2010/2011 Premier League Thread

[united]

Kind of OT, but Chad OchoCinco is visiting C. Ronaldo and Real Madrid this week.
He has a bunch of pictures and comments on his Twitter page.
Pretty cool to see an american athlete have such interest in football to fly all the way over for a week. I think Steve Nash did the same with Tottenham a while ago?

CR7 to @Ochocinco I'm very glad that you are coming to Madrid. It's time for me to teach you what is the real football.

CR7 to @Ochocinco You are rested enough to still teach the Dougie, no?

Chad to RT @Cristiano: @Ochocinco You are rested enough to still teach the Dougie, no? Yes sir I'm ready to teach you the Dougie

Chad to @realmadridtalk I like the training grounds, its really nice here, Mourinho says he needs a striker, I'm coming to play here

http://www.whosay.com/CristianoRonal...8C7AE0B1009C92

http://twitpic.com/3nrmav

http://twitpic.com/3nsnqv

[d_phaneuf]

so Robbie Keane doesn't want to leave london so the birmingham deal seems done

Bentley is going on loan there though, hope he gets his confidence back up playing a run of games, has the talent the problems are mental with him

and it likely signifies that the Becks deal is done

[Locke]

Twitter seriously sucks.

[d_phaneuf]

Dzeko for 27m pounds is done to Man City

he says he picked Man City because he looks forward to winning titles, he obviously misspoke and meant to say making silly money instead of winning titles

[Addick]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

reason he wants tottenham I think is kind of two fold, he started his youth career at Spurs and his grandfather was a massive Spurs fan

so he doesn't look at it like going back on what he said about never playing for a PL side besides Man United because he has all ready been at Spurs

I wasn't aware of that but it makes a lot of sense. Also, if all he does is train with the club then he won't be going back on his word.

[Locke]

Unreal, I should look into getting a job managing a small EPL club. Some of the things managers do are absolutely stone faced ######ed.

West Ham have agreed to make Wayne Bridge their highest-paid player at £90,000-a-week, and are hoping the deal will go through in the next 48 hours in time for Saturday's clash with Arsenal.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...n-city?cc=5901

This is a great signing, Wayne Bridge is not only worth the £90K a week, he addresses all of West Ham's problems and is a sure fire bet to get the team out of the relegation zone.

Now, if any of the above statements were true, this would be a good idea. As it stands this is patently ######ed, and everyone that likes West Ham is going to hate this move, particularly after they sack the hell out of Avram Grant. Wayne Bridge isnt worth 90 quid a week let alone 90K.

[d_phaneuf]

That is a symptom of the biggest problem Man City are going to have, they started giving fringe players elite money and now they can't sell anyone because why would SWP or Adebayor want to cut their salary in half to go somewhere else

But then along comes West Ham to fail their way to relegation

[Locke]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

That is a symptom of the biggest problem Man City are going to have, they started giving fringe players elite money and now they can't sell anyone because why would SWP or Adebayor want to cut their salary in half to go somewhere else

But then along comes West Ham to fail their way to relegation

They've totally screwed the salary curve. But then again, its their own fault.

[d_phaneuf]

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Locke

They've totally screwed the salary curve. But then again, its their own fault.

I think it hurts them more than anything, they are going to be stuck with some players who refuse to go elsewhere

I think their strategy was to buy up all these players so that when the new UEFA rules come in they would sell them for profit, allowing them to spend their ridiculous wages

but if they can't sell them they could be in even more trouble

I think they probably sell a lot of them at a big loss, and have to cover some of their wages as well

guys like adebayor, swp, given, eventually Barry and Milner etc.

only player I could see them making money on who they bought is Adam Johnson

[Locke]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

What else is new? Beckham working, Pavlyuchenko mailing it in.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Locke

What else is new? Beckham working, Pavlyuchenko mailing it in.

haha, so true

[Locke]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

I think it hurts them more than anything, they are going to be stuck with some players who refuse to go elsewhere

I think their strategy was to buy up all these players so that when the new UEFA rules come in they would sell them for profit, allowing them to spend their ridiculous wages

but if they can't sell them they could be in even more trouble

I think they probably sell a lot of them at a big loss, and have to cover some of their wages as well

guys like adebayor, swp, given, eventually Barry and Milner etc.

only player I could see them making money on who they bought is Adam Johnson

I hope thats not what they were thinking, because otherwise they had better fire whoever is in charge of their finances.

United have been accused of buying players, usually youth players, for the sole purpose of making sure others couldnt have them, but they didnt pay a ridiculous premium for them. Thats why it isnt going to work, if you pay something around market price and then train the player, showcase them on a good team then their value goes up, even marginally and you might make a bit or you might hit a home run. Buying players and paying whatever they ask for and then never playing them is not a sound financial strategy. This is a clear case of 'more money than brains.'

Yeah, great, they could ostensibly make money on the one guy they would want to keep. Stunning.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Locke

I hope thats not what they were thinking, because otherwise they had better fire whoever is in charge of their finances.

United have been accused of buying players, usually youth players, for the sole purpose of making sure others couldnt have them, but they didnt pay a ridiculous premium for them. Thats why it isnt going to work, if you pay something around market price and then train the player, showcase them on a good team then their value goes up, even marginally and you might make a bit or you might hit a home run. Buying players and paying whatever they ask for and then never playing them is not a sound financial strategy. This is a clear case of 'more money than brains.'

Yeah, great, they could ostensibly make money on the one guy they would want to keep. Stunning.

the strategy for them is not sound financially though because Sheikh Mansour has no interest in making a profit

they want to find a loophole in the system and beat it

for the new UEFA rules, meaning you can't compete in a UEFA competition unless you can meet their rules, teams will have be able to spend money on profit and not incur a debt doing so (I think it's different for stadium debt and other things)

so Man City buying a bunch of players now, before the rule goes in to effect starting next season, does make some sense

Say for instance they sell Adebayor for 20m next season, the UEFA rules don't care that they bought him for 30m in 2010, all it's going to show is that since the rule came in to effect they have a 20m profit

[Locke]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

the strategy for them is not sound financially though because Sheikh Mansour has no interest in making a profit

they want to find a loophole in the system and beat it

for the new UEFA rules, meaning you can't compete in a UEFA competition unless you can meet their rules, teams will have to only spend money on profit

so Man City buying a bunch of players now, before the rule goes in to effect starting next season, does make some sense

Say for instance they sell Adebayor for 20m next season, the UEFA rules don't care that they bought him for 30m in 2010, all it's going to show is that since the rule came in to effect they have a 20m profit

What? UEFA arent that window-lickingly ######ed are they? If thats how they're judging finances thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I havent read the new financial rules, but that seems incredibly shortsighted.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? UEFA arent that window-lickingly ######ed are they? If thats how they're judging finances thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I havent read the new financial rules, but that seems incredibly shortsighted.

Clubs could be banned from European competition from the 2014/15 season onwards if they do not comply with new financial rules.

The rules state clubs must break even over a three-year period.

Club owners will be allowed to put in up to €15million a year but only as equity, not a loan. This figure will then drop to €10million annually.

Clubs will be able to spend as much as they want on stadiums, training facilities and youth football.

UEFA will have a range of sanctions from warnings to a transfer ban to exclusion from European tournaments.

Across Europe, total club income in 2009 rose 4.8% to €11.7billion, but expenditure was a 9.3% increase to €12.9billion, making a €1.2billion deficit.

Most of the expenditure goes on player wages and one in three European clubs spent 70% or more of their income on salaries.

56% of European clubs ended 2009 in the red.

One in four clubs spent €6 for every €5 they earned.

A drop in transfer activity has reduced income by 5% to clubs in Scotland, France, Portugal and Holland.

English top-flight clubs are comfortably the richest in Europe with average revenue of €122million - five times higher than Holland and Russia.

Germany is second with average earnings of €86million.

Scottish top-flight clubs' average revenue in 2009 was €16m, the League of Ireland €1.3m, Northern Ireland 0.7m and Wales 0.3m .

Clubs will be monitored if there are warning signs such as: recording a loss in any year; spending more than 70% of revenue on wages; having overdue football-related payments or tax debts; high level of debts.

As with a tax declaration, the onus is on the clubs to provide the correct information to UEFA and they will be subject to spot-checks and face sanctions if they do not do so.

National associations will initially grant the licences but UEFA will have spot-checks to make sure that the rules are being applied correctly.

and the first year this come in to effect is the 2014 season, so the 3 year window for eligibility that season starts this summer transfer window

[d_phaneuf]

http://tottenhamthinktank.wordpress....ial-fair-play/

sums it up a bit

last year Man City spent 133m in wages with 125m in profit, the wages have gone up even more this year and I can't imagine the profit did

An important point to Financial Fair Play is being able to sustain yourself and this is where Spurs will thrive and City will be in real trouble. Spurs wage bill last year was 67m, roughly 56% of its earnings. Man City however are in massive trouble spending 133m on wages alone from earnings of 125m. To break even City will have to shed some players, get that wage bill down and will not be able to buy anyone, at least at the extravagant prices they are spending at now. Spurs on the other hand can continue to exist as we do now and will probably have less competition for transfer targets. With the 25 player squad rules and some teams already feeling the pinch to get in line with the new financial rules. Chelsea will suffer as they will not be able to spend big money to replace their current crop of stars and we are already seeing signs of this with their bench full of potential rather than proven quality. Teams like Man United, Arsenal and us should rise to the top as we are largely self sufficient, Liverpool could come back into the frame but without CL money their wage bill may be too big to compete and they will suffer especially if they do not make the CL this season or the next.

[Locke]

Wow. So, in a roundabout way they've effectively instituted a floating salary cap. Instead of a hard number its a percentage of profits relative to each team.

That being said though, the initial cost of the player regardless of when you bought him should be factored in when attempting to ascertain what the clubs' 'profits' are. I dont think you can just pick a date and consider that so long as the club held the player before this whatever his initial cost was is immaterial and determine that any consideration for him is to be allocated as profit. That would go against any and all financial principles under almost any system.

'Profit' is a pretty specific and well defined term. Revenue remaining after costs and expenses, you cant just ignore costs because their timing is inconvenient.

Then again, I'm rarely surprised when it comes to anything financially related in the world of soccer.

[Locke]

David Moyes says that Spurs cant have Phil Neville. Thats a damned shame.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Locke

David Moyes says that Spurs cant have Phil Neville. Thats a damned shame.

just put 100$ on Spurs to be relegated, that's the death knell