Cronky

Well, everything that could go wrong, has gone wrong. Lots of positives about the performance, but our back four has always lacked pace, and on this occasion that has cost us. Liverpool are good at hitting the front players early. There's no sign of us holding back, with the game next week in mind. Isak has done well. I think starting ahead of Wilson has given his confidence a boost.

Yeah, I wanted to see Gordon start, but seeing he can't play against Man U, and Willock might be still absent next week, I can see the logic.

Gordon will surely start. He can play in a midfield three or further forward, so the choice would then be between Maxi and Anderson. Maxi sometimes turns it on against the better sides, and he may have some success against Trent, so I'd play him, albeit just for the first hour. I'd like to see Anderson given more than just the final 10 minutes - that doesn't really give him a proper chance. I'd also like Isak to start rather than Wilson. The return of Van Dijk is bad news, but Liverpool have yet to find the attacking threat that they had with Sane - Firmino - Salah. Klopp has a bit of a history of going off the boil, and he doesn't come across as that sure of himself right now. So many times in the last 18 months I've approached games with trepidation, but it's turned out okay.

I had a look at that forum. There was mention of his body language and general demeanour, which had always concerned me in his time here. I hope I'm not being unfair, but he never looked like he was enjoying his football. He seemed reserved, unconfident, reluctant to impose himself. You expect a guy who looks that strong to at least be knocking a few defenders over.

I've read an article on him in World Soccer. It came across that he's a quiet, reserved character and it can take some time before he feels able to impose himself. He ended up sinking at Dortmund before flourishing at Willem II and Sociedad. His talent on the ball is obvious, and I think we need to be patient and persist with him. Playing him with Gordon as a number 10 might open up the space and time that he needs.

It's a problem. Increasingly the Premiership clubs are hoarding the best talent, and with the top clubs, not many come through and establish themselves in the first team without going on loan first, or taking a step down and then returning. But that's the nature of the competition now. I'm a bit worried about Anderson, because as fast as he's improving, the quality that's being demanded is rising at the same pace, and there's a danger he's going to be stuck in his current role as a useful sub. Longstaff was able to have a long apprenticeship in the first team, because the first team wasn't as good.

Arsenal played well, but in the end, City's press was superior to Arsenal's ability to play the ball out from the back.

https://www.90min.com/posts/premier-league-clubs-interested-in-ecuador-starlet-kendry-paez Linked with a 15 year old Ecuadorian. Amongst one or two other clubs, it seems. Looks utterly amazing though.

I sincerely hope he isn't. That'll only add to the pressure.

I really think Pep should just be giving a 'no comment' response to any questions about this. He's not in a position to judge what's been going on - he's only going by what he's been told by the people who have been charged. He also seems to be confusing 'getting off' with an offence with being 'proved innocent'. What happened with UEFA and the CAS did not represent being given a clean bill of health. One authority found the offence proven, the other did not, partly on procedural grounds. He can't pretend that this doesn't still leave some question marks. I find it very hard to believe that the Premier League would have brought all these charges, after such a length of time, if they weren't convinced that City had breached the rules. At the end of the day, it may be possible for City to go to a Court and have the whole concept of FFP thrown out as a restraint of trade or something - I don't know. But victory gained that way is nothing to be proud of. You joined a club, with full awareness of that club's rules.

Jones seemed to make the mistake of taking on the fans. That never ends well.

After the game, Eddie talked about giving him a free role around Isak. That'll take a while to develop, because everyone will need to adjust, but that sounded like a good idea. He could be our Beardsley / Bellamy.

He looked a bit isolated today, but things gradually improved, particularly after Gordon came on. I think he needs a licence to roam, which will mean making sure that we get players moving into scoring positions from the midfield. Wilson tends to just hang around in the centre, and by the last defender.

I think we miss Bruno. A lot of our play goes through him. It felt like an unfamiliar line-up yesterday and we weren't at our fluent best. But Bournemouth played well on the break, and we shouldn't assume that just because of their league position they were there for the taking. I can't see that Shelvey or Wood would have made a lot of difference. Both players wanted to go, and Eddie would have had to consider whether it was wise to insist on them staying. Apart from any effect on their performance, it's valuable for the club to get a reputation for treating players well. This squad has over-achieved massively in reaching 4th place. If we maintain it, that should be a bonus rather than an expectation.

Bournemouth didn't look great technically, but they are athletic and at times they were too quick for us. Gordon has to start next week. We need his pace and movement. Isak played better as the game went on, partly because he was able to roam around a bit, with more players getting into the penalty area. Dan Burn is really struggling, and he nearly gave the game away at the end. Still, there was a time not long ago when drawing away was a decent result.

We really needed the goal. The momentum should be back with us now. Gordon has energised the performance completely. He's got a very good football brain - always seems to know what to do and does it quickly.

FFP regulations exist in all the major European leagues, in UEFA competitions, and of course in the EFL. There's nothing exceptional in what the Premiership is doing, and to paint it as a private conspiracy by a particular cabal of clubs isn't accurate, even though of course it can benefit the clubs who already start off with greater resources. It's in the interests of the 'big six' to have some sort of cap on spending. No cap would likely mean that costs would spiral within the elite, as the pressures of competition within the group would lead to clubs taking risks and harming their own profitability. Yes, self-interest plays a part, but there's more to it than just trying to exclude mega-rich newcomers. What I've always felt is that the gap in revenues between the clubs qualifying for the CL and those that don't, is too large. Likewise the gap between Premiership and Championship clubs. It encourages risk-taking as owners stretch resources to the limit in order to maintain their position in either the CL or the Premiership. That's how you get this situation of the game awash with money, but large numbers of clubs in financial difficulty.

Martin Samuel has made this argument several times before. It doesn't hold water, because Man City's objective has been to kill off the competition, not enhance it. If a club is allowed to spend from an unlimited budget, then it's inevitable that that club will replace an elite with a monopoly, which is how things have been developing. I'd also argue that the growing financial gap between all the Premiership clubs and nearly all the Continental clubs has meant that the pool of worldwide talent that clubs like Brighton, Villa, West Ham and ourselves can access has grown wider. The Premiership is effectively becoming a Super League in itself, and one side effect is the gap between top and bottom has already started to narrow.

I just wish some supporters could stop looking backwards. Keegan and Robson produced the best of our recent era, but we didn't win a major trophy. I look back on their spells with sadness as much as pride. Eddie is doing things his own way with his own energy, and doesn't need advice or inspiration from the past. No-one needs reminding of past disappointments either. That can only build tension.

I really disagree with this. FFP is not a perfect system, because as you say the clubs that naturally generate the most income (eg Man U, Liverpool) have the potential to maintain their position through their success breeding more success. But if FFP is not there, then you get the situation that has been developing for several seasons now, where one club can consistently spend whatever it takes to remain at the top, through effectively operating within no budget at all. The competition doesn't increase without FFP, it shrinks. The gap between Man City and the rest has grown over the last few years. There was concern a few years ago about the power of Man U and Arsenal, but once Fergie was gone and Arsenal were saddled with the cost of their new stadium, things naturally evened out. What's more, now that even smaller Premiership clubs like Brighton can attract top talent from all over the world, it's easier for more clubs to challenge the elite. Clubs like West Ham, Villa and ourselves, can now compete with all but the very biggest of European clubs when it comes to attracting players. We'll have to see how things develop, but I can envisage the Premiership becoming more competitive, not less. Providing that clubs like Man City and Chelsea are made to follow the rules.

I'd agree that, if all this is true, then a punishment that is proportionate to previous decisions would be relegation - perhaps down two or more divisions. When Rangers got done, they had to start from the lowest tier.

If found guilty on all charges, and they've tried to cover it up and obstruct any investigation, then I'd hope the punishment would be more severe than that, given the length of time that this would have been going on. Personally, I'd drop them down a couple of divisions.

I think they'll be found guilty. Their spending looked suspicious from the start, and if evidence from hacked emails is allowed and clearly exposes subterfuge, they'll be bang to rights. The question mark is the nature of the punishment, which is difficult to predict as we're in new territory. But whatever the outcome, the whole episode will be a warning to all clubs that the Premier League will hunt this kind of practice down, no matter how long it takes. A lot of people welcomed the City takeover because they felt it would increase the competition, but City's objective has always seemed to be to kill off the competition, not enhance it. It's not in the League's interest for one club to establish a monopoly as in France or Germany.

So far as I'm aware, the main accusation is that some of their sponsorship money has in fact come from the owners, albeit indirectly. They're also accused of supplementing Mancini's salary through a covert route.

It doesn't look like the Premier League are bottling it. They've shown some determination and persistence in getting things to this point. It's the CAS that bothers me. I've never been able to see what the point of that institution is, particularly on an issue like this, where financial and accounting issues are under examination, rather than sporting. If City feel that they have been hard done by, surely there are other legal routes open to them - ones that can handle those kinds of complications. It has struck me before that the CAS, being a rather pointless institution, tend to try to justify their existence by arbitrarily going against the decisions that have been reached by sporting bodies. PS - I stand corrected by the Prophet. The CAS is not a route of appeal in this case. Good news, I say.