timeEd32

There is a very good chance of this being the case and yet it still seems almost impossible to believe.

I'm guessing we know he's not available.

I like our chances, but this thread is giving me Man City pre-match vibes. PSG away is the only game they've lost this season. Also, unless I missed one, I don't think they've lost at home since August of 2022 for those thinking about doing the double over them.

In our last 40 games played we're 4 points better with a +37 GD compared to them. Since the cup final they have a -1 GD and we've collected two more points even if you give them 6 points for their two games in hand. This calendar year we are basically identical to each other at home: +20 GD for us and +18 for them. Away from home we are +9 and they are -10. This season they are 12th in xG, 9th in xGA, and 11th in xPTS. We are 1st, 2nd, and 2nd. I know which team I'd rather be looking at literally every metric other than points. Just a slight improvement from us in turning draws into 3 points and we're flying. Combine that with them turning some of these narrow wins into draws and it won't be close. Barring a drastic uptick in form from them I'm very confident we will be finishing above them.

If he bet on Milan (or even Serie A games) he deserves it. There's no argument about a global ban at that point. All attention on what Milan knew and what payments we can get out of.

I'd be very happy with him, especially on loan. I have no doubt Eddie could get him back to his best.

It was generally regarded as one of the most surprising deals of the summer. Boyhood fan, never wanted to leave Milan, etc. There was a very plausible explanation with a big fee for Milan + big wages for him + new challenge, etc. Not ruling that out, but this certainly provides another reason.

I try to resist conspiracy type thinking, but this transfer makes a lot more sense if he and/or they knew this was coming.

Also what does it mean when he doesn't bet on them? And when he's a couple million in the hole what happens then?

If he bet on Milan he's lucky it's only a year or less. It's irrelevant whether it was all to win. He's privy to insider information, he could be betting under only certain conditions, and it could lead to other bets to make up for debts. Debts could of course eventually lead to match fixing or even just the appearance of it. It's a slippery slope. Given the history in Italy I'm surprised they don't have harsher penalties to be honest.

Trippier at LB is interesting.

I'm both dismayed at the Italian gambling laws and thoroughly impressed by the expediency of these proceedings.

Hope is trying to will a ban into existence.

Other sources have different numbers but if you want to add him to the list that’s fine. I don’t think including one of the five greatest players ever who defied aging for nearly a decade changes the point.

Pretty sure Ronaldo to Juve was 100m euros, not pounds. But even if you expand the list to €100m you're adding Lukaku, Dembele, Pogba, Bellingham, Hazard, Ronaldo, Kane, and Bale. Yes fees are inflating, but it's still a very short list comprised of essentially established or potential stars. £100m in the summer of 2024 or 2025 is not going to be some great bargain for the buying club. It's going to be one of the 10-15 largest transfers in the history of the sport (if it happens).

Remember when his transfer was playing out. Italian footballers are covered like the Royal Family.

I think there is at least a possibility that everyone is thinking too small in terms of design and scope.

This may turn out like the steroid scandal in baseball where the first names that came out were a big deal and then it became easier to speculate on who didn't take steroids. By the time we hear 30-40 names everyone will be bored of this and it will be slaps on the wrist all around (if it was only casino games). Betting on Italian football and potentially Milan would be a whole different thing.

A grand total of nine players in the history of football have been sold for £100m+. They are the following: Neymar, age 25 Mbappe, age 19 Coutinho, age 26 Felix, age 19 Enzo, age 22 Griezmann, age 28 Grealish, age 25 Rice, age 24 Caicedo, age 21 Five of those nine have been bought by Premier League clubs. It's been four years since a non-PL club spent that much money on a player. Despite the lunacy of ever increasing transfer fees, £100m is still a big number. Bruno turns 26 in a month. The soonest we'd sell him is next summer, at which point he's closer to 27 and firmly on the high end of this list. Both of the 'old' players on this list went to drunk spending Barcelona and we know how those turned out. I'm all for some worrying™ and debate, but there are far better ways to spend time than letting this clause overshadow a new contract for the best player this club has had in a long time.

How a player is actually paid for in real money and how they are amortized for accounting / FFP is not the same. A £20m player signed on a five year deal is £4m per season on the books whether that £20m is paid in cash up front or £2m per year for a decade.

It's all booked in the current year as revenue.

It's three years of solitary. It's over.

Unless you buy into the retirement conspiracies...

He'd probably cost £70-80m or more I'd imagine. Really like him though.

While I agree you can't just look at xG this also seems like an overly negative way of dismissing the fact we lead the league in it 20% of the way through the season. Our two best games account for 50% of our xG. Liverpool's two best are 39% of their xG. Brighton's are 41%. City's are 48% Arsenal's are 46% It's pretty normal for a couple 'boom' games to prop up the number.