Premier League 2025/26 Thread

[urban.spaceman]

54 minutes ago, davieG said:

Galling" is how one former senior Manchester United executive - who was at Old Trafford during that period - described the Chelsea situation to BBC Sport. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they claimed that "United lost out on players, Hazard most prominently [in 2012], due to their actions."

They added: "I have sympathy for the change of ownership point, but it's hardly a deterrent if you can sell before you get caught... some actual transfer ban would have been appropriate."

Amazing to watch corrupt clubs whinge about other clubs corruption. Rotten to the core. 

[The Bear]

6 hours ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Also, they knew this was coming. Apparently when he sold it Abrhamovic basically put in a £150m discount so the new owners could pay the fines for the old regime’s crimes. And then they get praise for being co-operative. Load of bollocks.

I bet it was like that IT Crowd scene at Denham's funeral when he prepared a special video for his son telling him about the pension fund. 

 

#fatheeeeeeeeeeeerr

[davieG]

[davieG]

Nick De Marco KC, who represented Leicester and Forest in their legal cases, did not comment directly on the Chelsea sanction but said it was vital a consistent approach was adopted by the football authorities.
‌He wrote on X: "When it is argued, in various football disputes, that points deductions must be imposed even for inadvertent breaches, in order to vindicate compliant clubs, one has to wonder whether that reflects a genuine commitment to consistent strict enforcement in all cases, or is simply a position adopted for the purposes of a particular case.
"Consistency is very important in sport – the lack of it can undermine public confidence in the integrity of the whole game.
"I do not comment on any one individual case, I just hope that those involved in the decision-making processes can see the merit in treating each case according to its particular circumstances rather than being inflexible in some, but very flexible in others.
‌
"That, I am sure, would help restore the confidence in sports arbitration we all wish for."

 

-----------

 

Simon Leaf, a partner at Three Points Law and the co-author of the chapter on financial regulation in the 'Football and the Law' textbook, told the Press Association on Tuesday that the agreement Chelsea reached was "the deal of the decade".
‌
The agreement referenced the fact that the payments – which in part were to agents to facilitate transfer deals – would not have caused a breach of the league's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
However, Leaf said it was "difficult to dispute" that Chelsea had gained a sporting advantage through making these payments, which helped seal deals for star names such as Eden Hazard, Willian and Ramires, and said it was a "sleight of hand" to only consider the payments from a PSR perspective.
Clubs have privately expressed surprise at the decision when contacted by PA, and Mail Sport has reported that senior executives from a number of Premier League clubs have contacted the league's chief executive Richard Masters demanding an explanation for the Chelsea decision.

Clubs are due to gather for one of their regular shareholders' meetings in central London on Thursday, and it remains to be seen whether any executives will raise the issue there.

[Foxdiamond]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

Nick De Marco KC, who represented Leicester and Forest in their legal cases, did not comment directly on the Chelsea sanction but said it was vital a consistent approach was adopted by the football authorities.
‌He wrote on X: "When it is argued, in various football disputes, that points deductions must be imposed even for inadvertent breaches, in order to vindicate compliant clubs, one has to wonder whether that reflects a genuine commitment to consistent strict enforcement in all cases, or is simply a position adopted for the purposes of a particular case.
"Consistency is very important in sport – the lack of it can undermine public confidence in the integrity of the whole game.
"I do not comment on any one individual case, I just hope that those involved in the decision-making processes can see the merit in treating each case according to its particular circumstances rather than being inflexible in some, but very flexible in others.
‌
"That, I am sure, would help restore the confidence in sports arbitration we all wish for."

 

-----------

 

Simon Leaf, a partner at Three Points Law and the co-author of the chapter on financial regulation in the 'Football and the Law' textbook, told the Press Association on Tuesday that the agreement Chelsea reached was "the deal of the decade".
‌
The agreement referenced the fact that the payments – which in part were to agents to facilitate transfer deals – would not have caused a breach of the league's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
However, Leaf said it was "difficult to dispute" that Chelsea had gained a sporting advantage through making these payments, which helped seal deals for star names such as Eden Hazard, Willian and Ramires, and said it was a "sleight of hand" to only consider the payments from a PSR perspective.
Clubs have privately expressed surprise at the decision when contacted by PA, and Mail Sport has reported that senior executives from a number of Premier League clubs have contacted the league's chief executive Richard Masters demanding an explanation for the Chelsea decision.

Clubs are due to gather for one of their regular shareholders' meetings in central London on Thursday, and it remains to be seen whether any executives will raise the issue there.

It is obvious to all that Chelsea gained a sporting advantage not only by securing these players but that the success enjoyed with the contributions made had a lasting effect for Chelsea to this day

[Fox92]

Wasn't it always obvious Chelsea cheated as they started the whole corruption in the league? That's how I've always seen them, just an earlier version of Manchester City. 

 

Both clubs won fvck all for years and would have continued too without all the money and corruption. 

[davieG]

The Football Community ·

Follow

If Chelsea’s punishment is anything to go by, Newcastle would have been 6x better off keeping Elliot Anderson instead…

[filbertway]

Clubs aren't forced to do anything. They know the rules. Something that another club did 20 years ago isn't relevant. 

[Super_horns]

 Vicario out for a month apparently due to an hernia operation after Spurs game on Sunday .

 

With a two week break they will probably be hoping he isn’t going to miss too many games .

.

[StanSP]

Surely Maguire pushed Evanilson then? 

[whoareyaaa]

That's the end of Dury, Cuhnitus  

[trabuch]

Absurdly stupid penalty to give away. No chance that's not given. 

[Super_horns]

1 minute ago, trabuch said:

Absurdly stupid penalty to give away. No chance that's not given. 

Particularly when it's for Man U. 

[StanSP]

This will get given. Bournemouth goal disallowed and pen to Man Utd. 

 

 

[whoareyaaa]

Never a peno

[trabuch]

7 minutes ago, trabuch said:

Absurdly stupid penalty to give away. No chance that's not given. 

Talking about the manu penalty that was given btw. Not the one before the Bournemouth goal - just in case people think I'm a ****.

[whoareyaaa]

Maguire scores, Man Utd are on fire since Carrick came in

 

edit: og 

Edited 20 March by whoareyaaa

[trabuch]

Slabbed it. - OG anyway

 

Edited 20 March by trabuch

[spacemunky]

The GOAT!

 

Edit: Only the GOAT could use his skills to have the opposition head one in!

 

Edited 20 March by spacemunky

[whoareyaaa]

Would of bin some goal

[StanSP]

Bournemouth penalty... 

[whoareyaaa]

 Slab off 

[trabuch]

6 minutes ago, spacemunky said:

The GOAT!

He certainly is!

[Lionator]

How can he possibly complain about that hahahaha

[Arkie Bennett]

Get off the pitch Maguire