Mr Popodopolous Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 (edited) He isn't the only one either. https://www.newcastleworld.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/we-cant-gary-neville-hits-out-at-premier-league-and-makes-newcastle-united-plea-supporters-will-love-4764741 All I can say is that while it is a valid Regulatory position to hold, the other part of me thinks **** off. Because your League came up with these Rules and the Football League adopted them too in 2016-17, or the first 3 year Period was 2014-15 to 2016-17. Lots of EFL clubs have sold their best and brightest to the PL, either to fill a hole or to balance a risky strategy. We are one of the top but not the only one..Kelly, Scott, Semenyo. Talking pure Academy, clearly Profits would push us higher. Rowe from Norwich, Idah too- Murphy? Aarons. Cash among others from Nottingham Forest. Eze from QPR and the other guy. Bellingham from the other BCFC. Hendrick from Derby sticks out. As does Will Hughes and Bogle. Stoke Souttar and Collins (unsure how 2 CBs in an average to lower Championship side no more than a few months and 18 months post Covid yield a total of £25m plus Sell-Ons but they did). Are such EFL sides going to be retrospectively compensated?? How do you square that circle you insular ****. Possibly hypocritical too. The other answer is spend a bit less, or spend with a bit more care. He doesn't explain either how UEFA Rules fit into his moan, plus the Rules changing as they soon will be would reduce the need. Edited September 2 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjak Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Neville moans for a living these days? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltshoveller Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Should let clubs spend what they can afford but should also make clubs pay transfers in full Leeds Utd owe £196m to other clubs in transfers which could put these clubs at risk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 The point is that clubs chose to buy a sparkling new player, say Ugarte going to Man U then have to sell someone to pay for it. This makes their homegrown players more attractive to get rid of. They could've kept McTominay and given him a new contract if they wanted. Same with Chelsea and Gallagher. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 Neville seems to have a preference for both owning a cake and consuming it in this instance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 FFP wasn't a problem for Neville when Manure were winning. Funny that. What's changed? Oh yeah, Manure are sh!te, top to bottom! Lovely. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Maltshoveller said: Should let clubs spend what they can afford but should also make clubs pay transfers in full Leeds Utd owe £196m to other clubs in transfers which could put these clubs at risk I think this is getting along the right lines. I’m not entirely sure how things should work but I certainly feel that any transfer fees should be settled immediately and not spread over a number of years. I don’t know when football started doing things “on the tick”. You want something. You buy it. You pay for it. Immediately. It’s the nonsense of spreading payments over years that surely causes clubs problems planning from year to year. I’d be in favour of doing away with financial regulations altogether. But clubs just settle payments immediately. Therefore, if you don’t have the money you can’t buy. To prevent big clubs stockpiling players, perhaps some sort of squad limit can be introduced. A proper one. Not the rubbish they have at the moment. A squad of say 25 players, which must include 5 homegrown players (not foreign ones, ie to prevent clubs nicking 16 year olds from Brazil etc). If you hit an injury crisis then you have to use your own youth products. Simples. And it’d be the same for everyone. If you end up with players who aren’t in your 25 man squad, they must be sold or immediately loaned out - without cost, ie no expensive loan fees. This should prevent stockpiling and clubs making millions from loaning out tens of players. Not really thought through much, just off the cuff thoughts, but surely there is a better way without the need for financial restrictions. Edited September 3 by Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 3 hours ago, Maltshoveller said: Should let clubs spend what they can afford Would make Man City win the league by even my points every year, and those who didn’t want to play for them would all be in Saudi or Qatar! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 4 minutes ago, petehinton said: Would make Man City win the league by even my points every year, and those who didn’t want to play for them would all be in Saudi or Qatar! Yeah, I reckon they don't sell Zinchenko, Sterling, Jesus in 2022 in that scenario and probably some others thereafter too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.