The whatever footie that's going on (with actual fans) thread

city_boy

pinarello001 wrote:

I don't feel a divine right as an Arsenal supporter to a premiership win. It's just that Arsenal have a team of highly talented players who are actually less than the sum of all it's parts. I cannot believe that after their recent defensive frailties and the return of Koscielny, they haven't learnt their lesson or improved.

I take it by "they" you mean Wenger? I agree that you have some great players but they are mainly in the midfield department. The defence and GK positions are well short of what's needed to be successful but that's been the case for years and AW has consistently refused to do something about it! The money spent on Ozil and Sanchez combined could have been used much more wisely to improve the team overall but either AW chose not to or the players you really needed chose not to come!

I'm not sure you're ever going to see any noticeable improvement under Wenger. You certainly won't "win the title within the next two years"! :shock: I think it's time for a new manager for your boys. I'm not sure whether Sanchez will want to hang around if there's no CL next season......if he doesn't, I'd have at City in a heartbeat. I think he his a fantastic player.

pinno

I don't think that Arsenal need to spend at the back. For the most of last season with almost the same defensive players, we were pretty tight. There are much more inexpensive back lines in the Pl who play much better. Arsenal lack organisation, discipline and therefore confidence.
I'm not sure our midfield are that good either. On a player by player basis, they are top notch but their frailties as a solid centre leave the defence exposed.This weakness is exploited again and again when we play the big teams - we never win the midfield battle despite all the great mid-fielders we have.
When Arsenal were at the top, the likes of Adams, Dixon and co did a great job and the biggest aspect of that was organisation - something that has got worse as the years go on, which I find inexplicable.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

I don't think that Arsenal need to spend at the back. For the most of last season with almost the same defensive players, we were pretty tight. There are much more inexpensive back lines in the Pl who play much better. Arsenal lack organisation, discipline and therefore confidence.
I'm not sure our midfield are that good either. On a player by player basis, they are top notch but their frailties as a solid centre leave the defence exposed.This weakness is exploited again and again when we play the big teams - we never win the midfield battle despite all the great mid-fielders we have.
When Arsenal were at the top, the likes of Adams, Dixon and co did a great job and the biggest aspect of that was organisation - something that has got worse as the years go on, which I find inexplicable.

Too much flair, not enough steel. Simple as.

tim_wand

We started the season with only six first team recognisable defenders. Two of those were new acquisitions , one of whom was 19 and playing out of position. At any time during the season at least 3 of those 6 have been either injured or suspended.

If week in week out we could field a back five of Sczeney, Debuchey, Mertesaker,Konscielney and Gibbs we would be fine.

The fact that we cant and that Wenger has made no provision for this ( its not as though other clubs don't suffer player injuries and suspensions) is laughable and needs sorting in this window. But I doubt it will be.

Manc33

Arsenal would have won the league quite a few times over the last 20 years were it not for Sir Alex Ferguson's god-like management skills. I don't blame Wenger for that.

Stevo_666

tim wand wrote:

needs sorting in this window. But I doubt it will be.

How many times have we heard that?

tim_wand

Stevo 666 wrote:

tim wand wrote:

needs sorting in this window. But I doubt it will be.

How many times have we heard that?

At Chelsea? Never! Unless your talking about the manager of Course.

Stevo_666

tim wand wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

tim wand wrote:

needs sorting in this window. But I doubt it will be.

How many times have we heard that?

At Chelsea? Never! Unless your talking about the manager of Course.

Not at Chelsea - I was thinking about Arsenal...

tim_wand

Stevo 666 wrote:

tim wand wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

tim wand wrote:

needs sorting in this window. But I doubt it will be.

How many times have we heard that?

At Chelsea? Never! Unless your talking about the manager of Course.

Not at Chelsea - I was thinking about Arsenal...

I was trying to make the old Sour Grapes point, that we don't tend to throw money at our problems, Except for Ozil of course that was just throwing away money to cause one. :!:

ballysmate

All you Arsenal fans. What was the score with Podolski? Always thought he was top drawer.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

What was the score with Podolski? Always thought he was top drawer.

ballysmate

Ballysmate wrote:

All you Arsenal fans. What was the score with Podolski? Always thought he was top drawer.

See, I know all the cliches.

city_boy

Probably best to carry on the debate in here

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Maybe you or Cornerblock can explain what rules we have gotten around?

I explained it above. Also as the article was published last September it is out date after Lampards stay at City was extended to the end of the English PL season - see point 5 below.

Anyway, let me try to explain again how I see it:-
1. FFP places limits on the level of losses that a club can make in a year. That is the key rule here.
2. The cost of buying/selling player and also their wages are part of the profit/loss calculation for the purposes of point 1 above.
3. FFP allows UEFA to adjust the cost of these transactions if they are not carried out at 'fair value' (i.e. the value at which independent parties would do the deal)
4. Man City and New York FC are not independent parties as they have the same owner.
5. It is highly unlikely that New York FC would have lent their star player to another club so that the player missed a good part of the MLS season without getting substantially compensated for that (on top of City paying the wages, which is a given as he is playing for City).
6. City are only paying Lampards wages, they did not give NYFC any compensation over and above paying his wages.
7. Therefore the transaction is not at fair value and the result is that City's loss for the year will be lower than if they paid the market rate to NYFC in the circumstances.
8. See point 1 above - if this transaction makes the difference between City making a losses within the FFP threshold and exceeding the threshold, then City will have have artificially got around the FFP rules.

Clear enough for ya?

1. Yes, and it would appear that City are to fall comfortably within that requirement. Remember, as part of the FFP restrictions placed on City they were on allowed a £49m net transfer spend. They have only spent £24m nett so far so are well within the limits.
2. He was a free transfer and we are paying his wages.
3. Yes it does, and they may well choose to do so (that would be UEFA's decision, not City's) and the article states that, given Lampard's age and stage of his career that it is very likely that we will have deemed to meet the fair value requirements. Not withstanding that:
a) we are still subject to that rule, we have not got around it, and;
b) even if they make an adjustment there is no evidence to suggest it would have a significant effect on our financials
4. Not in dispute. But there are rules governing deals between such clubs to which we must adhere to. Again, we are not 'getting around' them?
5) The initial loan period was for 6 months prior to MLS season. It provided an opportunity for FL to train/play at a high level and maintain his match fitness. There is nothing wrong in this and is by no means unusual, with lots of examples of MLS players doing the same thing in England and Europe. There is no denying that there was a benefit for us in terms of reaching the home grown quota for CL group stage (although we could have easily done this without FL) and as the article alludes to, in order to meet the squad quotas and fall within the imposed restriction we would probably need to look at free and loan transfers. So in that respect we were actually acting in a responsible and necessary way to comply with FFP.
Re the extended loan period. As far as I know, it is unknown whether any compensation has been made to NYC (happy to be informed one way or another), but again to suggest that by paying such compensation would cause us to fail the profit/loss requirements is, I believe, pure speculation.
6. As 5
7. Who says it's not at fair value? As said above, UEFA are at liberty to assess and adjust as necessary, City can't prevent that, we haven't got around it!
8. "If" is the key word , certainly you, I or Cornerblock don't know that. That's for UEFA to decide and a City to justify if that is required. But as I said earlier, by taking this route rather than simply signing the player on a free, we have, if anything, 'arguably(?) created more potential issues with FFP so as I said before to suggest we have done it to to get around the rules is, at best, unsubstantiated.

The bottom line is that City have played intelligently by the rules and brought in a player who's proving to be making a difference in the title race and it's p1ssing people off. (Wenger being the chief protagonist :roll: ), but then he does seem to spend more time moaning about what other teams do than sorting out his own problems.

If (again, 'if' being the operative word!) City do win the league and FL plays a big part in that, I'm sure there will be a deluge of slapped @rse sour grapes from certain quarters, and that will just add to the enjoyment!

tim_wand

I don't give a shoot if Fat Frank stays and Plays for Man City. I find it hilarious and a good Counterpoint in Managers Decision making to help me get over the fact that We could have had Fabregas back, but didn't .

Its some consolation that Mourinho decided to let Fat Frank go but Ultimately I know which manager made the worse decision.

I don't think Fat Frank will make the difference at City but if he did! at least it might teach some clubs that spending mega bucks is not always the answer.

But I hope to feck we spend some dosh this January

As for Podolski, I loved him. something different for the @rse, a player who would take the direct route and shoot (and more often score) rather than look to take the extra touch or perfect ball in box like the rest of our oh so creative forwards.

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Probably best to carry on the debate in here

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Maybe you or Cornerblock can explain what rules we have gotten around?

I explained it above. Also as the article was published last September it is out date after Lampards stay at City was extended to the end of the English PL season - see point 5 below.

Anyway, let me try to explain again how I see it:-
1. FFP places limits on the level of losses that a club can make in a year. That is the key rule here.
2. The cost of buying/selling player and also their wages are part of the profit/loss calculation for the purposes of point 1 above.
3. FFP allows UEFA to adjust the cost of these transactions if they are not carried out at 'fair value' (i.e. the value at which independent parties would do the deal)
4. Man City and New York FC are not independent parties as they have the same owner.
5. It is highly unlikely that New York FC would have lent their star player to another club so that the player missed a good part of the MLS season without getting substantially compensated for that (on top of City paying the wages, which is a given as he is playing for City).
6. City are only paying Lampards wages, they did not give NYFC any compensation over and above paying his wages.
7. Therefore the transaction is not at fair value and the result is that City's loss for the year will be lower than if they paid the market rate to NYFC in the circumstances.
8. See point 1 above - if this transaction makes the difference between City making a losses within the FFP threshold and exceeding the threshold, then City will have have artificially got around the FFP rules.

Clear enough for ya?

1. Yes, and it would appear that City are to fall comfortably within that requirement. Remember, as part of the FFP restrictions placed on City they were on allowed a £49m net transfer spend. They have only spent £24m nett so far so are well within the limits.
2. He was a free transfer and we are paying his wages.
3. Yes it does, and they may well choose to do so (that would be UEFA's decision, not City's) and the article states that, given Lampard's age and stage of his career that it is very likely that we will have deemed to meet the fair value requirements. Not withstanding that:
a) we are still subject to that rule, we have not got around it, and;
b) even if they make an adjustment there is no evidence to suggest it would have a significant effect on our financials
4. Not in dispute. But there are rules governing deals between such clubs to which we must adhere to. Again, we are not 'getting around' them?
5) The initial loan period was for 6 months prior to MLS season. It provided an opportunity for FL to train/play at a high level and maintain his match fitness. There is nothing wrong in this and is by no means unusual, with lots of examples of MLS players doing the same thing in England and Europe. There is no denying that there was a benefit for us in terms of reaching the home grown quota for CL group stage (although we could have easily done this without FL) and as the article alludes to, in order to meet the squad quotas and fall within the imposed restriction we would probably need to look at free and loan transfers. So in that respect we were actually acting in a responsible and necessary way to comply with FFP.
Re the extended loan period. As far as I know, it is unknown whether any compensation has been made to NYC (happy to be informed one way or another), but again to suggest that by paying such compensation would cause us to fail the profit/loss requirements is, I believe, pure speculation.
6. As 5
7. Who says it's not at fair value? As said above, UEFA are at liberty to assess and adjust as necessary, City can't prevent that, we haven't got around it!
8. "If" is the key word , certainly you, I or Cornerblock don't know that. That's for UEFA to decide and a City to justify if that is required. But as I said earlier, by taking this route rather than simply signing the player on a free, we have, if anything, 'arguably(?) created more potential issues with FFP so as I said before to suggest we have done it to to get around the rules is, at best, unsubstantiated.

The bottom line is that City have played intelligently by the rules and brought in a player who's proving to be making a difference in the title race and it's p1ssing people off. (Wenger being the chief protagonist :roll: ), but then he does seem to spend more time moaning about what other teams do than sorting out his own problems.

If (again, 'if' being the operative word!) City do win the league and FL plays a big part in that, I'm sure there will be a deluge of slapped @rse sour grapes from certain quarters, and that will just add to the enjoyment!

The two key points are:
1. Did City enter into a deal with NYFC for Lampard that cost them less than it would have done if NYFC and City did not have a common owner?
- Given that NYFC have now been deprived of one of their 2 'Marquee' signings in their key inaugural season (the other one being David Villa), it is inconceivable that they would have agreed to extending the Lampard loan deal without major compensation being paid. If you were managing NYFC, would you agree to that? No way I ever would. So the answer to the above question is clearly yes.

2. Will this artificial boost to City's financial results cause it to pass the FFP test on losses when it would have otherwise failed?
- You're right, we don't yet know as the test looks at the overall losses of the club in the relevant period. But City are not out of this yet as the decision still needs to be taken by UEFA.

Regardless of the this, the FFP sanctions don't impact the Premier League - as far as I know they have not broken any PL rules so I am not moaning about that. If City really wanted to win the PL above everything and decided to take any FFP/CL sanctions on the chin they could have gone out and bought/loaned in one or more other quality players instead of or as well as Lampard. But clearly winning the Champions League is very important to City given the approach they have taken to this

The FFP sanctions impact cash (which doesn't matter for City) and the CL (restricted squad etc). So maybe if City went and won the Champions League and the Lampard deal might have affected the situation in that competition, then maybe people might rightly moan. But that's not likely to happen is it

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

The two key points are:
1. Did City enter into a deal with NYFC for Lampard that cost them less than it would have done if NYFC and City did not have a common owner?
- Given that NYFC have now been deprived of one of their 2 'Marquee' signings in their key inaugural season (the other one being David Villa), it is inconceivable that they would have agreed to extending the Lampard loan deal without major compensation being paid. If you were managing NYFC, would you agree to that? No way I ever would. So the answer to the above question is clearly yes.

2. Will this artificial boost to City's financial results cause it to pass the FFP test on losses when it would have otherwise failed?
- You're right, we don't yet know as the test looks at the overall losses of the club in the relevant period. But City are not out of this yet as the decision still needs to be taken by UEFA.

Regardless of the this, the FFP sanctions don't impact the Premier League - as far as I know they have not broken any PL rules so I am not moaning about that. If City really wanted to win the PL above everything and decided to take any FFP/CL sanctions on the chin they could have gone out and bought/loaned in one or more other quality players instead of or as well as Lampard. But clearly winning the Champions League is very important to City given the approach they have taken to this

The FFP sanctions impact cash (which doesn't matter for City) and the CL (restricted squad etc). So maybe if City went and won the Champions League and the Lampard deal might have affected the situation in that competition, then maybe people might rightly moan. But that's not likely to happen is it

1. Quite possibly, although we don't know for certain.
I thought Villa was returning from Australia for the start of the MLS season, I am happy to be corrected on that.
No, if I was in charge of NYFC, I wouldn't have allowed the extension of the loan even if compensation was paid (we still don't know whether it has or hasn't?). But, as I have said, what FFP rules have been broken or gotten around?

My main argument was against Cornerblock's statement that City had used NYFC and the loan system to "get around the rules". So the my question is (mainly to Cornerblock) is: what rules have been gotten around and what benefit to City (in terms of said FFP rules) has gained by loaning him from NY as opposed to procuring his services directly by means of a free transfer?

2. As you say, we don't know. But we have not got around UEFA entering the relevant processes and making their decision accordingly. But I'm sure you will agree that even following that processes it is highly unlikely that we will fail any FFP requirements because we haven't!

I also agree that MCFC is more important to the owner's global businesses aspirations than NYFC and the EPL and especially CL success is a priority for the owners. Any success in the CL, I am certain, will be achieved with City complying with FFP. I am also of the belief that we only failed FFP last time because UEFA moved the goal posts (and we know why that happened, and indeed why FFP was introduced in the first place, don't we ). I am also confident that had City chosen to challenge FFP and the imposed sanction in the courts they would have taken UEFA to the cleaners!

Stevo_666

I guess we'll find out in the next year as eventually we'll see whether the FFP sanctions imposed on City for previous rule breaches are lifted.

Anyway, back to the handbags next Saturday :P

Manc33

I reckon United will do Southampton about 4-0.

city_boy

Well well Stevo!

Looks like City could be breaking your heart twice this season

Chelsea V Millwall :shock:
Looks like sales of baseball bats and Stanley knives will be on the up!

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Well well Stevo!

Looks like City could be breaking your heart twice this season

Que?

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Well well Stevo!

Looks like City could be breaking your heart twice this season

Que?

I'm assuming you've seen the FA Cup draw?

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Well well Stevo!

Looks like City could be breaking your heart twice this season

Que?

I'm assuming you've seen the FA Cup draw?

Nope.

city_boy

City v Middlesbrough :twisted:

Chelsea v Millwall :shock:

city_boy

Sorry, Millwall or Bradford!

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

City v Middlesbrough :twisted:

Chelsea v Millwall :shock:

Given how City struggled against little 'ol Sheffield Wednesday the other day, I'd say The Boro are in with a decent shout When you get to the end of the season, you may find the main difference between Boro and City is that Boro never expected to win anything

Flâneur

Liverpool are solid, going to challenge for 4th I swear to god we are. And in reality

laurentian

tim wand wrote:

I don't think Fat Frank will make the difference at City .

Seems to be making quite a difference though . . . :

Equalizer vs Chelsea for a point

Winner vs Leicester for 3 points

Winner vs Sunderland for 3 points

Without those 7 points, City would not be worrying Chelsea

Manc33

Middlesbrough are an "FA Cup team" though, who just somehow usually do well in the competition regardless of who is managing them, they will up their game against a big team, or might just park the bus, Man City are in trouble.

Draw at City then a replay and win for Boro at theirs.

"Middlesbrough have failed to return to the Premier League since their 2009 relegation, although they did inflict a memorable 8-1 defeat on City on the final day of the 2007-08 season."



Could happen again, especially if Boro can start well and score in the first 20 minutes.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

Middlesbrough are an "FA Cup team" though, who just somehow usually do well in the competition regardless of who is managing them, they will up their game against a big team, or might just park the bus, Man City are in trouble.

Draw at City then a replay and win for Boro at theirs.

"Middlesbrough have failed to return to the Premier League since their 2009 relegation, although they did inflict a memorable 8-1 defeat on City on the final day of the 2007-08 season."



Could happen again, especially if Boro can start well and score in the first 20 minutes.

I nearly forgot about that and I'm sure City Boy was pretending that he had. Could explain why he's so keen for City to avenge their total and utter humiliation by The Mighty Boro a few years ago

shockedsoshocked

Might go over for the Boro vs Man City game like. And double it up with a good piss up