Premier League 2024/25

[whoareyaaa]

21 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

It is so good to read about Cooper from someone who actually saw the games instead of the same people spouting the same "well, when Cooper was at Forest.." on here.

 

If he keeps us up then he's done his job and then in the summer I'd like to think we can move onto a better manager. It was always going to be a tough season with our manager walking out, it's a rare thing to happen when you've just been promoted to the top flight.

 

Anyone who gets a club promoted after so long is always going to be worshipped. It's similar to Pearson here. I completely understand why you lot love Cooper.

No way if we stay up will we bring in another manager the board will probably extend his contract 

[Fox92]

11 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

No way if we stay up will we bring in another manager the board will probably extend his contract 

Oh I agree, that was just my thoughts. Our board would never.

[Dahnsouff]

42 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Oh I agree, that was just my thoughts. Our board would never.

Because the board is reactionary, whereas they need to be proactive.

In this instance whilst it seems ok and we keep picking up a decent rate of points, fine.

This also does not mean a better manager could not raise the standards after Cooper has secured our survival.

Need a DoF with an actual plan that spans more than 5 minutes.

[South Notts NFFC]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Anyone who gets a club promoted after so long is always going to be worshipped. It's similar to Pearson here. I completely understand why you lot love Cooper.

I would also say that Cooper was absolutely brilliant at self-PR. He knew exactly what to say in the media that fans want to hear and he surely knew that in management it's often the fans that make or break you. He knew to pump the chest, he gave the fist pumps at the end of wins and he constantly bigged up the atmosphere in interviews. We fans are simple creatures really and love all that.

 

He also seemed to have a genuine affinity to the city, there are stories of him meeting up with some of our old European cup players for a beer each week and him going above and beyond to reach out to fans. Again this just endears him further, so much to the point where even when we came up and were getting battered the fans just sang his name. It's difficult to remember a time a set of fans had that sort of connection to a manager, it was extreme and nonsensical to me but some were even prepared to accept going back down if it meant Cooper stayed.

[niyaminski]

3 minutes ago, South Notts NFFC said:

I would also say that Cooper was absolutely brilliant at self-PR. He knew exactly what to say in the media that fans want to hear and he surely knew that in management it's often the fans that make or break you. He knew to pump the chest, he gave the fist pumps at the end of wins and he constantly bigged up the atmosphere in interviews. We fans are simple creatures really and love all that.

 

He also seemed to have a genuine affinity to the city, there are stories of him meeting up with some of our old European cup players for a beer each week and him going above and beyond to reach out to fans. Again this just endears him further, so much to the point where even when we came up and were getting battered the fans just sang his name. It's difficult to remember a time a set of fans had that sort of connection to a manager, it was extreme and nonsensical to me but some were even prepared to accept going back down if it meant Cooper stayed.

But will he play Will Alves?

[Chelmofox]

8 minutes ago, South Notts NFFC said:

I would also say that Cooper was absolutely brilliant at self-PR. He knew exactly what to say in the media that fans want to hear and he surely knew that in management it's often the fans that make or break you. He knew to pump the chest, he gave the fist pumps at the end of wins and he constantly bigged up the atmosphere in interviews. We fans are simple creatures really and love all that.

 

He also seemed to have a genuine affinity to the city, there are stories of him meeting up with some of our old European cup players for a beer each week and him going above and beyond to reach out to fans. Again this just endears him further, so much to the point where even when we came up and were getting battered the fans just sang his name. It's difficult to remember a time a set of fans had that sort of connection to a manager, it was extreme and nonsensical to me but some were even prepared to accept going back down if it meant Cooper stayed.

Thats nice. Pretty much seeing none of that here.

[ForestAreMagic]

7 hours ago, South Notts NFFC said:

I would doubt it to be honest. We've shown so far that nobody will get an easy game against us and I can't see us getting many hammerings but similarly I can't see us dishing out any big wins either. 

 

So far the stats show that we're one of the best defensive teams in the league but don't really score enough.

 

It'll be an interesting tactical battle actually as Nuno has looked to go low-block and counter away from home but might find it difficult if Cooper is doing the same.

If Gibbs White is out for a few weeks/months, Leicester will be favourites 

[lfu]

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-victory-as-premier-leagues-sponsorship-rules-declared-unlawful-0mp6kb7m0

Man City victory as Premier League’s sponsorship rules declared unlawful
new
Two deals with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank deemed to have been ‘unfairly blocked’ in landmark decision which will spark huge concern among rival clubs
 

The key facts
Rules deemed unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans from shareholders to clubs
Likely change in the regulations could lead to City striking more lucrative deals and seeking damages from the Premier League
Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules
Arsenal, City’s title rivals, have borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans
Premier League’s stance was backed by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, West Ham United, Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolverhampton Wanderers

Manchester City have inflicted a potentially damaging defeat on the Premier League after the rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful.
In a landmark decision that could have huge ramifications for England’s top flight, it was ruled that City were unfairly blocked from agreeing two huge sponsorship deals earlier this year.
It opens the door for the English champions, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi, to strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements with associated parties than previously allowed — including with Etihad, their stadium and shirt sponsor — and to pursue compensation and costs from the Premier League for abusing its position. Other clubs could also now seek damages should they believe they have been impacted.

An independent panel of three retired judges concluded that the rules were unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans which shareholders lend to clubs. The decision will spark huge concern among a number of City’s Premier League rivals — who rely heavily on such loans — and is likely to lead to the rules being changed.
The panel states that, of the £4billion in total borrowing across the Premier League, £1.5billion is in loans from club owners and shareholders. If the rules are altered and commercial loan rates are now applied to these interest-free loans and have to be included in a club’s profitability and sustainability calculation, many clubs could find they are in breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).
City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value because they were interest-free and, in some cases, did not have to be repaid at all. For a club such as Arsenal, with borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans, that is a potentially seismic development.

 

Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules were introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, and further amended in February this year.
The rules were designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. Transactions are independently assessed to ensure they are of “fair market value”.
The Times revealed in June that City had launched unprecedented legal action against the Premier League and argued that the APT rules were contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
While some elements of City’s claim were dismissed, the 175-page partial final award, which has been seen by The Times, found that:
• Some of the new rules brought in by the Premier League earlier this year, which include placing the burden of proof onto clubs to show that deals are of fair market value, are unlawful

• The rules are also unlawful because they do not take into account interest-free loans that shareholders use to inject funds into their clubs

• Both the original and amended rules are procedurally unfair because a club is not given access to comparable deals the Premier League can use to determine fair market value.

[RumbleFox]

What a surprise. 

[lfu]

Go on Top, strike a £500 million per year sponsorship with Thailand's Tourism Authority

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, South Notts NFFC said:

would also say that Cooper was absolutely brilliant at self-PR. He knew exactly what to say in the media that fans want to hear and he surely knew that in management it's often the fans that make or break you. He knew to pump the chest, he gave the fist pumps at the end of wins and he constantly bigged up the atmosphere in interviews. We fans are simple creatures really and love all that.

 

100%.

 

Was hilarious in here watching everyone go from "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" to "what a lovely man, he's going to be great!" after he did one Q&A with our fans. 

 

He's definitely a likable guy who "gets" British football fans in a way that someone like Maresca didn't. 

 

[Chrysalis]

7 minutes ago, lfu said:

Go on Top, strike a £500 million per year sponsorship with Thailand's Tourism Authority

The family wont put the money in, I love how we keep pretending FFP is holding them back.

 

Also if Saints sack Russell I can see him being daft and replacing cooper with him.

[Chrysalis]

13 minutes ago, lfu said:

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-victory-as-premier-leagues-sponsorship-rules-declared-unlawful-0mp6kb7m0

Man City victory as Premier League’s sponsorship rules declared unlawful
new
Two deals with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank deemed to have been ‘unfairly blocked’ in landmark decision which will spark huge concern among rival clubs
 

The key facts
Rules deemed unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans from shareholders to clubs
Likely change in the regulations could lead to City striking more lucrative deals and seeking damages from the Premier League
Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules
Arsenal, City’s title rivals, have borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans
Premier League’s stance was backed by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, West Ham United, Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolverhampton Wanderers

Manchester City have inflicted a potentially damaging defeat on the Premier League after the rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful.
In a landmark decision that could have huge ramifications for England’s top flight, it was ruled that City were unfairly blocked from agreeing two huge sponsorship deals earlier this year.
It opens the door for the English champions, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi, to strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements with associated parties than previously allowed — including with Etihad, their stadium and shirt sponsor — and to pursue compensation and costs from the Premier League for abusing its position. Other clubs could also now seek damages should they believe they have been impacted.

An independent panel of three retired judges concluded that the rules were unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans which shareholders lend to clubs. The decision will spark huge concern among a number of City’s Premier League rivals — who rely heavily on such loans — and is likely to lead to the rules being changed.
The panel states that, of the £4billion in total borrowing across the Premier League, £1.5billion is in loans from club owners and shareholders. If the rules are altered and commercial loan rates are now applied to these interest-free loans and have to be included in a club’s profitability and sustainability calculation, many clubs could find they are in breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).
City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value because they were interest-free and, in some cases, did not have to be repaid at all. For a club such as Arsenal, with borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans, that is a potentially seismic development.

 

Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules were introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, and further amended in February this year.
The rules were designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. Transactions are independently assessed to ensure they are of “fair market value”.
The Times revealed in June that City had launched unprecedented legal action against the Premier League and argued that the APT rules were contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
While some elements of City’s claim were dismissed, the 175-page partial final award, which has been seen by The Times, found that:
• Some of the new rules brought in by the Premier League earlier this year, which include placing the burden of proof onto clubs to show that deals are of fair market value, are unlawful

• The rules are also unlawful because they do not take into account interest-free loans that shareholders use to inject funds into their clubs

• Both the original and amended rules are procedurally unfair because a club is not given access to comparable deals the Premier League can use to determine fair market value.

This is what happens when a sport is governed by its participants instead of independent rule makers, and the laws of the country are not taken into account.

 

All they need to do is a fixed spending limit equal for each club, but the league just keeps resisting, its desperate to lock in advantages to the status quo.

[Chrysalis]

8 hours ago, Lionator said:

I think the frustration is that last season we played in a particular way, high possession, intricate set moves to open teams up, 5 or even 6 players going forward at all times (which incidentally a lot of our fans also found ‘boring’ so I wonder if it’s a them thing). 
 

There are small snippets where we play incredibly good football. The two I can think of both ended up in Vardy missing 1 on 1’s v Spurs and Bournemouth. Like you say though, he’s definitely got the handbrake on and I don’t think he trusts these players enough to fully take the handbrake off.

 

One thing I will give him credit for is that he’s made Wout Faes look like a world class defender which is no mean feat. 

Why do you want us to play in one set way though?  Thats the main reason Southampton are struggling, their manager is an idiot obsessed with possession football.

 

Possession obsession is what got us relegated with the most expensive relegated squad ever.

 

Enzo football also was 90% bore fest, we had a few good games.  I dont know how people found it entertaining otherwise, and a lot of the good fast counter moments he disowned publically.

 

He likely has the hand brake on for good reason.  Whatever he is doing is currently working as we havent been in the bottom 3 yet.

 

Hoping Russell doesnt get sacked as I can see Top going for him if he does.

Edited 7 October 2024 by Chrysalis

[MPH]

 

 

 

 

 

The tribunal ruled that shareholder loans should be excluded from the scope of APT rules and that some amendments made in February by the Premier League should not be retained.

 

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

36 minutes ago, lfu said:

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-victory-as-premier-leagues-sponsorship-rules-declared-unlawful-0mp6kb7m0

Man City victory as Premier League’s sponsorship rules declared unlawful
new
Two deals with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank deemed to have been ‘unfairly blocked’ in landmark decision which will spark huge concern among rival clubs
 

The key facts
Rules deemed unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans from shareholders to clubs
Likely change in the regulations could lead to City striking more lucrative deals and seeking damages from the Premier League
Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules
Arsenal, City’s title rivals, have borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans
Premier League’s stance was backed by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, West Ham United, Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolverhampton Wanderers

Manchester City have inflicted a potentially damaging defeat on the Premier League after the rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful.
In a landmark decision that could have huge ramifications for England’s top flight, it was ruled that City were unfairly blocked from agreeing two huge sponsorship deals earlier this year.
It opens the door for the English champions, majority-owned by Abu Dhabi, to strike significantly higher sponsorship agreements with associated parties than previously allowed — including with Etihad, their stadium and shirt sponsor — and to pursue compensation and costs from the Premier League for abusing its position. Other clubs could also now seek damages should they believe they have been impacted.

An independent panel of three retired judges concluded that the rules were unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans which shareholders lend to clubs. The decision will spark huge concern among a number of City’s Premier League rivals — who rely heavily on such loans — and is likely to lead to the rules being changed.
The panel states that, of the £4billion in total borrowing across the Premier League, £1.5billion is in loans from club owners and shareholders. If the rules are altered and commercial loan rates are now applied to these interest-free loans and have to be included in a club’s profitability and sustainability calculation, many clubs could find they are in breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).
City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value because they were interest-free and, in some cases, did not have to be repaid at all. For a club such as Arsenal, with borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans, that is a potentially seismic development.

 

Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules were introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, and further amended in February this year.
The rules were designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. Transactions are independently assessed to ensure they are of “fair market value”.
The Times revealed in June that City had launched unprecedented legal action against the Premier League and argued that the APT rules were contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
While some elements of City’s claim were dismissed, the 175-page partial final award, which has been seen by The Times, found that:
• Some of the new rules brought in by the Premier League earlier this year, which include placing the burden of proof onto clubs to show that deals are of fair market value, are unlawful

• The rules are also unlawful because they do not take into account interest-free loans that shareholders use to inject funds into their clubs

• Both the original and amended rules are procedurally unfair because a club is not given access to comparable deals the Premier League can use to determine fair market value.

I'm sure everyone will be delighted another loophole has been exploited, just like they were when we exploited one! Fvck the FA am I right guys! Exploit all the loopholes! 

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

The tribunal ruled that shareholder loans should be excluded from the scope of APT rules and that some amendments made in February by the Premier League should not be retained.

 

 

Isn’t it the opposite of that ?  That shareholder loans should be included and because they aren’t,  the APT rules are unenforceable????

[Tommy Fresh]

4 hours ago, Fox92 said:

It is so good to read about Cooper from someone who actually saw the games instead of the same people spouting the same "well, when Cooper was at Forest.." on here.

 

If he keeps us up then he's done his job and then in the summer I'd like to think we can move onto a better manager. It was always going to be a tough season with our manager walking out, it's a rare thing to happen when you've just been promoted to the top flight.

 

Anyone who gets a club promoted after so long is always going to be worshipped. It's similar to Pearson here. I completely understand why you lot love Cooper.

Didn't you pretty much say you didn't want Dyche around the Rodgers era to just "keep us up" not sure how that would of been much different to the scenario you're happy with above

Edited 7 October 2024 by Tommy Fresh

[Fox92]

1 minute ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Didn't you pretty much say you didn't want Dyche around the Rodgers era to just "keep us up" 

I did say this. Mainly because I didn't want Dyche long term, similar to my opinion now if Cooper keeps us up then job done but I wouldn't want him long term/past the summer.

 

Thought it's a totally different situation now as we're a newly promoted team.

[Wymsey]

8 hours ago, South Notts NFFC said:

His managerial record is almost completely successful, relatively speaking. As you say he had success at youth level then in his first two seasons in senior football got Swansea into the playoffs twice. 

 

Then after that was his time here. He used to say with us that we were having to play in a way which wasn't how he wanted to ideally. Perhaps he feels that like his time here, he just doesn't have the players at Leicester to do much else in the Premier League, other than low-block and counter. 

What's your view on your owner?

[Wortho]

I think it would be hilarious if Arsenal were deducted points, due to their £200m in interest free loans.

 

A 20 point deduction would be excellent.

[Danizen]

31 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Isn’t it the opposite of that ?  That shareholder loans should be included and because they aren’t,  the APT rules are unenforceable????

It's strange that they've reached this agreement.

 

Surely, the PL rules can be enforced as interest free loans are open and can be monitored and regulated whereas inflated sponsorship agreements are deliberate, dishonest attempts to evade the rules.

Edited 7 October 2024 by Danizen

[AKCJ]

40 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I'm sure everyone will be delighted another loophole has been exploited, just like they were when we exploited one! Fvck the FA am I right guys! Exploit all the loopholes! 

Absolutely. **** the Premier League. These are important steps towards an independent regulator.

[spacemunky]

[Fox92]

7 minutes ago, Wortho said:

I think it would be hilarious if Arsenal were deducted points, due to their £200m in interest free loans.

 

A 20 point deduction would be excellent.

Wouldn't be hilarious would it. Manchester City would have no competition whatsoever, do that and hand them the trophy now.