TheBigIguana
Player Valuation: £90m
I’ll be around so long as we’re not playing matches
Huh??????
TheBigIguana
Player Valuation: £90m
When we actually play I can’t take anymore Everton those weeks
Zatara
Player Valuation: £90m
I expect we'll know all by the end of the month.
£15mil Godfrey may be a little on the high side, £25mil for DCL a little on the low side and if he sells Onana we need to pocket at least £60mil.
That would give us £100mil before Keane, Holgate and Maupay being punted.
If theyve rejected extensions then a combined £40mil in asap wouldnt go amiss. Otherwise, i think we could quickly create a sizeable warchest adding in Onana and a few others.
…..counting down in ‘Discount June’, I suspect clubs will leave it as long as possible knowing we could be desperate to conclude deals before the end of this month.
Mrbluenose
Player Valuation: £8m
"Discount June" is a ridiculous state of affairs created by corrupt, BS rules.
That said, if you run your club properly and play the game well you can be the one giving it, rather than taking it.
…hopefully things will be different next summer but sadly it looks like it’s our situation this month. What we don’t know is how much we need to raise.
Last edited:
Norwegian Cow
Player Valuation: £35m
money is ruining football for me . The biggest clubs with the deepest pockets buy their way to success, and it’s no longer the game we grew up loving. What happened to developing homegrown talent and focusing on grassroots? Now, it's all about who can spend the most on transfer fees and salaries.
Imagine if we could implement a transfer and salary cap. In theory, it could work and bring several benefits to the sport. For one, it would help level the playing field, making leagues more competitive and giving smaller clubs a chance to shine. Clubs would be incentivized to invest in their youth academies, fostering homegrown talent instead of splurging on expensive transfers.
Financially, caps would encourage clubs to spend within their means, reducing the risk of financial crises and bankruptcies. Clubs would need to manage their finances more prudently, avoiding extravagant spending on player acquisitions and wages. A cap could also prevent top talent from concentrating in a few wealthy clubs, promoting a more even distribution of quality players.
However, implementing such caps would be challenging. Football is a global sport with various leagues and governing bodies, and coordinating a universal cap would be complex and require broad consensus. Salary caps could face legal challenges, especially in countries with strict labor laws, as players’ unions might argue that caps restrict earning potential and violate labor rights.
Additionally, clubs generate different levels of revenue. A flat cap might not account for these disparities, potentially disadvantaging clubs in smaller markets. Clubs might also find ways to circumvent caps through creative accounting or loopholes, such as offering higher bonuses or signing-on fees instead of salaries.
Another issue is that top players might prefer leagues without strict caps if they can earn more elsewhere. European clubs, in particular, might struggle to compete with leagues in countries without caps, like those in Asia or the Middle East, where financial constraints are less stringent.
In theory, a transfer and salary cap could address many financial and competitive imbalances in football. However, practical implementation would be challenging and require significant cooperation among football’s global governing bodies, clubs, and players. It’s a complex issue that involves balancing fairness and competitiveness with the realities of a global, commercially driven sport.
Is there a way to push for these changes, or are we doomed to see football become even more commercialized?
Imagine if we could implement a transfer and salary cap. In theory, it could work and bring several benefits to the sport. For one, it would help level the playing field, making leagues more competitive and giving smaller clubs a chance to shine. Clubs would be incentivized to invest in their youth academies, fostering homegrown talent instead of splurging on expensive transfers.
Financially, caps would encourage clubs to spend within their means, reducing the risk of financial crises and bankruptcies. Clubs would need to manage their finances more prudently, avoiding extravagant spending on player acquisitions and wages. A cap could also prevent top talent from concentrating in a few wealthy clubs, promoting a more even distribution of quality players.
However, implementing such caps would be challenging. Football is a global sport with various leagues and governing bodies, and coordinating a universal cap would be complex and require broad consensus. Salary caps could face legal challenges, especially in countries with strict labor laws, as players’ unions might argue that caps restrict earning potential and violate labor rights.
Additionally, clubs generate different levels of revenue. A flat cap might not account for these disparities, potentially disadvantaging clubs in smaller markets. Clubs might also find ways to circumvent caps through creative accounting or loopholes, such as offering higher bonuses or signing-on fees instead of salaries.
Another issue is that top players might prefer leagues without strict caps if they can earn more elsewhere. European clubs, in particular, might struggle to compete with leagues in countries without caps, like those in Asia or the Middle East, where financial constraints are less stringent.
In theory, a transfer and salary cap could address many financial and competitive imbalances in football. However, practical implementation would be challenging and require significant cooperation among football’s global governing bodies, clubs, and players. It’s a complex issue that involves balancing fairness and competitiveness with the realities of a global, commercially driven sport.
Is there a way to push for these changes, or are we doomed to see football become even more commercialized?
Raino85
Player Valuation: £35m
He's 100% turned down our offer of a contract mate!
Mrbluenose
Player Valuation: £8m
No problem with Godfrey and Dom turning down contracts, assuming they were reasonable offers. Thats their prerogative.
If they then refuse to be sold, thus hurting the club, that's when I have a problem.
If they then refuse to be sold, thus hurting the club, that's when I have a problem.
I was talking to a Liverpool supporter yesterday who wants everything to stay exactly as it is. Obviously he hates Man City and everything about them.
I told him that I hope City win their case and blows the whole current structure wide open. The current system allows maybe three or four clubs to be successful year after year. Even if we got a fantastically wealthy new owner we still could not compete because of the current rules , which makes no sense to me. He was talking about a food chain in football and my reply is that the food chain has been artificially created by the current rules.
If City win their case there will be mayhem but maybe a fairer system will eventually grow from that.
We are looking at the sale of Godfrey and DCL almost as good thing because it will help with PSR and that is lunacy. We should not be forced to sell our better players because of an artificial rule which almost definitely means the clubs that can afford to buy our best players are those who benefit most from these rules.
FTY
Player Valuation: £70m
If you're gonna be supporting a club purely for their summer exploits then I can't think of a worse team to follow
CielosGrises
Player Valuation: £10m
You have to laugh at some of the supporters of this supposed working-class sport - Noel Gallagher cheering on a Sheikh and this Liverpool supporter hoping they can fix the rules to stay in the 'upper class' teams.
Then both clubs will put up the ticket prices to squeeze them and they'll complain.
Norwegian Cow
Player Valuation: £35m
it's not surprising coming from a Liverpool supporter. Of course, they'd want everything to stay exactly as it is – they've benefited from the current system.
The idea that there's a "natural" food chain in football is a myth. The current rules have created an artificial hierarchy where only a select few clubs can dominate year after year. This setup stifles competition and makes it nearly impossible for other teams to break through.
If City win their case, it could indeed blow the whole structure wide open, and honestly, that might be exactly what football needs. Yes, there would be mayhem, but sometimes disruption is necessary to dismantle an unfair system. A fairer, more competitive landscape would eventually emerge from that chaos, benefiting the sport as a whole.
It's frustrating to hear a Liverpool fan talk about maintaining a system that serves their interests while ignoring the broader impact on football. The current setup doesn't just favor the richest clubs; it ensures that only a few can succeed, year in and year out, making the leagues predictable and less exciting.
A shake-up could force a re-evaluation of the rules and potentially lead to a more equitable system where success is about more than just having the deepest pockets. It would make leagues more unpredictable and engaging, giving all clubs a real chance to compete at the highest level.
