The 2022-2023 Football Thread

[fanboy-ish]

Manchester City have won five out of the past six Premier League titles; that is far too many and is a degree of suffocating domnination that Manchester United (under Sir Alex Ferguson), or Liverpool in the 1980s, never quite reached.

They are currently facing over a hundred charges (115, I think) of having breached the FFP rules; 115 is not a small number, and I think that they are cavalier in their treatment of rules and regulations, believing (possibly correctly) that these do not apply to them.

Just to preserve a sense of cosmic fair play, - and to add a small sliver of belief to the idea that money (and an excellent manager with access to bottomless funds) cannot buy everything (Chelsea are not a sufficient object lesson in that regard), personally, I would like to see anyone other than Manchester City win the Champion's League and I devoutly hope that Manchester United - chaotic though they currently are - defeat them in the FA Cup.

That's why I believe that some sort of salary cap and a system of swapping players instead of buying them should be in place in Europe.

I've watched the Super League documentary on Apple TV+ and, if memory serves me right, it was either Florentino Perez or Barcelona's President Laporta who said that no club, no matter how rich (like Real Madrid) or well-run (like Bayern) could ever possibly compete against a country.

It's not only City, in Europe we have City, Newcastle, PSG.

PSG was fined 65m Euros, big deal for a club that spent 400m Euros in one summer to buy two players.

I've been watching some highlights from the 70s and 80s, mostly because I wanted to enjoy a different kind of football, but I think that today "miracles" like Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, Steaua, Red Star, Feynoord, PSV Eindhoven winning the Champion's League are almost impossible, their chances would be closer to zero than to one.

Of course, lavish spending does not equal to success.

However, being a Juventus fan, I do hope to see Inter Milan utterly destroyed and humiliated.

 

[laptech]

Manchester United aren't the football force they used to be, or they once were under the legendary Sir Alex Ferguson, - even if their "brand" does have a global reach.

This (gossip about transfers, inflated prices and so on) is not driven by Manchester United, but by football commentators who no longer have anything much to write about - yet must still fill pages, and airtime - now that the season has, to a large extent, finished.

Now, while the rumours of the future movement of Mason Mount to Manchester United very likely have some substance, no actual transfer will be possible until the transfer wondow opens.

For domestic transfers, - that is, being able to sign a player currently based in the domestic (UK) leagues, - this will occur on June 14. For international transfers, - in other words, the international transfer window - which means being allowed to buy players who are based abroad, and to sell to clubs that ply their trade elsewhere beyond UK shores - the transfer window will open on the 1st of July. Both windows will slam shut at the beginning of September, that is, to be precise, (11.00 p.m.) 23.00 UK time (24.00 CET) on the 1st of September.

United may not be the force they once was but they are still being used to bump up the prices of players. Take Harry Kane for example. Other clubs were first interested and his price had been quoted at anywhere between £60 to £80 million but as soon as United became interested his price jumped to £100 to £140 million. Agents, critics and football journalists always do it, as soon as there is a sniff of United being interested in a player, that players price suddenly increases.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Harry Kane's purported price last summer was notional, as Spurs had made it abundantly clear that they had no intention whatsoever of selling him.

However, my point is that Manchester United are no longer the driving force in determining the cost of a player, because of the way the club has been run, - more as a brand than a football team, and worse, loaded with the debt accrued for the purchase of the club - and the fact that they haven't been the force they were under Sir Alex Ferguson.

These days, the price of a player as just as likely to be driven by what Manchester City can afford to pay (a lot) and what Chelsea can afford to pay (an awful lot), as the wishes - or presumed demand for the servcies of a particular player - on the part of Manchester United.

 

[laptech]

Harry Kane's purported price last summer was notional, as Spurs had made it abundantly clear that they had no intention whatsoever of selling him.

However, my point is that Manchester United are no longer the driving force in determining the cost of a player, because of the way the club has been run, - more as a brand than a football team, and worse, loaded with the debt accrued for the purchase of the club - and the fact that they haven't been the force they were under Sir Alex Ferguson.

These days, the price of a player as just as likely to be driven by what Manchester City can afford to pay (a lot) and what Chelsea can afford to pay (an awful lot), as the wishes - or presumed demand for the servcies of a particular player - on the part of Manchester United.

If you think United have no clout then please ask me this, why even when during their dark days does nearly everyone and anyone in football keep associating players with United even when United have no intention of looking at said players? If United had not clout then surely players would not be linked with the club would they?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If you think United have no clout then please ask me this, why even when during their dark days does nearly everyone and anyone in football keep associating players with United even when United have no intention of looking at said players? If United had not clout then surely players would not be linked with the club would they?

Nowadays, Manchester United are a huge global brand, and I have absolutely no doubt that their reach - as a brand, that happens to be a football team - has global reach and popularity. Thus, what they do - from a PR perspective - is noticed and attracts attention (and coverage, in the media, and not just the sports media).

However, it is quite some time since their performances on the pitch meant that they were the team that set trends, or decided tactics, or determined the going prices of players.

Since Sir Alex Ferguson retired - and that is now all of a decade ago - Manchester United have never seriously threatened for title honours, and to be candid, they were already in decline those last few years under Sir Alex, but - such were his talents - he managed to mask the degree of their decline.

Prior to 2013 - and, indeed, for a few years subsequent to that until the extent of their relative decline became clearer, yes, I would have agreed with you that Manchester United had an outsize influence on perceptions of the Premier League, including the assumed value of players.

Their current influence (and I don't doubt that ETH is a good manager, and matters will improve under him if they have the wit to retain his services) is a blend of brand - incredible PR - and reputation, which they are living off.

My point is that the "clout", or the glamour, United have - such as it is - is a blend of brand (PR) and reputation - in essence, they are living off the glories of the (relatively recent) past, but which in no way reflects which teams currently set the standards (in football, in how the game is played, in the price that is attached to a player's name once such a player is thought to have an interest in transferring to Manchester United).

However, richer and better clubs (Manchester City for one, and - I would argue, Newcastle, over the coming seasons, for another re both ability and wealth - not to mention the ludicrous sums expended by Chelsea this season) have set the standards by which the game is played and the sums that clubs are willing to pay for players.

 

[laptech]

Nowadays, Manchester United are a huge global brand, and I have absolutely no doubt that their reach - as a brand, that happens to be a football team - has global reach and popularity. Thus, what they do - from a PR perspective - is noticed and attracts attention (and coverage, in the media, and not just the sports media).

However, it is quite some time since their performances on the pitch meant that they were the team that set trends, or decided tactics, or determined the going prices of players.

Since Sir Alex Ferguson retired - and that is now all of a decade ago - Manchester United have never seriously threatened for title honours, and to be candid, they were already in decline those last few years under Sir Alex, but - such were his talents - he managed to mask the degree of their decline.

Prior to 2013 - and, indeed, for a few years subsequent to that until the extent of their relative decline became clearer, yes, I would have agreed with you that Manchester United had an outsize influence on perceptions of the Premier League, including the assumed value of players.

Their current influence (and I don't doubt that ETH is a good manager, and matters will improve under him if they have the wit to retain his services) is a blend of brand - incredible PR - and reputation, which they are living off.

My point is that the "clout", or the glamour, United have - such as it is - is a blend of brand (PR) and reputation - in essence, they are living off the glories of the (relatively recent) past, but which in no way reflects which teams currently set the standards (in football, in how the game is played, in the price that is attached to a player's name once such a player is thought to have an interest in transferring to Manchester United).

However, richer and better clubs (Manchester City for one, and - I would argue, Newcastle, over the coming seasons, for another re both ability and wealth - not to mention the ludicrous sums expended by Chelsea this season) have set the standards by which the game is played and the sums that clubs are willing to pay for players.

So basically your saying in a kind about way that someone like Harry Kane linked to Everton for £70 million (hypothetical example) but when linked to United his value is instantly increased to £100 million just because he will be seen by more people around the world and have his face on more breakfast cereal than anyone else (PR and branding) and has nothing to do with the footballing of the club because they have been in decline the past number of years and no longer commands to dollar like Man City does.

Somehow I cannot see it. When ETH was linked to United suddenly there was a media frenzy that linked nearly all Ajax players from the past 4 years to Untied because of ETH having at one time or another worked with the player, players that the club had no intention of having buying but yet drove up the price of the players being linked to the club. Join Man City for £50 million and win something but join United for £100 million, win nothing but at least due to United branding you will get your face on more breakfast boxes and tea towels than and City player.

Of course agents wants their player going to United because they get a higher percentage of the transfer fee but their player will win nothing and be sitting on the bench for most of the season. I cannot see players going for that.

 

[Apple fanboy]

If you think United have no clout then please ask me this, why even when during their dark days does nearly everyone and anyone in football keep associating players with United even when United have no intention of looking at said players? If United had not clout then surely players would not be linked with the club would they?

Lazy journalism. Most stories are 100% bogus.

 

[Silencio]

Agents, owners, and Directors of Football see United as moneybags that can be exploited, or leverage to get what they want from other clubs. (Journalists and bloggers also know to use United to get clicks and views, even with the most nonsense rumors.) Even back in the days of SAF and David Gill, United often had to pay over the odds to bring players in, but it only got worse under Ed Woodward, who spent vast sums of money on questionable players over and over again. He also let the wage structure get severely out of whack.

Murtough's challenge is to both re-establish that United are not suckers in the transfer market, and get the wage structure back to some semblance of sanity. To do these things, he will have to resist giving Daniel Levy an extra £30-40 million for Kane to satisfy some irrational grudge, and he'll have to convince David De Gea to take a significant pay cut if he wants to come back. He may also have to pay off Harry Maguire to facilitate his departure.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The proposed two match touchline ban on José Mourinho is far too lenient, to my mind.

He is a toxic personality, with pure poison running in his veins, and his deliberately reckless, irresponsible remarks at his press conference - plus his subsequent verbal assault on the referee in the car park after the game which was inexcusable - led to disgraceful scenes at Budapest airport where the unfortunate referee (who had an excellent game) was verbally abused, as were his wife and daughter. This is utterly unacceptable.

 

[Corefile]

Since Sir Alex Ferguson retired - and that is now all of a decade ago - Manchester United have never seriously threatened for title honours, and to be candid, they were already in decline those last few years under Sir Alex, but - such were his talents - he managed to mask the degree of their decline.

What that club did to Moyes was unforgivable. Long may they live in the shadow of their smaller city rivals.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The proposed two match touchline ban on José Mourinho is far too lenient, to my mind.

He is a toxic personality, with pure poison running in his veins, and his deliberately reckless, irresponsible remarks at his press conference - plus his subsequent verbal assault on the referee in the car park after the game which was inexcusable - led to disgraceful scenes at Budapest airport where the unfortunate referee (who had an excellent game) was verbally abused, as were his wife and daughter. This is utterly unacceptable.

Could not agree more.

 

[Corefile]

So basically your saying in a kind about way that someone like Harry Kane linked to Everton for £70 million (hypothetical example) but when linked to United his value is instantly increased to £100 million just because he will be seen by more people around the world and have his face on more breakfast cereal than anyone else (PR and branding) and has nothing to do with the footballing of the club because they have been in decline the past number of years and no longer commands to dollar like Man City does.

This is what's wrong with the EPL. It's all about telephone numbers sized transfer fees for mediocre players. The EPL is full of garbage players and it's generally a one horse race with Man City and also-rans. That being Arsenal this year but they'll disappear back into their box now they've been shown to be bottle merchants. The whole league is filled with high priced mediocre teams that skew the rest of the European leagues. The sooner Sky dies and takes their Murdoch pounds with them then the sooner the game will return to real fans. Right now it's just a vanity league showing the worst excesses on display.

 

[Apple fanboy]

What that club did to Moyes was unforgivable. Long may they live in the shadow of their smaller city rivals.

No one was going to follow Sir Alex and do well. However if they had stuck with Moyes, I think they would have been no worse off than all the managers they went through before settling on their current one.

Plus if they had held on to him, he might not have been available to lead us to European cup glory in a few days time!

 

[Corefile]

Plus if they had held on to him, he might not have been available to lead us to European cup glory in a few days time!

Good luck to the Hammers. Always seemed the most likeable of the London clubs apart from Palace.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Good luck to the Hammers. Always seemed the most likeable of the London clubs apart from Palace.

I'll have everything crossed. It would be nice for Rice to lift a trophy before he goes. But my expectations are quite low.

 

[Silencio]

United did Moyes dirty, but he was never, ever the right choice. The job was way too big for him. Maybe they should've kept him on long enough to sign Toni Kroos — that would've had a bigger impact than anything.

Arguably losing David Gill and replacing him with Ed Woodward was even more damaging to United than SAF's retirement.

 

[fanboy-ish]

The proposed two match touchline ban on José Mourinho is far too lenient, to my mind.

He is a toxic personality, with pure poison running in his veins, and his deliberately reckless, irresponsible remarks at his press conference - plus his subsequent verbal assault on the referee in the car park after the game which was inexcusable - led to disgraceful scenes at Budapest airport where the unfortunate referee (who had an excellent game) was verbally abused, as were his wife and daughter. This is utterly unacceptable.

He is a bully.

When he was managing inter his interviews were always incendiary, borderline offensive to the other clubs and managers, he spoke like that because he knew he was managing a team whose strength was many levels above the competition; now, as Roma’s manager, he’s usually much less boastful, knowing that the checks he writes with his mouth wouldn’t be cashed by his team.

But he’s still a crybaby bully at heart.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

@laptech: There is an excellent article in yesterday's edition of the Guardian by Paul MacInnes entitled "FA Cup final: how local rivalry turned into global battle for brand supremacy" - (and I hadn't read it before our exchange yesterday) - which explores some of the stuff we were discussing.

I think it well worth reading.

Today's edition of the Guardian has an excellent interview with Gary Lineker (an individual I greatly admire and hugely respect), and also a few thoughtful, analytical pieces on the FA Cup Final, - Barney Ronay's piece ("Narrative overload: FA Cup final is a domestic finale ripe with storylines") is also well worth a look, as is an article by David Hytner with the title "Manchester City look to rub United’s noses in it and emulate Ferguson’s Class of 99".

 

[Scepticalscribe]

And, in the FA Cup Final itself, almost inexplicably, Manchester City score after 13 seconds, Ilkay Gundogan the goal scorer.

 

[decafjava]

And, in the FA Cup Final itself, almost inexplicably, Manchester City score after 13 seconds, Ilkay Gundogan the goal scorer.

Quaffing a Grimbergen in an Irish pub jn Geneva of all things and saw that wow the pub exploded.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Quaffing a Grimbergen in an Irish pub jn Geneva of all things and saw that wow the pub exploded.

Enjoy your Grimbergen (a lovely beer).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Manchester United equalise with a penalty (taken by Bruno Fernandes).

Actually, I am pleased.

A game where City win having scored in the first minute merely serves to reinforce their sense of the inevitability of their own dominance, and deprives the game of having any sense of a genuine contest.

This, at least, will guarantee that the match is a proper contest, not a coronation or an affirmation.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Half time with both the Manchester teams - this is the first time ever that they have met in an FA Cup Final - equal, with a goal apiece.

Hilarious to see City's outrage at the award of an penalty against them, not least because of the plethora of sly, cynical, fouls that they themselves have committed during the first half, and especially, since the penalty was awarded.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Half time with both the Manchester teams - this is the first time ever that they have met in an FA Cup Final - equal, with a goal apiece.

Hilarious to see City's outrage at the award of an penalty against them, not least because of the plethora of sly, cynical, fouls that they themselves have committed during the first half, and especially, since the penalty was awarded.

It was a soft penalty to be honest. But they all count.
I would have preferred a Manchester United win. Extra time would be good so City are tired for the CL final. But can’t really see that happening.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It was a soft penalty to be honest. But they all count.
I would have preferred a Manchester United win. Extra time would be good so City are tired for the CL final. But can’t really see that happening.

Well, it was correct, legally, and I am glad it was given as the game was over as a contest otherwise. Over after a minute.

I, too, would have preferred to see a Manchester United win (and I never thought that I would write that; their arrogance under Ferguson - especially the year - 1999-2000 - when they decided not to bother contesting the FA Cup and withdrew from the competition - really annoyed me and left a bad taste).

Anyway, City win the match by two goals to one.