Teams That Bypass Our Midfield - OTT 51 [R]

Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by newterp, Jan 19, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    While we did nothing to take advantage of the same loophole...
     
  2. speker

    speker Member+

    May 16, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I think the ownership philosophies are totally different. Their new owner is splashing the cash to try and improve Chelsea and set the foundations for their team for the next 5-8 years.


    Meanwhile FSG have massively raised Lpools value during their ownership despite the club always having to be self reliant.

    FSG have never ploughed cash into the transfer kitty and certainly begin now.
     
  3. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    It's not really a "loophole". Just a different business model. I am quite sure every other team would know they could do the same if they wanted. Possibly a result of the nature of the financial backers and their funding.
     
  4. oikos

    oikos Member+

    Feb 3, 2010
    Glastonbury, CT
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would call it a loophole. If it was just a different business model the FA wouldn't have changed the rules (closed the loophole ) so others couldn't do it.
     
  5. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    What have they changed?
     
  6. speker

    speker Member+

    May 16, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    A loophole in the financial fair play rules that has been used by Chelsea to sign players on contracts of up to eight-and-a-half years to spread the impact of transfer spending "is to be closed" by UEFA. Officials at the governing body plan to "set a five-year maximum for the length of time over which a player’s transfer fee can be spread," with the new policy brought in before the summer transfer window. The move reportedly comes after "a number of clubs raised concerns" with UEFA over Chelsea’s policy. Winger Mykhailo Mudryk this month signed "the longest contract in the 30-year history of the Premier League" when he joined Chelsea on an eight-and-a-half-year deal. Under amortization, the £80M ($99M) fee would be recorded as £9.41M ($11.7M) per year for UEFA's FFP calculations. If Mudryk had signed a four-year deal, the £80M fee would be calculated as £20M ($24.8M) per year. UEFA will not prevent Chelsea from "spreading the cost of the players they have signed already"


    UEFA to set limit on length of player contracts (sportsbusinessjournal.com)
     
  7. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Chelsea, at home, draws Fulham.

    Fulham looked like the better team for large chunks of the game.
     
  8. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    If only we could get FSG to spend £600m, I’d be fairly confident of a 0-0 draw at home to Fulham.
     
    imasyko, CB-West and bayred repped this.
  9. speker

    speker Member+

    May 16, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    If Chelsea are prepared to spend big in the summer they could become a threat. (Gary Lineker)

    :)
     
    Samarkand and imasyko repped this.
  10. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    Right on Gaz....!!
     
  11. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    That's what I thought. And I still don't see it as a "loophole". To me a loophole is a way to gain an unfair advantage without risk. Long contracts have always been a possibility for every club, but I guess no one previously wanted to take the inherent risks.
     
    zaqualung repped this.
  12. oikos

    oikos Member+

    Feb 3, 2010
    Glastonbury, CT
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    to me a loophole is applying rules in a way it was not intended when the rules were made. If the FA had predicted Chelsea's behavior they probably would have made the 5 year rule originally. The fact that they changed the rule in the way they did shows you that Chelsea applied them in a way they did not intend. Think tax loophole were the original author didn't see a way that someone could circumvent an intended rule.
    Chelsea would not have been able to sign those players if things were done as intended, they there gained an unfair advantage.
     
  13. hubbabubba

    hubbabubba Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 17, 2002
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I see a fundamental difference between Nottingham Forest, and Chelsea right now.
    probably because if you are wrong, you have huge exposure. Boehly is betting that 1) that the people he buys will turn out, and 2) that the current inflation of player values will continue.

    if either of those two assumptions turn out to be wrong, he(and Chelsea) are screwed.

    I think I’d rather be tied to a more conservative model.
     
    Samarkand repped this.
  14. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    We should definitely have taken advantage of those loopholes. We’d be in a much better position right now had we signed Milner, Henderson, Fabinho, Keita, AOC and Emre Can to 10 year deals.
     
    delaynomo, B.A. and imasyko repped this.
  15. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Burnley playing Arsenal tough so far.
     
  16. B.A.

    B.A. Member+

    Sep 12, 2007
    IL
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ha

    Goodison might be torn down in joy if this result holds up.
     
  17. B.A.

    B.A. Member+

    Sep 12, 2007
    IL
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dyche realize he has five subs to use?
     
  18. speker

    speker Member+

    May 16, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Yeah but he's trying to win. :)
     
    B.A. repped this.
  19. B.A.

    B.A. Member+

    Sep 12, 2007
    IL
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wow.

    Well done, toffees.

    maupay was the only sub that he used.
     
  20. delaynomo

    delaynomo Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Exactly. And that's why I don't see it as a loophole. It comes with very significant risks.
     
  21. B.A.

    B.A. Member+

    Sep 12, 2007
    IL
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well done, Spurs
     
  22. Suss

    Suss Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 11, 2003
    New York
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Timing is everything. We have two of the greatest seasons of all time only to be beaten by City by one point both times. The year that we completely slip up is the year that the title was there for the taking.
     
    SamScouse, B.A. and newterp repped this.
  23. Red Bird

    Red Bird Member+

    Sep 30, 2003
    Oxford
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Why couldn’t Man City be this bad last season :mad:
     
    B.A. repped this.
  24. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    totally. Just unreal.
     
    B.A. repped this.
  25. Suss

    Suss Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 11, 2003
    New York
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    We needed to win 26 out of our first 27 games in the league to finally beat City. How lucky are Arsenal? They are going to win the league by being just okay.
     

Share This Page