t lose more than £105m over three years.

Many people had their say on the original Everton case clearly without reading the written reasons. Why not take an hour to read them before going on radio and TV to talk about them? You could tell who had and who hadn’t.

This time, I’ve got sympathy with Everton as it’s hard to break the cycle in the three years. In fairness, the rules may get tweaked from next season. But the current rules were in place and had been voted through. The clubs didn’t want set tariffs imposed. Each case different.

I found the coverage of Newcastle’s frustrations bizarre. PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league. Those who didn’t want sportswashing suddenly want them to be able to spend more. Er…

The Guardian calculated Forest spent £250m on 43 players since promotion. And yet they’re unhappy about when one sale - Brennan Johnson - was added to their accounts. Seriously?!

What’s the point in clubs like Wolves or Palace trying to conform if others are allowed to break the rules and potentially finish higher than them? Wolves must have been close. So, guess what? They got their house in order, lost a manager over it and didn’t get charged.

PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. Why politicians get involved is beyond me. If the club is in their constituency and affects their community then fair enough. But aren’t they busy enough? What next? Rishi Sunak complaining about VAR?

PSR is like a tax return. You have to get your figures in by a certain date. It’s relatively simple. It’s totally different to Man City’s case which is way more complex. That’s why it’s taking longer.

In all of this, it’s the fans who suffer and have my sympathy. The uncertainty is ridiculous and unfair. But surely it’s the clubs to blame. Not the Premier League.

 

[BigFatCoward]

PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league.

PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. 

Both of these statements are clearly nonsense.  It was fine for Chelsea and City but nobody else?  And it completely frustrates competition as those already at the top have a huge ongoing financial advantage.  

I mean, fuck Newcastle's owners obviously, but FFP is laughable if the above are its stated aims. 

[Darryk]

2 hours ago, Consigliere said:

Roma have sacked Mourinho.

Bwahahahah, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

[Consigliere]

Chelsea and City are under investigation. Those cases, especially City's case, are way more complex. The Athletic had spoken to lawyers who worked on other FFP cases when the charges were first announced and their opinion was that it's going to take years to sort out City's case.

IIRC, implementation of FFP only started from the season 2011/2012 so obviously when Abramovich first took over at Chelsea and Sheikh Mansour at City there were no FFP or PSR rules to worry about so those clubs were able to spend with impunity and post huge losses without facing any consequences.

Edited January 16 by Consigliere

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

 

And what would happen to Newcastle United if they bought "the whole Brazil, Spain and France squads" and Saudis just stopped pouring in the money one day? For whatever reason. It might happen in a year because they just got bored, or it could be in 10 years because they didn't need any more promotion for Saudi Arabia World Cup, or in 50 years when Saudi king decides to invest in American football instead. Now, I'm not saying whether any of those scenarios is likely or not, but clubs need to be protected from their owners whims.

Remember Chelsea's situation that forced Abramovich to sell? Who would've thought back in 2005 that would happen?

What would happen to clubs within FFP if their wealthy benefactors fucked off, look at Chelsea.  Seems a bizarre reason to limit spending but whatever.

If everyone is happy with 5 of Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City, Spurs and Arsenal being in the top 6 every year with an occasional interloper what do i know.  Its the football equivalent of some tory cunt saying 'if you want to get ahead just pull yourself up by your bootstraps'. 

Edited January 16 by BigFatCoward

[A Horse Named Stranger]

In other surprising and sad news.

 

RIP Kay Bernstein

For those who paid attention to football/club politics in Germany during the previous threads.

Bernstein was the Ultra that was elected club President over at Hertha in '22. The event manager has now unexpectedly died aged 43.

[Consigliere]

I'd be fine with scrapping financial restrictions provided that state ownership is also prohibited. If a club's owners decide to take huge financial risks then that's up to them.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

If everyone is happy with 5 of Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City, Spurs and Arsenal being in the top 6 every year with an occasional interloper what do i know.

But that is not what happens, is it? Liverpool have spent their fair share outside of the top 6 until Klopp took over, Arteta was under fire for Arsenal finishing at #8 for a couple of seasons (haven't done much better even before he took over) and Chelsea are well on their way to do their time outside of top 6, and let's not even get into it with Spurs.

The only team that has been in the top 6 every single season over the last decade or so is City, and, as Consigliere said, they are being investigated. Also, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who is in favour of what City is doing. You are the one that comes closest to that with this whole "Newcastle isn't allowed to compete" theory. Btw, that would sit much better if they haven't played in the Champions League this very season.

[BigFatCoward]

30 minutes ago, baxus said:

But that is not what happens, is it? Liverpool have spent their fair share outside of the top 6 until Klopp took over, Arteta was under fire for Arsenal finishing at #8 for a couple of seasons (haven't done much better even before he took over) and Chelsea are well on their way to do their time outside of top 6, and let's not even get into it with Spurs.

The only team that has been in the top 6 every single season over the last decade or so is City, and, as Consigliere said, they are being investigated. Also, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who is in favour of what City is doing. You are the one that comes closest to that with this whole "Newcastle isn't allowed to compete" theory. Btw, that would sit much better if they haven't played in the Champions League this very season.

The top 4 has been those 6 teams every season since 2006, other than the Leicester miracle and Newcastle last year, so it pretty much is (its hard to find top 6 listings rather than top 4 and i can't be arsed doing it manually). 

You've made this point before re liverpool, who since 2000 have finished outside the top 6 4 times, and 3 of those times they were 7th.  

Edited January 16 by BigFatCoward

[baxus]

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The top 4 has been those 6 teams every season since 2006, other than the Leicester miracle and Newcastle last year, so it pretty much is (its hard to find top 6 listings rather than top 4 and i can't be arsed doing it manually). 

But that's not what you said, is it? You said that 5 of those 6 clubs end top 6 every season.

[BigFatCoward]

5 minutes ago, baxus said:

But that's not what you said, is it? You said that 5 of those 6 clubs end top 6 every season.

well 4 of those 6 come top 4 every season, its not much of a leap to think one of the other 2 finished 5th or 6th is it?

edit, Man Utd have finished outside the top 6 once since 92, Man City every season since 09, Chelsea twice since 98, Arsenal once since 96, Liverpool 5 times since 92, Spurs 4 times since 06.  

Last 10 years 52 out of 60 top 6 places, so more than 5 out of 6. 

Edited January 16 by BigFatCoward

[Mexal]

The whole system is reinforcing too. If you finish in the top 5, you get European money you can spend on players. You also get better and more expensive sponsorships along with other revenue streams. And then you spend it on more players. That plus rich owners lending money to the team allows the top 6 to continually stay near the top even with failures along the way. A bottom PL team will have a tough time competing with that, there is just no way for them to get generational stars outside of developing them and that is not easy to do. Without a draft or salary cap, this is the way it’ll be always. It’s why I appreciate the NFL model and parity. You can go from the 3rd worst team to a playoff winner in a year if you draft the right talent with right coaching staff. There are other limitations there why certain teams are always good and others aren’t but the system itself lends to more season over season parity where as football does not and never will.

As for Chelsea, their comeuppance is coming. They’re getting away with it now because of accounting rules for who they’ve sold and amortization of their contracts but over next few years, they will have a harder and harder time paying for it without European football.

Edited January 16 by Mexal

[baxus]

All data since (and including) 2005/06.

"Top 6" missing out on Europe:

• Liverpool missed out on CL 7 times, played in EL twice (5 seasons out of Europe)
• Arsenal missed out on CL 6 times, played in EL 4 times (2 seasons out of Europe)
• Tottenham missed out on CL 12 times, played in EL 8 times (4 seasons out of Europe)
• United missed CL 4 times, played in EL 3 times (1 season out of Europe)
• Chelsea missed CL 3 times, played in EL once (2 seasons out of Europe)
• City missed CL 5 times, played one season in EL. (4 seasons out of Europe; obviously, this was at the beginning of this period)

So, in total there's 18 times these clubs ended outside of European spots. On average, 1 team per season. Plus, maybe some of these teams ended in Europe on winning the Cup instead of through League positions but I'm not checking that now.

 

Different teams that have played Europa League since 2006:

• Blackburn
• Everton
• Bolton
• Villa
• Fulham
• Newcastle
• Southampton
• West Ham
• Burnley
• Wolves
• Leicester
• Brighton

So, 12 different clubs outside of "top 6" have made it to Europe (not including Conference League).

[baxus]

20 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The whole system is reinforcing too. If you finish in the top 5, you get European money you can spend on players. You also get better and more expensive sponsorships along with other revenue streams. And then you spend it on more players.

Success brings more money that allows spending more to maintain success, it's the same across Europe.

23 minutes ago, Mexal said:

That plus rich owners lending money to the team allows the top 6 to continually stay near the top even with failures along the way. 

But which rich owners are lending money to the team in the top 6, other than City and, previously, Chelsea? Spurs owners are notoriously tightfisted, Arsenal and Liverpool's owners have been accused of it as well (though nowhere near as bad as Spurs, of course), United fans are crying over how Glazers have been running the club for decades now... That case can only be made for City and Chelsea.

25 minutes ago, Mexal said:

A bottom PL team will have a tough time competing with that, there is just no way for them to get generational stars outside of developing them and that is not easy to do. Without a draft or salary cap, this is the way it’ll be always.

Unfortunately, that is absolutely correct. We'd all like to see a small club win trophies with academy players, but the whole system makes that impossible. Salary cap and drafts would make it a less unlikely but still not very likely. I mean, smaller teams rarely win trophies even in American pro leagues.

[BigFatCoward]

18 minutes ago, baxus said:

All data since (and including) 2005/06.

"Top 6" missing out on Europe:

• Liverpool missed out on CL 7 times, played in EL twice (5 seasons out of Europe)
• Arsenal missed out on CL 6 times, played in EL 4 times (2 seasons out of Europe)
• Tottenham missed out on CL 12 times, played in EL 8 times (4 seasons out of Europe)
• United missed CL 4 times, played in EL 3 times (1 season out of Europe)
• Chelsea missed CL 3 times, played in EL once (2 seasons out of Europe)
• City missed CL 5 times, played one season in EL. (4 seasons out of Europe; obviously, this was at the beginning of this period)

So, in total there's 18 times these clubs ended outside of European spots. On average, 1 team per season. Plus, maybe some of these teams ended in Europe on winning the Cup instead of through League positions but I'm not checking that now.

 

Different teams that have played Europa League since 2006:

• Blackburn
• Everton
• Bolton
• Villa
• Fulham
• Newcastle
• Southampton
• West Ham
• Burnley
• Wolves
• Leicester
• Brighton

So, 12 different clubs outside of "top 6" have made it to Europe (not including Conference League).

Yeah, so there is total dominance by the top 6 and you are agreeing with me.  Big 6 finished in top 6 positions more than 5 times per year over the last 10 years (going back further goes beyond when spurs or city would be considered Big 6 so that's a bit naughty statistically). 

Some teams have scraped into the Europa league, but the CL teams are almost exclusive they big 6, and we know the disparity in money from CL and Europa league is huge.