Toggle sidebar

2024-25 EPL Season

spintheblackcircle said:
Won their FFP appeal

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

'Very disappointed' - Premier League respond to huge Leicester City FFP win

Leicester City news as the club successfully win off-field battle with Premier League over financial fair play rules
www.leicestermercury.co.uk
Click to expand...
lol I like the reason. PL rules say Leicester lost too much money from 2019/2020 until 2022/2023, but by the time 2023 accounting ended they were relegated from the PL (by a few weeks) and thus the PL couldn't hold them accountable for anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blender and robertmac43
Chimaera said:
I think he turned them down? Or at least didn’t take the interview?
Click to expand...
I think the Southgate stuff was the media pushing it more than anything. He may have been on a shortlist but I don’t think he got to the interview section. McKenna was the main target this summer from what it sounds like, who I’m high on, but think that would’ve been incredibly risky had that panned out.
 
Ben Grimm said:
Is Chelsea's transfer strategy genius or stupid?
Click to expand...
"so stupid it just might work, even though it shouldn't and society should hope it doesn't" is probably the best way to put it.

there are a few different planks to it, that should probably be contemplated separately and "work" in different ways. chelsea's transfer "strategy" (it feels wrong to even call it that) can be basically sub-divided into three constituent components:

1. young players expected to be imminently first team and potentially superstars within 2-3 years - Enzo and Caicedo are the archetypes as the 100+ players, but this is also the category into which guys like Pedro Neto, Palmer, and Jackson would fall
2. young players expected to accrue value to a small degree so as to be flipped. guys never expected to be starters. best called "portfolio purchases." there are a few players in an awkward middlespace between Plank 1 and Plank 2.

all of which is financed, ultimately, by 3:

3. selling academy products to facilitate the purchases of long-term first teamers and short-term assets (to be flipped)

the complete and utter failure of "strategy" is that generally the players sold in Plank 3 are superior to those in Planks 1 and 2. but in terms of it not, yknow, fully collapsing in on itself financially, it seems as if the bet made in Plank 2 (that guys would have their values appreciate despite not being part of the first team) actually might come true, which is f***ing insane. the aim of accumulating so much young talent has been so that those sales could then finance major first-team purchases, almost akin to using the smaller components of a financial portfolio as collateral on a big deal. the values of these players should be collapsing because of bench-warming or mediocre loans, but it... doesn't actually seem to be...

basically, Chelsea's transfer strategy appears to have been based upon the unhinged gamble that the transfer market is so broken that clubs would pay small markup (but small markups become large at volume) on players who were clearly not a part of long-term first team plans. somehow SOMEHOW that gamble might conceivably be working. and, outside of that, their position is that when an asset can be 'bought low', it should be bought on the chance they can later 'sell high' (both Felix and Sancho to me are cases of this).

it's so crazy it just might work because they now actually do have quite a bit of quality, and have players that apparently other teams still want to buy? so on its own terms, it might actually be somehow working.

now, is that good? no. but their extremely stupid strategy might end up working out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blender, Ben Grimm and Peen
Wee Baby Seamus said:
"so stupid it just might work, even though it shouldn't and society should hope it doesn't" is probably the best way to put it.

there are a few different planks to it, that should probably be contemplated separately and "work" in different ways. chelsea's transfer "strategy" (it feels wrong to even call it that) can be basically sub-divided into three constituent components:

1. young players expected to be imminently first team and potentially superstars within 2-3 years - Enzo and Caicedo are the archetypes as the 100+ players, but this is also the category into which guys like Pedro Neto, Palmer, and Jackson would fall
2. young players expected to accrue value to a small degree so as to be flipped. guys never expected to be starters. best called "portfolio purchases." there are a few players in an awkward middlespace between Plank 1 and Plank 2.

all of which is financed, ultimately, by 3:

3. selling academy products to facilitate the purchases of long-term first teamers and short-term assets (to be flipped)

the complete and utter failure of "strategy" is that generally the players sold in Plank 3 are superior to those in Planks 1 and 2. but in terms of it not, yknow, fully collapsing in on itself financially, it seems as if the bet made in Plank 2 (that guys would have their values appreciate despite not being part of the first team) actually might come true, which is f***ing insane. the aim of accumulating so much young talent has been so that those sales could then finance major first-team purchases, almost akin to using the smaller components of a financial portfolio as collateral on a big deal. the values of these players should be collapsing because of bench-warming or mediocre loans, but it... doesn't actually seem to be...

basically, Chelsea's transfer strategy appears to have been based upon the unhinged gamble that the transfer market is so broken that clubs would pay small markup (but small markups become large at volume) on players who were clearly not a part of long-term first team plans. somehow SOMEHOW that gamble might conceivably be working. and, outside of that, their position is that when an asset can be 'bought low', it should be bought on the chance they can later 'sell high' (both Felix and Sancho to me are cases of this).

it's so crazy it just might work because they now actually do have quite a bit of quality, and have players that apparently other teams still want to buy? so on its own terms, it might actually be somehow working.

now, is that good? no. but their extremely stupid strategy might end up working out.
Click to expand...

I feel like there’s enough star quality or star potential at every position except CB.

Whether everyone plays together, who makes it, if a couch can figure it all out, if they ease out if the insanity soon, a transfer ban, if they properly supplement the quality, is all to be seen.

Just so many factors.

I was thinking it’d be interesting to do a tier list of “made sense” “meh” “did not make sense” at the time of our signings and then a list of how we feel about those signings now.

Palmer was a wtf at the time given the fee & that we’d just let Mount & Hall go to afford it, as an example. But now we might have a legitimate superstar.

Cucurella, Mudryk, both wtfs and still wtfs.

Etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blender
It might end up working out when you factor in selling hotels to themselves, sure. Unfortunately, the reality is money can buy your way out of incompetence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chimaera
Wee Baby Seamus said:
"so stupid it just might work, even though it shouldn't and society should hope it doesn't" is probably the best way to put it.

there are a few different planks to it, that should probably be contemplated separately and "work" in different ways. chelsea's transfer "strategy" (it feels wrong to even call it that) can be basically sub-divided into three constituent components:

1. young players expected to be imminently first team and potentially superstars within 2-3 years - Enzo and Caicedo are the archetypes as the 100+ players, but this is also the category into which guys like Pedro Neto, Palmer, and Jackson would fall
2. young players expected to accrue value to a small degree so as to be flipped. guys never expected to be starters. best called "portfolio purchases." there are a few players in an awkward middlespace between Plank 1 and Plank 2.

all of which is financed, ultimately, by 3:

3. selling academy products to facilitate the purchases of long-term first teamers and short-term assets (to be flipped)

the complete and utter failure of "strategy" is that generally the players sold in Plank 3 are superior to those in Planks 1 and 2. but in terms of it not, yknow, fully collapsing in on itself financially, it seems as if the bet made in Plank 2 (that guys would have their values appreciate despite not being part of the first team) actually might come true, which is f***ing insane. the aim of accumulating so much young talent has been so that those sales could then finance major first-team purchases, almost akin to using the smaller components of a financial portfolio as collateral on a big deal. the values of these players should be collapsing because of bench-warming or mediocre loans, but it... doesn't actually seem to be...

basically, Chelsea's transfer strategy appears to have been based upon the unhinged gamble that the transfer market is so broken that clubs would pay small markup (but small markups become large at volume) on players who were clearly not a part of long-term first team plans. somehow SOMEHOW that gamble might conceivably be working. and, outside of that, their position is that when an asset can be 'bought low', it should be bought on the chance they can later 'sell high' (both Felix and Sancho to me are cases of this).

it's so crazy it just might work because they now actually do have quite a bit of quality, and have players that apparently other teams still want to buy? so on its own terms, it might actually be somehow working.

now, is that good? no. but their extremely stupid strategy might end up working out.
Click to expand...
c75022bb17fe1dcb9a705c1253f0f0d4cd1dcd3c.gifv
 
Duchene2MacKinnon said:
Someone said they’ll fail upwards until they don’t…can’t remember
Click to expand...
They are essentially using academy players, older purchases, and loan army to fund new purchases. They would be seriously f***ed if the sales dried up or reduced significantly since they have to sell a certain amount every year just to cover the amortization.
 
Blender said:
They are essentially using academy players, older purchases, and loan army to fund new purchases. They would be seriously f***ed if the sales dried up or reduced significantly since they have to sell a certain amount every year just to cover the amortization.
Click to expand...

Isn’t the amortization going to catch up with them at some point? Cause isn’t that growing faster than their ability to spend?
 
Jack Straw said:
Also doing reasonably well with xG:

https://footystats.org/england/premier-league/xg

Kind of mediocre with xg compared to actual but that's not surprising given the relative absence of a striker.
Click to expand...

They haven't played anyone, but those 8 points this early in the season is huge to put in the bank. If it takes 32 points or so to stay up, they are 1/4 the way there already. Their next two are Liverpool and Brighton, so let's see If Nuno can steal a point or 2
 
Jack Straw said:
Also doing reasonably well with xG:

https://footystats.org/england/premier-league/xg
Click to expand...

spintheblackcircle said:
They haven't played anyone, but those 8 points this early in the season is huge to put in the bank. If it takes 32 points or so to stay up, they are 1/4 the way there already. Their next two are Liverpool and Brighton, so let's see If Nuno can steal a point or 2
Click to expand...
Who are we talking about here?

Edit: You were probably referring to your quiz? I thought we talking about Spurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom