So what do you think? Has winning the cup moved the needle at all, or will it still be ETH out?
They absolutely should fire him. United were the worst coached ābigā team ive ever seen.
They had the second biggest payroll/wages this season and finished with a negative goal difference and the 15th expected goal difference. They lost the most games in their entire history.
They were a truly terrible side that won a trophy because a lower division team was an inch offside in the previous round.
1 Like
If Chelsea is firing their manager, shouldnāt they do it in January? Why wait until the full season is over when the team has improved significantly and would probably be projected for a top 4 finish next year?
from the rumors i saw from chelsea content creators, Poch wanted more say in things and a longer deal and boehly and co were like no thanks. execs want Pep possession football not frantic press-counterattack, so they were building the squad for that, which caused some sticking points in personnel. like poch LOVES gallagher and the admin want to sell him both for PSR reasons and to make way for enzo/caicedo.
gallagher is 100% to go now that poch is gone imo. iāve watched about 10 or so āmaresca tacticsā videos over the last couple days and it seems pretty clear that Enzo fernandez will be a big part in marescaās system but was not in Pochās(although to be fair to enzo he was playing hurt since November).
enzo plays the deep lying playmaker, caicedo plays the ndidi 8, and palmer plays the dewsbury-hall 8. lavia backs up caicedo/enzo carney chukwumeka backs up palmer. gallagher doesnāt get into that team.
Firstly, its about Money and chelsea cant afford to be paying more people not to play/manage them. Theyāre still paying a lot of people not to be in the building. They have leaked reports about selling off the womens team for a short term cash injection. They will likely have to sell gallagher, maatsen, broja and a few others to meet their financial deficit.
They are basically fucked any year they dont make the Champions league in the short term.
Chelsea might just be kind of fine and finish 4th next year. Not especially crazy. But that Leicester team had a significant talent edge on their opponents and the same strength of schedule. The chelsea midfield largely didnt work last season and they will have a thursday/sunday conference league schedule all year.
I would expect both Villa and Chelsea to regress given the burden of European football next season, while Newcastle are right there with chelsea for 4th provided they only sell one of Isak/Guimares and reinvest wisely.
Does Newcastle have to sell Isak/Guimares? I thought they had that oil money now?
So, Leicester, Newcastle and Villa all lost ~Ā£100m last financial year. Newcastle, despite making the CL, only got ~30m in revenue from it because they went out at the group stage. This is compared to arsenal/city who made 100m for it.
Leicester, Newcastle and Villa all ran wage bills that were 90-100% of their revenues. This is not good, nor really allowed anymore unless you want to get a points deduction. Leicester almost surely cant avoid one next year, and will be in trouble to stay up.
Villa might be ok because they made the CL, but also might have to shave some salary/sell someone before June 30. Not seeing their accounts I cant know for sure.
Newcastle will have to make a sale, and it appears both Arsenal and City will be interested in Bruno Guimares at ~Ā£80m. Heās 27, if they get that much or more and invest some of it into younger players they will be fine.
Because Newcastle have very low commercial revenue relative to the other top teams because their old owner ignored such for decades, they get hurt a lot here. But, this is the last year this will matter as they just voted in new restrictions.
The old financial rules lead to a revenue arms race, which basically just lead to man city cheating and is a lot of the 115 charges they are now facing. Inflated sponsorships through shell companies and the like. Now, instead of just state owned teams finding ways to juice revenue, sending will be based on the tv/league sponsorship of the last place teamx4.5.
imo, it will just depend on injuries. chelsea is obviously deep enough if they dont have 10 concurrent injuries all season long. i agree with you about leicester and having a roster edge, i personally was pulling for de zerbi but i didnāt think he would get the job because the execs donāt want someone who will talk back to them.
chelsea continue to maintain that they dont need to sell anyone before the june 30th deadline for this previous year so IF we believe themā¦ i think even if the hotel sale doesnāt go through, chelsea have plenty of income through sales to coast through at least the '25 yr. lewes hallās option is already triggered for ~28, gallagher will go for ~40, maatsenās clause is 35 with several teams circling. and already you are at the dreaded ā100 million neededā that all the articles are talking about. and we havenāt even gotten to broja, chalobah, chillwell, lukaku, sterling(fingers crossed).
you are right in that they canāt keep doing that every year, it has to end with them getting back into ucl for that 100 or so million payday.
The hotel wont count for PSR, its just Boehly playing the press and leaking stuff. Same with ānot needing to sell.ā
looks like the premier league failed in their quest to close the loophole to stop the things like the chelsea hotel sales from counting on PSR.
"The Premier League considered taking the same action but its clubs did not feel strongly enough about it at the time for the league to put it to a vote.
That changed, however, this season when [Chelsea] avoided breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for Ā£76.5million (now $98m). This was enough to turn a Ā£166.4million loss in 2022-23 into a Ā£89.9million deficit for the club.
Widespread anger about that transaction forced the Premier League to look at its rulebook again, with the result being the proposal to copy the [EFL]ās prohibition on using such windfalls in PSR calculations.
The amendment failed, however, because several clubs thought the wording of the ban was too wide, according to people with knowledge of the proposal. It did not clearly distinguish between the type of non-football revenues that clubs believe they should be encouraged to exploit, such as building hotels, houses or indoor arenas, and the accountancy tricks of selling existing property to yourself."
Come on Fulham!
1 Like
https://x.com/MenInBlazers/status/1825219413198667788
if this is the rule people want, then thatās fine i guess. but there should probably just be no handballs in the box for defenders anymore then, because if this is clean than i dont know what would be an example of something that would be givenā¦
it ticks all the old boxes that people normally talk about. unnatural position, arm raised away from body perpendicularly, makes body bigger, blocks the crossā¦
1 Like
This is fine. There has to be some intent even if that intent is just to make yourself bigger to block a cross or whatever. He isnāt doing that here.
1 Like
And making defenders run with their arms tied behind their back was dumb
1 Like
yeah, i certainly canāt see a possible middle ground between having defenders hands behind their back and waving them at shoulder height making their bodies bigger stopping crossesā¦
lol.
i dont think iāve ever seen a hand ball with defender āintentā whatever that means. other than maybe luis suarez vs ghanaā¦
1 Like
Looks to me like he was trying to get the ball and had his arm extended as it was going for it (before the other guy kicked it into him). I think Iām in favor of blasting the ball into an opponents arm not being a free goal.
Not a fan of leaving handballs open to interpretation of intent. I prefer that if your arms are not touching your body then it is a handball. Tough luck if an attacker manages to hit your hand otherwise.