The Great DOF Hunt of 2024

[Dr Gloom 23646]

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

 

Ratcliffe has got his rat. 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 23646]

Obviously they made us wait until after the psr window. Cunts 

[Dazzler 11838]

Step up agent Ashworth. Destroy the cunts from within. Good man.

[ewerk 33229]

8 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

Obviously they made us wait until after the psr window. Cunts 

I doubt they reached a deal in the last nine hours. I’m guessing a deal was struck within the last couple of days. I really hope we haven’t bent over for them due to our PSR situation.

[Gemmill 50002]

I reckon it'll probably be about £5m. I think it's a mistake that we've allowed him to start there for this window, particularly given we don't yet have a replacement. 

 

But I hope he's an absolute disaster there. He'll be there long term, you'd think, so Man United will be the first club that actually find out whether he's any good at his job. 

[thebrokendoll 10286]

24 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I doubt they reached a deal in the last nine hours. I’m guessing a deal was struck within the last couple of days. I really hope we haven’t bent over for them due to our PSR situation.

 

edwards implying we were still scraping about for money here despite pulling in £68m for anderson and minteh?

 

 

[Gemmill 50002]

Edwards won't have a clue. He's just lumping it in with the other deals for convenience. 

[thebrokendoll 10286]

45 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Edwards won't have a clue. He's just lumping it in with the other deals for convenience. 

 

downie implying we needed a few quid too.

I really hope you're right on this one, unfortunately you mostly tend to be wrong.

 

[Gemmill 50002]

Just now, thebrokendoll said:

 

downie implying we needed a few quid too.

I really hope you're right on this one, unfortunately you mostly tend to be wrong.

 

 

Waugh's article suggests that we still can't be entirely sure we're OK on PSR because of the questions around what are allowable expenses etc. So I guess it's possible that Ashworth was done to help out. 

 

All I'm saying is that Edwards won't know one way or the other. He'll lump them together to make his next article easier to write. 

[thebrokendoll 10286]

Just now, Gemmill said:

 

Waugh's article suggests that we still can't be entirely sure we're OK on PSR because of the questions around what are allowable expenses etc. So I guess it's possible that Ashworth was done to help out. 

 

All I'm saying is that Edwards won't know one way or the other. He'll lump them together to make his next article easier to write. 

 

begging the red dippers to take our player of the season off our hands and then going cap in hand to ratcliffe for a few quid.

bit if a shit look really.

[Gemmill 50002]

Aye totally. It's the idiotic rules that are to blame though. 

 

The sooner we can get ourselves to a position where we can comfortably operate without falling foul of them, the better. But we wouldn't have made anything like the progress we have if we hadn't taken the risks that have put us the wrong side of them. 

[OTF 8420]

Surely we will now absolutely piss in the PSR. If it's still close then I guess as much as it is still frustrating it makes the business we just conducted under duress even more impressive.

 

Nottingham Forest should be a much better option for Anderson to get playing time. Minteh is a tough one, especially as it's likely we will sell Almiron and there would have been great opportunity for him here.

[LondonBlue 1021]

so have you guys done enough to pass PSR ?

 

 

[Gemmill 50002]

Sounds like we think so, but won't know for certain til Jan next year. 

[Monkeys Fist 45163]

6 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

you guys

[The Fish 11323]

7 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

so have you guys done enough to pass PSR ?

 

 

c£70m, much of it is profit. 

 

We should be golden.

[LondonBlue 1021]

20 hours ago, The Fish said:

c£70m, much of it is profit. 

 

We should be golden.

 

I genuinely hope you are.

 

As a City fan we obviously have our own issues, but if i was a fan of a club  nowhere near PSR issues (i'd have named one but i'm not sure i safely can) i'd be well unhappy with all these "swap" deals to make clubs compliant. I'd be like, "why did we bother following the rules when other clubs bypass the rules with these deals". Villa having to sell one of their best players in Douglas Luiz was just wrong. It actually makes me mad and i'm pretty relaxed on most things. My anger at that isn't even softened by City having a sell on clause on him.

 

These swaps just go to show how inept the PL is. 

 

1. The rules are wrong.

2. They don't work.

 

I believe clubs should have a positive bottom line and thats it. A bit like how you or i live our lives, a mortgage is fine but maxing out the credit cards is bad. That's roughly how football should be. Nothing wrong with gifts from the family. When my parents pass on, i would hope that i would be allowed to spend any inheritance or if a wealthy uncle bought me a flash car. Football should be the same. What i'm saying is that i should be worried about your spending power, but thanks to PSR i don't have to yet. And thats wrong.

 

 

 

[ewerk 33229]

They were talking about Aston Villa on the radio yesterday. They've just had their best ever PL season and are playing in the CL next season. Now they've been forced to sell one of their best players, aren't likely to get out of their CL group and are highly unlikely to finish top 4 again next season. All because they aren't allowed to invest further. It's nonsensical and damages the PL 'brand' internationally.

[Gemmill 50002]

The PL wrote to all clubs after the dodgy swap deals were going through last week, to say that the deals would be investigated for fair market value transgressions. 

 

Nowt will come of it, I'm sure. They just couldn't be seen to not do anything whilst clubs were openly taking the piss out of their rules. 

[NJS 4568]

That Chelsea hotel shit needs investigating. 

[Gemmill 50002]

7 minutes ago, NJS said:

That Chelsea hotel shit needs investigating. 

 

It's still not clear to me whether they've actually got away with that. Am I right in thinking that it'll fall into the PSR calc for the June 30 that's just passed? So we'll find out around Jan or so next year whether it's been accepted by the PL. 

[The Fish 11323]

37 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

I genuinely hope you are.

 

As a City fan we obviously have our own issues, but if i was a fan of a club  nowhere near PSR issues (i'd have named one but i'm not sure i safely can) i'd be well unhappy with all these "swap" deals to make clubs compliant. I'd be like, "why did we bother following the rules when other clubs bypass the rules with these deals". Villa having to sell one of their best players in Douglas Luiz was just wrong. It actually makes me mad and i'm pretty relaxed on most things. My anger at that isn't even softened by City having a sell on clause on him.

 

These swaps just go to show how inept the PL is. 

 

1. The rules are wrong.

2. They don't work.

 

I believe clubs should have a positive bottom line and thats it. A bit like how you or i live our lives, a mortgage is fine but maxing out the credit cards is bad. That's roughly how football should be. Nothing wrong with gifts from the family. When my parents pass on, i would hope that i would be allowed to spend any inheritance or if a wealthy uncle bought me a flash car. Football should be the same. What i'm saying is that i should be worried about your spending power, but thanks to PSR i don't have to yet. And thats wrong.

 

I don't think you'll get any dissent on here. 

 

We are all only too aware that there has been a scramble to stymie any progress we might enjoy. Other clubs are getting caught in the cross fire (like Villa), but we're very much the cause of all these rules against who sponsors you, who you can and cannot sell your players to, etc. 

 

What was PSR's remit? To discourage reckless ownership, right? Make sure Premier League clubs were run in a sustainable way. And to prevent some wealthy owner from spending whatever they liked thereby eroding any sense of fairness and competition from the league. It was also supposed to prevent the inflation of player fees

 

We still have reckless owners, some clubs are still not run in a sustainable way, wealthy owners are still spending whatever they like and player fees are still inflating. 

 

It needs an independent regulator to step in and codify a practical set of rules to govern spending, salaries, debt and sustainability.

 

The established teams have successfully applied pressure on the PL to stop any threat to the status quo. 

[LondonBlue 1021]

17 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

I don't think you'll get any dissent on here. 

 

We are all only too aware that there has been a scramble to stymie any progress we might enjoy. Other clubs are getting caught in the cross fire (like Villa), but we're very much the cause of all these rules against who sponsors you, who you can and cannot sell your players to, etc. 

 

What was PSR's remit? To discourage reckless ownership, right? Make sure Premier League clubs were run in a sustainable way. And to prevent some wealthy owner from spending whatever they liked thereby eroding any sense of fairness and competition from the league. It was also supposed to prevent the inflation of player fees

 

We still have reckless owners, some clubs are still not run in a sustainable way, wealthy owners are still spending whatever they like and player fees are still inflating. 

 

It needs an independent regulator to step in and codify a practical set of rules to govern spending, salaries, debt and sustainability.

 

The established teams have successfully applied pressure on the PL to stop any threat to the status quo. 

 

it failed massively to prevent the inflation of player fees.

 

some examples.

Virgil Van Dyke. ( forget the fact that Liverpool were caught tapping him up and had to wait to get him as a result ) we were in for him, but Liverpool set a world record for a defender.. We walked away. Cartel 1 New Money 0.

Fred. We had a deal agreed with player and club. Man U offered substantially more, more than he was worth, and the club and player changed their mind. Cartel 2 New Money 0.

Sanchez. Arsenal and the player accepted our bid. Man U came in with a late bid and money talked. Cartel 3 New Money 0.

Harry Maguire. Same story.

New Money Man City continually walk away if a player goes over our valuation.

Think i'll start a thread on bluemoon on this subject as there are loads more that i can't remember their names and can't be bothered looking up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ohhh_yeah 3053]

36 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

it failed massively to prevent the inflation of player fees.

 

some examples.

Virgil Van Dyke. ( forget the fact that Liverpool were caught tapping him up and had to wait to get him as a result ) we were in for him, but Liverpool set a world record for a defender.. We walked away. Cartel 1 New Money 0.

Fred. We had a deal agreed with player and club. Man U offered substantially more, more than he was worth, and the club and player changed their mind. Cartel 2 New Money 0.

Sanchez. Arsenal and the player accepted our bid. Man U came in with a late bid and money talked. Cartel 3 New Money 0.

Harry Maguire. Same story.

New Money Man City continually walk away if a player goes over our valuation.

Think i'll start a thread on bluemoon on this subject as there are loads more that i can't remember their names and can't be bothered looking up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"New Money Man City" acquired the club in 2008 and now around £1.7 billion in transfers!  

 

[MrBass 3045]

1 hour ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Someone dropped a shite in Chelsea's hotel?

 

Glass coffee table in reception apparently, then stacked a bunch of brochures on top. Where were you on the night of the June 7th?