Mr Popodopolous

The strange thing is, Martino himself has a reputation as a manager who likes his pressing game. One of those who has been under Bielsa. Argentina were vulnerable due to the last game and pressure on them due to being one defeat from elimination, while a draw would have put them in serious trouble. Wouldn't you look to exploit that properly?? Especially as he himself is Argentinean, might have an idea of their strengths and weaknesses.

Last bit. If Clubs B and D have a good and winning argument, then maybe they should welcome the transparency of a referral to adjudicate on the principle. Justice needs to be seen to be done etc. The sanctioning guidelines also serve a purpose should there be a case to answer: 1) They punish the overspending club(s) should any be found in breach. 2) They vindicate those who cut their cloth and stuck to or below the Upper Loss tariff. The majority I would expect. (3) They serve to deter future breaches by clubs, as the punishments might be quite substantial. (4) They maintain or restore confidence in the League.

The other bit to add. Club D have come down from the PL in 2017-18, first season back at the level in 2018-19 and have usual FFP allowable costs of £9m per season. The combined average etc takes it in... 2017-18- £30m pre-tax loss 2018-19- £15m pre-tax loss 2019-20 £88m pre-tax loss 2020-21 £9m pre-tax loss Combined average of 2019-20 and 2020-21 therefore £48.5m. £93.5m is the adjusted pre-tax loss. 2017-18.. £21m loss 2018-19..£6m loss 2019-20 and 2020-21..£39.5m loss (average) £66.5m. Typical Covid add-backs of applicable to 2019-20 and 2020-21 of £5m x 2 Averaged. Falls to £61.5m. However said club have argued £56m in the 2 seasons. Is that fair on Clubs A and C especially? Or does it maintain confidence in the League? Only fair solution is a Disciplinary Commission or Review Hearing for the principles underpinning B and D IMO. Only an Independent body can adjudicate on this. For Clubs A and C have cut their cloth accordingly and are not reliant on a potentially speculative add-back or cost allocation. Clubs B and D were on course to breach- and in the case of B, might achieve compliance through hoped for but certainly unconfirmed hope. Club D get outrageously fortunate as they perhaps had no such plans in place...and are able to big bath or seek to big bath their losses in with Covid. Possibly needs referral.

Certainly not what they were though unsure how well a back 3 suits them vs all but higher end opponents. Ecuador have been okay so far IMO but certainly not top level.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here but the case in favour of Club B is? Or even better, Club C are at or below £39m even prior to Covid add-backs

Take this scenario. Club A are at £40m in P&S losses to 2022-23 before the impact of Covid-19 is factored in. The EFL add-backs for all are £5m, £5m and £2.5m. This falls within that. P&S Loss to 2022-23 is £32.5m. Club B are projected to be up at say £64.5m before the impact of Covid-19 is is factored in. A huge overspend. Club B applies the League voted on limits of £5m x 2 and £2.5m applied. This therefore drops it down to £57m. Club B then claim for £30m in lost transfer revenue across 3 years in addition. £10m, £10m and £10m. Computes our at £20m. Minus say £3m in appropriate levies, remaining book value etc. £18m when 2019-20 and 2020-21 averaged all adds up to £27m. Their P&S return is therefore around £39m. Club B have therefore been rewarded greatly, given a huge reprieve for speculation as to lost gains. In no way is that equitable for the majority in general or Club A in particular.

I'll keep my FFP related stuff on this thread I think while it is hypothetical. Still don't see anything so far in FRC Covid-19 amendments that validates add-backs of that (transfer revenue) nature. Dont see anything that forbids it either. Exclusion of costs for Covid 19 is an odd one, thinking Player Registration Impairment...seems dubious to me from an FFP perspective still. The crux is, are internal requirements for club to League reporting bound by FRS 102 and other such regulations?

Ecuador not play quite well v Holland?

Surprised at Mexico's relative negativity this tournament. Yes they've had players of varying ability and possibly underachieved in the past, but they've generally been quite a positive side. A reasonably watchable side. Not this tournament they haven't..

Thanks, will have a look at this tomorrow probably. There was some speculation on what may or may not be included- amortisation of Player Registrations makes sense to me certainly.

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.