timeEd32

None of the summer 2023 signings were a mistake in a vacuum (bar maybe Tonali, but I have no interest in that debate), but our planning has been flawed since that summer. The kindest, most explainable version of events is that they were part of a longer term plan that went up in smoke when Ashworth left. But even that version relied on selling someone in June so ultimately there's no excuse for the financial mismanagement.

I don't think we're looking for a RW that just improves us. We're looking for a RW that's the same caliber as Bruno/Gordon/Isak/Olise, etc. You can disagree with that approach, but that seems to be what we were after.

The idea that summer 2023 was a bad window shouldn't even be contentious at this point. That does not mean the players we signed in that window are bad.

This is obviously not going to land well, but worth noting Hope's story mentions how neither side is particularly interested in discussions at the moment given that Isak is already one of the top earners and contracted for three more seasons after this one. I obviously don't want him to leave, but also pretty calm about a situation where the worst case scenario is selling a player for over £100m.

The one bit of tension in the January window that will be interesting to see is what we'll do if we're sitting in the 6th-9th range with a chance at Europe but also obviously needing some help. A couple young players from the continent are unlikely to make an instant impact, but I doubt we'll want to spend a bunch of money (and impact our summer) on an expensive PL player. This gets into the point @The College Dropout has been making about our stated aims of Europe and presumably the expectations of the manager not necessarily being aligned with the required recruitment strategy in our position. There's probably a needle to thread here if we can find a legitimately high quality player in Europe in the £25-40m bracket (a la Bruno), but a tall order.

Unless Mitchell isn't actually changing anything about our recruitment then I would be shocked if the players we are after are: 1) currently successful PL players (unless very young and thus cheaper with huge value gain potential e.g. Dibling) 2) known to anyone in the media

The goal against Forest in the cup also involves Tonali in a way that Longstaff just can't offer. As soon as we turn over the ball, Tonali starts moving into space at speed, one touch to Miggy, who first times it to Isak and we're away. Watching that back I am almost certain that Longstaff would have received the ball and played it out wide to a wide open Trippier. It would have been fine, safer even, but almost certainly not a goal. No doubt Tonali needs to show a bit more to be worth what we paid and the year off, but his first time passes are something we sorely need to create chances. His tracking back and defending in transition drives me nuts though.

They are probably closer to 50x more famous than 50%.

I can understand why people are frustrated by the pace of things and I am too on both sponsorships and the training ground. But to be concerned to the level of panic or even borderline conspiracy some of you are getting to you'd have to, among other things, believe that: - Our stadium and/or training ground plans have changed considerably since May when we hired Brad Miller as COO - Mitchell was interested in joining a club going nowhere fast or we lied to him - We added a new board member with ties to the Reuben's and with expertise in commercial, hotel, and retail properties for no real reason

Good to know Gordon has more positivity about the team and the manager than much of this board.

City and Madrid linked, but sure.

Randomly looking at various stats and I noticed that we're the only club in the league that hasn't scored in the first 30 minutes of a game. We're also the only club in the league with an xG below 1.00 in minutes 1-15 and 16-30. Bournemouth hasn't scored in the first 15 minutes and Brighton is the other noticeable slow starter based on xG, but they've created and scored more than us early. I agree the Brighton game likely goes differently had Isak put that chance away, but unfortunately not scoring early and not playing with the lead are par for the course this season. Only Ipswich and Palace have played less minutes with a lead (and Man United the same as us). We've played 88.1% of our games either level or losing (634 of 720 minutes, not counting time added) and have only scored first twice -- Southampton and Spurs.

Is the 2025 sticker book out yet? My son loves it but it's an absolute pain and fortune to get it in the US.

I was just highlighting the root of the problem; I wasn't suggesting any sort of solution. I don't think there will ever be one unless something like the Super League happens, which would fix this particular problem for a select number of clubs, destroy the others, and ruin the sport entirely. Manchester United made more money last season than 31 of 32 NFL teams (the Dallas Cowboys being the only one higher) and lost over £100m. The Cowboys made over $500m. The basic financials of football are utterly fucked and it's why the governing bodies feel the need to oversee spending, which led to certain owners using that as an opportunity to try to protect their standing/revenue.

The already very rich owners? No, don't really care about them. But a fundamental problem with football is that clubs struggle to make money or break even, even when their revenue becomes significant. All 32 NFL teams made a profit last year; only four PL teams did in the latest accounts. Part of that is the NFL generates more money, but football's main issue is a spending problem. It's a never-ending cycle because if you lower your spending then you are likely going to be less successful and success is directly tied to revenue (PL status, Europe, etc.). Add in player sales and 50% or more of every larger club's revenue is unpredictable. And that is why the entire sport is fueled by the mega rich and debt, which is directly related to both the good and the bad of the financial restrictions.

If we have the energy and intensity of the City game then we will win. If we lose and Minteh scores I'm going to need to not come here for a couple weeks and I don't want to do that.

Could also be creating the framework for things like this: https://www.mcsa-usa.com/

The first name on every team sheet should be Alexander Isak at striker. The other 10 positions should be arranged in a way to get the most out of his ability to score goals.

In theory the two-thirds majority is fair, except you have a handful of clubs who are effectively pulling all of the strings and using their power to influence the direction of the league in their favor. Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, and Everton are the only clubs that have participated in every PL vote since 1992. The fact there's a rotating cast of meeting and voting participants means power can be more easily concentrated. Do you think anyone in that room really cared what Sheffield United, one of the oldest clubs in the history of the sport and a founding member of the PL, had to say last season? Then you have the fact that a group of clubs feels (with some justification mind you) that they are the reason the league makes so much money. And they use this fact and their "generosity" in maintaining the revenue sharing model to influence proceedings. And when that wasn't enough this same group was ready to burn down over a century of English football to make sure their seat at the table was guaranteed for the next 100 years. Yes, City was a part of that and they almost certainly cheated in various ways to get to where they are. And if the PL offered to drop the 115 charges in exchange for no more lawsuits they'd probably have a deal done tomorrow. But absent that, City are the only club in the league with the power, prestige, finances, and impetus to challenge the continual attempts to pull up the drawbridge at the top. City's interests don't exactly align with ours, but they are a ray of hope right now for clubs with ambition to challenge the status quo at the top or middle of the table. You can label them as a bad guy in all this, but you need to recognize they are far from the only one in terms of going against "fair competition throughout the pyramid."

Good for his confidence. He's probably the surprise of the season so far for me (in a bad way). Really thought he'd kick on. Hopefully this gives him a boost.

I forgot until reading this that the amendments in February passed with 12 votes for and two abstaining. I believe it's the first time any PL rule change was made with only 12 votes. Looking back it's believed that the clubs who voted against are City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Everton, Forest, and Sheffield United. The abstentions came from Burnley and Palace.

My worry heading into this is that City would win on some technicalities and the PL would respond by simply amending some language and minor process. The shareholder thing is, in my opinion, bigger than a technicality but regardless City’s aggressiveness means this could go anywhere. I’m not sure how anyone could have any measure of confidence about where this ends up (aside from some form of PSR will exist).

The (optimistic) thinking was that we’re waiting on the result of this to make sure we were getting maximum value. Still in limbo, but we should know soon if that’s the case or if we’re just slow.

I want to be mad at who's included but I can't be without knowing if we asked to be one of the six and were rejected. But it's not geographically representative, representative of recently promoted/recent EFL clubs (I know they are also meeting), representative of clubs with ambition and money to spend who can't, or representative of anyone who is outwardly frustrated by any of the Premier League's recent rule changes. Edit: I guess this isn't true in the case of Everton.