Czarnikjak

10 minutes ago, Made In Aston said:

The likes of Man City and PSG have been flaunting the rules for years and have not been close to being banned from European competition. The system is a joke and those who administer it are clowns. 

They’ve been flaunting and bending them but didn’t openly say F to them. City have come close to being banned for 2 years. Look at Inter, they were banned from Europe.

This is all a bit irrelevant now anyway, with FFP being reformed into Salary Cap soon.

31 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Can't believe all the sour grapes on here, all jealousy. We would be creaming our pants, if it was us who had just been taken over by owners worth 300 Billion.

I would walk to Mecca and back if they took over Villa.

FFP won't be a huge block in the road for Saudis, initially at least :

and that's even without them artificially increasing NUFC commercial income, which will definetly happend via various naming and sponsorship deals.

10 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

My biggest frustration is that it's another team with shit loads of money that we need to compete with. I wouldn't be surprised if Conte is their manager by the end of the month and then they manage to spend £150m in January.

Pretty sure they will have many ways of circumnavigating FFP.

Conte is a good shout. Probably the best manager out there who is available.

Poor Brucie, his days are numbered

2 hours ago, VillaFaninLondon said:

Not sure how they will get around FFP, it’s not easy, us and Everton have the money to invest but had our hands tied this summer because of FFP (Grealish’s sale helped us in that sense), I don’t know how that will be different for Newcastle. They will have to invest wisely because of this.

They don't have to get around current FFP rules.

First of all, current ffp rules allow you to spend anything you want on infrastructure (stadium, training ground etc). Also Premier League FFP allows each club to loose £105m on average every 3 years. Ashley obviously wasn't taking advantage of it, so immediately they have a big wiggle room to spend on players.

More importantly FFP is due to be scrapped in the near future ( could be as early as of next season) and replaced with a Salary Cap. This is rumoured to be a soft salary cap which allows teams to overspend if they pay luxury tax. So they will be in prime position to catch up with their Qatari and UAE neighbours.

13 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

Most Newcastle fans have convinced themselves that Ashley is a tyrant who has ruined the club, so they won’t give a shit what their new owners do if they’re successful.

They should probably take a look at Derby if they want to see what a ruined club actually looks like.

He hasn’t ruin them, that’s true. But he didn’t do anything positive either.

Twice relegated under his ownership, for a club of their size it shouldn’t have happened. More importantly, since his takeover they have the lowest Capex (investment in facilities like stadium and training ground) of all premier league clubs. Ashley is doing the bare minimum to keep them afloat.

He is just as bad as late Lerner, and if he was at Villa we would all kick and scream to get him out. Can’t blame the geordies. Still, not a good news for us and other Premier League clubs.

9 minutes ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said:

I'm astounded that there isn't even a minority of Newcastle fans worried that there club will be transformed into a soulless sportswashing front for a despotic regime. 

I know if it was happening at Villa I wouldn't be finding any joy in it.

There’s a minority against it. According to latest NUST survey 93.8% of supporters are for the takeover. About 6% against.

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

money doesn't equal instant sucess. it took chelsea 2 years after abramovic took over to win the league (they finished 4th the season before he bought them so they were already pretty good) and city took 2 years to go from 9th (already better than newcastle) to european places. and this is when FFP was really not a thing. it's not going to be easy

That's what I said. It will take them few transfer windows to look at competing for Europe. Another competitor, making the objective of getting to Europe more difficult.

Make no mistake, this is really bad news for Villa and other clubs with European aspirations.

Within couple of seasons they will be looking to challenge for europe, making our project even more difficult.

10 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

If the Saudi's are such a powerhouse and want to turn Newcastle into the next big club, then why is that Amanda and the other two brothers leading the way for the consortium? Why not just buy them outright?

She is just a deal broker with 10% minority stake. Saudis have 80% stake in the consortium.

14 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

If the Newcastle takeover goes through it will be yet another club we will have to deal with.

Not this season though. This is 21/22 thread. It will take them couple transfer windows to catch up.

3 hours ago, ismail-villa said:

I think against teams that we're expected to be on the front foot against, I'd like to see a 4-3-3. Bailey left, Buendia right. Ings playing just a bit deeper than Watkins but both still central, McGinn and Luiz the midfield two. 

You just described 4-4-1-1 not 4-3-3

2 hours ago, StewieGriffin said:

I dont see 3 teams for them to finish above. Norwich for sure, and probably Watford, but a 3rd team is a stretch

Burnley? They have aging, under invested squad...Dyche magic can only work for so long.

Certainly on paper Newcastle have much better squad than Burnley. If they can keep ASM and Wilson fit for most of the season they might just keep their head above the water in spite of Brucie 

1 hour ago, useless said:

I can't find any indication that he played for Ipswich's U23s today,

So now he can't even get into Ipswich U23 team Looks like it's WBA conspiracy to destroy his career.

19 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Grealish being injured for time is maybe the only reason we missed out on a European place last season. There is no doubt it will be hard to secure European football this season, but it's what many fans want, some expect it. If you are happy with Midtable, that's fine, but not for me, I'm with the board, I wanna push for that European place, an if Wet Spam can do it (an I don't see their team much better than ours) we can!

So do you expect us to get European football this season? Genuine question.

7 hours ago, The_Steve said:

He’s the biggest hypocrite in the league. There’s nothing remotely likeable about Pep. He’s more and more rattled.

more than you believe, more than you believe...

10 hours ago, MWARLEY2 said:

We went with the 3 5 2 to combat Chelsea. It sort of worked so we tried it again and it worked both times. I think that Deano would have been classed as insane if he had not started Bailey against Manure so he was lucky he was injured. 

433 would be my choice with Bailey and Buendia either side of one striker. 

I would prefer Bailey on the left as the Targett pace issue can be negated alot like when he played with Grealish. Bailey isnt just a speed demon. He has really good vision and passing ability so i think could link up well with Targett. 

Deano has a hard decision to make that he knew would come at some point. Either tell Watkins he is playing left of the front 3 and put Ings up top with Bailey the other side or make the sensible decision and drop one of them totally. 

Ings and Watkins will both expect not to be dropped and will be banging on the managers door if they are but Buendia Bailey and Traore all are starters as well who shouldnt be on the bench. 

The whole point of a stronger squad is to give options from the start. 

Unless we start doing a different type of sub. Play em for 45 mins and then subs at half time. Ings and Watkins can toss to see who plays first or second half

Excellent summary of our situation.

The question is, will Smith have the balls to drop one of Watkins-Ings (if he agrees with that assessment in the first place).

His reluctance to drop hopeless Barkley last season (until our season petered out and it was too late), might suggest he has not.

14 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

Well, I could agree with you if we had last seasons Ollie, but I'm not sure where he's gone. 

To join up with England

He had disrupted preseason but he will come back stronger from the internalitonal break.

3 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

Yep, that’s fairly obvious. I’m not sure what your point is.

I’m sure that when Bailey is fit and Buendia has had more time to get used to our style of play (whatever that is), we will have better options.

Ings is class, but we might need to go with one up top when our more creative players are up to speed. Which is a shame for Ollie. 

My point is that when these creative players play, Ings will not benefit from it as he will be on the bench.

Ings is not suited to play single striker as well as Ollie is, he just doesn't have the physical presence to do it.

3 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

Yep, the others benched

They are benched to accommodate 2 strikers on the pitch. 

12 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

I also would have thought Buendia would have enough fitness now to start games.  If he doesn't start, he's not going to get up to full match fitness.  We could theoretically be playing Buendia and Traore as wingers.

Neither Buendia nor Traore ever in their careers played on the left wing. Not sure why.

It's really down to El Ghazi or Young ( having watched JPB in last U23 game, he is defo not ready to start PL game) on LW if Bailey is not fit. I don't fancy any of these 2 options.

1 hour ago, Condimentalist said:

Time to go back to 4 at the back with wingers - which sadly probably means Ings on the bench, but we can't start them all. Hopefully Bailey is back but even if he isn't I'd still go 433/4231.

I agree that switch to 4-3-3 is needed. I'm just worried that our LW options are not good enough if Bailey is still not fit to start. It would mean El Ghazi starting, I am not a big fan of that.

2 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

But don't you see the long term problem that eventually the bottom of the pyramid collapses and the all the brainwashed supporter's of whoever just give in and support the few that screwed it all up.

Thanks for the lol, I don't need any help to look stupid, that I can manage on my own

Apologies for the LOL, couldn't help myself.

If you are concerned about health of the pyramid you are barking at the wrong tree.

It's not SKy who decides how the money is distributed. They just pay the money to Premier League and they decide who gets how much. Premier League could scrap the "facility" fee and redistribute more money to lower divisions if they wanted to.

9 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

People understanding and accepting it is part of the problem.

 

Lol, sky are privetly owned business that pays billions of pounds for the privilege of showing Premier League games.

Why shouldn't they be entitled to maximise return on their investment?

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

But then how do you break that cycle? 

Arsenal are on TV more than us because they are bigger than us

Arsenal get more TV revenue and sponsorship because they are bigger than us

Arsenal are bigger than us because they have more money to spend than us

You either look to balance out the money arsenal receive to make it fairer or you let us spend more money 

Yes, it is a vicious circle.

I am just saying that I understand why Sky are showing more Arsenal games than ours. Makes perfect business sense for Sky.

I don't make a judgement if that fact should entitle Arsenal to receive more money from Sky or not. You could argue that it would be fair, if we talk about any other type of business. Should it be different for football?