Premier League 2019-20 Part III

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,500
10,479
We didn't buy Salah just so Liverpool wouldn't, we had first-hand exposure to him when we played Basel in Champions League. We played them 4 times between Europa in 12/13 and Champions in 13/14.
Chelsea absolutely did. Look at his appearances after coming to England. There was no plan for him. It was a block.

and yes it I am fully admitting it was Liverpool botching it that opened the door, but let’s call it what it is. Liverpool was not in on him until they shot themselves in the foot
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,762
14,675
Chelsea absolutely did. Look at his appearances after coming to England. There was no plan for him. It was a block.
You just summed up Chelsea's policy of the past few years, purchase players and then change managers, so even if there was a plan, the plan was constantly changing. De Bruyne was also brought by seeing him first-hand in Europe, but we were also scouting Belgium heavily too. We were in on Salah for quite awhile. It's the same as people who say we bought Willian to prevent him from going to Spurs, he was another long-term target, and we just won the bid at the end.

Bad development doesn't mean we only bought him to prevent him from going to another club.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blender

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,500
10,479
You just summed up Chelsea's policy of the past few years, purchase players and then change managers, so even if there was a plan, the plan was constantly changing. De Bruyne was also brought by seeing him first-hand in Europe, but we were also scouting Belgium heavily too. We were in on Salah for quite awhile. It's the same as people who say we bought Willian to prevent him from going to Spurs, he was another long-term target, and we just won the bid at the end.

Bad development doesn't mean we only bought him to prevent him from going to another club.
It depends on the player. I agree about Willian, but I don’t agree about Salah. They bought him, barely played him, and then loaned him out to salvage a transfer fee.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,762
14,675
It depends on the player. I agree about Willian, but I don’t agree about Salah. They bought him, barely played him, and then loaned him out to salvage a transfer fee.
Yeah, same applies to De Bruyne, we had terrible development.
 

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560


Very good thread on Manchester City.

The dream would be for the full ban to be upheld and a mass investigation goes and teams like PSG get nailed too. I think they’ve kind of backed themselves into a corner here because if the appeal is successful FFP is dead.

Those are huge consequences though for City and I doubt the owners and all their money allow it to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,762
14,675
De Bruyne got minutes though. He started games the summer that he left for Germany
Salah had almost 6 times as many minutes for Chelsea that De Bruyne had, and 10 starts compared to De Bruyne's 2. Our handling of Salah was a disaster, but we didn't buy him just to keep him from another team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wee Baby Seamus

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,526
France
Yes. That’s correct. That’s not what I am saying. I’m saying that PSG doesn’t do transfers based on Net Spend, and that they didn’t have to sell a (relative) Coutinho level player to finance any of their major moves. When LFC sold Coutinho, he was a lot more to them than a useful bench player
Sure, but that's not what you wrote. You said those teams didn't HAVE to sell. PSG has to sell, even though it doesn't have to with their spending power.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,526
France
The dream would be for the full ban to be upheld and a mass investigation goes and teams like PSG get nailed too. I think they’ve kind of backed themselves into a corner here because if the appeal is successful FFP is dead.

Those are huge consequences though for City and I doubt the owners and all their money allow it to happen.
Why exactly would PSG suffer from any investigation???
They are the team who has suffered the most from FFP because they've respected it.
Meanwhile EPL teams benefit from TV contracts that assure them to spend at will.

You probably think it's fair (as in Financial FAIR Play) in your world.
 

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560
Why exactly would PSG suffer from any investigation???
They are the team who has suffered the most from FFP because they've respected it.
Meanwhile EPL teams benefit from TV contracts that assure them to spend at will.

You probably think it's fair (as in Financial FAIR Play) in your world.
Read the thread.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Why exactly would PSG suffer from any investigation???
They are the team who has suffered the most from FFP because they've respected it.
Meanwhile EPL teams benefit from TV contracts that assure them to spend at will.

You probably think it's fair (as in Financial FAIR Play) in your world.
Yes that the EPL pulls in way more revenue means they can spend more, that is fair.

PSG is being accused of the same financial impropriety that City has been accused of, that their owners falsified their revenue by funneling money through "sponsors".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassano and YNWA14

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,526
France
Yes that the EPL pulls in way more revenue means they can spend more, that is fair.

PSG is being accused of the same financial impropriety that City has been accused of, that their owners falsified their revenue by funneling money through "sponsors".
Some people have no idea how justice works.
PSG's sponsoring thingie was ruled, they paid a price set by UEFA and since then have not been found guilty of anything.
So they served their time and thus even the most outrageous idiots don't have ground to accuse them of anything.

And no, it's not fair :laugh:
Or just make european cups EPL league. Right? Would be fair?
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Some people have no idea how justice works.
PSG's sponsoring thingie was ruled, they paid a price set by UEFA and since then have not been found guilty of anything.
So they served their time and thus even the most outrageous idiots don't have ground to accuse them of anything.

And no, it's not fair :laugh:
Or just make european cups EPL league. Right? Would be fair?
Yes it is fair. Is it unfair that French clubs make significantly more money than Belgian clubs? Are you proposing that all clubs should be limited to spending an equal amount?
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,526
France
No, it's not fair french clubs make more than belgian clubs :laugh:
Where did I say the contrary? :huh:
All clubs should benefit from similar TV revenues at the very least.
European cups have gone to shit because of those financial differences, and helped a lot by FFP. It's the same 10 teams all the time. They can even suck in their league, as long as they're top 4 (which is also absolutely laughable to have 4 teams from 1 league and 1 from another), they're assured of money.

Current european format is absolutely terrible.
Round Robins has assured way too many revenue to the same teams.
Multiple teams from same leagues have also assured more revenue to the already rich teams.

Basically, what we need is either a return to the previous system or a move to an entire closed league with a leveling of financial power (like NA leagues).
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,762
14,675
5 subs being permanent is a big help for the big clubs and will hurt the smaller clubs. I like the move in general, but those will be the unintended consequences. Top clubs that have high-quality depth will be able to make more aggressive changes if some players aren't playing well.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,500
10,479
I don’t have any problem with the five subs, but at least one of them should be reserved for an academy/homegrown player. That takes some of advantage away from the deeper teams though too.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
5 subs being permanent is a big help for the big clubs and will hurt the smaller clubs. I like the move in general, but those will be the unintended consequences. Top clubs that have high-quality depth will be able to make more aggressive changes if some players aren't playing well.

It also favors defensive systems because it lets teams more easily replace tired defenders and doesn’t give attackers as much chance to run at tired defenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stray Wasp

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560
It also favors defensive systems because it lets teams more easily replace tired defenders and doesn’t give attackers as much chance to run at tired defenders.
Which doesn't really benefit the top teams, does it?
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
Which doesn't really benefit the top teams, does it?

I think that’s much more personnel dependent. Far more lower and middle tier teams have a couple fast wide players than have big benches.

It also lets managers much more easily replace players on a yellow, especially defenders, like Klopp today with Williams. Granted that change may have happened anyway, but having the extra subs makes it a no-brainer for the manager.

I think more subs generally makes for a less exciting game and far more ability to tactically foul opponents.
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
It does help big clubs if you’re able to bring better players off the bench. Also attracts players who might want playing time, especially if it’s a situation where contract escalators are related to appearances. You might see less players leave looking for playing time if they know they have a good shot to get on the pitch every week. If I’m Harry Wilson, I can staple my claim to a Liverpool team sheet, win a lot of matches and play 25-30 minutes a week, plus all the Cup games I can handle.

That said, smart managers will use it to get top players rest and young players minutes across the board. That benefits all clubs. I also think if you’re Sheffield United and all of your players are of similar quality, and you’ve run yourself into the ground defending by 65-70, you’ve got a better opportunity to bring on some legs to save it. Sure, you might not have a world class player on the bench to bring on, but there’s plenty of matches where concentration dips as players get tired and you might be able to hold on longer.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->