downendcity

Provided by the valuer who valued Pride Park for Mel Morris?

You really know how to turn a girl on Tone!

To Bournemouth for £10m next year it is then!

He could in Mastermind.

...or an even better one with the £1bn Pep has spent!

While you have to admire and respect Man City and their achievements under Pep, I have to confess that I've found Liverpool under Klopp to be the more exciting and entertaining. Proper "front foot" football!

Mrs Klopp?

If only SL had left Pearson's contract to run down................

They're behind the curve. They've had the same at the Mem Stad for years.

Mrs Downend says she wishes I could take that long to go from interested to completed!

I think the argument has been (probably by their agents) that it is the players that fans and viewers pay to see, so those players deserve to be rewarded accordingly. The problem is that it seems that with every new massive tv deal agents are immediately lining up meetings with owners/chief execs to extract all of the increase into improved contracts for their clients. ( I know I'm oversimplifying, but you get the drift). In general, no business outside football would operate with such a high percentage of income going on wages - not without going bust they wouldn't! I've said many times before that the whole issue of players wages is like the emperor's new clothes - pretty well everyone on the outside can see that it's ridiculous, but it seems that no one inside football is prepared to say so. Added to the problem is that some clubs now are effectively owned by nation states, with bottomless pockets. They will be prepared to pay whatever it takes to achieve buy success. The problem this creates is that other teams, who don't have the same limitless finances, have to offer similar wages if they are to attract or retain players they need to compete. We said something similar when Derby were on the brink, but I think it does need a big club to go to the wall before football might come to it's senses. Either that or the formation of a super league so the Saudis and Qataris can take their play things and the state wealth, pay stupid wages, get their own tv deals and appeal to the far east audience and leave the rest of the football world to adjust to a more realistic model.

With an increasing number of premier league clubs recording significant losses, and some of them mind boggling, is anyone else wondering whether the premier league is really the promised land and paved with gold?

Since 2019? That's one heck of a long operation!

Is Twine Saturday a bit like Shrove Tuesday or Ash Wednesday?

Semenyo managed 6 in 32 while on loan there. Wonder what became of him?

Meant to add that fans long term views about the owner should not really change based just on one or two results.

This poll between Saturday and last night reminded me of this..........

I bet Joey Barton agrees! You mean he knows about clubs and players playing below the premier league?

Typified the fight and spirit in the team in a way that reminded me of Gerry Gow 50 odd years ago, snapping into tackles and riling the opposition . However, what GG could get away with back then is not the same as today, so Williams was lucky to stay on the pitch. P.S. Still has a bit to do to reach GG's level of all round performance though.

When he mentioned that SL started his business in his bedroom, I thought he would go on to describe the wallpaper, carpet, pictures on the wall and the larva lamp on the bedside table!

.............Is the punchline to the story about the chap who set out to get the autographs for both Dracula and the orchestra leader Basie.

Nailed on home win then!

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.

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.

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!