Football 2025-26

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, thetime said:

 

Im unsure.

 

Its certainly had more of a pull than the previous version of the competition. Clubs buying players early, instead on a free (trent), buying players early to play in it.

 

It certainly gives kudos to the Club. I didn't watch the final, so cant comment how serious PSG took it. I did watch there semi though, they were up for it that game. 

I think that’s telling though. I don’t know a single person who watched it , despite being a decent time for UK audience.

[lost]

One for the clubs accountants/top brass and probably why teams were paying money to get players in for the tournament. That 200m means Chelsea will now have no PSR worries and can buy who they want.

[charlierc]

7 minutes ago, lost said:

One for the clubs accountants/top brass and probably why teams were paying money to get players in for the tournament. That 200m means Chelsea will now have no PSR worries and can buy who they want.

Do they have PSR worries? Chelsea just seemed to be buying whoever they wanted all of the time since their ownership change.

[charlierc]

53 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Annoyed, but I don’t think it’s crushing like losing a champions league or World Cup final. It takes years for a tournament to build up that emotional pull.

Clearly FIFA want to put the work in to give this tournament such an emotional feeling. Not for nothing that Infantino was prattling on in a pre-game press conference that this tournament heralds a "new golden age for club football", which - lolnope.

 

But yeah. We even saw that last year when England lost the men's Euros final and it was a bit of a downer ending for a lot of fans for a few weeks after. Same too, I assume, for PSG fans when they lost their last Champions League final appearance 5 years ago - a funk that seemed to go on for longer given the following 20/21 season saw them fail to even win the league, something you didn't think was possible given their budget advantage on the rest of the league.

[lost]

11 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Do they have PSR worries? Chelsea just seemed to be buying whoever they wanted all of the time since their ownership change.

 

I think they sold some hotels to themselves 2 years ago and then their womens team last year to get around it. This win probably means no creative accounting is required this year.

[pink_triangle]

Let’s face it Chelsea were very fortunate with the draw. The Southgate half of the draw as one journalist called it. I still wouldn’t fancy them to do much in the champions league.

[rock_on]

So with the farcical club world cup finally over we can turn our intentions to the next big match this year. The Community Shield on August 10th at 3pm. 

 

 

[thetime]

46 minutes ago, rock_on said:

So with the farcical club world cup finally over we can turn our intentions to the next big match this year. The Community Shield on August 10th at 3pm. 

 

 

 

Isn't that the same type of farcial?

Edited July 14, 2025 by thetime

[rock_on]

2 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

Isn't that the same type of farcial?

 

Nope. It's a far more respectful trophy to win than the Donald Trump cup.

[thetime]

14 minutes ago, rock_on said:

 

Nope. It's a far more respectful trophy to win than the Donald Trump cup.

 

Is it? Put it on the same level.  World club cup, super cup, community shield are all glorified friendlies.

 

Hey even some years you don’t even have to win anything.

[rock_on]

21 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

Is it? Put it on the same level.  World club cup, super cup, community shield are all glorified friendlies.

 

Hey even some years you don’t even have to win anything.

 

The community shield is an important match not least for it's work for good causes. Playing in it is something every player looks forward to. The club world cup is a cup that has to strong-arm contracts to force players to play in it during what should be a rest period. No player looks forward to the club world cup. Community is not a glorified friendly at all. 

[thetime]

2 hours ago, rock_on said:

 

The community shield is an important match not least for it's work for good causes.  Community is not a glorified friendly at all. 

 

So its a charity match? You support Liverpool don't you? 

[rock_on]

27 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

So its a charity match? You support Liverpool don't you? 

 

A charity match is of higher calibre and importance than the flipping club world cup rubbish. And no, I'm not a Liverpool supporter.  

[charlierc]

12 hours ago, rock_on said:

 

Nope. It's a far more respectful trophy to win than the Donald Trump cup.

Calling it the Trump Cup might well stick now given he inserted himself into Chelsea's trophy lift and apparently has kept the actual trophy with FIFA giving away a replica on Sunday. 

 

The man just wants to be the centre of attention at all times huh

[Punksnotdead]

I went to countless charity/community shields in the 80's, 90's and 00's. Of course I wanted my team (MUFC) to win, but if we didn't I certainly didn't lose any sleep. In fact, if you gave me a list of all those games, I probably wouldn't be able to recall a single result!

 

For Palace, it will probably be a big deal, but for any supporters of teams who regularly win leagues and cups, it's definitely a glorified friendly!

[Gnomicide]

The Community Shield is just a nice day out. Of course you want your team to win, but ultimately, everyone's forgotten about it as soon as it's over. If your own team isn't involved, it's just something to scroll past on social media. 

[rock_on]

1 hour ago, Gnomicide said:

The Community Shield is just a nice day out. Of course you want your team to win, but ultimately, everyone's forgotten about it as soon as it's over. If your own team isn't involved, it's just something to scroll past on social media. 

 

I watch it religiously every year. Feels like it's when the football season really gets started and we put the silly friendlies season behind us. 

[charlierc]

All I think I've learned from multiple rumours and counter-rumours about Isak and Ekiteke is that they're footballers who'll play somewhere next season.

 

At the very least I imagine the bid would need to be pretty substantial to persuade us to sell Isak. Assuming Liverpool don't just buy Ekiteke instead, which was rumoured by Sky.

Edited July 15, 2025 by charlierc

[charlierc]

7 hours ago, Punksnotdead said:

I went to countless charity/community shields in the 80's, 90's and 00's. Of course I wanted my team (MUFC) to win, but if we didn't I certainly didn't lose any sleep. In fact, if you gave me a list of all those games, I probably wouldn't be able to recall a single result!

 

For Palace, it will probably be a big deal, but for any supporters of teams who regularly win leagues and cups, it's definitely a glorified friendly!

Certainly I think this is better timing. Italy and Spain turned their Super-cups into 4 team mid-season tournaments in the Middle East, which just feels like a pretty cynical cash grab.

[kaosmark2]

10 hours ago, charlierc said:

All I think I've learned from multiple rumours and counter-rumours about Isak and Ekiteke is that they're footballers who'll play somewhere next season.

 

At the very least I imagine the bid would need to be pretty substantial to persuade us to sell Isak. Assuming Liverpool don't just buy Ekiteke instead, which was rumoured by Sky.

Ekiteke is one of these rumours where I'm just not going to believe until it's done. Elanga was a tier of player that it had looked like we'd have a good chance of getting for a while, with a clearly available fee that we could definitely afford, and no indication of other clubs going in for him. While we're the main club being linked with Ekiteke right now, Liverpool, Bayern, Barca have all been linked with him in the past couple of weeks, and he's a profile of striker that I wouldn't be shocked if some other club just comes in and tries to trump any offer.

 

It's a nice thought, because having another seriously high quality striker where both play ~2/3 of games between rotation and sometimes playing together is my ideal, but given 10 days ago the biggest link was to DCL, I'm going to wait until I read a "has signed" until I trust any big name striker deal is happening.

 

I think Isak only goes for huge money, and I suspect that if he tries to itch for a move a bit, we keep him for a season anyway then sell him next year.

[rock_on]

I don't see the reasoning behind us keeping Isak and buying Ekiteke unless we're going to rotate them due to what could be a heavy fixture load. I can't see them playing together. We won't sell Isak unless it's for £200m+

[Skip997]

Isak is likely to cost around £130 million.

 

Anyway

 

Transfers, how to do it properly

[charlierc]

9 hours ago, rock_on said:

I don't see the reasoning behind us keeping Isak and buying Ekiteke unless we're going to rotate them due to what could be a heavy fixture load. I can't see them playing together. We won't sell Isak unless it's for £200m+

There seemed to be scope for having versatility - games to play both together in a 4-2-3-1 or with one out wide, or to rotate. Which if nothing else is an attempt at futureproofing given a lack of depth in multiple places was a pain in the arse in 2023 when last in the Champions League.

 

If you ask me right now I suspect this ends in Liverpool buying Ekiteke. But we'll see what happens. The rumours on this case are super contradictory with some saying Liverpool are passing on Isak and others saying they're preparing a bid, so... pfft. Too much noise to get heads or tails on it imo.

[Skip997]

9 minutes ago, charlierc said:

 

 

If you ask me right now I suspect this ends in Liverpool buying Ekiteke. 

I think you’ll end up being right. 

[lost]

Do Liverpool need to shift Nunez? From reading the press Napoli have pulled out and the only clubs willing to pay what Liverpool want are owned by the same guy who owns Newcastle. You'd think Saudi clubs now moving for Nunez would be silly.