Keegans Export

Being a (largely) political venture, they're less concerned about maintaining the status quo than the PL. The core objectives are basically; 1. Avoid clubs going bust 2. Ensuring only "fit and proper persons" control/own football clubs 3. Stop owners from changing club colours, moving stadiums etc without consideration of fans 4. Stop English teams from joining the ESL (or whatever equivalent) Obviously, the current PSR are supposed to be about preventing #1 but we all know that isn't what they are really about. So perhaps this new regulator will take a more relaxed attitude towards owners who can bankroll clubs without plunging them into loads of debt? If you look HERE at Table 2 (between 4.9 and 4.10) it gives an example of potential licence conditions regarding "adequate financial and non-financial resources".

I've said this before but I wonder whether we are (mostly) playing along with all these new rules because we (or specifically PIF/the Reubens) think we can exert more pressure over a government-appointed "independent" regulator than Masters et al

Changing the narrative doesn't even have to wait until next season. We've got West Ham & Everton next, both at home. Wolves are away at Villa and Burnley, West Ham have Spurs after they play us. Brighton are at Liverpool and Brentford. At the start of April, the table could look like this; 7th Newcastle 46pts 8th Wolves 46pts 9th West Ham 44pts 10th Brighton 43pts We have the fixtures, we have players returning to full fitness. We shouldn't be thinking about next season, we can still qualify for Europe this season. Then it's much easier to look at a "dip in form" rather than a fundamental issue with how we have played.

The (potential) drop from 85% to 70% makes qualifying for Europa or Conference League a massive black hole. You have to cut your outgoings but without the big boost in income that Champions League football provides.

FA Cup winners by proxy 2023/24

Interesting that since Abramovich ~20yrs ago Chelsea have only won 5 titles in 19 seasons (soon to be 20). Man City had two in 8 seasons before Guardiola arrived. They have (I think?) three Champions League trophies between them. Neither seemed to have "ruined" football.

They've definitely had to build from scratch, that's fair. I have been a little disappointed that we've had nothing about a new training ground. Of course something could certainly be rumbling along in the background that hasn't been made public yet. I had also hoped for a bit more sponsorship income, we've had very little this season aside from the Adidas deal.

Which playersn Barnes specifically? Or others too?

I think if you line up our best transfer business with the likes of Villa and West Ham we're at least on a par imo

Certainly fair to say that it hasn't just been the on-field stuff that has disappointed this season.

I think it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do and that is certainly not the same as what it was originally sold as...

Yes, 7th is the bottom end of what I would have considered a successful season and therefore would be happy with. Being lower than that at some point in the season is one thing, but being a number of places lower than that is not something that I am happy with, no. Chelsea win their game in hand and we are 11th. A long way back from 7th. I'm not entirely sure what's so outrageous about that position but clearly it's bothering you so no problem if you'd rather leave it there.

No I wouldn't. We are three points off but there are also three teams we need to overtake. Before the season I'd have 7th as the lower end of what I'd be happy with, I'm not going to be happy at having to play catch-up on that target with 10 games to go.

Right. But "7th" and "not 7th" are not the same thing though are they? Regardless of how close you are, if your position was "I'd be happy with 7th" and what's on offer is "not finishing 7th" then its fair to say you aren't happy with how things have gone?

Yeah but how far do you go? Two wins the other way and we're 14th? You must see how "two wins off sixth" and "you said you'd be happy with seventh" are not the same thing?

Yes but we aren't 7th are we? Even in your scenario we're "two wins off sixth"

You can't look at one isolated incident and determine that; 1. Keeper B would have saved it therefore would have performed better over 90mins and conceded less goals 2. The manager is at fault for picking Keeper A over Keeper B, despite Keeper B showing absolutely nothing throughout their entire career to suggest they are a better player than Keeper A.

Unless something goes disastrously wrong between now and the end of May he deserves the chance to remodel the squad a bit in the summer and see how we go without all the injuries and ridiculous CL fixtures.

I think that's the worst trope in football. Absolute nonsense.

This is 100% my position. The season is absolutely not f**king over. With players returning to fitness, no other competitions to distract us, a favourable run of fixtures and European football still within our grasp I don't want to see any evidence that the squad as a whole are thinking "season is over".

What differences were you hoping for?

You could argue that 3 years (6 good transfer windows) could set us up for 10 years

Just so I'm 100% clear on what you're suggesting - Player X is on £100k/week. We drop him down to £50k/week. Company Y then signs Player X to do some marketing, consulting, whatever and pay him £100k/week?

The right opportunity isn't when you've already been deducted points (Everton)? Forest are potentially a matter of months from being relegated for FFP breaches, how much longer do they plan to leave it? We've just been short changed by £20m in CL money because UEFAs coefficient handed Man Utd £25m and us a paltry four-and-a-bit. That's £20m that they can spend to pull further away. At what point do you think this whole "Competition Law" thing is nowhere near as clear cut as some on here seem to believe?