Olé

Not to make light of what is clearly an escalating situation, but why are football fans always the thing people want to stop first. Icy streets stop football fans. Terrorist threats check football fans jackets. COVID-19 play football behind closed doors. Meanwhile everyone else do what the **** you like. We were talking about Coronavirus at Leeds away - that's when it was first reported in the UK. A month ago. It had already taken hold in Italy. Did we stop people heading off to ski in Northern Italy? I haven't left the country for a holiday, I work hard and want to follow my team around England. The last thing I want to do is catch or pass on a virus to the vulnerable, but FFS it's been fine for a different class of people to get their annual ski trip done first. I get it, big crowds, virus out of control, moving from containment to delay. But there is a sub-text. Football fans are irresponsible, football fans are unhygienic. I could get it on the tube - and more likely too. Why are football fans a different class of big crowd. Politicians won't bat an eye lid if football fans all end up £100s out of pocket on trains and match tickets let alone season ticket. Meanwhile holidaymakers have a thing called travel insurance and when the government pulls the plug, they get them all home. Sorry, this is a bit of a misplaced rant, it is a serious situation, I just detest the double standards.

Absolutely typical of Sky. Has Harry Redknapp been filmed hanging out of a Range Rover admitting he is considering buying one or other club?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49486208 WTF.

The idea of regionalising the lower leagues is romantic but a bit like re-arranging deckchairs on the titanic. There are bigger issues here that simply reducing travel expenses will not solve - most clubs that get into these problems seem to do so because they cease to be viable for the people who bought them. The problem is the people who buy clubs and the fact that the lack of fan ownership means that when that person unilaterally decides their club is no longer viable, they can sit on the asset awaiting an offer to their satisfaction, rather than fund the club or put it in the hands of others, or in the trust of those fans. The solution to this is for the EFL to a) properly enforce due diligence on people buying clubs so that their financial capacity and business plan to run such clubs is "fit and proper" and b) start to transition all clubs to a minimum level of "member" ownership, as in Germany, so one person doesn't control the future. It IS possible to run a viable football league club at all levels. The fact so many aren't is down to their owners and by implication the EFL and its rules. We know how casual they are about rules because at our level it has been easy for far bigger clubs to game the system and abstract losses by re-arranging assets. Bury is a particularly sad story given its history and because it has never reaped the rewards of football's big time. The easy cliche is to point the finger at rich clubs and players, but the EFL and their directors trouser plenty of money themselves and this is actually their job. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Putting aside the stadium thing, I still think this basic accounting twist on amortisation is already highly dubious. @DerbyFan I do appreciate you sharing the club's definition of how you handle player costs as I'd not seen it officially laid out, which is helpful. I have no specific axe to grind with Derby, I have friends who are Derby fans, always find Derby fans decent when we cross paths on trains on match days, and very much enjoy my trips to the area (well, okay, specifically the Brunswick!) However I just can't get my head round this practice being fair (it seems like an obvious attempt to "game" compliance) and as in bold above, kicking the can down the road to "take the hit" later seems to be incredibly reckless and exactly what FFP is meant to be putting a stop to. That the definition from Derby even explicitly includes provision to negotiate new contracts and re-amortise an existing prior player cost further into the future is barmy to me, as is self evaluating impairment charges. It seems to me to be continually deferring a lot of real terms costs from the balance sheet until you can get into the Premiership and then release all these accounting anomalies when you can "take the hit" far more comfortably. It's pure accounting sleight of hand. That alone should bring everything else Morris does into question. If the EFL had half a brain they'd define accounting rules so that the whole process of FFP is comparing like for like and not allowing clubs to write their own rules. Don't get me wrong, the logic of Derby's model is valid - I've often pointed out on this board myself that paying silly money for a young player is something I think SL would do IF wages were achievable, as it's wages that are our real terms drag on the balance sheet and where we get beaten to players by most of our peers. £10m transfer fee amortised (straight line) followed by a likely profit on sale of exciting young player, is simply asset management to a lifelong share trader like Lansdown. Therefore one could argue that we should use Derby's residual value accounting. SL doesn't, I assume because it would be very misleading and very dangerous. Players get injured, players don't work out, and most of all players nowadays will run a contract down if they can get a big signing on fee at a future club. Derby's accounting implies certainty that none of this will happen and there is a guaranteed market and return for their players, allowing them to keep their costs off the balance sheet. It's a neat trick to comply with FFP limits, but it's just a time bomb done in the hope of securing Premier League football before it goes off. And seeing the definition of how Derby handle re-negotiated contracts with re-amortisation of existing costs that still haven't hit the balance sheet, I can see even more there is a process here to keep deferring costs. You could actually give a **** player a new contract on meager terms to artificially defer their cost. And on current form I suspect Morris would.

Isn't that precisely what Derby's unconventional method of amortisation says not just IS easy, but is a foregone conclusion! ? Are you telling us that your players aren't actually guaranteed to automatically be bought? What a shocker, as that would imply your residual amortisation model exists for some other reason, although I'm struggling to see one besides being able to have some seasonal flex on FFP!

Just seen that - EFL well and truly losing control now!

Thank you! I wasn't far off in my understanding then, I just didn't know the Premier League would support retrospective action after promotion - and I thought I'd missed something given that nothing has happened already based on projected accounts, as I cannot believe with the problems they have been through, Villa have found a legitimate way to comply.

Hey Mr. P - I've been putting off trying to comprehend the unthinkable, but it's time to get my head around what happens if Villa actually go up. I'm sure you've covered it but I've only dipped into bits of this (excellent) thread and am behind on my homework. Do they simply exit the jurisdiction of the EFL and therefore FFP?

Agreed, I got the point you were making, all I was adding is that when it comes to talk of PL2 I wouldn't get complacent into thinking Gibson is "one of us" - he may well be angry with Villa, Derby etc at the moment and have our support, but he has been there before with these clubs in more profitable times, I'm sure it won't take too much for them to put an arm round him in a non-EFL discussion and say why not channel your energy into working with us for a breakaway league, we both know what that involves - why throw your lot in with smaller clubs like Bristol City and Brentford's, WE can make much more money if we stick together, and we will keep Boro central to our cartel to keep you sweet. Or put more simply, when there is talk of breakaways, club stature and influence will talk in the success of a breakaway group, so the biggest clubs command disproportionate power in forming PL2, and therefore it won't take a lot for the big clubs in the division, however much they've broken the rules, to convince Gibson to fall in line and be part of their gang - stick with the bullies, not the bullied. And as always the clubs that ultimately lose out are the ones with the smallest voices who don't have that pulling power or influence. If I'm a big club meeting without the EFL and was in breach of FFP and didn't want the division turning against me, that's how I'd pick off the key dissenters....

Nothing to add to this excellent thread other than to thank the contributors, it makes fascinating reading. I know cheating is cheating but I think I would be a little less irritated if it was a club that had never been in the Premiership, doing the fiddling. A bit Bournemouth style. What winds me up is that it's clubs who have had their time in the sun, earned all the rewards, banked a tonne of parachute money, and are still looking for advantages. I know it's probably just survival instinct now to them in financial terms, but to me it's the ugliest form of greed when you have it all, and yet still want more than your lot. Most of my life has been League One level. Each time we went down we earned the right, over years, to go back up. We didn't hunt for loopholes. These clubs are ****s. And on @Davefevs point about Premier League 2, that was my first thought too when I read they're meeting without the EFL. That does raise questions about the plan. If you look for answers without the EFL then presumably the answer might not in the end involve the EFL. I guess there's any number of different consensuses possible. Yes Gibson will have "small" clubs like us on his side, but he could equally be courted by his larger "accused" into focusing on PL2 with them all at the front of the queue. So while we're aligned with Boro's point of view, let's not forget Gibson and his rivals were all part of the same cash-cow, I wouldn't assume he's simply on our side now.

One of the Beesotted (Brentford fanzine) guys just tipped me off on this, as I asked why the Derby fan group twitter was being so rude to them during their game on Saturday. Apparently the Derby lot didn't like Beesotted's view that selling the stadium wasn't a good idea (based on their own experience with Ron Noades years back) and an FFP con. The way he tells it, Mel Morris sold it to himself to wipe out Derby's FFP loss. At a value of £80m for a stadium valued at €23m in 2013. Turning a £50m loss into a £14m profit. If they lost £50m in a year they'd have broken FFP already. Derby fans think they'll buy it back if they go up, Beesotted asked what if you don't, as Derby hasn't got players to sell. Odd situation but I will read your contributions on this thread to understand better as I haven't had a chance to keep up with this before!

That rings a bell, wasn't he Ade Akinbiyi's agent when we sold him? Not to change the tone of the thread, which of course is deeply sympathetic and remorseful, I am struck by these continued reports of a distraught dad talking to media in Argentina. I would imagine he would want to be as close as possible to the operation, even if he is helpless to do anything more, not fielding impossible questions from the other side of the world - I wonder what all these agents and dealmakers are doing to make that happen? Not suggesting they are not, but it doesn't seem to have happened, and yet they all obviously fell over themselves to take their cut of Sala's transfer.

Speaking of football family, this is the club which lost its entire team in a plane crash just over two years ago. They are praying for a quick answer and hope they’ll be found well, adding they still believe that Sala will give much enjoyment to football lovers.

French football writer and Ligue 1 correspondent for BeIn Sports - tweeted 15 minutes ago

"Would someone please get this poodle out the back of my bloody training jacket, it was meant to stay tied up at home where I left it. AH IS THIS ON? LISTEN I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY AS I ALWAYS DO. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. ME PLAYERS NEED TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES. AND DECIDE IF ME SAYING I'LL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND THEN HUMILIATING THEM AS MUCH AS I CAN, IS OKAY. IT'S NOT OKAY. ME I CAN TAKE IT. ME I CAN KEEP GOING. BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS KEEP GOING WHEN AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU ARE OFF HOME TO TUG OFF A DOG" ?

Said it on here many times before, but I despise Wolves with every fibre in my body. Loathe them more than just about anyone. Like some others, reasons aren't always known to me, but mostly experiences at Molineux and elsewhere with their fans. I'm already dreading the thought of them all waving their adopted Portugal flags in the away end today (which they appear to be doing this season) - it makes the stomach sick and the heart sink. No conflict for me, just added repulsion.

I don't think students and academics watch Rovers anyway mate, the clue is in their vocation.

He's been doing it for 8 months and seems to have survived.

Give me an hour or two for a report. I need a moment (and a drink) here. As a Preston fan just pointed out, they could have won 8-0. This one is on Lansdown, he has completely and utterly legitimised failure to protect his own cosy lines of influence.

Two teams without a proper manager

Bit of an epic there Spud, but the first time I honestly believe you've written something that you believe in but that I can also agree with entirely. Exactly as I see games develop all season, right down to who you think provides outlets and the dearth of movement and awareness from the rest of them. Your description of our attacking is probably the most realistic I've seen you post, so I would challenge how (if you believe it) it equates to enough positive signs for you to have been as encouraged about the potential, as you've mentioned in the past. Also, an obvious retort is that these players played more comfortable looking defending and attacking possession in previous seasons. So am I right in saying that a point you've made to me in the past, but which I didn't really take in, is you genuinely feel this negative pattern of play is in trying to establish the desired pattern of play, and as such, a necessary suffering (results and performances) on painful transition to a different brand of football? You hinted at it before (golf swing) but the idea of such painful, high-risk revolution wasn't clear to many, I'd suggest. One other point - you talk about "patient, possession football in a narrow field of play": I couldn't agree more that this is what we're seeing. But you go on to make the point it is designed to "work" the opposition by passing around them and tire them out. Surely by being so narrow the potential to tire them out (or have easy outlets to pass between) is substantially reduced? I don't see us tiring anyone, we make the pitch so narrow we run out of passing options quickly and end up giving it away or retreating and then booting it back upfield to nobody. Yes movement being poor is a part of this (sometimes so poor for previously competent professional footballers that I can't believe the instructions/coaching is helping), but not exploiting width is, for me, also seriously at odds with this pattern of play (possession and working opponents) that you describe. For all his defensive meltdown at the end, Mark Little's attacking movement on Saturday did far more to tire opponents and provide outlets for teammates and space for possession, than any recent attempt to pass about around the centre of the pitch. So I agree with your description of the football we're playing, and I buy your description of the football we want to play, but I have a hard time seeing that one will produce the other. For periods of the first game against Fleetwood, a team that is surely inferior on most attributes, they had ability to control the tempo and create clearer chances, I think in no small part to using width and pace, creating outlets and space to exploit for their forwards. Same against Preston at home. This "football" seems to work us far more than ours works our opponents!

It's not just Fielding. This is City's DNA now. The team resolutely will not exploit the quick opening or the instinctive run. Every player appears to have been drilled to stop, think, allow formations on both sides of the ball to re-group, then start the slow pass build up to the hope of space or opening of the like we might have had from the first time ball or run we rejected. It's depressing and it's bizarre and I refuse to believe this is our players MO as it is so obviously laboured and not instinctive for them. Judging by O'Dowda, a £1.5million player, tactical instructions in this area are either too complicated, unclear or regressive, resulting in feeble, hesitant, confused positioning and application, and deteriorating form and ability out "wide". Time was even an average player like Burns could come off the bench for us late in a game and run direct on the wing and cause some problems. O'Dowda last night was a great example of how we have invested in and yet neutralised technically strong wingers (based on his ability when signed) to the point of them looking like lightweight, poorly coached wastes of money. The LJ directive: Slow it down. Do not be instinctive.... FFS let these players play.

If you finish below Ipswich you will go down - they were terrible.