The Doctor

this is something england has to consider when it goes to the polls. in the final when the leader of each country has to fight in the European parliament for the title, who would be a better scrapper - Sunak or Starmer

I mean given the amount of bookings Hungary are going for, 5 reds and game abandoned might be a viable tactic

che Adams is an absolute liability. how is this bloke gonna be a premier league striker next summer?

yea, in that case it'd be two on 3, two on six so gets done by head to head. Slovakia would win the group, Belgium second, Romania third and Ukraine 4th.

in what vac asked, all would have won one, lost one and drawn one so for instance on that Ukraine would have to go above Slovakia, who'd have to go above Belgium, who'd have to go above Romania, who'd have to go above Ukraine. in the event that both games are draws, head to head records couldn't be used

goal difference. if that's all level then goals scored, then disciplinary record, then if it's all still level, their rankings for the qualifying stage draw

big fan of the "if lukaku scores it's offside" rule they've implemented this tournament

should borrow the line of stormtroopers who come out at 80 minutes in every game at filbert way

i mean for reference I was against Rodgers when he was first linked and a big part of that was that I didn't see him as a builder or one with a good record of going into the transfer market but it doesn't change that the board did appear to mislead him and Enzo over whether funds were available. his contract was renewed while Enzo was still here, but the point is that your next appointment should have been one that has a direct line from enzoball and utilize the squad being put together by Enzo. Cooper on paper is a complete 180 against that and as Bilo says, demonstrates a lack of joined up thinking

every appointment is a risk, hell, even the big six can struggle with a bad appointment (see pretty much every post Fergie appointment at Utd, Mourinho, Van Gaal, Ten Haag, all very good managers elsewhere but not been able to get success there), but the point with Brighton is if it goes poorly they have a list of candidates and know what they want to do - the head coach in effect slots in and out as they get turned over, and this is important when the average shelf life of a premier league manager is less than 16 months and why a director of football is such a key role, because they provide the continuity planning that managers used to before they had less job security than the average Tory party leader. we don't have a plan, our director of football is uniquely incompetent and this appointment from a stylistic point of view demonstrates that, because we've now got vestegaard on a 3 year contract under a manager who's typical system in this division doesn't use any of his strengths

the last two being Morgan and Megson, or Megson and O'Neill if you want to just talk managers. given the start of the season is 8 weeks away, being half as good as Megson means not even making it to game one...

https://fbref.com/en/squads/e4a775cb/2023-2024/matchlogs/c9/possession/Nottingham-Forest-Match-Logs-Premier-League only had more possession than the opposition in two games under him last season, everton and Luton at home. average possession was 37%. so basically the same as first season

this is exactly it for me. This appointment kind of signals that we've long since had our day - we used to be a model club on how to disrupt the greedy six, but we've become an Everton. you look at Brighton and there's a clear succession plan - the moment Potter left, they had RDZ lined up to advance that vision, and again this new bloke who has a clear line through from that. you can excuse dean smith as that was desperation but in reality our last 4 permanent managers have been building on the idea of possession football, and we've gone for a complete 180 on that to a bloke who had the worst possession stats in the division while at Forest. Whether you like the vision of playing possession football or not is immaterial, it signals that the club doesn't have a clear progression plan. the other side of things is that our last two managers have been outspoken in public about the mess that the board are creating. Maresca seemed absolutely pissed about Sensi and being mislead over finances, and while this forum absolutely hates Rodgers for half arsing it and continuing to draw a massive wedge, old Gucci belt was spot on about the mess of the board and the transfers. Cooper worked under an even worse board with that mentalist Marinakis and was silent about it, and I can see that having been appealing to Rudkin and Top, because they want the genie back in the bottle and for the fans to not hold them accountable for the gross mismanagement they've undertaken in the last 3 years.

tell him his new contract is on the table over there and throw a football towards it

i don't think I'll be remotely happy with this appointment until we've at least seen a few games, not his fault but on paper he shouldn't have been in consideration for the job and him getting it suggests there's absolutely zero long range plan for the club under top and Rudkin, but he at least comes across as a genuine and nice bloke.

English refs putting on a absolute classic English reffing performance here

right. as he's not an academy player, we need to check if he'll be willing to play for a curly wurly and half a bag of wotsits a week, no way of turning a profit on him otherwise

evidently not or you'd not be trying to argue that selling a player with 9m book value for 18m isn't 9m profit!

because wages arent accounted for in player profits!!!! the only way academy players wouldn't have any issues with contracted wages is if they were slave labour. in actual fact, academy products do get paid a wage.

with all due respect, when it comes to marking down profit from player sales, it is.

dude, just admit you don't understand the whole thing with player trading and profit. the reason academy players are valuable to sell is nothing to do with relative wages, it's because they have zero book value. a players book value is simply the headline cost they were to buy in, minus the amortised value so far. Academy products have a zero book value because they didn't cost anything to bring in in terms of player trading. profit is then sale value minus book value, since the book value is paid up in full in that years accounts (can't amortise an asset you don't have). this is why you see a lot of clubs just loaning players out repeatedly, to get the book value more favourable against market value. let's take praet as an example. we signed him for £18m on a five year deal, that's £3.6m a year amortised value. we decided after two years we didn't want him, his remaining book value was 10.8m. noone wanted to pay that, so we sent him out on loan for a year, book value reduced to 7.2m. While they didn't pay it, by loaning praet to Torino for a year before the £12.5m optional fee came in, his potential profit increased from 1.7m to 5.3m without any change in the incoming sale value. selling a player with 9m remaining book value (Faes) for 18m then nets 9m profit in this year's books.

wages aren't factored in the player trading values

sure, open your calculator phone app and check the calculations 16m/5 years = 3.2m/year 3.2m/year x 3 years = 9.6m 16m-9.6m= 6.4m book value

signed on a five year contract for 15m, £3m a season amortization. two seasons down, £6m off the books, £9m still on it. 18-9=9