11 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Bloody hell. That looks horrible and must hurt a hell of a lot.

DISASI SHOWING THAT HES A MUCH BETTER CENTRE HALF THEN TOSER AND BADIEsh*t, NEARLY WON IT AT THE END AND THEN MADE A MATCH SAVING BLOCK WITH THE LAST KICK

Bournemouth and Spurs have, respectively, confirmed Marco Senesi and Christian Romero are leaving on free transfers.

Anyone fancy a pair of argie CBS?

14 hours ago, dkw said:

Wengers next big idea is the ridiculous offside thing, which will make the game almost impossible to defend in from open play, it will be shambolic.

As you say, he and his fans were football purists, until arsenal threw that in the bin and became Stoke on Thames. All those years taking shots at clubs, us included, for daring to play with a defence and yet now they play the worst possible style of football. Bunch of hypocritical imbeciles.

If you take into account the George Graham years then Wenger is a blip in Arsenal's history and Arteta is merely a return to form.

His offside rule is a joke. It is the sort of thing you'd expect out of Ted Lasso and shouldn't be met with anything other than disdain. The 'daylight' rule has a very obvious exploit and that is to leave your back leg only in line with the defenders, which would allow you to be a full body-length ahead of any defender.

But I actually agree that VAR is over-officious and the margins are becoming increasingly ridiculous. IMO this is where a process similar to cricket's 'umpire's call' could work. Let the assistant make a call on the offside, which can only be overruled by VAR above a certain threshold. It would dim the offside trap's power to pre-VAR levels but not be so ridiculous as the 'daylight' rule.

Edited March 9Mar 9 by SydneyChelsea

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

If you take into account the George Graham years then Wenger is a blip in Arsenal's history and Arteta is merely a return to form.

His offside rule is a joke. It is the sort of thing you'd expect out of Ted Lasso and shouldn't be met with anything other than disdain. The 'daylight' rule has a very obvious exploit and that is to leave your back leg only in line with the defenders, which would allow you to be a full body-length ahead of any defender.

But I actually agree that VAR is over-officious and the margins are becoming increasingly ridiculous. IMO this is where a process similar to cricket's 'umpire's call' could work. Let the assistant make a call on the offside, which can only be overruled by VAR above a certain threshold. It would dim the offside trap's power to pre-VAR levels but not be so ridiculous as the 'daylight' rule.

VAR has gone exactly how I expected it to, the same as VR in Rugby League went. Initially its there to see mistakes, used sparingly and well. Then it grows legs until eventually its used at every opportunity to not give a goal, desperately hunting for a reason to cancel it, any reason.

It should be used for black and white decisions, nothing opinion based should ever be decided by VAR.

I don’t imagine it would be the most popular idea as most would see it as further ‘Yankification’ of the beautiful game but changing VAR to an NFL-like Challenge system would take away some of the controversy.

Instead of every decision being reviewed for 2-3 minutes each time, either Head Coach gets x Number of times to ‘challenge or review’ an on field decision that then bring VAR into play?

2 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

I don’t imagine it would be the most popular idea as most would see it as further ‘Yankification’ of the beautiful game but changing VAR to an NFL-like Challenge system would take away some of the controversy.

Instead of every decision being reviewed for 2-3 minutes each time, either Head Coach gets x Number of times to ‘challenge or review’ an on field decision that then bring VAR into play?

That's what they did with the U20 World Cup.

It was f**king weird.

Couldn't think of anywhere else to post this. If it does happen can see it ending in tears with silly amounts being spent.

BBC Sport

Uefa fears impact of new Premier League spending rules

Uefa is seriously concerned that the Premier League's new financial rules could further impact competitive balance.

Uefa has serious concerns about the impact of the Premier League's new financial rules on the rest of Europe.

England's top-flight clubs have voted to move to a system called squad cost ratio (SCR) next season.

This allows teams to spend 85% of their income on player costs, although a complicated set of factors means clubs could go as high as 115%.

Uefa's SCR spending limit is 70%, which all clubs in the Champions League, Europa League and Conference League must adhere to.

There is no universal SCR or percentage across the top leagues, but others have more stringent rules than the Premier League.

It means Premier League clubs not in Europe would have much higher spending power.

Uefa, European football's governing body, fears that it could undermine financial stability measures.

Clubs on the continent may be forced to take additional risks - facing higher costs and losses - to retain their players.

But the Premier League rejects the claim, insisting its new rules will ensure competitive balance. It is against one uniform financial fair play system.

'A worrying concentration of talent'

Premier League clubs voted for the new financial rules in November, during an unprecedented campaign in Europe.

A record nine teams qualified for this season - six of them in the Champions League.

All nine have made it through to last 16 in their respective competitions, with the round beginning this week.

No other league comes close. Spain has six teams active, Germany is on five, with France and Italy on four.

When Premier League clubs not in Europe get the additional spending power, Uefa thinks it could increase their ability to attract players.

That could result in the weakening of other European teams, and it has the potential to make English football even stronger.

Andrea Traveso, Uefa's director of financial sustainability and research, outlined some of the concerns at the Financial Times Business of Football Summit last month.

"The Premier League alone now generates a quarter of all European club revenues," he said.

"With more spending power on top, this will create tensions in the market.

"The objective at Uefa is financial sustainability. The objective at the Premier League is competitiveness."

Traveso highlighted how "40% of the top-value players in the world" are at English clubs.

"But many are sitting on the bench or, even worse, in the stands," he said.

"This is an extraordinary and worrying concentration of talent."

Traverso said an "inconsistent application of financial regulations" could make matters worse.

Image source,Getty Images

Image caption,

Uefa's financial benchmarking reports, collated by Andrea Traverso, regularly highlight concerns with Premier League spending

Last week the German Bundesliga voted to move to a 70% cost threshold.

Italy's Serie A has a focus on economic sustainability relative to costs, but it is discussing aligning with Uefa.

In France, where the picture is complicated by the collapse of the league's TV deal, the emphasis is on audited financial viability. Clubs must demonstrate solvency and budget control.

Since 2022 Spain's La Liga has operated the 1:1 rule, a strict domestic financial control model. Each club gets specific financial limit based upon the money they have generated.

La Liga president Javier Tebas, a regular critic of the Premier League's financial power, said last month: "The regulations will cause more inflation and more problems.

"Someone has to harmonise all of this. Financial fair play for La Liga, the Bundesliga, Uefa - this isn't rocket science."

Mid-table Premier League clubs such as Brentford and Fulham can easily rival Italian clubs AC Milan and Juventus in the transfer market.

It may become harder for those traditional powerhouses to attract and keep players as the budgets of such Premier League clubs increase.

We prioritise jeopardy in competition - Masters

The Premier League wanted a higher compliance bar to provide a level playing field, external for those clubs not in Europe.

It says the 85% rule will "allow clubs that do not regularly participate in European competitions to have sufficient headroom to compete for qualification".

A club in the Champions League might get more money but, as they have to comply with Uefa, they can spend only 70%.

A team not in Europe could spend 85%, or up to 115% with small financial sanctions. Go over the 115% mark and points penalties come into play.

It is all about competitive balance.

Uefa thinks a Premier League club spending more than 85% on wages would sustain significant losses year on year.

But the Premier League argues that the rule will "allow a club to plan and invest over multiple seasons".

Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said clubs have chosen a system which "prioritises jeopardy in competition".

"Independence of leagues, our ability to work out what's best for English football should be maintained," he said.

"Alignment is good. That's different to harmonisation. That's what we've just achieved by passing squad cost ratio.

"We have a very competitive league, and that is the difference [with La Liga]."

'Snarkiness' towards Premier League

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire says he questioned how effective Uefa's rules could be at curbing losses.

"It completely ignores your non-football-related costs, non-player-related costs," he told BBC Sport.

"What happens if you're borrowing money at huge rates of interest?

"What happens if you've had a disastrous overspend in terms of some of your maintenance and infrastructure costs?

"I'm not convinced with the central tenant of the argument, but Uefa, to its credit, has not been bothered about having a competitive product.

"Uefa has given away so many concessions to the bigger clubs to effectively ring-fence it as far as the Champions League is concerned."

Maguire said there is always a "sort of snarkiness" towards the Premier League because of its success.

He said a key difference is that Premier League clubs take their own decisions, rather than being decided by a managing body - as is the case with La Liga.

It means that Premier League clubs "will always do what's in their own short-term best interest".

Maguire said different percentage thresholds could cause problems, especially for the club in the Conference League.

"The money you'll make from winning that - you're probably talking no more than £20m," he said.

"Factor in the costs and that you're going to need a more expensive squad and qualification for the Conference League is now a bit of a poisoned chalice."

The Premier League clubs in this competition could be at a competitive disadvantage, still working to Uefa's 70% but with minimal additional income.

Yet that seems to be an exceptional case.

With the huge commercial finances of the Premier League, its clubs were already a step ahead.

Another boost to spending power is the last thing rivals clubs want.

What is Squad Cost Ratio and how will it affect clubs?

While profit and sustainability rules (PSR) were about a club's balance sheet of all revenues over a three-year period, SCR is just about team costs on a seasonal basis.

The new rules will operate a dual system, with clubs in European competition having to adhere to Uefa's SCR limit of 70% - so a club could be sanctioned by Uefa but be compliant in the Premier League.

The higher limit is intended to protect the Premier League's competitive balance, given the increased income that will be received by those clubs competing in Europe.

Chelsea and Aston Villa were both given heavy fines by Uefa for breaches in the 2024-25 campaign, and that is when the limit in Europe was 80%.

The Premier League has added some wriggle room, too, with a multi-year rolling allowance of 30% that permits clubs to spend beyond the limit. It allows clubs to invest ahead of revenue and variance or sporting underperformance.

An assessment is made each March, and the allowance is crucial to determine possible sporting sanctions applied in the same season.

The 85% marker is known as the Green Threshold. Spend above that and you get a financial penalty, although this will be far less punitive than Uefa.

The Red Threshold is 85% plus the allowance. Go beyond that, and it is a fixed six-point deduction which increases by one point for every £6.5m spent over the Red Threshold.

Think of it this way - every club will start next season on 85% + 30% allowance, so effectively 115%.

Any clubs that spend above 85% will face a fine, but they would need to be in excess of 115% to lose points.

But those percentages will change for 2027-28.

If a club spends 105% on their squad next season, it means they have used 20% of their allowance, and for 2027-28 their maximum spend before potential sporting sanction is 95%.

If a club spend less that 85%, they can increase the allowance again to the maximum of 30%.

Strange how it wasn't a problem when Spanish and Italian clubs were throwing money at players, or even when Barcelona throw money they dont even have.

Galatasaray 1 Bin Dippers 0 early doors but a start none the less.

Almost 2-0 VAR intervention to save Liverpool

Will there be uproar they have ruined Galas dreams?

I think this could be the game that spurs UEFA to come up with a rule change for corners. These bundles are not good for the sport.

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Strange how it wasn't a problem when Spanish and Italian clubs were throwing money at players, or even when Barcelona throw money they dont even have.

Figo, Zidane, Cristiano Ronaldo, Bale, Real Madrid broke the transfer record each time to get these players. Nothing was said. Zidane was signed for nearly £50m. Even today, you expect top quality for that amount of money.

Galatasaray will be taking a lead to Anfield ! Lovely jubbly.

I reckon they could win that leg as well.

2 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Galatasaray will be taking a lead to Anfield ! Lovely jubbly.

I reckon they could win that leg as well.

‘Pool were shocking. Konate a nightmare.

6 minutes ago, dermott said:

‘Pool were shocking. Konate a nightmare.

Gomez Konate VDjyk Kerkez are a truly underwhelming back four on their day

That highline by Barcelona is suicidal.

Spuds losing.

8 minutes ago, OTL said:

Gomez Konate VDjyk Kerkez are a truly underwhelming back four on their day

Of recent times, definitely. The midfield has fallen apart, little protection for those behind them.

2 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

That highline by Barcelona is suicidal.

That’s the Flick way.

Greedy by Elanga. Should be passing that for a tap in. Linesman flagged it for offside, but I think it was really tight.

If Barcelona get through, then I can see Arsenal beating them comfortably. That high line is more of a weakness than it is a strength.

Spuds 2-0 down.

Why do so many people rate Romero and van De Ven? They're rubbish. I wouldn't take either of them ahead of Badiashile.

Spuds 3-0 down 🤣