Les-TA-Jon

+ not using subs effectively + not using more of the squad + not being more pragmatic to come up with different plans during the games when Plan A isn't working + not adapting to teams finding us out in the 2nd half of the season

Or maybe even just choose to play like that earlier than the 83rd min!?

We might yet win the title and/or get the Autos. But the appointment in the first instance is symptomatic of the way the club's ran. If the financial situation made promotion at the first opportunity a vital thing to achieve, why did we appoint a 'trendy' and 'experimental' manager with no real experience? Why not get Farke, who was available?

I know there’s the complication of PL vs EFL jurisdictions, but if we breached last season, shouldn’t we get a points deduction this season? just like Forest and Everton did this season for breaches last season?

Ipswich equaliser? Is that what this means?

Trouble is our breach is likely 4 times the size of Everton’s?

£89.7m losses for the previous year. So £215m total losses over the 3 year rolling period, compared to £105m allowable losses Doesn’t account for PSR add-ons though, so that £90m loss for 22/23 will be lower for the PSR calculation. Which is typically £20-30m for women’s football, academy and infrastructure spending. Even if it’s as generous as that, we’ve breached by £80m? Note: Everton breached by £19.5m on first charge. Forest, by £34.5m Also note, that if we don’t go up, EFL’s allowable losses over a 3 year period is only £39m But remains to be seen what jurisdiction EFL can enforce over years spent in PL

But that’s £94m total losses, right? so it’ll be less once you add in all the PSR ‘add backs’?

They’re not shit if they keep doing it week in week out

Well done on finding a 2 month old comment and saying it was wrong

Hopefully, but we don't know the fitness/availability of Ricardo, Vardy or any of those returning from internationals do we?

Oh damn, has he been doing them during matches then? Big fine from the club surely, if so?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/68606591 Annoys me that no one in that clip, particularly Coady, recognised that yes, Leeds' 12 wins in 13 games is good, but Leicester did 13 wins in 14 games at the start of the season...

Which is exactly why the PL either needs huge overhaul to it's governance or an independent regulator. There are conflicts of interest all over the place. The PL is a Private Company. Other than it's operational level staff, it is just a board of 5 directors and each member club gets a 'special share'. "The PL" itself is not sufficiently separate from the member clubs. Any big issues or changes are voted on by the member clubs, with a majority of 14 votes required. Clubs want to see other clubs punished (conflict of interest since they are direct business and sporting competitors) Clubs want to see some clubs avoid punishment (conflict of interest since they might have similar skeletons in their closets) The PL wants to punish clubs that break rules (conflict of interest because they want to be seen to be self-policing but they also don't want to kill their golden geese - the Big 6) The PL struggles to treat clubs equally, because they don't equally contribute to the broadcasting deals that the PL can command

The same Jon Rudkin who engineered a quick sale of Maddison to Spurs for the benefit of the accounts? Seems to me the Barnes situation was simply more complex than Maddison's. Maddison wanted to leave, had 1 year left, was in demand. Barnes, with 2 years left, didn't expressly want to leave and was in less demand. That's why it took longer I suppose

I know we told the EFL to get stuffed but 1) it's not our fault they wrote their own rules wrong and 2) I think we can make a great case that we have been cooperating - given we didn't sign anyone in summer of 22 and sold players like Maddison and Barnes quickly January 23 might have shafted us though...

There has to be something that combats completely spurious appeals. But whilst this entire process is so ad hoc there needs to be a full and properly independent appeals process. The only thing that does need sorting is a firm timeline of key dates that are consistent with the dates of the season itself, to prevent things bleeding into other seasons: Accounts submitted Reviews completed Punishments provided Appeals processed

It's weird, I'd back us to come 2nd but I've no faith in us in the playoffs haha

Leicester 2.22ppg / 101.9pts Leeds 2.16ppg / 99.3pts Ipswich 2.13ppg / 98.1pts Southampton 2.03ppg / 93.3pts Crazy!

Fair play to Leeds. Their run now, is basically the same as what we did in the opening 13 matches. Feels like it'll be Ipswich's results (and ours obviously) that'll decide our fate.

Next fixture is a kickoff before Leeds and Ipswich. Chance to put pressure on again

I mean, isn’t that what’s happened though? It’s been quite clear all season that there’s really not much between the top 4. We’ve been top a lot due to an overperformance in the first 15 games. Now at the business end of the season and there’s 1 point between the top 3.

Genuinely amazing how footballs fans here don’t know the rules

Tell me you don’t know the rules without telling me you don’t know the rules

So Everton breached in 22/23 but received a points deduction in 23/24 Yet there's talk of us getting a points deduction in 24/25 if we return to the PL, for our breaches in 22/23. How is that fair?