Mr Popodopolous

For future looking FFP yes, agreed it is more in line and more transparent than many. For the present there is no change to the system set in stone yet, so the starting point of £30m I'm comfortable with it. £20m a fair guess for football side in isolation, think that amortisation and other aspects were also included in the future looking one- but player transfer profits were also mentioned as a positive. Question is, what would be constituted as revenue for a football club? Or is it a case of Holdings revenue then football costs...were we to take the club football costs and revenue in isolation we are well outside. If the rules allow for it all good but it feels a bit like the rules allow for a cake and eat it scenario. Yet I see the merits of it on another level. Wasn't aware of the SLA thing, that sounds positive. Re-reading your other post I wouldn't say I am forecasting foul play as such, I am arguing that the fullness of time may lead to differences of opinion or interpretation between a club and the League about how the Covid add-backs fed into FFP.

SLA?

Thanks @Davefevs Are we including the Pension and NI etc in the wage figure? My method is to do so to take it all and then work backwards. Yeah what Gould said was both accurate and a little misleading IMO. Club specifically taking the best reading yes, but overall not so much. Gap between Holdings and Club about £6-6.5m? Useful for regs moving forward but revenue to football costs...For me with regs now and maybe moving forward, take wages as starting point then work backwards.

Wider financials, good news is that the wage bill of club down to £23.8m I think it was. Revenue about £12-13m lower than the Holdings, losses about £1.5-2m lower but Depreciation e.g. a bit lower so it possibly all computes out from an FFP angle.

I just see it as good Governance personally. Maybe not an enquiry but by way of example, some sort of analysis as to how the transfer market has fallen or recovered and that can only be judged over a period of time. Analysis perhaps? I'd take the losses in Matchday, Commercial etc as red. That's easily quantifiable, more or less. Everton £170-220m over 2 years...do we really see that as remotely in line? PL yes but if that isn't worthy of an Independent inquiry then what is. Their actual revenue falls were £82m in 2 seasons but then they are arguing that they lost out massively transfer market wise. That is so far out of kilter to comparable clubs. Our numbers and categories we can only speculate on. I think the alternative to the analysis is to give clubs carte blanche to make up their Covid numbers...where do we draw the line? To me, only verifiable and quantifiable losses and add-backs should fall under covid FFP allowances. Any luck on your email to the EFL btw? I'm guessing they haven't displayed the requisite transparency.

Looking again at the PL and their version. In their handbook. It surely can't be the case but maybe it is...that flies in the face of everything at UEFA and level if true but surely they don't snap back to 3 year monitoring again just like that. The combined average, you can't just benefit from it and then just shelve it. PL handbook for 2022-23 does not make it clear though.

Had a quick look at the club accounts. Possibly a little more detail in some of the notes about FFP and add-backs. Total remuneration was £23.9m or thereabouts. Club or Holdings? Two probably compute out in respect of the overall FFP position as while the former has lower revenue, it also has lower costs just about- but also lower depreciation which is an allowable cost which means our FFP allowances would be lower. The Covid FFP stuff. Sadly it doesn't specify the add-backs either by category or number..but then I suppose commercial confidentiality. I believe the EFL for all clubs will be duty-bound to look into things further, in the fullness of time otherwise what kind of governance is that? FFP aside, 14,011 season ticket holders last season.

Indeed, was making wider point too. Henderson-Rice-Foden for such a scenario maybe? Think we definitely need a truer 3 though.

Argentina are one mis-step away from elimination.

Agreed. The old "Throw on 4 forwards and we're bound to score" theory was outdated 20 years ago and it's outdated now. 4 Strikers/forward players can crowd each other out for one but significantly as you can say, can just cede the midfield, just handing a big advantage to the opposition to pass around or break through the gaps.

To follow up my last penalties, checked some Championship penalty ratios for recent years. NO VAR so it's a perfect sample size. Last season, it was 0.1938 per game. This season (to date) it is 0.1726 per game. 2019-20 it was 0.2409 per game. 2020-21 it was 0.2536 per game. A sharp fall in penalties awarded without doubt.

Spain of 2010 was a weird one. Always thought they had more gears to go through attacking wise, vs most. While keeping the ball is a good defensive strategy, it is also the case perhaps that a lot of opposition sat deep or counter pressed which gave them little choice. They still had good shot numbers in addition to possession even if not so prolific .

Would also add different tournament but Spain in the Euros of 2008 looked strong throughout, and the group stage no exception. Italy for the most part in 2021 as well, Germany had a strong tournament group stage included in the WC of 2014 and Italy a sort of middling one in 2006. Not brilliant but not terrible either- perfectly reasonable.

Different types of Player too,and Mount and Foden. If playing both I'd go Mount higher up and Foden in a CM 3.

Maybe it's a bit more of a thing if the past but some of these stories fairly startling by modern European standards. https://www.frontrowsoccer.com/2022/01/26/offside-remarks-the-truth-about-world-cup-qualifying-in-concacaf/ Yes some of thst is Covid specific but some talking 10, 20 years back.and beyond. I think Mexico as a big regional player will also get the treatment in various places too. Think Canada qualified in 1986 but don't know the format back then. Suspect you are right- should have beaten Belgium without doubt, exciting side.

CONCACAF until lately perhaps, used to be quite a challenging zone. Bit of a segue but away to the smaller Latin nations the US and Mexico well not easy. Fans certainly played an active role. In fact USA didn't qualify for the 2018 WC of course. Probably a bit homogenised now, bit like CONMEBOL...the hostile away atmospheres a bit less than they once were historically. Not that long ago though they used to be very notable.

That 3 then 2 of Mount, Sterling, Saka, Grealish and Maddison is what I'd like to see...wingers or fluidity around Kane I don't know- perhaps some games wider players, some games more fluid but I'd be keen to see that template.

We got the point and are in pole position to win the group but think we need to dominate those central areas a bit more to control the game better and both guard against the counter. Unsure Mount in a central 3 does this and certainly vs better sides..I have certain tactical biases granted. What about Rice, Foden, Bellingham in a genuine CM 3? We only really played in fits and starts, bit disappointing.

PPS. Everton fans bleating about austerity don't make me laugh. The Case for 1) Richarlison sold- yes. Though accounted for in 2021-22 surely. 2) Digne before that back in January. 3) Limited expenditure in summer 2021 which also saw James Rodriguez sold. Begovic, Townsend, Gray, Rondon, all on frees except for Gray who cost £1.5m. 4) Ancelotti compensation will have helped. 5) Loaned out Kean The Case against 1) Benitez in will not have been cheap! 2) For all the outgoings during rh3 season, in January they: a) Signed Patterson for £12m b) Mykolenko for £17m c) Alli on a free but with fee to rise based on conditions met, presumably picked up decent wages. d) Loaned in El Ghazi from Aston Villa and Van de Beek from Man United. 3) Sacked Benitez- that costs! 4) Is Lampard cheap? Then this summer: Sold Allan and loaned some others. Kean remains in Turin. Possibly a sale to be triggered tnis season. Otoh 1) Tarkowski- Free but decent wages? 2) McNeil- £20m 3) Onana- £33m 4) Maupay- £15m 5) Garner- £15.5m 6) Gueye- £2m Loaned in Coady from Wolves and Vinagre from Sporting. Are they aligned wirh FFP I wonder at all times? Let alone under a strict business plan to ensure compliance or have they been? Doesn't look like it to me! This is kid gloves treatment. If they are £105,000,001 they should be charged I believe.

Ecuador I'm not too surprised they are decent. Surprised at how dominant they are today however. Conditions in Qatar even at this time of year more in common with South America than Europe for one. Secondly- check out some of their results and performances that underpinned them in qualifying. Best Uruguay 4-2, Colombia 6-1! Granted in Ecuador itself but still... Thirdly, Holland know that if they best Qatar they're through. If they draw this but beat Qatar they may well win group anyway.

Although gotta factor in the unusual nature of this too. A few dreadful sides granted. 48 is far too many though.

I am to some extent although they were quite an attack minded, possession first side in the last Euros for the most part, pretty different to a lot of past Italian sides.

Was at a loose end so watched the play-off back in June. Ukraine were so very dominant, a better side than Wales without doubt IMO. That's before we even get onto the context of the terrible stuff going on over there- and though it's only a game Croatia was still in the tail end of war in the late 1990s and it probably drive them on in qualifying for and at major tournaments. Adversity at home can do that to a side.

What about the Everton stuff? Two different governing bodies yes but same and in theory harmonised regs across both Leagues/divisions. Any leverage for us or others at this level, to use Everton as a precedent? My overall guess is 'Probably not' but then again...

I fear it may have yes. All the same it's dubious the Aston Villa stuff.