General Football 23/24

[dom9]

Appreciate the sentiment Baity.

[EwarWoo]

under review as often the money isnt spent on the squad or player development. some owners just pocketing the money.

It's not supposed to be for player development it's to stop them going bust.

Dropping out of the PL would massively reduce a clubs income, however with players usually on contracts it doesn't necessarily decrease their expenditure.

If they can offload players it's gravy, but that won't always be possible.

[baitman]

It's not supposed to be for player development it's to stop them going bust.

Dropping out of the PL would massively reduce a clubs income, however with players usually on contracts it doesn't necessarily decrease their expenditure.

If they can offload players it's gravy, but that won't always be possible.

i only skim read the article.

quote;
The amount of parachute payments given to clubs relegated from the Premier League is under review amidst concerns that the system is being misused.
The ‘Big Six’ clubs are questioning whether payments of up to £90million for relegated sides is encouraging them to pocket the money rather than invest in their squads to stay up.
Informal discussions are expected to take place when chief executives meet at a Premier League shareholders meeting on Thursday...
...Getting rid of parachute payments is unlikely but there may be a revised deal to ensure clubs who invest in their squads are better protected than those who do not.

[ChesterDave]

I think the suggestion that teams are not investing in their squad to stay up because of the parachute payments is a little disingenuous self-interest from the bigger clubs.

Sunderland are getting £97,000,000 this year. It is a little out there to think clubs would take relegation to get £90m parachute payment over 3 years. They've got to come back up and they'd get the £90m per season if they stayed in the PL.

I've had a look at the numbers and I think we are actually going to get £150m or so. We are at £150.5m now but may lose some money for finishing lower than 3rd but we will get more for a tv appearance next week. Hull and Boro are both getting over £100m this season.

[Kenneth]

How much have Boro and Hull invested to try and stay up? I would suggest that they decided to take the money and run before they played their first game. The money from this season mostly banked and the parachute payments set them up at a huge advantage next season to rinse and repeat the money spinner. It ****s up the sporting integrity of the championship. Obviously they would have happily fluked another year or two in the PL but it didn't look like they were prepared to gamble to try and do so.

[BigChief]

I think the suggestion that teams are not investing in their squad to stay up because of the parachute payments is a little disingenuous self-interest from the bigger clubs.

Sunderland are getting £97,000,000 this year. It is a little out there to think clubs would take relegation to get £90m parachute payment over 3 years. They've got to come back up and they'd get the £90m per season if they stayed in the PL.

I've had a look at the numbers and I think we are actually going to get £150m or so. We are at £150.5m now but may lose some money for finishing lower than 3rd but we will get more for a tv appearance next week. Hull and Boro are both getting over £100m this season.

You answered your own question there Chests. Kenneth elaborated. Earn the £100m now. Feck spending £50m of it trying to stay up and lumbering the club with overpaid players on long contacts. Go down, keep pocketing the money for three more years. Then sell the club for a penny. No overpriced players draining the parachute payments.

That's exactly what I'd do.

[Fernandinho]

Kenneth absolutely nailed it. Hull even sold Snodgrass during the season and the majority of the players they bought in were on loan, for the inevitable relegation.

Feel for Marco Silva because he still gave it an excellent crack. Wouldn't be surprised to see him at another PL club next season.

[Shaggy]

[ame]https://twitter.com/PortuGoal1/status/864250094496907265[/ame]

[Red_Polo]

https://twitter.com/PortuGoal1/statu...50094496907265

Mental. I feel old

[Roboklopp]

Aye Remember watching that with my schoolmate just after we'd finished the 6th form & just before we went interrailing.

****e celebration tho.

[Irishnev]

https://twitter.com/PortuGoal1/statu...50094496907265

And to add to that - Mazhino celebrated with him, his two sons are in their mid twenties playing for Bayern (Thiago) and Barca (Rafinha)

[Fosterbloke]

**** me I feel REALLY old now...

[Red_Polo]

Diving bans: Football Association approves retrospective action

Under the new rules, passed by the governing body at its annual general meeting on Thursday, a panel will review footage each Monday looking for cases of simulation.

Any player unanimously found guilty of diving would be given a suspension.

The FA also announced it has passed reforms it proposed in March, following criticism over the way it is run.

The FA defines the new offence for which players will be punished as "successful deception of a match official".

Only incidents that result in a player winning a penalty or lead to an opponent being sent off - through either a direct red card or two yellow cards - will be punished.

The FA says it will act "where there is clear and overwhelming evidence to suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation, and as a direct result, the offending player's team has been awarded a penalty and/or an opposing player has been dismissed".

Its panel will consist of one former match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player.

The announcement follows what the FA said was "a period of consultation with stakeholders over the past few months".

The rule change also required approval from the Premier League, the EFL and the Professional Footballers' Association.

Speaking in December, Burnley manager Sean Dyche said he thought diving would be eradicated from football "in six months" if retrospective bans were introduced.

Such bans have been utilised in Scottish football since 2011.

What happens in Scotland?

BBC Scotland's Richard Wilson:

The Scottish Football Association compliance officer - Tony McGlennan - reviews incidents in matches and determines whether or not notices of complaint should be raised.

If a player is deemed to have dived during a game and the match officials did not recognise that at the time, the player will be issued with a disciplinary notice.

The player can then either acknowledge guilt and accept the punishment offered by the compliance officer, or appeal.

If it is the latter, a hearing is convened with an independent three-man panel - including people from legal and football backgrounds - who consider the case made by the compliance officer and the player before making a ruling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39962886

Anyone see that sneering ****** Allardyce calling this 'utter rubbish'? The argument the oaf put forward was absolutely irrelevant, and he was really looking down his nose as he went about ****ting all over the idea. I think I'm literally only posting this as a bit of a stream of consciousness thing having just remembered how much I hate the prick

[ChesterDave]

It's farcical that it is so narrow. Should do it in all cases whether a red for pen or first yellow for fk. And should go ban those that get busted by the ref rather than just leaving it as a booking

[Darkon]

[ame]https://twitter.com/kevin_blundell/status/865845550465261568[/ame]