Football 19/20

[thetime]

2 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

 Genuinely believe if it had been Man u or Liverpool this thing would have been done a long time ago.

Do you really think there wouldn't be more uproar if it was united or liverpool? Newcastle have gone under the radar that way.

Hey united have as bad owners as Newcastle, not many owners have taken a billion out of a club like glazers. 

Even Liverpool have suffered from rubbish owners, they were at rock bottom financially before Fenway came in. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by thetime

[Hugh Jass]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

If these payments were used to give the relegated clubs an average (or slightly above) wage and transfer budget compared to others in the league, with a view to competing on fairly even terms, I would agree. However most sensible clubs are not using them to steady the ship, but give themselves a huge competitive advantage over everyone and bounce straight back. No reason clubs can't mitigate for relegation without parachute payments through relegation clauses in contracts.

Again, I agree. We were the original yo-yo club (3 relegations, 4 promotions in a decade), go up, try to survive but don’t overstretch, come back down, outspend everyone else and go back up - rinse and repeat. We did it for most of the 00’s and that money paid for stadium improvements and the setting up of an academy that is now starting to bear some serious fruit. Because we budgeted for relegation and had the relevant flex-down clauses we were never hit that badly by relegation.

We showed everyone how to it but it’s a loophole that should never have existed in the first place.

@WS_Jack_III - You are correct, parachutes stop immediately if you go back up.

[WS_Jack_III]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

Do you really think there wouldn't be more uproar if it was united or liverpool? Newcastle have gone under the radar that way.

Hey united have as bad owners as Newcastle, not many owners have taken a billion out of a club like glazers. 

Even Liverpool have suffered from rubbish owners, they were at rock bottom financially before Fenway came in. 

Under what radar? We've had none stop negative press since the bid was confirmed.

[thetime]

23 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Under what radar? We've had none stop negative press since the bid was confirmed.

Not to the extent it would of been if it was a United or a Liverpool, not even close.

Edited August 2, 2020 by thetime

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Do you really think there wouldn't be more uproar if it was united or liverpool? Newcastle have gone under the radar that way.

Hey united have as bad owners as Newcastle, not many owners have taken a billion out of a club like glazers. 

Even Liverpool have suffered from rubbish owners, they were at rock bottom financially before Fenway came in. 

I think they may have got away with it pre Khashoggi. However I think it would have been huge news if Liverpool or man u took Saudi money now.

[eastynh]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think they may have got away with it pre Khashoggi. However I think it would have been huge news if Liverpool or man u took Saudi money now.

United have been taking Saudi money for years. This is just one agreement

https://www.manutd.com/en/partners/media/stc#

[pink_triangle]

11 minutes ago, eastynh said:

United have been taking Saudi money for years. This is just one agreement

https://www.manutd.com/en/partners/media/stc#

I meant more in terms of ownership and influence over the club. I doubt there is a team in the league not taking money from a country with a dodgy regime.

[WS_Jack_III]

4 hours ago, thetime said:

Not to the extent it would of been if it was a United or a Liverpool, not even close.

I honestly don't believe that would have been the case, it would have sailed through no problem and PL would deal with questions later.

[pink_triangle]

5 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

I honestly don't believe that would have been the case, it would have sailed through no problem and PL would deal with questions later.

Serious question but I get the impression you put all the blame on the premiership and none on the Saudi regime. They could (if they chose) significantly reduce the piracy of the premiership in their country, they make the choice not to do it. Why shouldn't there be consequences for this choice? 

[eastynh]

19 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Serious question but I get the impression you put all the blame on the premiership and none on the Saudi regime. They could (if they chose) significantly reduce the piracy of the premiership in their country, they make the choice not to do it. Why shouldn't there be consequences for this choice? 

Regardless of piracy issues or human rights abuses, if the Saudis wanted to buy United, then the deal would have sailed through without any issues.

United and Liverpool get preferential treatment. They were the only clubs that got to vet the new Premier League chairman. That should have alarm bells ringing. This time last year there was also a Premier League FFP rule change. Teams could only increase the amount they paid players in accordance to how much they increased comnercial income. In order to buy players last pre season, this rule was  conveniently scrapped, to benefit United, as they would have failed. United take money from a plethora of dubious regimes, Liverpool take it from money launderers, yet this is ok and acceptable.

It has been enlightening watching the penny drop with the Newcastle fans.

The ironic thing is that these clubs who have blocked the Newcastle takeover are not bothered about Newcastle being a threat on the pitch, they are arsed about them possibly infringing on their profit margins. They would happily let Newcastle win the league every year, as long as it did not diminish their returns.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by eastynh

[WS_Jack_III]

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Serious question but I get the impression you put all the blame on the premiership and none on the Saudi regime. They could (if they chose) significantly reduce the piracy of the premiership in their country, they make the choice not to do it. Why shouldn't there be consequences for this choice? 

Sorry but i'm going to have to start shouting because none of you seem to be getting this.

They didn't actually block the deal because they couldn't legally do it so they just let it go on for months without approving or blocking it!

This is a clear abuse of their own system.

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Sorry but i'm going to have to start shouting because none of you seem to be getting this.

They didn't actually block the deal because they couldn't legally do it so they just let it go on for months without approving or blocking it!

This is a clear abuse of their own system.

Yet if the Saudis had stopped the piracy (which they could) my guess is the deal would have gone through. Do Saudis take any responsibility for not stopping piracy or this an unfair expectation?

[WS_Jack_III]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Yet if the Saudis had stopped the piracy (which they could) my guess is the deal would have gone through. Do Saudis take any responsibility for not stopping piracy or this an unfair expectation?

So why wasn't it just blocked and this given as the reason then?

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

So why wasn't it just blocked and this given as the reason then?

reckon the Saudi's were told it would be blocked, to give them the opportunity to withdraw.

That saves face for the Saudis, and saves the Prem from having to act as judge and jury.

[thetime]

13 hours ago, eastynh said:

United have been taking Saudi money for years. This is just one agreement

https://www.manutd.com/en/partners/media/stc#

There was a lot of discussion about that deal, when the Saudis were in for united. United fans want rid of the glazers, some would take any owners if it meant a league or 2. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, WS_Jack_III said:

So why wasn't it just blocked and this given as the reason then?

I suspect the premier league have acted as their lawyers have told them to act.

[zahidf]

 

[Gnomicide]

17 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

I honestly don't believe that would have been the case, it would have sailed through no problem and PL would deal with questions later.

I was about to say you're sounding like a City fan.

11 hours ago, eastynh said:

Regardless of piracy issues or human rights abuses, if the Saudis wanted to buy United, then the deal would have sailed through without any issues.

United and Liverpool get preferential treatment. They were the only clubs that got to vet the new Premier League chairman. That should have alarm bells ringing. This time last year there was also a Premier League FFP rule change. Teams could only increase the amount they paid players in accordance to how much they increased comnercial income. In order to buy players last pre season, this rule was  conveniently scrapped, to benefit United, as they would have failed. United take money from a plethora of dubious regimes, Liverpool take it from money launderers, yet this is ok and acceptable.

It has been enlightening watching the penny drop with the Newcastle fans.

The ironic thing is that these clubs who have blocked the Newcastle takeover are not bothered about Newcastle being a threat on the pitch, they are arsed about them possibly infringing on their profit margins. They would happily let Newcastle win the league every year, as long as it did not diminish their returns.

 

 

Ta-dah!

[kaosmark2]

Odd how it's only Pool and ManU fans who seem to think there isn't a problem.

[Hugh Jass]

Looks like Sancho is off to United then.

A front three of Rashford, Greenwood, Sancho looks pretty sexy, for club and country.

[jyoung]

14 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Looks like Sancho is off to United then.

A front three of Rashford, Greenwood, Sancho looks pretty sexy, for club and country.

Sterling and Kane want a word.

But no, in all seriousness, that's a front three for the ages if all these guys fulfill their potential. The Euros is getting interesting. Could be the golden generation 2.0. Hopefully we will prove more successful. 

[thetime]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Looks like Sancho is off to United then.

A front three of Rashford, Greenwood, Sancho looks pretty sexy, for club and country.

Looks like we are rid of sanchez as well. Solskjaer is certainly sorting the club out player wise, getting rid of shite signings from previous managers.

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, jyoung said:

Sterling and Kane want a word.

But no, in all seriousness, that's a front three for the ages if all these guys fulfill their potential. The Euros is getting interesting. Could be the golden generation 2.0. Hopefully we will prove more successful. 

Any team in the world would love to pick three from that five.

Thw delay to the Euros could work to our advantage, hopefully Greenwood and Foden (Hi Easty!) can each get a full season of regular football and be ready.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, jyoung said:

Sterling and Kane want a word.

But no, in all seriousness, that's a front three for the ages if all these guys fulfill their potential. The Euros is getting interesting. Could be the golden generation 2.0. Hopefully we will prove more successful. 

I think we need the see what some of these players do in the really big games before going too overboard. I remember people thinking Francis Jeffers would do big things once.

[thetime]

17 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Any team in the world would love to pick three from that five.

Thw delay to the Euros could work to our advantage, hopefully Greenwood and Foden (Hi Easty!) can each get a full season of regular football and be ready.

Greenwood certainly won't be used as much next season, certainly post lock down. That would be the correct decision as well, united will look after him.