Checko

There's perhaps another way to think about it though: You have to be an extremely good player to play at top four level, which is where we want to be, and why it's so hard for young players to come through at very top clubs. Very top teams don't want to use one of their starting 11 spots developing a raw youngster. There's too much at stake for that. So the biggest clubs get these raw youngsters, maybe send them out on loan for a year or two and then sell them on for a profit to a midtable/bottom half team. That gives them the funds to buy someone who's (hopefully) ready to perform at the top level immediately. The midtable team do the final bit of development, getting them experience at that level. Taking that bit of risk that they may or may not develop as hoped. The overall level isn't as high so having a player who's a bit raw isn't as much of a problem. The player may then develop to the level where they are ready to be one of those immediate play at the highest level players, or they may not. So maybe the fact we're the ones selling to the midtable club and not looking to play a raw youngster could be seen as a good sign.

Chris Wood's form this year means they might have warmed to us a bit. Or perhaps a mutual hatred of Charnley!

Suppose could be something like 25million with some appearence add-ons. Still that would a good fee for him and it'll be a good move for him. At his age he just has to play now.

This is the power of FB ref stats. And the power of being able to pad your per 90 stats through short, high intensity substitute appearences.

Agree on the revenue. Spuds' commercial revenue is big. Plus they make a lot more from matchday as well. Re: destroying the rules - I suspect if our owners came in and immediately went 'c'mon everyone let's get rid of these rules so we can massively outspend all you motherfuckers' there might be some pushback. The optics of them coming in and threatening legal challenges etc. wouldn't be good.

Think it's a good move for him. Felt before he needed a year on loan in the Championship because he doesn't seem quite at Premier League level. At least not at the level we want to play at. There's a player there but he's coming up to 22. He needs to play and be starting now or he's never going to get there. And I just can't see that happening for us with the players ahead of him. He would have been a cheap squad player this year IMO. As for we're having to sell him because of PSR. Maybe. But clubs have always looked to sell players to raise funds for purchases. Blaming everything on PSR gives the club a nice out. Hope he gets his game time and does well.

I would say the handball rule is pretty simple. The fact most commentators and pundits haven't spent the 1 minute required to learn it doesn't change that. In most cases it just depends on whether the position of the arm is in a natural position or not, based on the players movement. There's obviously subjectivity regarding what's a natural position, but realistically when you think of all the potential situations where the ball could strike the hand it seems a reasonable rule. Re: PSR, I would say: 1. I didn't say PSR was great. Just that I don't worry about it. I don't personally have an inherant problem with clubs being told they can't spend tons more money that they bring in, but obviously many people here want to take advantage of an infinite money cheat. We'll all have our different attitude here. Overall, personally I find the constant whingeing and self-victimisation around PSR far more annoying than the actual limitations of PSR itself. It's like being on a Liverpool board at times. 2. PSR is designed to stop clubs getting into massive debt. It was never about letting lower teams catch top teams. The free market doesn't do that either, unless you're one of the very few teams that that has a crazy sugar daddy. Even then it wouldn't be make things fair or more competitive for the vast majority of teams that don't have a sugar daddy. Financial inequality is the main problem for competitive balance. And let's be honest, most of us would love to benefit from the PIF and the financial inequality it would provide. Even Jim Ratcliffe's tax exile billions would pale in comapirson.

I don't worry about PSR and leave it up to the club's accountants. Much more peaceful existence. Also the handball rule is fine IMO.

I hate this slagging off of Miggy. Even if you think it would be for the best for the club that we sold him, and that's probably the majority opinion, people say 'we don't demand a team that wins, we demand a team that tries'. And they slag off Ashworth for lack of loyalty for wanting to move on. People slag off well-paid players who go to the Saudi league for more money when they could still play at PL level. Yet when a hardworking player turns down a move to Saudi and all the extra riches because he likes he PL club he's at, people slag him off because they want him to go so we can use the money for a shiny new toy. Loyalty works both ways, and I dislike seeing a player like him, who always gives his all, made a scapegoat for the club's difficulties.

As we've seen though with any Eddie Howe injury statement ever, just becaue he says something doesn't make it true. Bear in mind every club says they need to sell because of FFP. It's convenient to tell the player, supporters and other clubs that. 'Do you want to buy this player? He's not really good enough for us and a bit injury prone, but go on, he could be great for you.' Or 'Do you want to buy this player? He's fucking great. I wish we didn't have to sell him but, FFP you know?'

Wonder if we can call Chelsea and offer him for 40 to cut out the middle man

Oh, Minteh, Well, you came and you left without playing But FFP went away Oh, Minteh Well, our right wing still needs some upgrading And I need you today, Oh, Minteh

I'm getting fully behind playing three at the back next year. Would suit Kelly great at LCB, it would suit our fullbacks perfectly, allow the wide guys to to play narrower and support Isak, and Schar could randomly fuck upfield and lose the ball and we'd still have 2 CBs back to cover.

Lack of any interesting haircuts in Italy's team is really hurting them. They look very pedestrian.

Schar's got bored

Love the fact they got 3 players straight in the box as well

Banger

In a weird way I feel that it helped them last year. Seemed like such a toxic atmosphere there, bit like it was here with Ashley and Bruce, the points deduction seemed to give the supporters something external to channel their anger against instead. Nothing brings people together like giving them a common enemy.

Sounds like we'd need more accountants and it would annoy Jim Ratcliffe. I'm in.

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/financial-advisory/analysis/deloitte-football-money-league.html Yeah looking at the figures in detail at the bottom they go up to the end of 22/23 to be fair, so presumably this years accounts haven't been finalised. I imagine a bit less commercial and matchday revenue this year. They did however sell 200 million euros worth of players this season which will more than make up for it.

Chelsea have about 300 million per year more revenue as well according to Deliotte.

On a whim I thought 'I wonder who Del Boy supports?' According to wikipedia: "In 'The Long Legs of the Law' he implies that he supports Chelsea." Quelle surprise.

I read Chelsea's official motto is simply: "FOMO"

Oh yeah I know what you meant with the dodgy link. Get him for backup striker, random croatian for RW you found, GK from Las Palmas I spotted seeing who Chelsea were linked with, and then a top class CB of your choice & we good. Can spend the rest of the window on cheap -9 wonderkids then.