Mr Popodopolous

Oh totally agree. Was being a bit objective and balanced too but it is excellent for sure.

Played quite well 2nd half agreed. Point is with better finishing they would be in the last 16 I expect. Doesn't make it less funny of course! However objectively speaking Germany have dominated 2 games and come back well in a 3rd.

69 shots in 3 games- probably one of the highest in the tournament objectively speaking .

This is one of the harder groups tbh. Hard to say- Costa Rica of course beat Japan...who beat the two favourites.

Group E is surely the Group of Death. Auf Wiedersehen Deutschland!

Reached semis in Euro 2016, cruised to the WC in 2018 and won the Confederations Cup in 2017. Where it really went down the pan was WC 2018 to present.

Agreed on this and well highlighted for the key bits. It is usually done on relegation, that kind of impairment- has been done by a lot of clubs but will check the accounts again but am sure they have sought to attribute it to the impact of Covid-19, however this strikes me as being very convenient Promotion Bonuses I've always taken as red that these are excluded. If they were not then most sides would exceed P&S limits upon promotion. Plus the fact that they are only payable in the event of promotion being achieved- would be interesting to know for sure though. Fulham and their 2021-22 accounts? A pre-tax loss of £60m or above wouldn't at all be surprising. Unsure if that's inclusive or exclusive of promotion bonuses. Worth noting too that a bit of Parachute Year 1 was deferred into 2020-21 due to timing differences. Only clubs whose accounts ran until the end of July 2020 would account for it all in 2019-20. It all computes out in the end though.

Thought they played alright or at least cohesively us in qualifying. Had a different coach then of course. Looked very poor tonight though. Zielinski, Lewandowski to name 2, a side who probably should be better than they've shown.

Perhaps later on yeah, but playing without the ball as we did for good chunks can be draining. Agree on your last bit, think both side were playing for pens a bit.

It's arguable. Italy steadily took control of CM, that was a tactical thing to some extent but they had 3 in there...Verratti, Jorginho, Barella. We were being pushed back somewhat- had we matched up with 4-3-3 might it have been different? Otoh do we have those who control a central midfield battle in the same way as that trio. Who were the controllers in summer 2021?

Poland beat Wales home and away in Nations League, fwiw. Performing below optimum level probably.

I suppose different ways of looking at value but I take the point here. For example, for UAE, Qatar and potentially Saudi Arabia..the whole buying and creating a prominent club thing brings value in quite different ways- although if Qatar sell PSG for the recent mooted asking price they may make a profit too. Depends who buys it. Financial value...raising capital against doesn't sound good yet we certainly have Tangible assets against which a prospective investor could raise it against. Stadium, HPC etc. Assets that are surely at a higher value than their cost in the books. Fair/Market value significantly exceeds the current amounts stated at 'Cost' I think. Were an investor to buy us, stick £20m in and we get to the PL within a few years, yes definitely can see good scope for ROI. The longer you run a club at this level, the more you have to put in and the harder it can be to recover your investment and turn a profit.

Not just European foorball tbh, I think some of that rigidity has seeped down into South America too and even Mexico looked just dull compared to Mexico sides of the past who you knew would generally be quite entertaining even if quality varied. Costa Rica are also duller and more mechanical than past Costa Rica sides IMO. I agree wirh your general point though.

This group goes dowm as a shock for sure. Denmark were comfortable favourites for 2nd place. Justifiably so given the Euros, recent Nations League displays, and the style with which they qualified for WC. Eriksen back too- dangerous outsiders or so they seemed.

Had another quick look at Fulham, nothing for last season yet of course. Remember they are operating at £72m as their Upper Limit owing to their yoyo status. (£35m Upper Tariff PL, £13m this level- combined average of £35m x 2 and £13m x 2 /4 x 3 =£72m). There are also Promotion Bonuses to consider. We also don't know if sticking £20.9m in Player Impairment as a Covid excludable is valid under FFP, which is what they did in 2020-21. Pre tax losses 2017-18- Championship, £45,241,000 2018-19- PL, £20,180,000 2019-20- Championship, £48,112,000 2020-21- PL- £93,483,000 Is that £207m in 4 years?? Or adjusted for the 2 Covid years as 1, that's £136,218,500. We already know they intend to include £20.9m in impairment as an excludable cost for Covid, wonder what else they have been arguing. They do though have a Category One academy- seen it suggested as being £5-10m per season. IF stuck solely to £5m x 2 and £2.5m I think they would be in serious danger of a breach but again we have no idea what they are arguing for beyond the £20.9m in impairment.

Can change in a flash.

Well well! Doesn't change anything for Denmark, they need to win or it's bust but Australia now as it stands... Well now Australia 2nd, Tunisia 3rd, Denmark- seen as dark horses with some justification, bottom with 1 point!

Of course if the redistribution ideas for football to through, ie 17-25 pct of PL cash to the Football League, Parachute Payments either scrapped or massively reformed then that could change everything. What is "value" though and how is it achieved? Can be quite subjective, different things for different people.

Value for long term or maybe to 'flip'? A new investor wouldn't need to stick much in on infrastructure although can't test on laurels either if course. I'd argue that the finding value thing at this level is a serious problem. You only have to look at the financial landscape of the Championship, however perhaps the post Covid-19 will be quite different. If you can get a side up into the PL relatively cheaply and quickly then the opportunity to 'flip' certainly opens up. Likewise loans can be repaid over time if established. Could look to run us on a cash breakeven basis or with relatively low cash investment I guess but how feasible that is at our level I am unsure but I don't suppose the owners of Coventry or Luton put in a huge amount.

Well yes there's that but usually- good point! Often an Investor may want to come in and start throwing cash around instantly on new players etc. Maybe each case is different, perhaps one for us would be happier to play a longer game. A range of clubs does show the excited new owner or investor looking to buy, buy, buy.

These things usually find their way into the public domain somehow so I'd be surprised if it's happened yet. The other bits to consider are: 1) It would of course require EFL approval. Would that (a hypothetical sale) and even the final approval all still be secret after it has happened? 2) Even fresh investment or ownership wouldn't alter the FFP position so why would someone invest while we are still hamstrung as a club? After the improvement, by all means.

I watched their game v Denmark or most of it and thought Denmark caused them some notable problems at times, certainly at 1-1 (Denmark I believe are a side who haven't been at their best thusfar- but a good side who can cause most problems). Mbappe (who else) stepped up of course. Never get the impression that France are so watertight defensively but at the same time, Deschamps- another manager could perhaps have them higher pressing, more front-foot on a consistent basis. I'd make them favourites vs us probably but we definitely have a decent chance. Probably more of one if we play a shape more like last night than 2 with Mount in front.. better structure and balance?

Quite enjoyed last night. Thought we controlled the first half albeit perhaps not with the big threat in attack. Had some chances and were dominant without forcing our advantage home. Looked quite secure too, perhaps Foden and Henderson in made that difference. Felt at half time like I'd we scored one the dam would break a bit and that is what happened. We were never particularly under any sustained pressure, anything like that. Should Rashford start v Senegal? Well he certainly staked a claim last night.

I'm somewhere in the middle on it. I think for differing reasons vs Spain, Brazil, and maybe France we might be pushed back, outmanouvered in midfield if we took it to them. Not to say we can't be positive without the ball so to speak but vs several sides I think trying to dominate all areas would leave us with a problem. However that's for deep into the tournament, I think a genuinely positive 4-3-3 would serve us well. Pickford Back 4 Foden Rice Bellingham Kane Then perhaps perm 2 of Saka, Grealish, Mount, Sterling and Maddison, maybe even keep the basic shape the same but just tweak it and the personnel a bit depending on opposition. Whether we win the tournament hard to say.

2 genuine CMs with Mount in front won't serve us so well vs top sides IMO. Either play Mount as part of a fluidish front 3 or drop him for Foden say. Still think Rice, Foden, Bellingham in CM. Rice the middle of the 3 or a sort of 4-1-4-1 would give us the right mix.