2024-25 EPL Season

[Jovavic]

Would be funny if Everton opens their shiny new stadium next season in the Championship

Self quoting

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Won their FFP appeal

'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

 

[robertmac43]

So basically they won the appeal because they were in league limbo due to relegation?

lol

 

[luiginb]

Remember United fans, things can always get worse! I'm hearing rumours of Gareth Southgate hahahahah

 

[Chimaera]

I think he turned them down? Or at least didn’t take the interview?

 

[maclean]

Remember United fans, things can always get worse! I'm hearing rumours of Gareth Southgate hahahahah

Southgate to United rumours were floating even before the Euros as I recall

 

[hatterson]

Won their FFP appeal

'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

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.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I think he turned them down? Or at least didn’t take the interview?

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.

 

[Jussi]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1831363392000651475

 

[Ben Grimm]

Is Chelsea's transfer strategy genius or stupid?

 

[Jussi]

Is Chelsea's transfer strategy genius or stupid?

Yes.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Is Chelsea's transfer strategy genius or stupid?

It’s bold to call it a strategy

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Is Chelsea's transfer strategy genius or stupid?

"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.

 

[Peen]

"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.

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.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

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.

 

[Jack Straw]

"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.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Someone said they’ll fail upwards until they don’t…can’t remember

 

[Blender]

Someone said they’ll fail upwards until they don’t…can’t remember

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.

 

[cgf]

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.

Isn’t the amortization going to catch up with them at some point? Cause isn’t that growing faster than their ability to spend?

 

[spintheblackcircle]

No cheating:

What club has the most shots after 3 matches?

 

[S E P H]

Someone said they’ll fail upwards until they don’t…can’t remember

I think it was Savant.

 

[Jack Straw]

No cheating:

What club has the most shots after 3 matches?

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.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

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.

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]

Also doing reasonably well with xG:

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

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

Who are we talking about here?

Edit: You were probably referring to your quiz? I thought we talking about Spurs.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Forest