Dr Jinx

Is there anything even remotely similar to a Didier Drogba in the game today?

Joe Willock is a massive talent but he’s injured so much.. there hasn’t been a season where he’s not coming back from something. It will eventually take its toll on his ability. We’ve got a few sick notes in the squad at the moment.. from our longer term players that is. Wilson has his issues and Longstaff seems to be “unlucky” as well. How many can a squad this small afford to carry?

Wasn’t suggesting it. I’m just aware it’s an option the club have possibly looked at. Hes got positives to his resume, chiefly being a serial winner of trophies. He’s done it at most of his jobs. It would be a massive change in style and ethos at the club though so it’s highly unlikely to ever happen. Michel from Girona is a different prospect though, he’s going right to the top, probably to Barca unless an English club can get in first. Cut from same cloth as Pep. That’s something we should be all over with a view to a season or two down the line. Remember how long it took City to woo Pep.. that’s what’s involved in bringing the elite here.

You’d think voting against that rule change on loans would see us do some sort of business there this month. Really odd that we haven’t.

If a club can afford to put in whatever they want and not be in debt to anyone who can bring about insolvency proceedings, they should be allowed to. It’s so disingenuous to parade FFP as the measure to protect smaller clubs. It should be clear on a clubs balance sheet what they owe and that’s all that should be factored in. Chelsea have proven that an open chequebook is no recipe for success so there’s nothing to suggest that a club with the ability to spend what they want will really hurt the elite clubs anyway. Man Utd have spent a boatload too and same result. If the premier league could truly boast the best players in the world, the tv revenue would surge and help out every other club down the food chain.

So am I correct in thinking that if a club is in breach of the rules on one given year, unless they do something drastic to reduce spend, or sell off half their squad, that a club will then get the same points deductions the following year and the year after?

From UEFA’s site. 3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses? To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt. The limits are: • €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15 • €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation. 4) Are clubs automatically excluded if they are not in line with FFP? If a club is not in line with the regulations, it will be UEFA's Club Financial Control Body that decides on measures and sanctions. Non-compliance with the regulations does not mean that a club will be excluded automatically, but there will be no exceptions. Depending on various factors (e.g. the trend of the break-even result) different disciplinary measures may be imposed against a club. There is a catalogue of measures: a) warning b) reprimand c) fine d) deduction of points e) withholding of revenues from a UEFA competition f) prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions g) restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation in UEFA competitions, including a financial limit on the overall aggregate cost of the employee benefits expenses of players registered on the A-list for the purposes of UEFA club competitions h) disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future competitions i) withdrawal of a title or award In addition the CFCB have decided in numerous cases that the objectives of FFP can be best achieved by taking a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive approach. This has led to the conclusion of settlement agreements between a club and the CFCB, combining certain financial contributions with numerous restrictive conditions, which provide a roadmap for clubs to reach break-even in the foreseeable future (see further detail in points 11–16). 5) Are owners allowed to inject money into their club as they like or through sponsorship? If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices. Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party. There’s a certain amount there left to interpretation. Especially related sponsorship.

No need to challenge it. Just wait it out as it’s being scrapped in its current form from this summer. They haven’t announced what will replace it yet but it’s likely to fall more in line with UEFA’s model.

Training ground/kit sponsor are a must and renaming the stadium will have to happen. It’s an easier thing to do if the stadium gets a redevelopment. New look/feel and new name.

What’s clear is that the Premier League are terrified of expensive litigation.

We’re not selling anyone to Liverpool. Wishful thinking on their part, or red journos. We're obviously in need of reinforcements but you have to admire the confidence in the longer term plan. There’s zero risk of being relegated and the second half of the season is a free hit essentially. We may get a European place, but equally it might suit us to have a proper go at Champions League for next season with a much improved squad. Whether the manager will be the person to take us there is a different debate but for the here and now he has confidence in the overall squad to turn things around. It’s also safe to say that as a fan base we have a much better knowledge of how football finances work now.. so knowing that next season will ultimately be a far healthier position, it’s probably best not to get the hopes up for any major changes this month.

All this tactical analysis is a bit pointless as it doesn’t really address the catalyst which is fatigue. We're conceding most of our goals after 70 mins so let’s just assume that with the right energy levels out “flat midfield” is actually fairly effective. Not so much when running on fumes. Post game and post training recovery needs to change/improve as it’s not working. Can’t really lay all that at Howe’s door either. His sports science department should be able to give him data that backs up what we’re all seeing on the pitch and make recommendations based on that.

I’ve been very negative on him in the last few weeks but thought tactically we got it spot on first half. We were dangerous on the counter and hurt them repeatedly. Was same old story though second half. No energy and we shrank like we’ve done so much this season. Fitness levels have been poor this season for possibly multiple reasons. If a squad ever needed a holiday away to a warm weather training camp it’s now.

We either take a baby step this month and then again in the summer or we hold off until then and make a giant leap. The financial picture for next season is going to be very different unless we do something dumb that takes a short term view. I still think we get a loan in, possibly 2.

See the media are doing their best to unsettle him yet again.

That’s a good point. Brighton’s success has to be more than what Ashworth contributed in his short time there. They have an excellent scouting department and an owner who backs clever recruitment. I’m not really sure what our blueprint is yet

Overall Bruno is more of a complete midfielder but Cabaye was so effective, just as progressive with forward passing and his goal threat was much higher. Until we have others in the side who can shoulder that responsibility of getting us winning, we shouldn’t even be considering selling Bruno but a younger player similar to either him or Cabaye would go a long way to having a continuity plan for when players do get sold. We just don’t have that currently.

They’re still in massive bother with what they owe on that stadium.

Kid is a beast for his age, excellent at breaking up play etc.. but would be play ahead of established players. We're looking at a lot of “for the future” type players. Which is great but some balance is needed.

Anyone who thinks we’d cope well by selling Bruno needs to have their head checked. Yeah we’d make a healthy profit but how much would a replacement cost, even if you could find one? Weve got a solid 5 years of prime Bruno to look forward to. He never had all that much pace to start with so he’ll continue as is.. just become more efficient and experienced. I wouldn’t sell even for 200m

Gotten very negative all of a sudden. Thought there’d be more activity, especially when we need bodies now.

Said it all along, he’s a class act is our Dan

The only players we could afford to sell right now are low value and nearing end of their contracts so would really only be a space saving exercise.

There’s plenty I’d sell before Longstaff. Not quite as important as he was last season but his drop off also coincides with the team dropping off. When he’s on form he’s very effective.

Hugo Viana. Mad to think he was Portugals most promising breakthrough player over Cristiano Ronaldo. If he had a bit more mettle, he could have been our David Silva