2020/21 Soccer Thread: Messxit?

jowner wrote:

1963 the last time Liverpool gave up

The one consolation I take is that Liverpool won the league that year.

Mr Bismarck wrote:

Meanwhile, In Italy.

What I love the most about this, other than the wholesale Italian FA chaos of it, is that if Juve gets the 3-0 win, Ronaldo will demand he gets credit for at least 2.

Financial crisis? What financial crisis?

The Premier League have spent £1.2billion on transfers this window

That’s why you’ll not be getting any bail out from the Government, football.

International break could not come quicker for certain clubs * Liverpool, Manchester United*

Maybe not though? I feel like international breaks are just Covid roulette.

If I had to grade the Arsenal transfer window I'd give it a solid B-

Gabriel looks tasty and could sort out the defense.
Partey could be good now as he's 27. Also I'm considering a Partey Ghana Jersey. It's extremely nice imo. Also might look into what kind of £££/$$$ actually ends up in the FAs hands. Maybe it's short sighted but if I'm going to give my money away to a potentially corrupt African FA vs Arsenal. I'll give it to the FA.

The Arsenal social media team is still ace tho. #NoThomasNoPartey is a great tag.

Now the ugly stuff.

Willian on wages that are nonsensical. Who knows what report is actually accurate but even if he is playing well the age and £££ is scary.

Not enough players out. When the club is supposedly so poor they are sacking Gunnersaurus just for Ozil to save him. More dead weight needed to go. Obviously because of the current climate maybe that was impossible. Sokratis, Mustafi (injured), Kolasinac and one of Holding or Chambers could of left. Getting Torreira and Guenduozi out helps but loan deals so not sure if that means obligation to buy.

Really interested to see how the team lines up after the break assuming no plague.

jowner wrote:

Maybe not though? I feel like international breaks are just Covid roulette.

3 of the Scottish team have already tested positive. Tierney is now in isolation and will be for Arsenal’s next game.

It’s beyond stupid. Liverpool have an outbreak I don’t think is under control and Trent, Gomez and Henderson are all with the England Squad.

I mean. Come on.

Crisis may lead to Premier League B teams in EFL, says City's Soriano

Manchester City’s chief executive, Ferran Soriano, has called for a rethink of the football pyramid to consider the inclusion of Premier League B teams and has described the EFL’s business model as “not sustainable enough”.

All eyes are on the Premier League to come up with a rescue package for EFL clubs struggling for survival during the coronavirus pandemic that has deprived them of matchday income.

The government has insisted top-flight clubs should be the ones to look after the EFL, resisting calls for a state bailout. The Premier League is in talks with the EFL and it is understood they are looking for assurances over how the money is spent, with Championship clubs spending 107% of revenue on wages in the 2018-19 season.

Soriano believes this is a good time to look at the structure of English football, including how young talent at the top clubs is given opportunities.

“One of the challenges is the EFL [is] a business that is not sustainable enough,” he said at LeadersWeek.direct. “They were discussing ways to improve it, they were discussing salary caps, now they were sort of nudged, almost pushed, to solve the existing problems because of the crisis.

“It’s a good opportunity for the different elements of the football business to get together and solve these problems.

“There are other problems, the challenges of developing players in England where B teams are not allowed, we have a development gap of boys that are 17 or 18, they don’t find the right place to develop and for example they are taken from us by the German teams who try to sell them back to us for a price which is 10 times what they paid.

“This is mad, right? This is something we needed to solve and now maybe the crisis will give us the opportunity and will nudge us to get together and solve these issues.”

Ahem.

No.

Did he, though? He said he'd pay the dude's salary for as long as he (Ozil) is at Arsenal, which, honestly, I wasn't sure he was anymore. What is he doing, anyway?

Prederick wrote:

Ahem.

No.

If that's the price of a Premier League bail out of the lower leagues, it'll probably be "yes". The UK Government sure as hell aren't going to do it.

Something that came to mind today:

So where does the CL title and much-awaited PL title put Klopp among Liverpool managers? I assume the Mount Rushmore is Shankly-Paisley-Fagan-Daglish, is Klopp up there now? He's only got the two trophies people actually care about, but I'd argue he's as beloved as any of those four at the moment.

His win rate is (I think) higher than all of them, and Benitez is also widely well regarded as well.

He's extremely popular and just winning the league is enough to get him mentioned in the same breath for sure.

So something that is getting a hell of a lot of airtime over here in the UK at the moment is ‘Project Big Picture’ - a proposal from Fenway Sports Group (Liverpool’s owners) and the Glazer family (Man United’s owners). It’s quite detailed and also has the backing of the EFL (Championship, Leagues 1 & 2) Chairman, Rick Parry. However it’s been proposed with no consultation with any other Premiership club, or the Premier League. The Headline Proposals are:

1. Premier League reduced to 18 teams from the current 20. The League Cup and Community Shield are scrapped.

2. Parachute payments are dropped, but £250 million from the Premier League TV rights package is paid directly to the lower leagues. The FA also get £100million as well (to be honest this smacks of a bribe)

3. Promotion to the EPL is still two, but the 3rd place off would be between the 3rd, 4th and 5th teams of the Championship and the 16th placed team of the Premier League.

4. Premier League voting rights (currently 1 team, 1 vote) are consolidated to the big 6 (Liverpool, Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs) plus the 3 other longest serving teams - currently Southampton, Everton and West Ham(?!?) All the other side would lose their voting rights.

There’s some other stuff about how many votes would be needed to enact a change, but that basically boils down to ‘if the big 6 vote for it, it happens.

Ignoring the last part, which is a naked power grab and is also why this is doomed to failure (The Premier League and the UK Government really do not like it) and there has been a vitriolic reaction from pretty much all clubs and supports, including Liverpool’s and Man United’s.

However the first 2 parts are probably worthy of consideration. It’s a shame it’s been buried a little in all the negative press about it. It’s also International week and things are very slow on the football news front, so something like this was always going to get more attention than it probably deserves.

Sorbicol wrote:

2. Parachute payments are dropped, but £250 million from the Premier League TV rights package is paid directly to the lower leagues. The FA also get £100million as well (to be honest this smacks of a bribe)

The £250 million is actually an immediate one-off "bailout" payment.

Parachute payments would indeed be scrapped and replaced in future with 25% of "broadcasting revenues" going to the EFL.

As with all of these things the devil is in the details - if the Big Six negotiate independent TV deals do they count toward "broadcasting revenues," or does the EFL only get the cut of specifically the Premier League's media deals?

Also, once everyone agrees to this deal, can the Big Six just vote to change the EFL funding deal in future?

Enough Football League sides are in enough financial trouble that they'll line up to take this deal, whatever it looks like, and I expect loudest objection will come from clubs who see themselves as Premier League fixtures but are left out of the Six + Three "special" teams.

I think the FA needs 14 Premier League votes just to get this rolling, so they'll need to find five teams with enough short-termism that they'll take some immediate sop to vote to give away their own power.

Not sure I get the dropping down to 18 teams part?

This would reduce the total package of games that can be sold and would mean less money.

Can't see this getting passed at all.

I'd be so suspect of the owners trying to reduce the games because they don't actually want to. It's as if they are reducing the domestic related games so they can just replace them with alternate games that don't fall into any of these revenue sharing agreements.

jowner wrote:

Not sure I get the dropping down to 18 teams part?

This would reduce the total package of games that can be sold and would mean less money.

Can't see this getting passed at all.

I'd be so suspect of the owners trying to reduce the games because they don't actually want to. It's as if they are reducing the domestic related games so they can just replace them with alternate games that don't fall into any of these revenue sharing agreements.

To be honest I doubt it would. More like it would stay the same. All the money in football is in the Premier League in the UK, losing 2 teams unlikely to impact this, plus from the clubs point of view the game expanded European Leagues will take up any slack.

Coronavirus roulette chooses.... Ronaldo!

Recent contact besides the Portuguese National team. The French national team after their boring 0-0 draw where Ronaldo played the full game.

Yikes.

jowner wrote:

Coronavirus roulette chooses.... Ronaldo!

Recent contact besides the Portuguese National team. The French national team after their boring 0-0 draw where Ronaldo played the full game.

Yikes.

It got Saints Stuart Armstrong while on Scotland duty. I caught myself wondering how long the clubs will stomach international duty if it keeps up. Injuries are one thing -- potentially permanent lung damage is another entirely.

Kill off the League Cup, yes. Community Shield? Whatever.

Forget about the rest. jowner is right - fewer teams means less money, both from TV and tickets. They won't do that, and I don't see why they should, anyway. 20 teams is a good number.

If what some of the measures are trying to do is reduce fixture congestion, that's great. Hate that there are poison pill features included in this package. The voting thing has zero to do with helping the Championship, or eliminating the League Cup.

Well, the Prem clubs aren't fans.

No Premier League clubs have come out publicly in favour of the scheme, with most at best lukewarm on the idea. Some, however, were heavily critical of the manner in which the plans have been put together and West Ham, one of the clubs set to benefit from the changes, are understood to be appalled by the proposals.

In developments that further heightened the pressure, the government lambasted Project Big Picture and called on football to concentrate on bailing out clubs struggling during the Covid crisis. Meanwhile the chief executive of the EFL, David Baldwin, resigned only four months into the job while his chair, Rick Parry, remained the only figure to publicly endorse the plans.

The EFL said Baldwin’s departure was “not linked to Project Big Picture” and his decision was “taken prior to details of the proposals being made public over the weekend”.

When the 20 Premier League shareholders meet virtually they will be clear of one thing, the league itself is staunchly against Project Big Picture. Incandescent at Parry’s involvement, they see the scheme as being a power grab. Not just by the clubs – the big six, plus Everton, Southampton and West Ham – who would earn new “long‑term shareholder” voting rights, but by the EFL too. On Sunday Parry would not deny claims he had offered breakaway clubs a place in the Championship should the planned changes fail.

Premier League officials believe Project Big Picture, by unpicking the “one member, one vote” policy that has been a guiding principle since the division’s inception in 1992, will undermine its competitiveness. They also question the sums involved in the plans and whether the pooling of TV rights between the EFL and Premier League would generate a sufficient increase in revenue to help fund the pyramid.

Other voices in the game, however, believe the EFL is an undervalued competition, with an opportunity to grow its global audience even after Covid.

Welp

Premier League clubs have "unanimously agreed" that 'Project Big Picture' will not be "endorsed or pursued".

The controversial plans, proposed by Liverpool and Manchester United, were rejected at a meeting of the 20 clubs in England's top flight on Wednesday.

Instead, the clubs agreed to "work together" on a new "strategic plan" for the "financing of English football".

They also decided on a £50m rescue package for League One and Two clubs at the meeting.

A Premier League statement said "discussions will also continue with the EFL" over financial support for the Championship.

^Good. That whole "Big 6 Teams Get a Permanent Vote" thing was obnoxious.

EFL rejects £50m Premier League offer and wants control over money

English Football League clubs have rejected a £50m rescue package for League One and League Two after deeming the bailout inadequate and insist Championship clubs should be part of any deal.

Clubs are uncomfortable with the Premier League excluding second-tier teams from the loans and grants package on offer and league executives are unanimous in believing Championship clubs must be part of any future conversation.

Clubs also believe the EFL and not the Premier League should dictate where any financial support goes, although there is an acknowledgment that most League One and League Two clubs are in greater peril than those in the Championship and would be the first to receive such help.

A Championship source stressed the EFL is “72 clubs, not 48” and acknowledged the EFL must continue dialogue with the Premier League to establish a sufficient financial package.

One League One chairman described the Premier League’s offer, which was £20m in grants and £30m placed in reserve to prevent any clubs from going bust, as “embarrassing, disgraceful and disingenuous”, adding that the deal was akin to giving a “starving child tidbits to survive”.

A statement from the EFL was more conciliatory, saying that “while EFL clubs are appreciative that a formal proposal has now been put forward, the conditional offer of £50m falls some way short” of its financial requirements.

Emphasising the solidarity among the clubs it said: “There was a strong consensus that any rescue package must meet the requirements of all 72 clubs before it can be considered in full … The EFL is keen to continue discussions with the Premier League to reach an agreeable solution.”

The Merseyside derby can be summed up by what has become a depressing common phrase these days: A good game of football utterly ruined by VAR

Only difference this time is that it was offside decisions, not handballs. Frankly if Pickford had been sent off in the 10th minute and Liverpool won that game 4-2, Everton could have had few complaints.

Don't get me wrong I think VAR is the way forward. Just not this way. Holy God.

At this point, how much could Chelsea get for Kepa? It cannot possibly be more than 20.

Also, COVID killed defending.

Prederick wrote:

At this point, how much could Chelsea get for Kepa? It cannot possibly be more than 20.

Also, COVID killed defending.

They'll have to subsidize his wages just to get him out.

Definitely a negative-value player

Prederick wrote:

At this point, how much could Chelsea get for Kepa? It cannot possibly be more than 20.

Also, COVID killed defending.

Is that £20 or 20pence?

Oh man, they're saying Van Dijk did his ACL. Sad panda.

Prederick wrote:

Oh man, they're saying Van Dijk did his ACL. Sad panda.

Ouch. They'll still be fantastic, but not the same team without him. With City's less than stellar start and this injury, both Liverpool and Man City are looking mortal. It could be a tight race at the end.

Sorbicol wrote:

The Merseyside derby can be summed up by what has become a depressing common phrase these days: A good game of football utterly ruined by VAR

Only difference this time is that it was offside decisions, not handballs. Frankly if Pickford had been sent off in the 10th minute and Liverpool won that game 4-2, Everton could have had few complaints.

Don't get me wrong I think VAR is the way forward. Just not this way. Holy God.

I think we agree: VAR isn't the problem; terrible officiating is part of the problem. The other part is the current handball rule. Bonus problem is that VAR needs a margin of error for offside, benefit of the doubt going to the attacker.