Football 2023/24

[kaosmark2]

53 minutes ago, charlierc said:

I mean, if it is to happen, it's going to have to be done in a different way. Man City & Chelsea had the luxury in a pre-FFP era of just spending and not having to care about losses or percentage of revenue spending or whatever. It is essentially having to try and nail every transfer window, getting more player trading calls right than wrong, and getting on-paper inferior players to put in their 10/10s all the time, which tbf, I would argue is how Spurs got into the big 6, but that's much easier said than done.

If the goal is on transfers, I think last summer was a mis-step - Tonali was imo the wrong fit but then got the gambling ban, Barnes has had a nightmare with injuries and Howe hasn't been convinced by Lewis Hall. Throw-in a season-long injury crisis, including several long-term injuries to key players, and the fact we seem to have a core of barely fit players essentially being played into the ground, and it's just become a bit of a chore. Even if we could somehow still sneak a Europa Conference League place if we can just get our act together in the final games.

Maybe it is just the difficult second album. Though if we sell a crown jewel like Bruno or Isak in the summer, it means they have to f**king nail the rebuild.

Tonali had a couple of games where he looked insanely good. He was ridiculous in the opening Villa game, and our 2nd best player after Pope in the draw at Milan. I don't know how much the upcoming gambling ban affected him after that. I'm not convinced by the "Tonali and Bruno don't mesh well together" noises without seeing more to justify that.

I think the biggest problem is squad depth - basically we didn't have our summer signings for various reasons, and Wilson has gone back into the injury cycle that's plagued his career. Add in more games and an injury crisis creating a chain-reaction of just most of the squad being permanently barely fit, and it's just difficult.

[charlierc]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Tonali had a couple of games where he looked insanely good. He was ridiculous in the opening Villa game, and our 2nd best player after Pope in the draw at Milan. I don't know how much the upcoming gambling ban affected him after that. I'm not convinced by the "Tonali and Bruno don't mesh well together" noises without seeing more to justify that.

I think the biggest problem is squad depth - basically we didn't have our summer signings for various reasons, and Wilson has gone back into the injury cycle that's plagued his career. Add in more games and an injury crisis creating a chain-reaction of just most of the squad being permanently barely fit, and it's just difficult.

I think the issue with the Tonali deal for me is that we said we wanted somebody to play as a holding midfielder to allow Bruno to move into the right-side of the trio, and by definition meant something combative, but it became quickly apparent in pre-season that Tonali wasn't really that kind of player so he took the role Bruno was going to take up.

I don't deny that Tonali had some good games but there were also some like Brighton and West Ham away that weren't it. Saying that, if Bruno does leave in the summer, it means Tonali is gonna have to hit the ground running as his de facto replacement imo. I think the talent is there tbf, but I personally wasn't sure he was right for what we were initially planning.

Squad depth is true, though. November and December was an exhausting amount of football for a club not used to playing every midweek and it was clear the squad wasn't chunky enough to handle it. The team has badly missed Pope & Joelinton, plus Wilson and Isak seem to be unable to be fit at the same time.

[kaosmark2]

4 minutes ago, charlierc said:

I think the issue with the Tonali deal for me is that we said we wanted somebody to play as a holding midfielder to allow Bruno to move into the right-side of the trio, and by definition meant something combative, but it became quickly apparent in pre-season that Tonali wasn't really that kind of player so he took the role Bruno was going to take up.

I don't deny that Tonali had some good games but there were also some like Brighton and West Ham away that weren't it. Saying that, if Bruno does leave in the summer, it means Tonali is gonna have to hit the ground running as his de facto replacement imo. I think the talent is there tbf, but I personally wasn't sure he was right for what we were initially planning.

Squad depth is true, though. November and December was an exhausting amount of football for a club not used to playing every midweek and it was clear the squad wasn't chunky enough to handle it. The team has badly missed Pope & Joelinton, plus Wilson and Isak seem to be unable to be fit at the same time.

I saw a piece a month or two ago saying that Tonali was using this time wher ehe couldn't play to settle into the city/country more, while still training hard, which if true, makes me hopeful for next season. In the game's Tonali was good, he could break up play effectively and turn it into going forward, but Bruno can do that as well. I get the concept that they're similar, but they're also both quite all-round box-to-box midfielders, so I'm hoping that somehow between our midfielders we can get a functioning system. 

The squad depth thing absolutely showed in the game yesterday though. A quadruple substitution and 3 of the players brought on are teenagers.

[Neil]

3 hours ago, charlierc said:

I mean, if it is to happen, it's going to have to be done in a different way

get a coach that improves players, if you make cheap players better it doesn't have to cost billions.

[Neil]

Sterling having a stinker and the crowd booing him, also  not happy with pouch who just subbed off another player and not sterling.

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

get a coach that improves players, if you make cheap players better it doesn't have to cost billions.

Have you seen the difference in how good Wilson, Joelinton, Schar, Murphy, Almiron, Longstaff have been under Howe compared to Bruce? And Lascalles has been back to the level he was under Benitez instead of how he was playing under Bruce.

I didn't rate Gordon when we signed him, but he's been magnificent this season.

I'd argue that the only player that regressed under Howe was ASM, and that's because the system under Bruce was "pass it to Allan and hope his trickery gets a corner". And he's been sold on.

[charlierc]

4 hours ago, Neil said:

get a coach that improves players, if you make cheap players better it doesn't have to cost billions.

 

26 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Have you seen the difference in how good Wilson, Joelinton, Schar, Murphy, Almiron, Longstaff have been under Howe compared to Bruce? And Lascalles has been back to the level he was under Benitez instead of how he was playing under Bruce.

I didn't rate Gordon when we signed him, but he's been magnificent this season.

I'd argue that the only player that regressed under Howe was ASM, and that's because the system under Bruce was "pass it to Allan and hope his trickery gets a corner". And he's been sold on.

Exactly - last season's 4th place was achieved with a core of players that had been also in the team when Eddie Howe took over. The argument as to whether we need to trade up to push up is a different one, but even then, we're still at a better level than the often passive teams in the Steve Bruce era.

[kaosmark2]

43 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Exactly - last season's 4th place was achieved with a core of players that had been also in the team when Eddie Howe took over. The argument as to whether we need to trade up to push up is a different one, but even then, we're still at a better level than the often passive teams in the Steve Bruce era.

By trade up do you mean the manager?

As I'd say Howe's done plenty to earn a longer chance.

[charlierc]

42 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

By trade up do you mean the manager?

As I'd say Howe's done plenty to earn a longer chance.

Yes. I'm not at that point yet though - I know some on Twitter or Reddit call for this at even the slightest inconvenience but the noise is that he'll stick around for next season and his work in the first 2 seasons still has enough credit in the bank.

Certainly, I don't want Mourinho like some want given his form at Roma in league games was pretty poor.

[charlierc]

Presumably Man United and Liverpool will struggle to match the joyous lunacy of this FA Cup tie when they meet in the league in 3 weeks time. Indeed, Amad Diallo also has a moment to dine out on forever if he's scoring 121st minute winners. 

I'm also impressed of a final 4 of Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and Coventry. And even then they deserve acclaim for scoring twice in stoppage time to turn a loss to Wolves into progress.

[kaosmark2]

5 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Yes. I'm not at that point yet though - I know some on Twitter or Reddit call for this at even the slightest inconvenience but the noise is that he'll stick around for next season and his work in the first 2 seasons still has enough credit in the bank.

Certainly, I don't want Mourinho like some want given his form at Roma in league games was pretty poor.

I don't give much credence to those opinions tbh. I think the problems this season aren't really to do with the manager. I'm also not really sure there's a big name I want that'd consider joining.

[charlierc]

This was pretty impressive ngl.

[charlierc]

14 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't give much credence to those opinions tbh. I think the problems this season aren't really to do with the manager. I'm also not really sure there's a big name I want that'd consider joining.

It's too easy to get sucked in to what people are saying there given it is pure reactionary stuff where you're seemingly only as good as your last game.

I will say the only big name I'd like is Julian Nagelsmann, who was linked with us a month or so ago, given his record at building Hoffenheim and RB Leipzig was great and he was harshly treated by Bayern, but equally, it felt to me like an extremely unrealistic suggestion, plus the fact he's managing Germany at the Euros means he'd be available very late into the pre-season cycle. I certainly don't like the idea of Mourinho, which is one that seems to pop up quite a lot, and a few of the other big names just don't make me think they'd be an improvement.

At the end of the day, this has been a strange and awkward season, but that's primarily due to our shocking injury record, and I think Howe has enough credit in the bank that he gets a chance to try again. We'll need to figure out how to manage injuries better, but that's part of the growing pains as much as anything.

[Gnomicide]

All Coventry, aren't we?

[lost]

Could be getting this wrong but looking at the Forest verdict.

Everton are mentioned over 80 times on why it is what has been decided. Forest breached by £35m compared to £19.5m for Everton. But Everton reported to be in the limit as stadium spending is off the book but Everton included debt interest payments for money spent on the stadium in the stadium column which the prem decided isn't allowed. Forests "books" were correct and Evertons weren't so Forest got 2 points back from the 6 making a 4 point deduction?

So it seems the size of the breach isn't important its if its included in the accounts. If I was Newcastle I'd happily breach by £500m in exchange for 4 points.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Could be getting this wrong but looking at the Forest verdict.

Everton are mentioned over 80 times on why it is what has been decided. Forest breached by £35m compared to £19.5m for Everton. But Everton reported to be in the limit as stadium spending is off the book but Everton included debt interest payments for money spent on the stadium in the stadium column which the prem decided isn't allowed. Forests "books" were correct and Evertons weren't so Forest got 2 points back from the 6 making a 4 point deduction?

So it seems the size of the breach isn't important its if its included in the accounts. If I was Newcastle I'd happily breach by £500m in exchange for 4 points.

I suspect it doesn't work like that and that we'd probably get more than 6 off if we decided just to throw the GDP of somewhere like Vanuatu at our squad.

I'm assuming that Everton were included because it's the only real precedent that they have to work off of, but there does seem to be a lot of room for doubt and confusion that the PL initially wanted to give 10 points and still have 6 while Forest have 4. Forest spending £250m on 42 players in the two years, to say nothing of the wages, since they got promoted is basket case stuff, and one where it doesn't seem like they can bring in stadium expenses like Everton, even if there is other stuff there.

But pfft. Who even knows anymore. It's almost like setting up a big financial regulation without pre-written guidance on how to police it was destined to cause headaches.

[thetime]

8 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

All Coventry, aren't we?

Robins back to save another manager

 

[charlierc]

3 hours ago, lost said:

Could be getting this wrong but looking at the Forest verdict.

Everton are mentioned over 80 times on why it is what has been decided. Forest breached by £35m compared to £19.5m for Everton. But Everton reported to be in the limit as stadium spending is off the book but Everton included debt interest payments for money spent on the stadium in the stadium column which the prem decided isn't allowed. Forests "books" were correct and Evertons weren't so Forest got 2 points back from the 6 making a 4 point deduction?

So it seems the size of the breach isn't important its if its included in the accounts. If I was Newcastle I'd happily breach by £500m in exchange for 4 points.

One other element is this - Nottingham Forest have made a big song and dance that they think they would have been compliant if they had sold Brennan Johnson before the PL accounting deadline of June 30 because of the way homegrown academy product sales are calculated. However, they wanted more money than the only pre-30/06 bid they got and couldn't finish the deal until transfer deadline day 3 months later.

So this does raise an interesting question as to whether multiple clubs will need to sell before then and if anyone will want to.

[Neil]

what are people's views on the new football regulator?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68602074

looks to me like an opening for someone i don't agree with to force their views onto football.

[lost]

7 hours ago, Neil said:

what are people's views on the new football regulator?

Everything needs to be more transparent. If that comes from a new regulator who knows? As far as I can see most people are falling out of love with the game as they can't understand certain decisions and fall back on some sort of conspiracy or things being scripted.

[charlierc]

7 hours ago, Neil said:

what are people's views on the new football regulator?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68602074

looks to me like an opening for someone i don't agree with to force their views onto football.

I know some are on board - a few lower league clubs have been strongly in favour of some of the concepts that have been brought up.

I'll wait to see how this looks in practice. There's every possibility this could work to do the things that they wish to do, there's equally the possibility of it being another VAR and not working as planned.

[charlierc]

5 minutes ago, lost said:

Everything needs to be more transparent. If that comes from a new regulator who knows? As far as I can see most people are falling out of love with the game as they can't understand certain decisions and fall back on some sort of conspiracy or things being scripted.

I don't know if an independent regulator will necessarily solve something like the anti-refereeing conspiracy clubs like Nottingham Forest, whose owner seems to have genuine hatred for the officials, or something like the Man City case, which increasingly feels like something other than just a FFP breach given what's been discussed by financial pros.

But I'm aware transparency is one of those things a lot of people are for in theory but botch when trying to make happen in practice. So I'm aware of the scepticism some might have for it work. Not least given this is being trialled by the UK government, an institution well known for its transparency or firm regulators.

Some clubs, I can see the appeal. I know the touch-paper was Bury and Macclesfield being destroyed by terrible owners, and the current nightmare being seen at Reading (18 points deducted in 3 seasons and an owner that seems to be actively be trying to run it into the ground).

[lost]

2 minutes ago, charlierc said:

I don't know if an independent regulator will necessarily solve something like the anti-refereeing conspiracy clubs like Nottingham Forest, whose owner seems to have genuine hatred for the officials, or something like the Man City case, which increasingly feels like something other than just a FFP breach given what's been discussed by financial pros.

But I'm aware transparency is one of those things a lot of people are for in theory but botch when trying to make happen in practice. So I'm aware of the scepticism some might have for it work. Not least given this is being trialled by the UK government, an institution well known for its transparency or firm regulators.

Some clubs, I can see the appeal. I know the touch-paper was Bury and Macclesfield being destroyed by terrible owners, and the current nightmare being seen at Reading (18 points deducted in 3 seasons and an owner that seems to be actively be trying to run it into the ground).

The thing about football in this country has always been the pyramid and everyone having a fair chance of rising or falling in it. There have been so many things recently that have dented people faith in it. From the appointment of Masters to the break away european league to VAR to FFP etc.. They need some way to prove decisions are made independently for the benefit of all rather than by a lackey of the big 6.

[charlierc]

Clearly FFP/PSR fun and games are going to carry on as before.

[charlierc]

I genuinely feel like once upon a time, this wouldn't have had a flood of certain types of people complaining about it.