Football 2023/24

[Gnomicide]

15 hours ago, charlierc said:

Even moreso if the rumour is true that part of what ruined Everton's finances was the Liz Truss-induced rise in interest rates.

 

Everton were buggered by taking money from a Russian oligarch, budgeting for finishing 6th, over valuing players they were trying to sell but mainly by spending loads of money on a bunch of useless players that couldn't get them to where they needed to be to sustain their spending.

They've at least admitted their breaches but are now trying to shift the blame of being appallingly run by calling the Premier League corrupt.

From what I can make out, their main gripe is that City haven't yet been punished, but it's a different set of circumstances. City have cooked the books to a ridiculous extent and are still claiming innocence, proving those 115 charges is going to be a lot more complex than Everton and Forrest admitting they've cocked up. Hopefully when City finally go to court, they'll have the whole library thrown at them. 

[lost]

16 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

Everton were buggered by taking money from a Russian oligarch, budgeting for finishing 6th, over valuing players they were trying to sell but mainly by spending loads of money on a bunch of useless players that couldn't get them to where they needed to be to sustain their spending.

They've at least admitted their breaches but are now trying to shift the blame of being appallingly run by calling the Premier League corrupt.

£184 million net spend since the Russians took over in 2016 so £23 million a year isn't mad though there were some big contracts handed out in that time period.

I think Everton fans accept they have been badly run but are the War in Ukraine and increases in stadium interest debt post covid acts that deserve punishment when a number of clubs tried to break away and basically end any sort of reward/qualification for winning, we were told it wasn't fair to punish the fans. There is also the mater that all though City have 115 charges 7 of those are the same as they have hit Everton with twice in one season so why say can't city take those charges now whilst they investigate the rest?

Everton are probably going to end the season with over double to punishment for going into administration and it feels like the rules have been rushed out to stop an independent regulator being imposed on the prem.

Edited January 23 by lost

[Skip997]

All you moaners and "not fairers"

read this

[Gnomicide]

6 minutes ago, lost said:

 Everton with twice in one season so why say can't city take those charges now whilst they investigate the rest?

Fair point on City, get them punished! 

"Not punishing the fans" though is pretty much impossible if there's to be any meaningful deterrent, just look at all the fans of clubs hit with point deductions in the lower leagues. Many of those were due to miss management and overspending by new owners who came in and thought they could get on some sort of gravy train. When it goes tits up, it's always the fans who suffer.

Is it fair on the fans of teams that have been relegated due to other teams breaking the rules?

Edited January 23 by Gnomicide

[lost]

5 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

Fair point on City, get them punished! 

"Not punishing the fans" though is pretty much impossible if there's to be any meaningful deterrent, just look at all the fans of clubs hit with point deductions in the lower leagues. Many of those were due to miss management and overspending by new owners who came in and thought they could get on some sort of gravy train. When it goes tits up, it's always the fans who suffer.

Is it fair on the fans of teams that have been relegated due to other teams breaking the rules?

Well my main issue is I don't agree with the rules. I think Kaosmark's suggestion of doing it regarding debt would be fairer. I can't think of any other industry where someone is wanting to come over and invest in one of the poorest parts of the U.K that we'd be saying no and thinking its a good idea to say no. Evertons new stadium will create jobs and investment like the etihad complex and investment in ancoats has in Manchester. If the Saudi's want to invest in Newcastle why not? These are areas that haven't really recovered since the deindustrialization of the North.

Edited January 23 by lost

[kaosmark2]

13 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

All you moaners and "not fairers"

read this

I don't think anyone is arguing for the status quo.

[Skip997]

7 minutes ago, lost said:

Well my main issue is I don't agree with the rules. I think Kaosmark's suggestion of doing it regarding debt would be fairer. I can't think of any other industry where someone is wanting to come over and invest in one of the poorest parts of the U.K that we'd be saying no and thinking its a good idea to say no. Evertons new stadium will create jobs and investment like the etihad complex and investment in ancoats has in Manchester. If the Saudi's want to invest in Newcastle why not? These are areas that haven't really recovered since the deindustrialization of the North.

FFS

[kaosmark2]

7 minutes ago, lost said:

Well my main issue is I don't agree with the rules. I think Kaosmark's suggestion of doing it regarding debt would be fairer. I can't think of any other industry where someone is wanting to come over and invest in one of the poorest parts of the U.K that we'd be saying no and thinking its a good idea to say no. Evertons new stadium will create jobs and investment like the etihad complex and investment in ancoats has in Manchester. If the Saudi's want to invest in Newcastle why not? These are areas that haven't really recovered since the deindustrialization of the North.

Exactly. I'm not in support of new ownership coming in and driving clubs bust. I'm not in support of new ownership coming in and financially doping a club to victory either. 

While I don't really want any part of society internationally to be comfortable with Saudi blood money, if it's going somewhere, I'd rather it at least went on real infrastructure investment that ties into the city as opposed to just further inflating football salaries and transfer fees.

[thetime]

4 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

While I don't really want any part of society internationally to be comfortable with Saudi blood money, if it's going somewhere, I'd rather it at least went on real infrastructure investment that ties into the city as opposed to just further inflating football salaries and transfer fees.

What you really mean, as long as its your team. 

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, thetime said:

What you really mean, as long as its your team. 

Not really. I've spoken about it being blood money and will taint any success we have before. I've said that I'll continue my financial boycott. 

Newcastle creates emotional resonance from me being an excited giddy 5-8yr old in the Keegan years, when Shearer signed, and growing up through Sir Bobby getting us victories across Europe, etc. I won't deny my bias, but I think I've criticised the Saudis more than I ever criticised City.

[charlierc]

21 hours ago, Skip997 said:

All you moaners and "not fairers"

read this

See I read this but I think I've come to a different conclusion given it gives the air of acknowledging that the Premier League has kinda made a rod for its own back by being a bit vague about what the punishments would be until now.

[charlierc]

21 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

Fair point on City, get them punished! 

"Not punishing the fans" though is pretty much impossible if there's to be any meaningful deterrent, just look at all the fans of clubs hit with point deductions in the lower leagues. Many of those were due to miss management and overspending by new owners who came in and thought they could get on some sort of gravy train. When it goes tits up, it's always the fans who suffer.

Is it fair on the fans of teams that have been relegated due to other teams breaking the rules?

As we're seeing with Reading in particular atm, given their fans went from no doubt having excitement at billionaires coming in back in 2017 to just sheer horror now in 2024 when those owners have clearly lost interest and actively seem like they're just leaving the club to rot.

[kaosmark2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68025903

Whelp, lol Spurs

[lost]

Who do we fancy for Liverpool next Alonso?

[thetime]

Klopp leaving end of season, didn't see that one coming.

[Gnomicide]

Oh, bugger.

[balti-pie]

Xabi Alonso would be a bit of a brave choice, but it could be inspired. 

Fingers crossed they are thick and go for Stephen Gerrard then 👍

[Gnomicide]

Devo'd.  Real shocker that, I felt that the new players had rejuvenated him after the disappointment of last year. Understandable, it must be relentless, but f**k.

Alonso currently playing a blinder so I'd like him to come. Gerrard buggered his chances with his showing at Villa. I'm going for a lie down.

[thetime]

20 minutes ago, balti-pie said:

Xabi Alonso would be a bit of a brave choice, but it could be inspired. 

 

There's a few of his former clubs, there could be in for him. Either next season, or the season after. 

 

[Skip997]

The end.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68104699

[lost]

14 minutes ago, thetime said:

There's a few of his former clubs, there could be in for him. Either next season, or the season after. 

 

Yes I was also thinking that it may force a few clubs to panic in the next 6 months. If he'd leave before a potential title though is another matter.

Edited January 26 by lost

[kaosmark2]

Mourinho's available!

[charlierc]

43 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Mourinho's available!

So is Steve Bruce

[charlierc]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Klopp leaving end of season, didn't see that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. And says a lot about how unreliable Musk-era Twitter is that given I first saw it on there, I wasn't 100% convinced it was official.

[kaosmark2]

9 minutes ago, charlierc said:

So is Steve Bruce

and Wayne Rooney!