duke313

1 minute ago, tinker said:

Can blame them when we're coming home after 3 games.

11 players in the squad have less than 10 caps, it’s going to be a disaster

4 palace players in the squad

What happened to players having to play for big clubs in Europe

Should have stuck with Ireland

1 hour ago, Cizzler said:

He’s scored 11 goals in 3 years at City.

Bowen, Eze and Gordon all scored that (or more) this season for West Ham, Palace and Newcastle respectively.

The idea that he’s a better option to come off the bench and grab a goal is based on nostalgia. 

How many would they have scored playing for City if they were told to cut in every time and pass to the left back?

4 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Yes, but that would put them at bigger disadvantage against teams like Forest, who would spend that extra £30m and potentially send them down. Why allow that? Where is the benefit in that to them? They would end up in situation either spend more or go down.

Fair enough.  I guess we're team City then.

5 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Most clubs want competitive league. They just don't want to run their clubs at massive losses. Why would you expect for example a Bournemouth owner to wanting to shell out extra £30m from his own pocket to stay competitive on top of the losses he already needs to endure to stay in the league?

This was never gonna fly. And not because of top 6, but mostly because of midtable clubs that don't want to have to be run at even bigger losses than now.

They don't have to, they can continue to spend what they ado now, this just allows for more loses.

25 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

 

I assume the two in favour was us and Newcastle?

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

Just inflation alone should allow for some increase, but clearly the vast majority of clubs enjoy shooting themselves in the financial face.  

I guess the rest of the PL teams are happy finishing mid table and selling their best players every other season to the Scum 6.

8 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

I stand corrected, said the man in orthorpedic shoes. 

Because the two Gulf cheats burning through petrodollars are winning their respective leagues, the leagues themselves must be of similar standard. Is that it?

OK.  

Comment was about quality, it was about competitiveness

I've figured out a way to fix our PSR issues, it's really quite simple.

We sell Omar Kedr back to ZED FC for £100m...

12 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

£50 million is way too low...

Not if the reports that we have to sell someone by the end of June it isn't, beggars can't be choosers.

8 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

Technically it’s possible. 

but very unlikely to work out as easy as that 

Couldn't we just "sell him" to Vitoria and loan him back with an obligation to buy.  City can get away with selling Savio to Troyes (who never played a single game for them and they've been relegated) and was loaned out to Girona. 

This is why PSR is complete bollocks, we're punished for having ambition.  You don't see Liverpool or Arsenal having to sell Salah or Odegaard.

6 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

The PL is one of the most competitive leagues in the world. 

Ligue 1 isn't. 

A point I thought would be fairly easy to grasp.

Seems not. 

City have won 6 of last 7 PL titles, PSG have won 6 of last 7 L1 titles 

26 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

Keep in mind those stats are generated in the French league and against the might of Clermont Foot, Lorient, Le Harve and so forth. DL might be regularly hitting 90 + in all categories in that league. 

He looks a player, mind. 

Wouldn't mind Fofana at the Villa at all. 

As opposed to the superiority of Luton, Sheff Utd and the mighty Burnley.

6 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

It would turn the PL into a Super League. A billionaire’s playground. Other clubs would get major investments. It wouldn’t level the playing field but do more to ruin the game. The gap between the Premier League and Championship is already huge. It would be a closed shop. Clubs like Bournemouth can already outspend many bigger clubs in Europe. It would have a big knock on effect for other leagues too when their talent gets hoarded not just by 6 teams but potentially double that due to the added spending power. West Ham have a billionaire on their board too. It wouldn’t make it more even. You could have a billionaire/state-funded top 10 until the other clubs get similar investment and yo-yo out and in of the league. 

Why wasn't it like that before FFP then?

Just now, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

This makes him look far superior to Luiz in almost every area aside from forward passing.

Would be outstanding Kamara foil/rotation etc.

However I guess the context with stats is the League, Opposition and other factors.

I'm sure Emery could sort that out 

But yes, context needed as it's in a lesser league, still looks a player though.

28 minutes ago, Jas10 said:

Fofana would be great but no links as of yet…

6 minutes ago, gaz90 said:

Talking Tactics mentioned we were interested in him on Twitter / X. That's more reliable than 99% of the journalists and accounts out there who are paid to make things up. Talking Tactics has clear links in football and doesn't just peddle transfer rumours to get clicks, which the account linking us to Thuram appears to be doing.

He'd be ideal.

27 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Brighton frontrunners for him.

What happened to the Ndidi link btw, that was rumoured in last few weeks of the season and he's an actual DM so as a fill in for a few months before Kamara gets fit that might be o.k.

There was no Ndidi link, he was only suggested because he's available on a free.

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Then you bring in a rule that says they can't.

It's infinitely do-able. You have a limit and make that limit the same for all clubs, none of this PSR nonsense where some teams can spend more than others. All teams can spend the same on wages and that's set. Transfers you do whatever you like. That allows teams to be mobile and restricts what the likes of City and Newcastle can do.

How can you enforce someone earning money outside of football, i'm pretty sure that would be illegal in most countries.

2 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

I agree with the soft salary cap and a luxury tax.

It doesn't matter if Man City can spend 150mil on a transfer if their wage bill is capped to the point where they can't attract a 150mil player without having to pay the rest of the teams in the league an exorbitant amount.

They can, the player would just get lucrative sponsorship deals outside of football to sign for certain clubs.

4 minutes ago, JPJCB said:

I don’t think that’s correct. This rule is specifically about associated party transactions - I.e companies owned by the same group which are putting money in via commercial deals. That’s not the same as investments from owners who are ultimate beneficiaries rather than “associated” parties 

I assumed you were talking about City wanting FFP scrapped?  Which would mean clubs could just spend what they want?  Which is presumably why we (allegedly) are supporting them, so we can spend what we want?

6 minutes ago, sne said:

Salary cap and they would just continue to make the players and manager "tourism ambassadors" or whatever and pay them on the side that way.

This. People think a salary cap will solve all the issues. Players would just get massive sponsorship incentives outside of football to sign for this club or that.

2 minutes ago, JPJCB said:

But how would we do that? Do they own companies who would act as our sponsors? 

Typo, I should have wrote we ‘wouldn’t’ need to inflate sponsorship.