timeEd32

There was a narrative forming around Maddison about not fully judging him in a downtrodden relegated side - “he’d be back to his best, etc.” For some reason Barnes isn’t being afforded the same. He’s also being criticized for various deficiencies, while glossing over his output in the most important stat. I’d hope at this point most would be confident that we know his weaknesses, we know where we think he can improve, and we know how he improves the team. Also, you can’t call it a like for like sideways swap with ASM (if we do sell him) without acknowledging that that swap could essentially pay for another player.

For £35m it’s hard to complain about this. If we were signing a player for that amount who had double digit G+A three years running in a top foreign league people would have their pants down. It makes even more sense if we sell Maxi because of the FFP boost that would give us. I think the thing I like least about it is it probably means Joelinton more frequently at LCM and that means Joe Willock more frequently … on the bench? I want more Willock.

Shot straight at the keeper, needlessly gave the ball away, and an obvious booking when beaten for pace. What a fucking waste of money.

Following up with some info from a(n admittedly small) study on top NFL running backs (a brutal position full of cutting / twisting / turning): Excluding players who retired after their ACL injury, the vast majority of players were more efficient in yards per attempt, yards per touch, and fantasy points per game in the second year following ACL surgery. Age does seem to matter. Younger backs in this sample (younger than 26) were more likely than veteran backs to have a bounce-back season in year two after ACL surgery, at least when you look at efficiency metrics and fantasy points per game. Unfortunately, late career ACL injuries have the potential to be career-threatening. I'm not sure I even care if it's on the more expensive side (~£50m). He could be a transformative signing.

Those numbers are across the general population. Everything is different for a professional athlete - pre-surgery treatment, the surgery itself (performed by a world class surgeon), the recovery process, the mental aspect. It's a bad injury for sure, but they are far from the death knell they used to be. Every injury is different too - if it's "just" the ACL it's pretty straightforward whereas sometimes there are also problems with other ligaments that make recovery more complicated (I can't find a mention of anything but ACL for Chiesa but I'm also not sure these injuries are covered in as much detail as you'd find in the NFL). As I've mentioned before there has been a ton of research on ACL injuries for NFL players. There are a lot of examples of players who do not return to prior performance until the second year post-injury. The first year often shows the impact of the injury and has a higher rate of compensatory injuries (like hamstrings, etc.). It is not risk free, but If we can get a player with the ceiling Chiesa has at a discount it is a no-brainer.

Good to know which promoted club will race out of the blocks and then fade badly.

Ah, interesting. I interpreted "current playing squad" as the time of writing, but makes more sense that it would be the end of the account period being discussed.

@kocunar Wonderful effort. I'm going to be the asshole that points out a couple corrections after you've put in a ton of work: The new UEFA squad cost control includes not just wages but amortised transfer and agent fees. Wages are only counted for players (men only) and coaching staff, which Swiss Ramble has estimated is about 90% of wages typically published. UEFA's FFP limits are a bit stricter (and more confusing because of a good standing clause) but our limit on losses is potentially capped at ~£51M for the 23/24 monitoring period. In our 2021/22 accounts the club revealed the amortisation charge of the current playing squad (i.e. after January) for future years. 2022/23 is £69.7M, so you're on the high side by about £10M

He confirmed surgery wasn't needed, just rest. I assume he got what he needed.

Yeah, he was certainly worth it when Trippier was out but looking at our wage list and seeing him on similar or more than Schar, Burn, Longstaff, Pope, etc. is rough.

@kocunar about to do better journalism in a day than any of the local writers have done in a year.

Everyone better be on the USA tour.

He could be referring to the fact that it has essentially been spent already.

I could be wrong but UEFA’s new squad cost control calculation seems most stringent to me and potentially problematic since we most recently had the highest wage : revenue ratio in the PL.

I don’t think that FourFourTwo video proves much of anything unless they did the detailed math behind the scenes and then used rough math to explain it. What they show cuts a lot of corners. Also, one thing that provides flexibility (and uncertainty) is investments in the academy, women’s football, and other things that provide an adjustment. In theory you could be £10m past the limit and then get under the limit with that approach.

Is he really on almost £3M per year? That's painful -- will be some nice savings a year from now.

That opinion is more embarrassing than your thread titles.

Usually, yeah. But it can be a significant addition and a differentiator. Many of the big clubs are in the same ballpark on match day and commercial income, especially the three London clubs. The PL TV deal is largely flat. European performance and sales can really tip the scales. In the last published accounts Chelsea made almost twice as much from player sales as they did from match day income. The Grealish and Rice sales are the financial equivalent of Villa and West Ham winning the Champions League in those seasons. It affords a lot of flexibility.

Chelsea’s insane revenue from player sales actually explains away a lot of their spend. Another year out of the CL could make things very tight for them though. Arsenal haven’t made nearly as much. Like I think they are closer to us over the last 4-5 years and we’ve made next to nothing. Chelsea have made like half a billion.

Just seems like a very strange swap to make. Selling ASM to fund a RW or LB makes a lot more sense to me.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting it. It seems unnecessary. He'll be 26 midway through this season, so it's not like we're getting much younger from ASM. Surely there'd be better options at that price point.

I don't think it will happen but if we put £50m into Harvey Barnes then I'm going to assume we have no FFP problems and will be spending at least £200m this summer. It would make zero sense to me otherwise.

Curtis Jones with an idiotic decision.

2-0 England after the longest offside check I've ever seen.

I care less about whether he dived or not and more about the speed at which he pressed the GK, which forced the error and the series of chances.