Trevor B
6:21 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
"The first lot of sales should have been used to improve the contracts of the players left. Most are going because of money not because of some dying ambition to sit on the bench at a big club.2
No, most will go because of money AND ambition. They want to play with the best players in Europe and play for their national team. You are sadly deluded if you think money is the sole reason why players move, even though I'm sure it makes you feel better about modern footballers to think so.
|
threesixty
6:18 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
"Southampton were closer last year than they are now.
They'll soon lose the likes of Pelle, Bertrand, Wanyama and Mane to bigger clubs who can offer them more money and regular European football. Much as their youth system o"
I dont understand that club. What is the point? I understand being a selling club if you're in some crap league like Holand (i.e. Ajax), but here?
You're basically cutting off your nose to spite your face. The first lot of sales should have been used to improve the contracts of the players left. Most are going because of money not because of some dying ambition to sit on the bench at a big club.
The squad they sold could easily have made them permanent CL contenders. Which would make them even more money. If they sell any more its all over. Anyone can be another Leeds, anyone. Look at Newcastle after selling Cabaye. They still haven't recovered.
|
Trevor B
6:15 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
yes sorry you're right, it was championship ffp rules and that's what they are fighting since relegation.
|
kylay
6:13 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Trev,
I remember QPR being an issue in the championship last time they were down there, but due to being promoted, basically told them to fuck off. I was wondering whether there would be fall out when they were relegated last year. However, that was with the championship which I thought was different to the PL FFP (could be mistaken on that).
|
Trevor B
6:11 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
the problem is that any extra revenue can go towards spending, so the likes of man city just put through a massive sponsorship deal from one of the companies owned/linked to their owners. there was suggestion that these deals would be looked into.
|
Trevor B
6:09 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
lylay
man city, psg, inter, roma, monaco, sporting and a few others have been punished under the Uefa FFP rules.
as for the PL rules QPR have been found guilty and are fighting it. not sure about anyone else.
|
Sven Roeder
6:09 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Man City's punishment was that they were only allowed to have 21 players in their Champions league squad instead of 25.
I think the season before they had only used 20 players in that competition anyway.
|
kylay
6:04 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
has any club actually been punished for running afoul of FFP?
there's is absolutely no way Man U, Chelsea, or Man City have complied with it.
|
El Scorchio
5:37 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Trevor B 5:16
Yes, you're probably right. To be honest I didn't really take age in to consideration- i was just lazily listing some of their most prominent players :)
Sort of agree about Bertrand, but I reckon the fact he's English (and in the national squad) will see someone massively overbid for him and take him off their hands anyway!
|
Trevor B
5:24 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Whilst FFP remains in place the bigger clubs will always have much greater spending power. i can understand why it was implemented, to try to stop smaller clubs going for broke and going bust, but in turn it's just helped the top clubs cement their wealth.
|
Alex V
5:21 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
There are a bunch of things happening in football though that might change the landscape over the next few years, I think what might become most important is which clubs are positioned correctly to exploit those changes. The revolutions in sports science and analytics, the greater spending power of all clubs, the home/away balance possibly changing, and clubs just generally starting to become much better run and more professional.
I think in ten years time the premiership might be a much more open competition. What I'm not sure about is whether that suits West Ham or not - it gives us a greater chance of overturning the clubs bigger than us, but also gives the smaller clubs a chance of turning us over.
|
Trevor B
5:16 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
ES
Not entirely sure about the first two mate, Pelle is nearly 30 and I don't think Bertrand is that good. the other you are probably right about though. Like any club outside of the top echelon it all depends how they are replaced, and Southampton have done a pretty decent job at that, as opposed to the likes of Spurs when selling their best players.
|
El Scorchio
5:10 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Southampton were closer last year than they are now.
They'll soon lose the likes of Pelle, Bertrand, Wanyama and Mane to bigger clubs who can offer them more money and regular European football. Much as their youth system of late has been impressive along with their recruitment, they won't continue to keep striking gold with either.
The players they've lost is almost as long as the list of players they've brought through or brought in.
|
Pancho
5:05 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
"but I think there is something impressive about it"
You are easily impressed given the loss they took and basically spunked the 85 Bale money on shite!
|
Alex V
5:04 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
>>> Alex, I agree that spending alone is not a recipe for success.But, for a club like ourselves, we will have to spend a shit load of money (as well as produce a couple of Rio standard youth products) if we are to progress to the Champions League & challenge for titles.
That's not even a model for success I'm afraid, given FFP restrictions. That's why I say there's a ceiling. It applied to us as much as it applies to Spurs and Liverpool. Even without FFP I suspect we'd have to spend hundreds of millions over many years to even get close. And if we did, the big clubs would just respond in kind. And we'd have to be incredibly lucky with signings.
That said, genuine progress is only impossible until someone works out how to achieve it. Maybe there's another way. I would argue a club like Southampton is closer to achieving it than many. Though given the nature of the premiership they might also be fighting relegation in a year. I certainly can't imagine a feasible solution to making progress that doesn't involve a massive reliance on youth products. So we have a long way to go imo.
|
El Scorchio
4:48 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Look at the amount Man U have had to spend to become contenders again. Even though it's dubious they actually are genuine contenders, at this point.
Spurs, Southampton, Swansea, us, or anyone else can never hope to match that. Especially as when we do unearth a gem, more often than not, the top clubs just poach them and set our progress back anyway.
|
SUM A DING WONG
4:34 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Alex V 11:37 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
Full Claret Jacket 11:28 Wed Oct 7
The way I interpret it is that Spurs have realised that spending alone cannot bridge the next gap. I think it's a ceiling that we may hit as well - there comes a time where just spending a lot of money will actually make little difference to league position. To be fair to them, they've been investing in younger players as a policy for well over a decade.
I agree they will struggle to retain their current status. The pack behind them are looking more and more dangerous.
Alex, I agree that spending alone is not a recipe for success.But, for a club like ourselves, we will have to spend a shit load of money (as well as produce a couple of Rio standard youth products) if we are to progress to the Champions League & challenge for titles.
Let's not kid ourselves. As well as Southampton & Swansea have performed over the past few season's, they are a long, long way off challenging for Champions League & Premier League titles.
|
Alex V
3:27 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
Here's a brilliant article about the same issue of Rodgers and the transfer committee, a response to one of the pathetic hatchet jobs in the tabloids...
http://tomkinstimes.com/2015/10/liverpool-need-to-stay-out-of-the-dark-ages/
|
Marston Hammer
1:07 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
good article that.
not too many managers left these days that have total control of transfers. the obvious one left is wenger and they didn't sign a single outfield players this summer (despite apparently having £200m available).
|
Alex V
12:58 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/11916075/Liverpools-fabled-transfer-committee-is-not-the-problem-just-ask-Southampton-or-Swansea.html
|
White Pony
12:50 Wed Oct 7
Re: Brendan Rodgers gone
|
I know it's been done to death, but this still makes me LOL.
|
| 
