Premier League 2022/23 Thread

[Jattdogg]

Imagine being as shit as us...bournemouth is worse...keep being shit bournemouth!

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

5 minutes ago, Guest said:

Bournemouth are going I reckon. It was funny seeing Scott Parker sacked for his whining but he was fundamentally correct in that the squad is not up to it and I think it'd take a better manager than Gary O'Neil to keep them up. My instinct today is that it'll be us and Everton joining them.

 

Bournemouth, So'ton and us for me but Everton are definitely the other-team-in-the-mix. I just think they'll squirm out of it.

 

Wolves are still a bigger price to go down than we are with most bookies when they're almost definitely finishing about 10 points ahead of us.

[The Bear]

4 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Bournemouth, So'ton and us for me but Everton are definitely the other-team-in-the-mix. I just think they'll squirm out of it.

 

Wolves are still a bigger price to go down than we are with most bookies when they're almost definitely finishing about 10 points ahead of us.

10 points 

 

Maybe 5 if we're lucky. You're on a bad run at the minute. But you won 6 games out of 7 in all comps before Chrimbo, with the same manager and players. You'll still win enough to survive IMO. 

Edited 14 January 2023 by The Bear

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

1 minute ago, The Bear said:

10 points 

 

Maybe 5 if we're lucky. You're on a bad run at the minute. But you won 6 games out of 7 in all comps before Chrimbo, with the same manager and players. You'll still win enough to survive IMO. 

 

You don't watch us. Can't keep scoring belters to save our arses forever.

[AjcW]

So in amongst our steaming pile of turd…

 

Chelsea have just spent (another)  £100m on a player who sleeps in Arsenal pyjamas and has been moving to Arsenal for the last 6 months  

[Md9]

How are Chelsea allowed to spend so much all of a sudden they will have about 600 players by the end of January . 

[Sunbury Fox]

3 hours ago, KingsX said:

The Boehly Binge continues.  Arsenal beaten to the punch.

 

Chelsea have agreed a deal with Shakhtar Donetsk to sign Mykhailo Mudryk for a fixed fee of £62M, with a further £35M in add-ons.  With a seven-year-plus contract to be signed.

I just don't understand how Chelsea can keep spending so much. Their stadium only holds about 40k and they don't generate income from a world wide fanbase like Liverpool and Man U. Surely they must fall foul of FFP soon?

Edited 14 January 2023 by Sunbury Fox

[howie]

8 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

I just don't understand how Chelsea can keep spending so much. Their stadium only holds about 40k and they don't generate income from a world wide fanbase like Liverpool and Man U. Surely they must fall foul of FFP soon?

Almost half a billion in 6 months!

[taupe]

13 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

I just don't know understand how Chelsea can keep spending so much

No, as I've said elsewhere, it doesn't add up for me either. Not just Chelsea but other clubs too. We've apparently got money, we just can't spend it.

 

People mention our wage bill, and I've seen the percentages against income, but I find it difficult to believe that it is that simple. I accept we're paying our payers/staff a lot but it must be several times more than elsewhere, on top of a very small income, for us to be so restricted in a way that other clubs clearly aren't.

 

I can only think that some clubs are either being very creative in their accounting or simply don't give a toss and will cross the FFP fines bridge when they get to it. 

 

 

Edited 14 January 2023 by taupe

[The Bear]

Is De Zerbi actually a really good manager? Or is he just riding on the coat tails of everything that Potter built and set up?

 

I doubt he's changed anything their coaches are doing in training, and Potter left them in good form. It's not as if he's had to turn anything around. 

Edited 14 January 2023 by The Bear

[Corky]

1 minute ago, The Bear said:

Is De Zerbi actually a really good manager? Or is he just riding on the coat tails of everything that Potter built and set up?

 

I doubt he's changed anything their coaches are doing in training, and Potter left them in good form. It's not as if he's had to turn anything around. 

Their whole coaching staff and key figures went with Potter. They are scoring a lot more goals now. He must be having an impact.

[The Bear]

So the headed pass through to Jimenez for his offside goal today, got flicked on by the West Ham defender's head. But unlike Salah's goal against us VAR rules it out offside this time. Sounds about right... 

 

Oh and talking of the Liverpool cup game:

 

 

 

Edited 14 January 2023 by The Bear

[Deeg67]

6 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Bournemouth, So'ton and us for me but Everton are definitely the other-team-in-the-mix. I just think they'll squirm out of it.

 

Wolves are still a bigger price to go down than we are with most bookies when they're almost definitely finishing about 10 points ahead of us.

As I've been saying for months Forest are rounding into form under Cooper.  He's a very good manager (look how his tactics and subs ran rings around Rodgers today, not that it's hard to do that), and they have enough talent to survive.  I think they'll make it.

 

The lack of obvious sacrificial lambs at the bottom is the headline this season - it could go down to the last week amongst 6 or 7 teams.  Right now you'd peg us and Bournemouth as the most likely to go but who the hell knows?

Edited 15 January 2023 by Deeg67

[AjcW]

There’s going to be studies in years to come about why no one ever signed James Ward Prowse 

[Sly]

13 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Imagine being as shit as us...bournemouth is worse...keep being shit bournemouth!

I’m not sure they are though. We’ll see when we play them next. 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, AjcW said:

There’s going to be studies in years to come about why no one ever signed James Ward Prowse 

How good is his general play in terms of a top 6/8 side wanting him ?

 

Probably wouldn’t leave for anyone below that .

 

Peopke will want to clone him for the free kicks though !

Edited 15 January 2023 by Super_horns

[SkidsFox]

15 hours ago, KingsX said:

The Boehly Binge continues.  Arsenal beaten to the punch.

 

Chelsea have agreed a deal with Shakhtar Donetsk to sign Mykhailo Mudryk for a fixed fee of £62M, with a further £35M in add-ons.  With a seven-year-plus contract to be signed.

If anything he's putting the Abramovich years in the shade. I can't work this Boehly geezer out. Looking at his wiki bio, he seems to have made his fortune investing cautiously across various industries, but he's now spending like a Brit who's in Las Vegas for one afternoon. 

Todd Boehly - Wikipedia

 

[davieG]

This is why VAR will never solve refereeing issues, nobody agrees anyway. Maybe the Offside Law along with others is too complicated.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64277084

 

Manchester City defender Manuel Akanji says Bruno Fernandes' equalising goal in the Manchester derby was a "joke", while Manchester United boss Erik ten Hag admitted he "wouldn't be happy if we conceded a goal like this".

Fernandes swept past Ederson to cancel out Jack Grealish's opener, but the goal was initially ruled out with assistant referee Darren Cann raising his flag for offside against Marcus Rashford.

The England international was clearly offside, and ran towards the ball, but after a conversation with Cann referee Stuart Attwell decided Rashford did not interfere with play.

Rashford turned home Alejandro Garnacho's cross moments later to give United a 2-1 win at a raucous Old Trafford, leaving them one point behind second-placed City.

 

Akanji was the closest defender to Rashford, and played the offside trap as the forward ran through on Casemiro's ball.

He ran towards the ball before leaving it after getting a shout from Fernandes, who finished past an advancing Ederson.

Fernandes reacted angrily to the offside flag and both sets of players crowded around Cann and Attwell during their discussion.

"To be honest the first goal is a joke," Akanji told BBC Match of the Day. "I saw Rashford, he was clearly offside, so I played him offside.

"He runs until the last second and he stops when the ball is in front of him and he's right in front of Eddy [Ederson], ready to score the goal, because Bruno Fernandes is shouting him.

 

"I understand he doesn't touch the ball but he's running for 30 metres and until the last second. For me it is clearly offside. The referee doesn't even look at the situation, it got explained at the start of the year this would be clearly offside."

Ten Hag, who won his first Manchester derby at the second time of asking, said: "I could see on the other side that it confused the backline, that was clear. It is also the rule.

"I wouldn't be happy if it was my team as well if we conceded a goal like this. I can see the disappointment in the other side, but I can also see the referee did well."

City boss Pep Guardiola added: "Marcus Rashford is offside, Bruno Fernandes is not. Rashford distracted our keeper and centre defenders. It is what it is. We know where we play. It is difficult for the referees in these stadiums."

Former Manchester City defender Micah Richards, speaking on BBC Match of the Day, said: "It is a shocking decision, let's be honest.

"The nature of it, as a defender if someone is there, say you're the striker, I am constantly adjusting my position based on where you're going to be. I'm not worried about anyone behind me. You're trying to play a high line and that's an art."

Ex-England and Arsenal striker Ian Wright added: "It should have been offside. Manuel Akanji stops because he sees Marcus Rashford running offside. He is interfering because Akanji has tried to play him offside and then Ederson has moved to save where he thinks he's going to shoot. He's taken everyone's attention."

Former England striker Gary Lineker added: "I don't understand how you can possibly say that Rashford isn't interfering."

 

'He's interfering with nobody'
For their part, Rashford and Fernandes thought the goal should have stood.

"I thought I went a bit early so I didn't run. If I ran for the ball I would have just took it or shot or passed. I thought I was offside so I didn't touch the ball," Rashford said.

"That's all I can do in that situation and then it's up to the referee and linesman. In my opinion I wasn't involved in the play. I felt like it should have stood."

Fernandes, speaking on BT Sport, said: "I was facing the goal, Marcus probably saw I was in a better position. I didn't know if either of us was offside. He didn't make any influence on the defenders. It is what it is."

Former Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand and midfielder Paul Scholes, working as pundits on BT Sport, agreed.

Ferdinand said: "Rashford doesn't impact any of the defenders running strides, patterns or positions. It is intelligent from him and Fernandes. I don't feel any of the defenders can influence any of it."

Scholes said: "He's interfering with nobody. It is good communication and a great finish."

Former Manchester City defender Joleon Lescott agreed it should have been a goal, but added: "That's the part of the rule I don't like. The defender has done well to play offside."

What does the law say?
The official Ifab law book for 2022-23 (rule 11.2) says:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
1. Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or

2. Challenging an opponent for the ball or

3. Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

4. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
1. Rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

2. Been deliberately saved by any opponent

 

'He's interfering with nobody'
For their part, Rashford and Fernandes thought the goal should have stood.

"I thought I went a bit early so I didn't run. If I ran for the ball I would have just took it or shot or passed. I thought I was offside so I didn't touch the ball," Rashford said.

"That's all I can do in that situation and then it's up to the referee and linesman. In my opinion I wasn't involved in the play. I felt like it should have stood."

 

Fernandes, speaking on BT Sport, said: "I was facing the goal, Marcus probably saw I was in a better position. I didn't know if either of us was offside. He didn't make any influence on the defenders. It is what it is."

 

Former Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand and midfielder Paul Scholes, working as pundits on BT Sport, agreed.

Ferdinand said: "Rashford doesn't impact any of the defenders running strides, patterns or positions. It is intelligent from him and Fernandes. I don't feel any of the defenders can influence any of it."

 

Scholes said: "He's interfering with nobody. It is good communication and a great finish."

 

Former Manchester City defender Joleon Lescott agreed it should have been a goal, but added: "That's the part of the rule I don't like. The defender has done well to play offside."

What does the law say?

The official Ifab law book for 2022-23 (rule 11.2) says:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
1. Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or

2. Challenging an opponent for the ball or

3. Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

4. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
1. Rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

2. Been deliberately saved by any opponent

 

 

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

If anything he's putting the Abramovich years in the shade. I can't work this Boehly geezer out. Looking at his wiki bio, he seems to have made his fortune investing cautiously across various industries, but he's now spending like a Brit who's in Las Vegas for one afternoon. 

Todd Boehly - Wikipedia

 

But is it his money he's now spending? I suspect not.

[when_you're_smiling]

12 hours ago, taupe said:

No, as I've said elsewhere, it doesn't add up for me either. Not just Chelsea but other clubs too. We've apparently got money, we just can't spend it.

 

People mention our wage bill, and I've seen the percentages against income, but I find it difficult to believe that it is that simple. I accept we're paying our payers/staff a lot but it must be several times more than elsewhere, on top of a very small income, for us to be so restricted in a way that other clubs clearly aren't.

 

I can only think that some clubs are either being very creative in their accounting or simply don't give a toss and will cross the FFP fines bridge when they get to it. 

 

 

It’s because of their huge income streams. FFP  was always about maintaining the status quo and stopping other clubs from competing.

 

A mid-table club now wouldn’t normally be able to spend as much as Arsenal have recently, and look where it’s got them. Right back up there.

[taupe]

24 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

FFP  was always about maintaining the status quo and stopping other clubs from competing.

In fairness, I think it's about stopping clubs going bust. In practice, it leads to what you suggest.

 

I can only guess that FFP is a little more nuanced than it's been portrayed here (i.e. wages v. income) and other measures are factored in. As I say, I'm baffled that clubs seemingly not too dissimilar to ours are able to spend more freely. I can't believe we pay our staff that much more. Perhaps we have twice the number of backroom staff?  Or is our income comparatively pathetic?  For me, it doesn't add up (not to produce the effect it seemingly does anyway) 

[AjcW]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

How good is his general play in terms of a top 6/8 side wanting him ?

 

Probably wouldn’t leave for anyone below that .

 

Peopke will want to clone him for the free kicks though !

I think he’s a great passer of the ball, I’d love to see what he could do with some top class forwards and people around him to pass it to him better. 
 

First goal today showed what he can do in a more advanced position too. 

[Super_horns]

Just watching MOTD.

 

Classic manager reaction after the Brentford v Bournemouth game basically saying the opposite to each other simply depending on which side they were on.

[when_you're_smiling]

56 minutes ago, taupe said:

In fairness, I think it's about stopping clubs going bust. In practice, it leads to what you suggest.

 

I can only guess that FFP is a little more nuanced than it's been portrayed here (i.e. wages v. income) and other measures are factored in. As I say, I'm baffled that clubs seemingly not too dissimilar to ours are able to spend more freely. I can't believe we pay our staff that much more. Perhaps we have twice the number of backroom staff?  Or is our income comparatively pathetic?  For me, it doesn't add up (not to produce the effect it seemingly does anyway) 

Hmm. That was the stated aim but you’re less cynical than me, which is probably a good thing.

 

I’ve attached what The Athletic say is income for 2020/2021. As you can see, the big clubs have more than double. That’s double the income every year. Then you go into stuff like Man City’s incredibly generous sponsorship deal with a company their owners also happen to part own, which is apparently fine and something we do as well to be fair but to a much, much smaller level because there is not enough money there. In fact the argument is King Power get relatively cheap advertising from the club, though not sure the owners would feel that way.

[Arkie Bennett]

Newcastle v Fulham...this could have the lowest ball in play time ever.