downendcity

20 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

 

Manager Lowe is under pressure their forum is running an in/out poll: https://www.pne-online.net/forum/index.php?threads/fresh-poll-lowe-in-out.3439640/page-70#post-4655367

‘Some PNE fans, possibly quite a lot, will happily take a hammering by you lot providing it hastens the manager’s exit. Check out the poll on our forum which shows 97% of forum users want him out. The other 3% are blind, stupid or related to Lowe’.

This article stresses that this could be a make or break game for Lowe: https://www.lep.co.uk/sport/football/preston-north-end/preston-north-end-manager-ryan-lowe-leeds-united-bristol-city-millwall-4473385

 

Nailed on home win then! 

25 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Heard a little bit of a discussion about FFP on Talksport this afternoon. I think it was on the back of Arsenal having to sell if they want to bring in a new transfer. They went on to speculate on whether financial rules should be scrapped and if owners had the money then they should be allowed to spend it. There was also the suggestion that the present financial rules enabled the "elite" clubs to maintain their position.

Whenever I hear this type of discussion it always feels as though those involved feel that FFP ( or the premier league derivation P&S) was designed to create a level playing field. However, the idea of ffp was originally introduced by UEFA around 2010 to make clubs live more within their means. 

It was introduced into the EFL in 2010/11 and the prem a couple of years later - during which time Pompey had become the first premier league club to go into admin, and 2 more admins later  ( the last to avoid liquidation) saw them do a Bristol City by getting to the 3rd division ( 4th division in old money) The trail of financial destruction this caused to the club's suppliers caused outrage at the time, especially as their highly paid premier league players were classed as preferred creditors. IIRC the club had something like £100m debt when it all went tits up and again, IIRC, their then owner basically stopped funding the club. No way was Benjani going to get them out of that hole!

Fast forward to post 2017(?) and we saw history repeating itself, as Mel Morris, who had been lauded a hero by Derby fans ( he's a lifelong Derby fan, so would never leave the club in the lurch, they said) for  having the EFL's pants down over the "sale" of Pride Park as a clever way of getting around ffp, also pulled the plug on Derby's financial backing with only administration and a nick of time sale saving the club from going out of business.

So the original financial rules were not about creating a level playing field, but more about protecting clubs from themselves- or more accurately from owners who would be prepared to risk the club's future in chasing the dream of top flight football. Judging by the Derby case and Everton's shambolic financial situation, and the Hans Christian Anderson accounting we've seen employed by numerous clubs to manipulate their accounts into a compliant form, football's regulators  just don;t seem able to enforce their own rules properly, so it would seem that something has to change.

The questing now being raised is whether that form of ffp is appropriate - or indeed fair on wealthy owners who have the financial resource that could benefit their club but are not allowed to spend it. One issue, of which we are only too aware , is the massive gulf between a club like ours, and those in the premier league, or those still benefitting from having been in the prem by way of parachute payments. Even within the prem there is a massive gulf between the wealth of clubs like Man City and Newcastle, both effectively being owned by nation states, and the likes of Luton, Sheff U and Burnley.

If competition is the aim, then financial rules that equalise what clubs can spend would seem the way to go. It's interesting that there are an increasing number of American owners, as I think I'm right in saying that the NFL operates in just such a way. However, would Man City and Newcastle's owners be happy to see their biggest advantage , i.e wealth, being neutered?

Perhaps some sort of hybrid financial rules are need, that balance the need to ensure that clubs are solvent and financially viable in the longer term, but with a degree of flexibility that allows clubs with greater financial resources to use more of that, but that limits that so that there is not too much  of  a gulf between the haves and the have nots.

FWIW I can easily see that any attempts to change financial  rules to help level the playing field will only hasten the creation of a super league. We've seen the lengths that Man City have (allegedly) gone to circumvent financial rules and enable their owners to utilise their financial advantage.

 

P.S. When I see the level of losses premier league clubs are racking up, despite the riches on offer in the top flight, I really start to wonder just why clubs are almost prepared to bankrupt themselves to get there!

I really worry that football is now unsustainable and will eat itself to death unless something changes. The seemingly inexorable rise in players wages that take the wage bill beyond many clubs total income is ludicrous, but just like the Emperor's new clothes, it seems that no one has the balls to stand up and say "this is madness".

Perhaps it needs a Super League, so that the most wealthy owners can take their play things away from everyone else , make their own rules, negotiate huge TV deals, pay players £1m per week, take proper fans out of the equation and bask in the glory that they can then buy. 

That would leave the rest of us to provide employment for the rest of the player pool, on wages that clubs can afford, perhaps then reasonable ticket pricing and without the need for an owner with enough resource to fill a £30m black hole every week. The great thing is that new scenario would not change everything. Fans can still moan about the owner and his son, team selection, whether the coach so go 3 at the back  and  fish puns on OTIB. It might just not cost as much!

Perhaps it's just my age and being able to remember when football seemed much simpler, and more enjoyable? Or perhaps my age just makes me indulge in more wishful thinking. I don't know, but it's time to put the kettle on for a cup of cocoa and a custard cream before bedtime.

Good night all.

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What do we think @Hxj @downendcity @Davefevs @chinapig @ExiledAjax

To me the onus is on the clubs somewhat, Special Pleading all told.

Heard a little bit of a discussion about FFP on Talksport this afternoon. I think it was on the back of Arsenal having to sell if they want to bring in a new transfer. They went on to speculate on whether financial rules should be scrapped and if owners had the money then they should be allowed to spend it. There was also the suggestion that the present financial rules enabled the "elite" clubs to maintain their position.

Whenever I hear this type of discussion it always feels as though those involved feel that FFP ( or the premier league derivation P&S) was designed to create a level playing field. However, the idea of ffp was originally introduced by UEFA around 2010 to make clubs live more within their means. 

It was introduced into the EFL in 2010/11 and the prem a couple of years later - during which time Pompey had become the first premier league club to go into admin, and 2 more admins later  ( the last to avoid liquidation) saw them do a Bristol City by getting to the 3rd division ( 4th division in old money) The trail of financial destruction this caused to the club's suppliers caused outrage at the time, especially as their highly paid premier league players were classed as preferred creditors. IIRC the club had something like £100m debt when it all went tits up and again, IIRC, their then owner basically stopped funding the club. No way was Benjani going to get them out of that hole!

Fast forward to post 2017(?) and we saw history repeating itself, as Mel Morris, who had been lauded a hero by Derby fans ( he's a lifelong Derby fan, so would never leave the club in the lurch, they said) for  having the EFL's pants down over the "sale" of Pride Park as a clever way of getting around ffp, also pulled the plug on Derby's financial backing with only administration and a nick of time sale saving the club from going out of business.

So the original financial rules were not about creating a level playing field, but more about protecting clubs from themselves- or more accurately from owners who would be prepared to risk the club's future in chasing the dream of top flight football. Judging by the Derby case and Everton's shambolic financial situation, and the Hans Christian Anderson accounting we've seen employed by numerous clubs to manipulate their accounts into a compliant form, football's regulators  just don;t seem able to enforce their own rules properly, so it would seem that something has to change.

The questing now being raised is whether that form of ffp is appropriate - or indeed fair on wealthy owners who have the financial resource that could benefit their club but are not allowed to spend it. One issue, of which we are only too aware , is the massive gulf between a club like ours, and those in the premier league, or those still benefitting from having been in the prem by way of parachute payments. Even within the prem there is a massive gulf between the wealth of clubs like Man City and Newcastle, both effectively being owned by nation states, and the likes of Luton, Sheff U and Burnley.

If competition is the aim, then financial rules that equalise what clubs can spend would seem the way to go. It's interesting that there are an increasing number of American owners, as I think I'm right in saying that the NFL operates in just such a way. However, would Man City and Newcastle's owners be happy to see their biggest advantage , i.e wealth, being neutered?

Perhaps some sort of hybrid financial rules are need, that balance the need to ensure that clubs are solvent and financially viable in the longer term, but with a degree of flexibility that allows clubs with greater financial resources to use more of that, but that limits that so that there is not too much  of  a gulf between the haves and the have nots.

FWIW I can easily see that any attempts to change financial  rules to help level the playing field will only hasten the creation of a super league. We've seen the lengths that Man City have (allegedly) gone to circumvent financial rules and enable their owners to utilise their financial advantage.

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Absolutely right. 

When he first arrived he’d have been anxious about joining a Championship club with a higher profile and bigger fanbase and therefore likely to be under greater scrutiny. 

Any nervousness/apprehension he may have had had certainly dissipated.
 

Or he might have read OTIB and, in the light of fans' reaction to NP's departure, thought he would be about as welcome as a fart in a lift! 

12 hours ago, Street red said:

And look what Nige did with vyner and pring he stuck by them and never shunted them out the door,Ok not all young players make it but sometimes they progress quicker staying where they are around better players,I'm not sure I like what I'm reading but as they say time will tell.

In management some people respond best to an "arm round the shoulder", while others do best with more of a a "kick up the backside" approach.

It must be similar with players. Some will doubtless do best remaining at the club and working through things in order to fight for a first team place. Others will benefit from exposure to more regular first team football, that they would not necessarily be able to secure staying here. This must be especially so for very young players.

A spell on loan at Newport didn't do Semenyo's development much harm, similarly Pring at Pompey.

I am pretty sure that Manning would be looking to utilize a 17 year old Alex Scott in his plans. Yeboah, however,  is no Alex Scott ( not yet anyway!), who was capable beyond his years,  and with the changes LM is looking to make, perhaps Manning sees his inexperience as too great a risk while the rest of the team are adapting to changes in playing style.

17 hours ago, TV Tom said:

This game is proof that we need a ground with a 80,000 capacity

4 hours ago, MattWSM said:

we are not Rovers

If we were, we'd need a car park with a 40,000 capacity.

7 hours ago, Natchfever said:

Ran out of likes Hope youve been happy ever since that rainy day.

He's let her down many times since.

It's not just the profit on player sales though.

We have regularly featured 4/5/6 of our academy players in the first team. 

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I like the cries of "shoooot" every time someone in possession has entered their half. 

Nearly as bad as when  " get in the hole" is shouted just as a tour pro hits his tee shot on a 600 yard par 5!

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

Somebody like Chopper Harris would have snapped Fernandez in half tbh........on the premise that "if I'm going to get a red anyway I'll make sure it's one worth taking"!! However, these days, there would also be calls for a 5 season ban or something similar.

Chopper Harris wouldn't have made it past the warm these days!

On 07/01/2024 at 17:43, Andy082005 said:

Just wanted to bump this thread to the top as even though it’s only the 6th January - I believe it should be contender for most ridiculous post of the year.

….and that’s with me posting on here to!

Andy, with 11 months still to go,  I think you are suffering from premature speculation! 

2 minutes ago, Midred said:

Perhaps a manager signalling to the match official that they believed their player had dived and it wasn't a penalty would work but there would have to be pigs flying over at the same time! Some players have earned a reputation for conning the referee and indeed some referees appear willing to be conned. For those of you who are or have been involved in a playing/training/managing capacity what limits are drawn over which no player should go beyond to win a game (apart from not putting another player in physical danger)?

I posted this video clip on another thread recently, discussing what constitutes dangerous play ( Calvert-Lewin's  red card v Palace).

What this also shows is the difference in players' mentality between the 60s/70s and today.

Despite the almost brutal physicality on display in the Chelsea vLeeds match, what is noticeable is that the player that had been tackled ( assaulted would be a more apt description in most cases!) was pretty well straight up on their feet, although this was often to give some back to the opponent.

Compare that to today, when even the most innocuous challenges ( and saying challenge  is often stretching a point!) results in the player collapsing in a heap, clutching ankle/knee/face in order to force the referee to stop the game and award a free kick. As we all know, this particularly prevalent in and around the penalty area when the attacking team concedes possession and one of their players is "injured' in just such a way, conveniently forcing play to be halted, which then prevents the opponents creating a quick breakaway. 

I remember seeing one game where exactly this happened, and the attacking player was writhing around in agony, but miraculously made a full recovery when his team regained possession and was back on the attack! 

Rulemakers increasing inclination to make prescriptive laws/rules hasn't helped. The direction that referees should stop a game for head injuries has seen players go down in the box clutching their heads as though they've had a lobotomy - this is especially noticeable with ariel challenges - knowing that the referee is forced to stop the game and thereby halt the opponents momentum.

I honestly believe that referees are naive in this respect, and that this could well be because they've not played the game at any decent level so don't know and understand how players think.  

9 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Modern football is a sort of pantomime now, at elite level. Absolute belters, a lot of them.    

Oh no it isn't!

43 minutes ago, The Nest Egg said:

Still has to be Neymar for me. Everything wrong with modern football in the form of one detestable bloke. I hope his legs fall off

Liverpool could be the first club to make their car park all ticket for locked out away fans.

1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said:

Even Liverpool have never heard of them!

So, even Liverpool think that there's only One Team In Bristol!

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

It’s clear we need a stronger bench, 

I'm sure Wells can knock one up using  his workmate, a few woodworking tools and some decent timber. 

1 hour ago, BS3_RED said:

Was it just me (probably was) or did Wells seem well off the pace when he came on yesterday. The one thing I associate most with Wells is his running and workmate but it seemed to be missing a little yesterday. Maybe it was a hard game to get up to speed with but there were a few times where Wells never made a run which was on.

Running with one of those will make you look like you're  off the pace! 

12 minutes ago, normanomates said:

jug ears or one the dykes?

Homes Under the Hammer.

This month  is the 30th anniversary of that night at Anfield.

Just saying!

43 minutes ago, Wokingham Red said:

Knowing the TV companies it’ll be Wolves v Brentford and Everton v Palace  anyone but Bristol City

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

 How far offside was TC for the disallowed goal? 

He's still jogging back for the restart.

2 hours ago, erndogz said:

It's VAR isn't the lino doesn't need to flag anymore. Someone will get seriously injured soon with a late flag

Back when I played in the Bristol District League we played Bristol Deaf, who were a very "physical" team. 

Before the game the ref explained that because many/most of the opposition had  impaired hearing, he would wave a white handkerchief ,as well as blowing his whistle, to stop the game.

During the game, a long ball put me through past the defence, but as I ran in on goal I heard the ref blow up for offside so slowed up. I was then hit for six from behind by their defender, who had been trying to chase me down.

I was in a heap on the ground as the ref came over to admonish the defender, who then signed to one of his teammates, who then explained to the ref that as the defender was running away from the ref he didn't see him wave the handkerchief so didn't know that game had been stopped!

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Just on the train back. How far offside was TC for the disallowed goal? None of the highlights have shown it.

VAR had to use old technology to measure it!

2 hours ago, Banjo Island said:

Very marginal for me onside by a toenail