Czarnikjak

2 minutes ago, Made In Aston said:

Or it is because he isn't very good.

Both could be true

2 hours ago, duke313 said:

We've an obligation to buy if he meets certain criteria, the fee has already been agreed.

That could also explain why Emery doesn't start him anymore. He might be near his starts/minutes criteria that would force our hand to buy him.

28 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Reading Forests statement I agree with pretty much everything that say on PSR. The rules are absurd. The cut off date being before the end of the window is ridiculous and just means clubs have to choose between getting less money now or breaching the rules to get more value later. That can’t be in the spirit of the rules.

It’s also unarguable that these rules are harming mobility within the football pyramid.

That being said, 4 points seems a fair reflection and does take into account their mitigating circumstances around Brennan Johnson. They’ll moan and appeal because it’s risk free to them as the appeals panel won’t increase the deduction for a frivolous appeal so in that way you the statement about how they feel “disappointed and dismayed” is largely for show. They would have thought given what happened to Everton this would be the outcome (4-6 points) and I’d think they fancy their chances of getting 1 point more than Luton over the next 10 games.

Well, the cut off date is dictated by your accounting period, so this is not an excuse.

The rules are not fair, but they knew them well and still decided to break them...should have no complaints really.

1 hour ago, VillaJ100 said:

Right then. NSWE to blow 750 million this summer, we win the league with 107 points, take the 6 points, result?

You joking, but Newcastle Saudi owners could actually afford that without even noticing

Don't give them any ideas..

13 minutes ago, S-Platt said:

Forest got 6 points reduced to 4 as they co-operated. Seems Everton did not first time.  If they have for the 2nd breach should be another 4.

They will get 2 points. 2 out of 3 years this jury reviews they already got done for by the previous verdict.. To avoid double jeopardy they will get 1/3rd....about 2 points.

22 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Fire sale at Forest come end of the season and they’ve got quite a bit of talent tbf. 

Why fire sale?

1 minute ago, AshVilla said:

I wouldn't, rather us sign someone more mobile that doesn't look gassed after 20 minutes.

Fair enough, but £20m on £50k wages doesn't get you much nowadays as crazy as it may sound.

5 hours ago, AshVilla said:

If TIelemans is on 150k p/w we should try and sell him in the summer.

 

As they say there's no such a thing as "free lunch". Usually when player is on a "free" they can command a higher wage.

Free agent on £150k per week is essentially the same as signing someone for £20m on £50k per week (on 4 year contract). 

Would you take tielemans for £20m on £50k per week? I would I think 

1 hour ago, avfc1982am said:

Ohhh..... so now Zaniolo just won't play at the top level with us, not in general like your previous post. Zaniolo is 24 not late 20's, he's had 2 years already out the game due to injuries and still come back. He may never be the player he once was but he may also have his best years in front of him. Rogers may never get anywhere near that level but it's still okay to dismiss the loanee for no reason other than to criticise him. 

You're okay, insulting and criticising others but can't take a little yourself. I get it! 

 

But nobody dismissed him off hand, I think most were excited when he signed. He played over 1000 minutes this season so far,  so he was given a fair crack to impress.

I think we just need to trust the manager on that, if he fancies to start Rogers over Zaniolo there must be a reason for that.

1 minute ago, avfc1982am said:

Lol.....what an absolute dumb post. On one hand you say him and Rogers are the same level, pin point them as doing the same stuff and then say Zaniolo will amount to not making it at this level again, yet Roger needs developing quickly as he's our player. 

Zaniolo has played for Roma, Galatasaray and will most likely end up at somewhere decent back in Italy. So 100% he's still got a great career ahead of him. Far better as a footballer than yours as a poster on this forum ffs  

 

I think you missing the point that Rogers is much younger than Zaniolo and his carrier still has upwards trajectory. 

Zaniolos seems to be going downhill since that Europa League final. Maybe he can turn it around, but I don't think it will be with us.

Insulting other posters doesn't make your points more valid.

1 minute ago, avfc1982am said:

Peak Ramsey?! He hasn't been fit or anywhere near his peak all season so needs must unfortunately. 

There is also a lot of difference between Rogers and Zaniolo, one has played at the highest level in Europe for several years, the other has played in the championship.  

You also don't know if the club will trigger Zaniolo's option to buy, it's pure speculation on behalf of the fans that presume because he hasn't settled quickly and not starting Emery will just bin him off. Even if we do send him back he'll be still playing at the top level so he's obviously not as shit as some like to make out.

He might have played at a high level in the past but is not showing it now. Both of themdo the same thing most of the time: dribble yourself into a cul de sac, loose the ball, foul the opponent.

I would be surprised if he ever plays at this level again.

10 minutes ago, Zatman said:

They haven't won a league game since 16th December. He is a huge problem with his pathetic style of play

Not seen a single Everton fan that wants him sacked. 

They have much bigger problems to contend with, like looming administration for example.

Just now, avfc1982am said:

More nonsense.

Zaniolo is our player currently, and if he's playing well then should be playing. If we followed your thought process, Chambers would be in front of Lenglet ffs. 

The other point is why do we need to develop Rogers quickly, why not just let him develop instead of putting undue pressure on him too. 

 

He is not playing well though. He has not played well all season. Scoring one goal doesn't equal playing well.

Currently there's not much between him and Rogers, both are big downgrade from peak Ramsay. 

Rogers has a future at this club, Zaniolo clearly doesn't (otherwise Emery would start him)

On 17/03/2024 at 11:32, Zatman said:

Has been reported that Dyche slapped a younger player on the back of the head during a meal on a mid season trip

They are also apparently close to breaking a club record for games without a win. 

He must be close to the sack now

He ain't getting sacked. He's the only thing that keeps them up.

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Whether or not he's been shit or not, he was starting a fair few games during our best form of the season. There's clearly a player in there, and if we're still without Ramsey we should be starting ahead of both Duran or Rogers IMO

He is not our player, he will be back in Turkey soon. Need to develop Rogers quickly, hence he is starting ahead of Zaniolo.

26 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think for a couple of reasons - firstly the value of our shirt front has risen substantially and will rise substantially again if we're in the Champions league next season, that means that a new deal would be enough for us to pay out BK8 and still make more money, if the figures are right, it becomes a big possibility. And secondly because it's not entirely clear what's happening with the illegal Chinese gambling market and the slightly shady legality of advertising for it in the UK, and because the head of Suncity and presumed owner of TGP Group who own the BK8 brand (and pretty much all the other Premier league gambling brands) has been jailed for eighteen years on racketeering charges, the future of BK8 is a little unclear. 

It's by no means certain that we will change shirt sponsors in the summer, but I wouldn't bet against it.

 

Most contracts have clauses where the value goes up if you qualify for relevant European competitions. So BK8 would need to pay more if we are in the champions league. If we didn't put clauses like that we are ran by idiots (I don't think we are).

9 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

Will we be considered title contenders start of next season? 

No. Why should we?

4 minutes ago, punkiller1981 said:

That might be fair the sky 6 won’t have that 

I think teams like spurs, arsenal and United would love it.

They would be able to stay competitive and make huge profits for their owners.

City and Chelsea would probably not like it though 

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

The key is getting that revenue up to £300m plus asap - that's why the sponsorship deals are so important.

 

Here is a thought.

Salary cap based on percentage of Broadcast and ticket revenue only.

Eliminates efforts having to deal with related party sponsorships, makes it easy to audit revenue figures, allows better ran clubs to actually make some money by having good commercial deals.

5 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

thanks.

obviously i dont know what 89% is money wise, but i did a graph not long ago, implying that just getting rid of our dead wood, fringe players, or second string players who earn too much (if we can), would save something like 900k per week, and something like 45m a year in wages, im guessing that would at least make our position a lot better salary wise, even if we reinvested a good portion of it?

Obviously, that means actually being able to offload the dead wood.

edit: here was my table.

 

All teams will think the same "if we only offload our deadwood..." Doesn't change the fact we are still in worse position than others who will need to offload less.

Not many takers around for deadwood on premier league wages.

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

so, if its a salary to turnover % type thing, where are we in terms of turnover compared to other PL clubs?, we are probably mid table?

(so, unless we can increase revenue massively, this will limit us as well)

is this type of limitation, better than the current FFP tho!?

As our wage to turnover ratio was and still is one of the highest in the league, most likely we will suffer the most from new rules. Certainly the big 6 has nothing to worry about, so it's all good

6 hours ago, FLVillan said:

The majority of problems clubs like ours face is down to the farce that is FFP/PSR or whatever they've labeled it now.  It was the reason why Lerner pulled the plug, it's the reason Leicester weren't able to build on their league win in 2016 and sold their best players and why Everton are in deep  now.  What is the most galling is that the majority of the football-supporting public don't see it, or refuse to see it.  The media and the so-called "big six" have complete control and the media hate the fact that we are gate-crashing.  

If we do finish fourth or even fifth it will be a monumental achievement.  Then watch the media do everything they can to unsettle Emery by "linking" him to every single vacancy.

It's all very well saying we should have strengthened here and bought there, but simply put, the rules won't let us.  Nothing to do with how much money our owners have (Leicester's were minted too).  Our current midfield of McGinn, Kamara, Luiz and Tielemans cost less than ManUre's fourth choice centre back.  

Take a step back, look at the numbers and realize that we are punching so far above our weight...

Well, Lerner didn't pull out because of FFP. He pulled out as he couldn't financially  compete with the likes of Man City.

If not for FFP, all of our best players would be playing for Newcastle now.

Currently, to compete, our owners need to put in £100m of their own cash every season into the club. Without ffp, they would need to put in £300m...unlikely they would be willing to do that.

21 minutes ago, John said:

The higher league placing and CL qualification, along with extra funds from off-field sources, should pretty much do the job then.  I guess it would then be a case of a return to "sell to buy" thanks to P & S. 

We are facing 2 crunch seasons now (this season and next season). Due to £93m psr loss last season we will only have £12m combined psr loss to play with come this summer/next season.

It's going to be very very tight. I'm confident we not going to break the limit, but we will be very restricted in our trading.

Courtesy of Swiss Ramble.

Indication by how much we need to reduce our losses this season to stay complaint with PSR

52 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes

How are you so sure? I would be surprised if insurance covers 100% of their wages for the whole season. Don't know of any other profession where it happens. Footballers get injured so often, premiums for this would be horrendous