2023-2024 EPL Season
- Thread starter spintheblackcircle
- Start date
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Is there anyone that Chelsea dumped in the last year that isn't doing well in their new spot? Besides Mason Mount who went directly to another shit show?
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Lukaku, Kovacic
Happy that Kai is playing well and enjoying his football. Showed bursts of it at Chelsea, in the last two months or so has been showing it consistently. His pass for Saka today was glorious. I do wonder what'll happen if the going gets tough, but for now he's been in great fettle.
There's not a single Chelsea fan who wouldn't happily make the Palmer for Havertz trade, even now that Kai is getting goals.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 52,698
- 46,482
Right, Havertz rarely ever played well for Chelsea and was horrible off the ball most games. Palmer cost less than Havertz was sold for and I make that trade again no matter what.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Lukaku has almost 20 goals and Roma has bounced back in a massive way after sacking Mourinho. He doesn't seem to be doing too bad.
Has Kovacic been awful for City?
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,470
- 1,225
I wouldn't expect Chelsea fans to have any regrets in trading Havertz for Palmer, but we were told for the first 5 weeks of the season that Havertz is a bum and it had nothing to do with Chelsea.
And he's now one of Arsenal's best players off the ball, which leads me to believe that was all coaching. Just like Rashford looks lost off the ball under that bald fraud at United.
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
And Lukaku has barely been part of that bounceback. He's got 5 in 17 since Mou was sacked.
Kovacic has been poor.
Eh, it's not coaching, it's work rate. He looked like he couldn't be arsed out there. His movement was great in his rare bursts of giving a shit. He's giving a shit now!
I don’t disagree with you, but “the game” is one thing, and results are another. When that .2” is the difference between a trophy win or whatever, the good for the game stuff goes out the window.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Still, I'd argue that 19 goals on the year is pretty good. Isn't he well into his thirties?
hatterson
Registered User
Yea Spurs would need to make up 26GD over the rest of the season.
Granted if Spurs win and and Liverpool lose out that is automatically 8 of those, but still that would mean an extra 18 goal flip in a combined 8 games which seems unlikely.
KJS14
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 3,470
- 1,225
If Liverpool have to sacrifice CL for Spurs to score 20 goals against City, then so be it
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 38,367
- 11,469
No thank you.
Not trying to reward the clubs that were relying on us for a better coefficient. They can try again next year.
Yeah. That extra cushion has been nice since we are crashing and burning
Jussi
Registered User
gary69
Registered User
Good to see Klopp is practicing his Spanish, since after this season he will moving to Mallorca in his newly built house. Wonder if some time during next season he can be spotted at Mallorca's home matches.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
No shocker on who voted no. From the projected numbers, City / United will likely have to cut some budget.
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 38,367
- 11,469
gary69
Registered User
If the vote remains the same and a hard cap is introduced from 22/26, certain clubs might push hard to sell some of their best players this summer.
As for example Crystal Palace might get double the transfer fee this summer for likes of Olise and Eze, compared to 20-30 millions that type of players will worth onwards from 25/26 with the spending cap.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
I think compliance is certainly the issue. Can they ameliorate the contracts and fee over the time? Or does it have to be right in there now? There were certainly some clubs looking to sell players anyhow.
gary69
Registered User
Hmm, reading this, no wonder everyone else but the biggest spenders vote for this proposal, as the cap would seem to only affect those clubs.
“That will be a fixed total based on the lowest amount of broadcasting money received in the Premier League, so whatever is earned by the 20th club. Over the last few years that has basically meant approximately £100m worth of broadcasting income, that is what the likes of Sheffield United will earn.
“The spend cap will be a hard multiple, and the rumoured amount is five times that amount, which would basically mean a spend cap of approximately £500m.
“From a good perspective, that will open up the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle to spend more than what they currently have because under the current regulations it is tied to their own revenues.
“It would also mean under a new regulation, teams like Nottingham Forest could spend what they want to spend, or claim they need to spend, to stay competitive.
Premier League spending cap: Clubs vote in favour of developing plans
“That will be a fixed total based on the lowest amount of broadcasting money received in the Premier League, so whatever is earned by the 20th club. Over the last few years that has basically meant approximately £100m worth of broadcasting income, that is what the likes of Sheffield United will earn.
“The spend cap will be a hard multiple, and the rumoured amount is five times that amount, which would basically mean a spend cap of approximately £500m.
“From a good perspective, that will open up the likes of Aston Villa and Newcastle to spend more than what they currently have because under the current regulations it is tied to their own revenues.
“It would also mean under a new regulation, teams like Nottingham Forest could spend what they want to spend, or claim they need to spend, to stay competitive.
Premier League spending cap: Clubs vote in favour of developing plans
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
Yeah, it really just hammers City / United and to an extent Chelsea. Good?
I also wonder what the Players Association says. I guess they'll get a payout. Maybe tie some of the revenue to percent of wages. Maybe a better pension. Who knows.
I also wonder what the Players Association says. I guess they'll get a payout. Maybe tie some of the revenue to percent of wages. Maybe a better pension. Who knows.
hatterson
Registered User
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
I don't think it incentivizes them to do so. If anything, they can spend less and be closer to what top clubs will spend. That means there's only so far wages can go.
Their fortunes are also so volatile. Big clubs, whether they make the CL or not, stick around the same levels. Some of these clubs, a good cup run, 4-5 places, or heck even Europe, and they could double their earnings. Lose some of those and they won't run completely afoul of the rules.
Their fortunes are also so volatile. Big clubs, whether they make the CL or not, stick around the same levels. Some of these clubs, a good cup run, 4-5 places, or heck even Europe, and they could double their earnings. Lose some of those and they won't run completely afoul of the rules.
hatterson
Registered User
What I mean is that if you have a club like Forest come up who are determined to stay up with a rich owner, they could easily drop 300 million on transfer fees in a single window. Having a club in that area of the table drop that much puts extensive pressure on others in that areas to up their spending as well to compete.
I worry that having effectively no spending cap for those sides would lead to a similar situation you have at the top of the Championship where teams are spending well above their intake simply trying to hit the financial jackpot (in this case stable mid table status instead of promotion).
There's already a big question mark around relegated teams and if they'll be able to be stable in the Championship or if they slip up once and enter a death spiral. If the norm at the bottom of the PL table because spending well above intake, I'd imagine that risk would only increase.
