Redslo

He can play for us in the group stage even if he plays for them in the qualifying stages. Here is the official rule: As a rule, a player may not play in a UEFA club competition (i.e. UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, but not UEFA Super Cup) for more than one club in the course of the same season. Exceptionally, however, a player who has been fielded in the first, second, third qualifying round or the play-offs of the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League is entitled to play in the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League for another club as from the group stage. Moreover, as from the start of the round of 16, a player can be registered in accordance with Paragraph 44.01 to Paragraph 44.04. A substitute player who has not been fielded is entitled to play for another club competing in the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League in the course of the same season, provided that he is registered with the UEFA administration in accordance with the present regulations.

I think the litigation threat was a way of forcing Atletico deal with us when we were under the mistaken impression that Toby wanted to play for us rather than Spurs.

To put in another way, the only transfers that were bad recently were Cork to Swansea and Boruc to Bournemouth. The difference is that we do not have to sell for our own financial reasons. If Schneiderlin, Clyne, and Alderweireld had wanted to stay with us on increased wages we would have gladly accommodated them. The clubs we are buying from need to sell some players to get by.

Actually, it is 53K a week in real money.

Or, even worse, shows causality when it does not exist.

Also, it might make Man U look elsewhere for a De Gea replacement which would help Tottenham.

Actually, we are third from the right and you left off many many smaller fish on the left.

Interestingly, the Spurs sold 8 players in each of the last three seasons. You might argue that they were mostly not good players so they weren't trying to keep them. True, but is that really a good point for Spurs--their Slogan: "Spurs--a Top Six Club with very few players good enough to play for the top five clubs."

FM 2015 says about 71K pounds per week.

Top quality response to nonsense. I find it difficult to understand how people in the UK don't realize that they have just reelected a government whose economic policies, if carried out, will lead to an increase in unemployment and a net increase in debt relative to GDP. But the conservative economic make the rich richer con job rolls on through out the western world. Also, Go Southampton. If so, the contractors should be paying the living wage or they should be replaced by someone who will.

Maybe our new goal should be to sell our players to PSG, Bayern, Barcelona, and Real Madrid so we can get more money and not strengthen rivals. That would be a good five year plan.

Exactly. Although the money could have been borrowed and the interest would also not have counted against FFP. However, even with this type of expenditure the math is iffy. Say we expanded by 30K and sold out every seat for every game for 100 pounds. That is 30,000 x 100 x 19 = 57 million pounds. I am not pretended that that wouldn't help, but it still leaves us far behind the top six revenue clubs. Even worse, West Ham is sort of doing this at virtually no cost to themselves so we will soon be permanently behind West Ham in turn over.

Someone has been reading Soccernomics.

Assuming your summary of events is fairly accurate, you still overlook the effects of Financial Fair Play. Cortese plan to spend millions of pounds every year would not have been permissible under the current rules absent a way to get big commercial and sponsorship deals in place to cover the spending and it appears clear that his inability/failure to get such deals was one of his biggest weaknesses as club chairman. Also, this. If Cortese's plan was to put together a Championship League club while paying midtable wages, it was never going to work. If he planned to pay top four wages, the Financial Fair Play problems would be even more insurmountable--except they were already insurmountable so it is hard to say they were more insurmountable. As a San Francisco 49er fan back in the '80s, when they were accused of buying success, I can tell you that it is attractive to do so and not easy. If you do not hire the right coaching and scouting staff and find and retain the right players you cannot buy success no matter how much money you spend. And the European club trained home grown rules make it difficult for any club to reliably do well in the Champions League without a significant home grown player development contribution. That is one of Manchester City's biggest problems. They effectively have four dead spots on their European roster--a problem we will share with them this year--unless Isgrove is useful in Europe. Actually, you are right. Unless the premier league is willing to adopt a salary cap that does not favor the richer clubs, good clubs like ours will always lose player to the richer clubs--although this summer it looks like we will not be the only victims of this process. And, of course, no such salary cap will ever come to pass because it is entirely inconsistent with a league structure that includes relegation and promotion. I think our ambitions extend further than that. Also, I think avoiding relegation is first on everyone's to do list, even Manchester United's. Quite right. Between us re have covered it all.

yes. At least until the rule changes proposed by the FA go through.

Could Koeman actually be conducting the negotiations? That is Reed's job.

Actually, that was not bad. Very little crazy.

I listened to it four times, but then I was transcribing it. I do not understand how someone can claim that the TA explanation does not hang together. LostBoys may not want to believe it, but it hangs together just fine. He also may be more optimistic about Ramirez this summer.

To be fair, if the club announced a one year extension of his contract, it would be a disaster because we are on the hook for way too much additional money if it doesn't work out or because it is too short an extension. I have no idea which way it would go.

You're welcome. Interestingly, it generated the second most active day of page hits on my blog ever. It was only beat by 4 August 2014 which had six times as many hits. I guess people let to read Les Reed transcripts (or other reassuring words) in the midst of meltdowns.

Being an American, my first response was that he had not gained that much weight.

That is not how it works. Les explained it poorly because he wasn't focusing on that issue. For this coming year, (this is a slight simplification) under Premier League rules our player salary cap is 60 million pounds increased by any non-Premier League TV contract money income that exceeds our non-Premier League TV contract money from 2013-2014. This would include increased commercial revenue, match day income, and net profit on player trading. Manchester United, on the other hand, because their payroll was more that 52 million in 2013-2014 is limited in a different way. They cannot spend more than they did that year except their cap is increased by their increase in non-Premier League TV contract money income. Since we know they have greatly increased their commercial revenue in the past couple of years and, I assume, have raised ticket prices. They have a lot of leeway to increase their payroll on top of its already high level. The Premier League payroll limits are not the only factors, of course. Burnley, for example, could have increased its payroll to 56 million last year, but did not for obvious reasons--they didn't have the money and didn't want to bankrupt themselves trying to stay in the Premier League. QPR, on the other hand, had a payroll that was over the basic limit so they were subject to the same rules as Manchester United--except on a much lower and less competent level. True. Although as a practical matter, we are not limited by FFP unless Liebherr actually wants to invest at least 13 or 14 million pounds a year.

We can't afford Di Maria's salary, but otherwise a good thought.

Way too generous a grader, are you. A little better.

I just published a transcript of Les Reed's interview on my blog. I cleverly called it "I Transcribed Les Reed’s 10 July 2015 Interview with @bigadamsport." http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/ http://redsloscf.blogspot.co.uk/