Football 2010-2011

[eFestivals]

Not sure exactly what Cesc is supposed to have said, but if it was along the lines of "Do you know what the offside law actually is you massive spam javelin?" then he was right to say it. I do think that Cesc needs to watch himself though as he's getting a reputation now (and not undeserved) which a ref is going to bite on sooner rather than later.

according to Wenger, only he spoke to the ref & linesman at half time.

And wtf is Moyes going on about, ranting about that? They wouldn't have been in the game without that offside goal, and they still got beat.

[jump]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6717918,00.html

"The fact is Mike Ashley didn't want to sell him, it's not like he needs the money is it? And remember we turned down bids of £30m and then £35m from Liverpool.

Llambias defended the fact that Carroll was flown to Merseyside to seal the move in Newcastle's club helicopter.

"Yes, he went in our helicopter. But the sooner the deal was done the sooner we could make our own moves in the transfer market. It was already very late," he said.

"We will spend in the summer. Every penny of the £35m will stay in the club."

[eFestivals]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6717918,00.html

1, this has bullshit written all over it and 2, I'm sick of hearing about these bloody helicopters.

nah, I really don't think it's bullshit - after all, it's not possible for anyone to force Carroll to put in a transfer request.

The story coming out of Newc is that Carroll asked for a new contract to match what Liverpool were offering, and Newc said no (as they're entitled to). So Carroll put in a transfer request because h3e wanted the money more than he wanted Newc.

It might be the case that Carroll was thinking that the transfer request might force Newc to give him a new contract, but if he thought that he's merely been dumb, and not "forced out" out that club.

[jump]

nah, I really don't think it's bullshit - after all, it's not possible for anyone to force Carroll to put in a transfer request.

The story coming out of Newc is that Carroll asked for a new contract to match what Liverpool were offering, and Newc said no (as they're entitled to). So Carroll put in a transfer request because h3e wanted the money more than he wanted Newc.

It might be the case that Carroll was thinking that the transfer request might force Newc to give him a new contract, but if he thought that he's merely been dumb, and not "forced out" out that club.

[eFestivals]

I was thinking more about Ashley didn't want to sell and the money would go to other players, I pretty much get that he went to Liverpool for more money.

ahhh, right, sorry - yeah, I've with you on that.

You never know, they might be on the level. After all, Pardew has said the same thing as well.

But I bet there's another side to it. Either Ashley was planning to pump some money in anyway in the summer (after all, most Prem clubs have money pumped in by the owner, cos they want to stay in the Prem and don't make enough to be sure of staying there otherwise) which won't now happen, or he's doing the same trick as Hall and Shepard used to do, of making a big thing about the money they 'put in', while extracting more than that amount into their own pockets via an underhand means.

[eFestivals]

So how do the 'financial fair play' rules work?

Stuff I've read in the last few days has suggested that for the 2012-2013 season, a club needs to have had three years of near-profitable accounts for the previous 3 years.

But if that's the case, then Chelsea are near enough already excluded from the Chumps, so from that I'm thinking that what I've said above must be wrong.

Can anyone explain it for me please?

[jump]

So how do the 'financial fair play' rules work?

Stuff I've read in the last few days has suggested that for the 2012-2013 season, a club needs to have had three years of near-profitable accounts for the previous 3 years.

But if that's the case, then Chelsea are near enough already excluded from the Chumps, so from that I'm thinking that what I've said above must be wrong.

Can anyone explain it for me please?

Edited February 2, 2011 by jump

[eFestivals]

I thought they were doing it step by step and the 1st one was not to have a loss of more then 50m Euro's or something, then cut that figure in half and so on untill the clubs can support themselves.

if that was how it works (along with working back 3 years from Aug 2012), then Chelsea are out of the Chumps already after their spending on Monday.

I think that must be wrong, cos I can't see them having done that .... unless the owner pumping money into the club is within the rules, with the rules saying that a club can't have debts (rather than losses).

[The Nal]

Clubs have to have a 1:1 spending/income, rolling over three years up until the end of 2012/2013.

Clubs could be banned from European competition from the 2014/15 season onwards if they do not comply with the new rules.

The rules state clubs must break even over a three-year period - ie not repeatedly spend more than they earn.

Clubs will be able to spend as much as they want on stadiums, training facilities and youth football.

Theres a massive grey area in there too with wages/future wages/loans etc.

So Chelski can make a 70 million loss this year, next year and in the third year fiddle the books and sell a few players, win the league or the Champo and claim that future revenue back, shirt deals, satadium sponsorship, TV money etc. Its an accounting mess, unworkable too.

I cant see Uefa kicking Chelski out of the Champo League.

Edited February 2, 2011 by The Nal

[ampersand]

Clubs will be able to spend as much as they want on stadiums, training facilities and youth football.

[jump]

there's a thought. why don't clubs heavily invest on their own youth programmes and creating great british players rather than having to steal newcastle and everyone elses.

[The Nal]

there's a thought. why don't clubs heavily invest on their own youth programmes and creating great british players rather than having to steal newcastle and everyone elses.

[Steve P]

there's a thought. why don't clubs heavily invest on their own youth programmes and creating great british players rather than having to steal newcastle and everyone elses.

[ampersand]

If only there was a side in the top 4 that did that eh

As for the financial fair play bit, it doesn't kick in until next season so they can spunk as much cash as they choose.

[jump]

what's your list of actual home grown players? not players that wenger or his scouts discovered when they were 14 elsewhere and snapped them up.

[ampersand]

If I remember my footie manager game correctly, home grown players are just players who have been/can be at the club for 3 season before the age of 21.

[worm]

there's a thought. why don't clubs heavily invest on their own youth programmes and creating great british players rather than having to steal newcastle and everyone elses.

[worm]

you won't get 5th, defo.

[eFestivals]

We'll see.

I've seen the light already.

No, you can keep your bet you exploitative, manipulating twat.

There was no offer of a bet with you, you whelshing lying turd.

[Steve P]

what's your list of actual home grown players? not players that wenger or his scouts discovered when they were 14 elsewhere and snapped them up.

[worm]

I've seen the light already.

There was no offer of a bet with you, you whelshing lying turd.

[sifi]

It's quite easy to say words isn't it.

[worm]

Well I don't think he was going to say it with flowers.

[eFestivals]

It's quite easy to say words isn't it.

Yup. But unlike you, I keep my own within the truth and reality of the world.

[worm]

Yup. But unlike you, I keep my own within the truth and reality of the world.