Jump to content

Abacus

Member
  • Posts

    1,919
  • Joined

  1. Thanks for this, it's really fascinating. And that's why we're on forums rather than twitter. Edit- I also loved the number of semi un-guarded comments there were about 'cases you will know' (not referring to us), as it feels like a discussion between friends
  2. Well, I still want a giant Wor Flags surfer of him for the next match.
  3. Shots fired there, alright. If there's a consensus between clubs who could all be adversely affected (which is most of them) and we're not the ones leading the charge because we're hated, it could tip the balance. It seems increasingly journalists are being briefed in what it really means also. Perhaps Masters has been playing 1d chess this whole time.
  4. He's basically written half of the club's statement there, hasn't he? PL are screwed.
  5. You could argue that Isak could well be in that bracket too. Obviously, we don't yet know about Tonali or Hall. Livramento looks to fit into that potential bracket. So, in general, I'd agree, but you also have to recognise that it's a risk as they won't all work out, and some years maybe none will. So balancing that with a few more proven players should be a reasonable way to balance that risk.
  6. There aren't many industries where owners aren't allowed to invest what they like in a business. It comes with the risk that it doesn't pay off, or that the company goes bust. Going bust is sad for the employees and suppliers but a fact of life. Clearly football clubs are different, as they are cultural assets and important to communities too and as you'd affect the rest of the league. So, normally, you'd think it would be enough just to ensure those owners can guarantee that they can cover any liabilities for the foreseeable future, and let them get on with it. I do see the issue here which is this would allow the richest owners who could invest and provide those guarantees to dominate a league. But that's always been the case. It's just that right now the oil states are the richest of all and so could if they chose to financially dominate the league. But again, I can't see how that is different to how it's always been or how you can effectively legislate to prevent one set of owners to financially dominate but keep another set where they are forever (who have got there themselves from previous spending and/or their historical reputation), due to the fear that a bigger fish will come along and threaten their dominance. Whatever you think of the respective ownerships themselves, that can't be right. If gotten rid of, the fear could be that this drives away existing owners who can't or won't compete (like the Glazers, what a shame), or dissuades anybody else from coming in and trying. But FFP as it stands will also dissuades anybody else from coming in and trying, so I don't see what problem it actually fixes even if you are a neutral who supports it.
  7. Well maybe, but then Miley is young and to some has already been overplayed. And Anderson has just come back, and to some we make returning players come back too soon. A fit and firing Anderson, I'd probably agree with you, but I don't see what goes on in training. And I also remember how much when Longstaff was out previously, he was suddenly missed, just like Anderson is the solution now. I think had Joelinton been fit, this would have been less of an issue, as the others could have been rotated more easily as the situation required. And I won't even mention Tonali.
  8. Lots of players play through injuries with painkillers etc - depends on the nature of it. It's hardly like we've been bursting at the seams with options. It would make sense though - there's been a drop off from last season when his engine got him through games and he worked his way into matches because of it.
  9. A couple of people have been saying that they were disappointed by the club voting for certain rule changes. As far as I'm aware, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, whatever you sign up to in this sort of club doesn't matter if the rules are against the law in the first place. That's assuming these do breach competition law. We, or any club, could well vote in could be prepared in the background. Not saying that's what's happening, but those kind of challenges can take a while, so there'd be no sense rocking the boat right now when most of the league seem content to vote for them, so you won't win. I might be completely wrong on all that, by the way, just a random thought. Most annoyingly though, if we did have any grander strategy than what seems to be happening on the surface, Ashworth would presumably have been aware of it. So I hope he stays in his garden all summer and gets stang off a wasp.
  10. Abacus

    St James' Park

    And on the pitch, we could have our very own cow corner. Take that Neom.
  11. Abacus

    Anthony Gordon

    Well, the Chronicle (I know) was reporting that he'd been assessed by the medical team on Tuesday and it wasn't as bad as first feared. I await your skepticism with baited breath.
  12. You could make that argument and test it, not that we would. Thing is with footballers, it also comes down to image rights as much as ability, for global shirt sales etc etc. It's one reason why I really can't fathom how FMV is supposed to work in practice.
  13. That would be one reason why the PL are shooting themselves in the foot here. Pretty sure we were the most watched league in the first place due to having the money to attract so many big names, not to miss out on the likes of Mbappe or make everyone have to sell.
  14. Pretty sure we disagreed with the FMV value rules - presumably that could be a separate challenge, if we ever needed to make one. I think the plan was always to play nice at least to start with, and grow organically with things that had maybe not been exploited like some other clubs have, as there was plenty of room to do that. That was the gist of what I took from their plans. No doom and gloom from me just yet, other than about Gordon's knee.
×
×
  • Create New...