Chrysalis

Pragmatic means you not locked into one style of play, an identity as some call it, I interpret as stubbornness locked into one style. We had an identity under Rodgers, it was pass between the defenders for most of the game. I think Cooper isnt entirely happy himself, but as long as he adapts from game to game, and we keep grinding out these points, I think he is doing alright. I think he is giving players freedom which has led to people say things like "down to individual brilliance", yes that happens when a manager lets players dribble forward.

I have always thought when the offside team are constantly redrawing the lines, they are trying to get a specific outcome, clear and obvious should mean they dont need to do that.

Look at saints, conceding goals from trying to play out too much and one point. Burnley last season another example. I think we need to be less defensive, but no doubt Cooper is doing alright with the tools he has, and the circumstances of which he joined. On the other hand what happened last season was in spite of Enzo. Our best performances were games he disowned.

Good luck in trying to get that sense out amongst this mob.

There is no revolt, people are so desperate on here to get him out.

Were you guys more inspired by Enzo sitting depressed away to Ipswich with not a clue what to do in that game then?

Does the new guy then also only get 7 games?

Beat me to it +1.

I will call it now, if they saying EPL stability is a requirement, then they not doing it.

Something else on that document, the two highest bidders for short sponsorship were betting companies, why wasnt king power able to match their offers.

It was certainly reported before start of July, so I am inclined to think they just delayed the announcement which clubs often do.

Your reality is a bit like saying we should never buy players again because of the akinbiyi, ward and mills signings. Essentially you saying because things can go wrong it means it will go wrong. Kind of a very risk averse approach.

Dont think we will get a 2nd breach, our finances have already been analysed, considered ok and Whelan has said she thinks we will be ok. There is even the possibility we get the full 105m loss allowance as well. Due to the T, T-1 and T-2 rules.

You consider that backing the team and manager?

According to sky players did actually refuse to join us on the basis of the looming points deduction. This kind of thing does get into players heads.

Side affect of PSR, every ounce of revenue is needed to spend more.

He is a pragmatic manager, so I dont think he will play the same way with the same players for the entire season. Also he has had 3 games, 2 of them against spurs and villa. That is no where near enough of an indicator of how things will pan out. On FFP I think it may well uplift the players, hopefully thats the case.

League cup for me beats just been able to take part in a competition, as its an actual trophy. FA cup was special, but I think a big factor in that was that we had never won it before, it does have more of a history than the league cup, but the league cup is still a major trophy. By your rationale are Spurs more successful than us in the EPL era because made it into the CL so many times?

There is no reality in what you saying, you are speculating, and you cant even recognise that. You have an opinion, its not authority.

Wouldnt surprise me if Winks geed up the players to put the pressure on to help us get decisions as he was used to Spurs getting away with it, but different treatment to different clubs.

Yeah there is a few who have the logic of not charged = cheaters, charged and penalised = not cheaters.

From my understanding of the tidbits posted on here. Rudkin has done his job poorly (yes he has had a few good windows, but for the most part he has done his job poorly). Whelan has no control over him, due to a unusual structure at the club, only Top (and maybe his brother) has authority over Rudkin. This freedom Rudkin has may include the amount he has been able to spend and lose on football decisions, Whelan having no veto power. This would leave Whelan to be the chief executive of the financial side of the club. Whilst we have under performed I think on revenue, I would say her failure plays a smaller part, especially as we now seemed to have played a smart move by moving the financial window and employing the right lawyers to beat both the EPL and EFL. So I feel I have given Whelan a bit of a reprieve now. So for me the prime culprits are Top and Rudkin. But yeah this is under the assumption Whelan is powerless over Rudkin's area and the losses he has been allowed to spend.

We getting the Forest treatment, when they employed an ex ref, they were getting picked on. My first thought was exactly what you said, its so often big clubs have their players surrounding ref's with no repercussions.

Yep the fact debt is ignored, especially 3rd party debt is ridiculous. I think it doesnt need to be worldwide to start a salary cap, if we have that as a condition it will never happen. First and foremost the prime importance is the national league competitions, they come above European competitions in my opinion.

I read an article probably a year or two back if I remember right showing how robust the football structure is compared to what is pretended as a selling point of FFP. To me there is two ways to regulate financially. Its either light touch regulation, where its hands off, until things start being defaulted, tax doesnt get paid, wages dont get paid that sort of thing, at which point like you said a forceful administrator is appointed Or you regulate spending, but its not based on revenue, its a fixed squad spend, salary cap or whatever. FFP is so complicated because I think the real reason it got implemented the way it has been is nothing to do with safety of clubs, its to do with locking in advantages, so to achieve that they made it based on revenue and that of course makes it super complicated. As they then have all sorts of things designed to restrict what can be classed as income etc. Inevitably this leads to loopholes and we are where we are today.