MaVilla Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 9 minutes ago, duke313 said: I assume he dies Haven't seen it in ages by that very bug....yeah, i think he gets his brain eaten! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas10 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_69 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Bitter pill time. Obviously another Man U (ignore the fact they are 100s millions in debt or arsenal fan). Embarrassing journalism Chelsea, Newcastle and Villa are leading a new age of PSR transfer nonsense Welcome, somehow, to the era of the “mutually beneficial” deal for accounting purposes. It all stinks... https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-newcastle-villa-leading-new-age-psr-transfer-nonsense-3126686?ITO=newsnow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) 7 minutes ago, randy_69 said: Bitter pill time. Obviously another Man U (ignore the fact they are 100s millions in debt or arsenal fan). Embarrassing journalism Chelsea, Newcastle and Villa are leading a new age of PSR transfer nonsense Welcome, somehow, to the era of the “mutually beneficial” deal for accounting purposes. It all stinks... https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-newcastle-villa-leading-new-age-psr-transfer-nonsense-3126686?ITO=newsnow Edited June 23 by Tubby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 6 minutes ago, randy_69 said: Bitter pill time. Obviously another Man U (ignore the fact they are 100s millions in debt or arsenal fan). Embarrassing journalism Chelsea, Newcastle and Villa are leading a new age of PSR transfer nonsense Welcome, somehow, to the era of the “mutually beneficial” deal for accounting purposes. It all stinks... https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-newcastle-villa-leading-new-age-psr-transfer-nonsense-3126686?ITO=newsnow Their tears are delicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 23 minutes ago, randy_69 said: Bitter pill time. Obviously another Man U (ignore the fact they are 100s millions in debt or arsenal fan). Embarrassing journalism Chelsea, Newcastle and Villa are leading a new age of PSR transfer nonsense Welcome, somehow, to the era of the “mutually beneficial” deal for accounting purposes. It all stinks... https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-newcastle-villa-leading-new-age-psr-transfer-nonsense-3126686?ITO=newsnow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Non PSR club fans getting salty about something they will be doing when their clubs have PSR issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 3 hours ago, MaVilla said: by that very bug....yeah, i think he gets his brain eaten! What's it from? Never seen that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: What's it from? Never seen that before. starship troopers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwi1890 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 13 minutes ago, gwi1890 said: Exactly!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post villa4europe Posted June 23 Popular Post Share Posted June 23 It does stink, it properly stinks and it's an absolute load of nonsense The alternative is they let us spend more money, let our owners spend their own money...they said no to that..**** em At it's core it's still the rules that are bollocks, don't hate the player hate the game 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) 15 minutes ago, villa4europe said: It does stink, it properly stinks and it's an absolute load of nonsense The alternative is they let us spend more money, let our owners spend their own money...they said no to that..**** em At it's core it's still the rules that are bollocks, don't hate the player hate the game Absolutely, this is in response to their rigid rules but whilst maybe a little unethical, it’s within the transfer rules and regulations so we’re doing nothing wrong. Edited June 23 by theboyangel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo_b Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Makes you feel like we are at a precipice in football where it could all start tumbling down and big changes are going to have to happen globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 This from a Liverpool supporting friend of mine: "Sorry Ian, but the only problem with this is the rules have no teeth. We have stayed within the rules and been successful, but not as successful as we should have been simply because Cite,have just dumped all over the rules in the last decade, arguably as a result having lost two titles by just one point there is a strong argument that if we had ignored the rules we may well have another two titles, plus what else. So no sympathy with any team that does not operate within the rules, the fact that such transactions are allowed to take place at the 11th hour to cheat the rules is a loophole that should be closed. Clubs know the rules if they can't abide by them they should be punished, the only issue at present is Cite and Chelski, and other big clubs seem to be immune to punishment." "Football is about sport first and foremost, what we have learned in the last 20 yesrs is that money buys success. The wealth of the owners should be moot, otherwise the sport just dies, the club with the wealthiest owners wins, the only competition is with other mega rich owners. You also can't compare football clubs with other businesses, unless of course you want them to be allowed to go bankrupt and cease to exist. At some point the bubble will burst, the rich will have other things to play with. and when they do think a few will be glad such rules were in place and the hole in their finances is not as big as it could have been. These financial rules may not be perfect but are better than nothing, teams just need to be punished properly when they break them." I've just pointed out to him that Liverpool have spent €40m or more on 17 players, Villa have done that once (and even then only after a whole string of performance bonuses have been applied). Also pointed out that whilst we have "lost" £135m in the last three seasons over the same period the value of the club has risen by close to £350m according to Forbes. So our owners haven't actually lost money at all (even if you add in losses that aren't included in FFP/PSR calculations). I love how he is convinced that Liverpool are victims of PSR and not massive benefactors of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 3 minutes ago, allani said: This from a Liverpool supporting friend of mine: "Sorry Ian, but the only problem with this is the rules have no teeth. We have stayed within the rules and been successful, but not as successful as we should have been simply because Cite,have just dumped all over the rules in the last decade, arguably as a result having lost two titles by just one point there is a strong argument that if we had ignored the rules we may well have another two titles, plus what else. So no sympathy with any team that does not operate within the rules, the fact that such transactions are allowed to take place at the 11th hour to cheat the rules is a loophole that should be closed. Clubs know the rules if they can't abide by them they should be punished, the only issue at present is Cite and Chelski, and other big clubs seem to be immune to punishment." "Football is about sport first and foremost, what we have learned in the last 20 yesrs is that money buys success. The wealth of the owners should be moot, otherwise the sport just dies, the club with the wealthiest owners wins, the only competition is with other mega rich owners. You also can't compare football clubs with other businesses, unless of course you want them to be allowed to go bankrupt and cease to exist. At some point the bubble will burst, the rich will have other things to play with. and when they do think a few will be glad such rules were in place and the hole in their finances is not as big as it could have been. These financial rules may not be perfect but are better than nothing, teams just need to be punished properly when they break them." I've just pointed out to him that Liverpool have spent €40m or more on 17 players, Villa have done that once (and even then only after a whole string of performance bonuses have been applied). Also pointed out that whilst we have "lost" £135m in the last three seasons over the same period the value of the club has risen by close to £350m according to Forbes. So our owners haven't actually lost money at all (even if you add in losses that aren't included in FFP/PSR calculations). I love how he is convinced that Liverpool are victims of PSR and not massive benefactors of it. ill be honest, i think in my heart i agree with him. Liverpool have done what we aspire to do, sold players for huge profit, reinvested smartly, huge commercial deals, stadium increase. And i think hes right, Liverpool have two more titles if it isnt for City. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 3 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: ill be honest, i think in my heart i agree with him. Liverpool have done what we aspire to do, sold players for huge profit, reinvested smartly, huge commercial deals, stadium increase. And i think hes right, Liverpool have two more titles if it isnt for City. I agree teams should be punished for breaking them. We're not breaking them so not sure why hes getting his arse in a twist about it. None of our sales are inflated. He's not right about the rules being good either. The rules are flawed because they started at an arbitrary point in history. At which time the clubs that had the most income had a permanent baked in benefit. That benefit has now grown to such an extent that there is no competition for the title, outside of the clubs with that permanent benefit. Reset the rulebook, make every club reregister all their players in a draft, and all start with the same sponsorships and maybe the rules can stay as they are, but otherwise they need to change. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 6 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: ill be honest, i think in my heart i agree with him. Liverpool have done what we aspire to do, sold players for huge profit, reinvested smartly, huge commercial deals, stadium increase. And i think hes right, Liverpool have two more titles if it isnt for City. All because they have been able to exploit their position with all the new money that has come into football. There were no rules around commercial deals when they started making them - now any deal that we make will be assessed as needing to be in line with market value - which by its very nature means that if we got a deal better than Liverpool then questions would be asked. FFP / PSR protects Liverpool and makes it difficult for us to challenge them. His points about City are different - that's about State ownership. But don't for one second think that the financial backing of Liverpool's owners hasn't helped them in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mark Albrighton Posted June 23 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted June 23 (edited) Is it the timing of the deals that are a sore point? Getting it done just in time to avoid sanctions? Are they unhappy about us selling Kellymam for £19m? Was it ok for Liverpool to sell Rhian no league appearances Brewster for £23m? Wasn’t Mount joining Man Utd a similar ffp thing, mainly for Chelsea? I’m not really a fan of all this, but I’m not quite following why some of the sky six are unhappy. Edited June 23 by Mark Albrighton 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 minute ago, Mark Albrighton said: Is it the timing of the deals that are a sore point? Getting it done just in time to avoid sanctions? Are they unhappy about us selling Kellymam for £19m? Was it ok for Liverpool to sell Rhian no league appearances Brewster for £23m? Wasn’t Mount joining Man Utd a similar ffp thing, mainly for Chelsea? I’m not really a fan of all this, but I not quite following why some of the sky six are unhappy. Yeah but it's different their Academy players are much, much better than ours apparently. Someone (not him) was trying to argue that Kellyman's actual value should be around £2m because he'd not heard of him before.... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts