Football 2022/23

[squirrelarmy]

22 minutes ago, Neil said:

So is Bielsa the real deal? 

If he's such a good coach why did Leeds get worse with him in charge. 

The shareholders with the deep wallets wouldn't buy the players he wanted, didn't have the squad depth to keep up with the injuries. They sacked him as soon as they could so they could get their buddy Marsch in charge of the team and then proceeded to spend £150 mil on any player he wanted only to end up being in a worse position a year later.

Edited February 6, 2023 by squirrelarmy

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

The shareholders with the deep wallets wouldn't buy the players he wanted, didn't have the squad depth to keep up with the injuries. They sacked him as soon as they could so they could get their buddy Marsch in charge of the team and then proceeded to spend £150 mil on any player he wanted only to end up being in a worse position a year later.

dirty old leeds, never changes.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Whilst I kind of agree with your reasoning. United and Liverpool haven't been at the top for ever, both have taken breaks of 25 years+ from the top. 

 

The biggest losers from Chelsea, Man City and now Newcastle spending their way to success are the established clubs such as Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea. Those who would be rewarded by stripping Man City of titles are the establishment Liverpool and Man Utd.

If cheating shakes things up a bit at the top i will turn a blind eye to it. Let’s not forget who was leading the charge in England for the European super league.

 Now don’t get me wrong if I have read the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool wrong and their priority is sporting integrity, more than happy to consider measures that really level the playing field.

 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

 Now don’t get me wrong if I have read the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool wrong and their priority is sporting integrity, more than happy to consider measures that really level the playing field.

It depends who you mean by Liverpool?

The fans, players, manager and staff - 100% have a priority of sporting integrity, especially Klopp, ever noticed how they are always top of the fair play league (there is a reason for this - Klopp).

Re the owners, one of the reasons they bought Liverpool was because they believed that FFP was real (it's not) and be enforced and thought this gave them a great chance of success. Once they realised FFP was a farce was when they got behind the ESL, it's a closer model to how US leagues work.

It's no coincidence that the Glazers put Utd up for sale at the same time as FSG put Liverpool up for sale (both American owners). The reason being the demise of the ESL.

[Neil]

44 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

established clubs such as Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea

chelsea were a no-where club until roman.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Neil

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

chelsea were a no-where club until roman.

I meant Arsenal, same city!!

[pink_triangle]

44 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

It depends who you mean by Liverpool?

Re the owners, one of the reasons they bought Liverpool was because they believed that FFP was real (it's not) and be enforced and thought this gave them a great chance of success. Once they realised FFP was a farce was when they got behind the ESL, it's a closer model to how US leagues work.

It's no coincidence that the Glazers put Utd up for sale at the same time as FSG put Liverpool up for sale (both American owners). The reason being the demise of the ESL.

I meant those who run the clubs as they are the ones who hold the power. I have no doubt that the Liverpool owner felt FFP would be good for a club with an established income stream and fanbase. My view however is there is nothing “fair” about a system that creates a closed shop that others can’t break into. On that basis I’m glad clubs have found ways around it.

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I meant Arsenal, same city!!

arsenal won not a lot  before wenger

[Skip997]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

arsenal won not a lot  before wenger

13 titles of which only 3 were under Wenger. Hopefully 14 this season

14 FA cups - 7 for Wenger

League cup - 2, none for Wenger

They are comfortably the third most sucessful team in England historically.

[Neil]

Just now, Skip997 said:

They are comfortably the third most sucessful team in England historically.

true but until wenger they didn't stack up the titles in the way Liverpool and utd have done in a comparatively short period of time.

[zahidf]

https://www.football365.com/news/prem-rivals-demand-man-city-are-relegated-if-they-are-found-guilty-after-mid-morning-ambush

 

Pep in the championship please

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, zahidf said:

https://www.football365.com/news/prem-rivals-demand-man-city-are-relegated-if-they-are-found-guilty-after-mid-morning-ambush

 

Pep in the championship please

Then relegate Chelsea and Newcastle. The establishment can then be happy these unworthy rivals have gone and can consolidate their power. I say be careful what you wish for. I lived through a period of Man U and Arsenal taking turns with the title and that wasn’t great either.

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Then relegate Chelsea and Newcastle. The establishment can then be happy these unworthy rivals have gone and can consolidate their power. I say be careful what you wish for. I lived through a period of Man U and Arsenal taking turns with the title and that wasn’t great either.

i dont see why we should give Man City a free pass for blatantly breaking the rules

Chelsea had a transfer ban for breaking the rules. 

Have Newcastle broken the rules? no evidence of that. 

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

i dont see why we should give Man City a free pass for blatantly breaking the rules

Chelsea had a transfer ban for breaking the rules. 

Have Newcastle broken the rules? no evidence of that. 

The establishment will come after Newcastle at some point, of that I have no doubt. To me the biggest threat to English football is not these state controlled clubs, but the American owned establishment. If these could over time take over the majority of the premiership clubs, we could be put in a position where they change the rules to make it more of a closed shop.

In terms of the rules, it depends why they are in place and who has suffered from them being broken. My view is that the rules are in place to protect the established teams and stop others consistently breaking into that exclusive club. I dont think it’s possible to break into the club strictly following the rules. On that basis I don’t care if the rules have been broken. Now if the big clubs want to suggest true “fairness “ where clubs compete more equally without spending huge, I am very open to this.

[zahidf]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The establishment will come after Newcastle at some point, of that I have no doubt. To me the biggest threat to English football is not these state controlled clubs, but the American owned establishment. If these could over time take over the majority of the premiership clubs, we could be put in a position where they change the rules to make it more of a closed shop.

In terms of the rules, it depends why they are in place and who has suffered from them being broken. My view is that the rules are in place to protect the established teams and stop others consistently breaking into that exclusive club. I dont think it’s possible to break into the club strictly following the rules. On that basis I don’t care if the rules have been broken. Now if the big clubs want to suggest true “fairness “ where clubs compete more equally without spending huge, I am very open to this.

hmmm, id say Leicester have lost out on two champion league places because of the cheating from City

they've got over 100 charges against them. Its not just a couple of rule breaches here or there. 

[Skip997]

50 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

 I lived through a period of Man U and Arsenal taking turns with the title and that wasn’t great either.

At least they generated their funds fairly.

This "anyone but Liverpool or Man Utd, regardless of how it's done" is pathetic.

The likes of Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle will be the death of football, if it hasn't already happened.

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

hmmm, id say Leicester have lost out on two champion league places because of the cheating from City

they've got over 100 charges against them. Its not just a couple of rule breaches here or there. 

You could point to Leicester over a couple of seasons and then the question what is the least worst option. A closed shop where the established clubs keep at the top and a Leicester may occasionally break in for a couple of years and then fall back, or the current system where the only way of (consistently breaking through) is this huge spending and flirting/breaking the rules. Different people may have different views. I don’t support any of the top clubs so makes no difference to me which wealthy team wins the league. However I think it’s better if different teams win than Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenals win those leagues forever. Note as I said I would favour a more level playing field where neither establishment or state wealth gave you a huge advantage, good luck getting that through.

As I have said biggest hit by these huge spenders have been Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal and the investments of their owners. If we are prioritising looking after these, I think our priorities are wrong.

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

At least they generated their funds fairly.

This "anyone but Liverpool or Man Utd, regardless of how it's done" is pathetic.

The likes of Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle will be the death of football, if it hasn't already happened.

How do you define fairly? Those at the top have consistently tried to change the rules to consolidate their power, is that fair because it’s in the rules? Whenever you bring in financial fair play the benefactors are always going to be the clubs that have the advantage at the time it is brought in, is that fair?

I have no issue with true fairness, bring in a salary cap and big spending is not needed. Whatever system is in place needs to allow new teams to consistently break through, I’m all for ideas how that could be achieved without this spending. I fear for a system where “fairness” can mean you can only get as far as Spurs and occasionally finish 4th.

[zahidf]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

How do you define fairly? Those at the top have consistently tried to change the rules to consolidate their power, is that fair because it’s in the rules? Whenever you bring in financial fair play the benefactors are always going to be the clubs that have the advantage at the time it is brought in, is that fair?

I have no issue with true fairness, bring in a salary cap and big spending is not needed. Whatever system is in place needs to allow new teams to consistently break through, I’m all for ideas how that could be achieved without this spending. I fear for a system where “fairness” can mean you can only get as far as Spurs and occasionally finish 4th.

Well, except when they finish 2nd behind Leicester

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/06/if-manchester-city-are-guilty-they-have-betrayed-football-as-a-spectacle

 

"

The other point here is that the financial rules are in themselves unjust, that this is simply a way of hoarding the wealth, protecting the cartel, excluding newcomers and all the rest. Putting aside the heart-rending prospect of multibillionaire autocrats being denied their sacred right to buy things, all the things, instantly, the fact is these rules do exist. Make a case. Challenge them publicly. Convince the wider world they should be reformed. But the idea the rules can simply be ignored if you have the means and the power is morally repugnant.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

How do you define fairly?

Through standard transparent business practices. Growing their brand, merchandising etc. Not through the use of non-existent companies used to cover up on the origin of funding.

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well, except when they finish 2nd behind Leicester

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/06/if-manchester-city-are-guilty-they-have-betrayed-football-as-a-spectacle

 

"

The other point here is that the financial rules are in themselves unjust, that this is simply a way of hoarding the wealth, protecting the cartel, excluding newcomers and all the rest. Putting aside the heart-rending prospect of multibillionaire autocrats being denied their sacred right to buy things, all the things, instantly, the fact is these rules do exist. Make a case. Challenge them publicly. Convince the wider world they should be reformed. But the idea the rules can simply be ignored if you have the means and the power is morally repugnant.

You can’t make a case to the likes of Man Utd, Juventus, Real Madrid etc that a system where clubs can compete against them on a more equal playing field is a better system. These clubs hold all the power and influence the rules to consolidate their power.

Unfortunately in my view these owners of the big clubs are all morally repugnant whether Americans Billionaires or super states. None are thinking about what’s best for the game.

[zahidf]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

You can’t make a case to the likes of Man Utd, Juventus, Real Madrid etc that a system where clubs can compete against them on a more equal playing field is a better system. These clubs hold all the power and influence the rules to consolidate their power.

Unfortunately in my view these owners of the big clubs are all morally repugnant whether Americans Billionaires or super states. None are thinking about what’s best for the game.

The Same Juventus who's just had a 15 points deduction for corruption as well?

 

They are all repugnant but its whataboutery to use that to make City the 'good guys' in this situation

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Through standard transparent business practices. Growing their brand, merchandising etc. Not through the use of non-existent companies used to cover up on the origin of funding.

That’s all great in theory, but does that allow someone to be more than Spurs, I’m not convinced it does. Financial fair play was never about fairness it was about the top clubs protecting their position. My favoured system is a salary cap, let everyone compete from an equal position and let the best team win.

[pink_triangle]

Just now, zahidf said:

The Same Juventus who's just had a 15 points deduction for corruption as well?

 

They are all repugnant but its whataboutery to use that to make City the 'good guys' in this situation

I don’t think there are any good guys in this situation, they are all as bad as each other and acting in complete self interest. Just different shades of bad. So accepting that I look at what’s best for the competition. I personally don’t think indefinite establishment domination is best.  Would love for a way that doesn’t involve huge spending, don’t think it exists.

[squirrelarmy]

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

My favoured system is a salary cap, let everyone compete from an equal position and let the best team win.

That will work as long as it's implemented at the global level. Capping Premier league salaries would just send the top players to other countries leagues to earn the ridiculous wages they currently get. Does anyone need £100k a week? Even if your career is a single season you'll still earn more than enough to spend in a lifetime. 

It would be great for balancing out the local football pyramid though.