I'd love to know what he's playing hardball for, like what that number is. He'll sit on the bench at Chelsea, not play, and STILL make less money. What a cut off your nose to spite your face move.
Transfer: Summer Transfer Thread part 9: Sky Sports Deadline Day boredom
- Thread starter Jussi
- Start date
- Status
Power Man
Grrrr
Carlo is a fine coach
His problem is rhat hie doesn’t rotate enough
robertmac43
Forever 43!
- Mar 31, 2015
- 23,423
- 15,543
I saw a rumour that he wanted 150k a week but that may be off. One of the Chelsea posters may be able to correct me on that.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,881
- 14,844
The reports I'm seeing is it's not personal terms, but something between Chelsea and West Ham. I'll wait for some reliable sources on either side.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,881
- 14,844
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,881
- 14,844
And for the record, the fuller details in that L'Equipe article are even more hilarious than the surface-level explanation we got. Al-Khelaifi is now the president of the ECA and Ceferin wants to keep him on onside for the new FFP laws, which need ECA validation. Mind you, the new FFP is even more beneficial to PSG (and a few others)!
Enough with the charade.
Enough with the charade.
Power Man
Grrrr
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
From what I understand, PSG gained power because they did not join the SL efforts. They are in very good standing with UEFA.
The new salary cap/luxury tax system greatly favors them because they can easily pay the tax if they so choose.
The stuff about COVID is mostly a way not to cripple the entire football economy with FFP violations. It was needed.
The political part is mostly the Super League stuff giving PSG more influence resulting in a new system that greatly advantages them and other sugar daddy clubs (two of which were SL clubs). It does represent a shift of power as the previous system was initially implemented to prevent them from dominating the sport.
That's basically what the article implies.
The part about being able to keep Mbappé without being in violation of FFP rules because of COVID and because it is the last year of the old system so it would be surprising that a club, especially one in very good standing, gets punished.
It is all a power struggle between corrupted elites (and I'll gladly add Perez to the list of "corrupted elites").
Yes pretty much.
The change in FFP rules currently are not in order to favor PSG. It's for everyone and yes PSG will abide by it, even if some HFboards accounting experts refuse to admit it.
The political part is indeed about moving from FFP to salary cap.
Which is fairer to teams with fewer TV rights, but obviously EPL fans won't see it that way.
The change in FFP rules currently are not in order to favor PSG. It's for everyone and yes PSG will abide by it, even if some HFboards accounting experts refuse to admit it.
The political part is indeed about moving from FFP to salary cap.
Which is fairer to teams with fewer TV rights, but obviously EPL fans won't see it that way.
Right, and you'd think this would be applied at scale. Meaning, you wouldn't penalize a team that went over the 30% threshold given the revenue halt that not having fans, etc. imposed through covid. But a club like PSG, that didn't just exceed by whatever that lost revenue margin was but added hundreds of millions of additional shortfall (the article said €200M) would still be able to be penalized. Covid, in their case specifically, is just a convenient excuse.
LOL! Of course, they'll abide by it, a luxury tax means they need to alter their spending in exactly zero ways. This ridiculous attempt to gaslight everyone can continue, but no one is that blind or stupid.
"For everyone", my ass.
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
I fail to see how the new system helps anyone but the sugar daddy clubs who WON'T be affected by having to pay the luxury tax. It is basically the MLB system and it will result in PSG/City/Chelsea being the Dodgers, basically. Dodgers being able to do that because their local TV contract is crazy high, while PSG/City/Chelsea can do it because, well, money is no object to their owners.
Maybe there is something I am misunderstanding in how the new system works. It makes small clubs even more vulnerable and opens the door for more sugar daddies. Is it a good or a bad thing? I won't comment on that, we went down that rabbit hole many times and it ends up being a debate about levels of "evil".
That means sugar daddies won't have to buy English only.
You can buy Sparta Prague and make it a giant.
You're not missing anything, you're exactly right.
Not to mention, how that excess money gets distributed is a huge open question.
Nah you're missing the point as I said.
But as I also said I don't expect many EPL fans to understand it because they're used to huge TV revenues.
Right now if a sugar daddy buys anywhere but EPL, the FFP prevents him to spend.
Not anymore.
But as I also said I don't expect many EPL fans to understand it because they're used to huge TV revenues.
Right now if a sugar daddy buys anywhere but EPL, the FFP prevents him to spend.
Not anymore.
Are you somehow saying FFP hasn't prevented PSG from spending the last 3 years for instance ?
Getting guys like Danilo or Rafinha on loan?
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
Which is good for who, exactly? I guess your implying that a sugar daddy buying Sparta Prague would invest in all football infrastructures at the club which would be positive for the region? I guess that's a "good thing", yes. However, well, that's when you fall in the "morality" rabbit hole and level of evilness.
I guess it "levels" the playing field for other countries, sure. I do not think it is an inherently good thing. The leveling of the playing field, absolutely. The type of owners it will continue to bring to the sport... meh.
For EPL no it's not.
For the rest of Europe? Yes.
Again a huge Sparta would be huge for the whole league (money, TV rights, coefficients, etc...).
This is a sport of sugar daddies like it or not.
So should they only invest in England?
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
Well, my opinion is that we should not have them at all. Where they can or can't be being irrelevant to me.
I get your point though, I just disagree. And I know you think that it helps other clubs breaking the monopoly of traditional big clubs who ALSO have huge morality issues for the most part. I understand that it injects money into the structure and has positive consequences in the football pyramid... but at what cost?
That's why I say it is mostly just a charade between ultra-powerful and corrupt people. As I mentioned, football is a distant fourth in their priorities... if even that high.
VEGASKING
Registered User
He was doing just fine in the EPL until he got hurt and hasn't been part of the team since. Just one of the many baffling decisions of the last few seasons. This started under Emery so it's not only an Arteta thing.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Game 4 Carolina Hurricanes @ New York Islanders - Carolina leads series 3-0Wagers: 9Staked: $4,451.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
