Premier League 2022/23

[DavidMarrio]

Hodgson was brought in as a yes man to Hicks/Gillett at the time the club was on it's arse and in the middle of a civil war and going to court. He was an easy option to bring in as he wouldn't rock the boat. Don't blame him for taking the job, it got offered to him.

I can hold it against him for some of the ridiculous things he said during his time such as describing Northampton as "formiddable", defending how bad we were against Everton in the derby , his negative football that just doesn't suit us, having a go at the fans for protesting the owners. I think he just didn't get the club and there's nothing wrong with that but his appointment and what happened summed up just how bad things where at that time across the club as a whole both on the pitch, off the pitch and in the stands. He was given a chance but he burnt through that pretty quickly. 

He seems an alright bloke but I wouldn't want him managing my club

[Bobfoc]

Because I'm not a supporter of a top club, I feel as though I come from another world sometimes. I'm not aiming this at anyone here, but when your club's darkest age of the last fifty years still involves finishing in the top half of the highest division, I can't really feel much sympathy.

[Adam]

49 minutes ago, Bobfoc said:

Because I'm not a supporter of a top club, I feel as though I come from another world sometimes. I'm not aiming this at anyone here, but when your club's darkest age of the last fifty years still involves finishing in the top half of the highest division, I can't really feel much sympathy.

It's all relative, right? To a degree I have always shared your view with it, when I started going to football games it was to watch non-league football for £3 cash at a wooden turnstile, but at the same time the clubs, players and fans of Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd etc. only know the life of a top 6 Premier League team. Their success is measured by winning trophies and competing for the title so when that drops off to the tune of being in midtable, it is as disastrous as Doncaster or Notts County getting relegated.

Where I usually draw the line is on the very existence of clubs and their place in the community - Man Utd could finish 13th ten years in a row and it would never remotely compare to Bury or Macclesfield going out of business, or clubs like ours being run into the ground to the point they are in the Conference with no money.

[Hobo]

1 hour ago, Bobfoc said:

Because I'm not a supporter of a top club, I feel as though I come from another world sometimes. I'm not aiming this at anyone here, but when your club's darkest age of the last fifty years still involves finishing in the top half of the highest division, I can't really feel much sympathy.

It was a bit more than that tbf

Liverpool were on the brink of going into administration in the 2010-11 season.

There had been a few years of protests against the then owners who were asset stripping the club. Even during the 08/09 season when Liverpool were competing for the league title fans were staging sit ins after games.

2010/11 was the season was when all of this stuff came to a head. Which happened to coincide with Roy Hodgson being appointed as manager.

[Gazz]

I'm going to be unbearable when we're only spending £200m every transfer window and winning 34 league games a season.

[DavidMarrio]

1 hour ago, Bobfoc said:

Because I'm not a supporter of a top club, I feel as though I come from another world sometimes. I'm not aiming this at anyone here, but when your club's darkest age of the last fifty years still involves finishing in the top half of the highest division, I can't really feel much sympathy.

As @Hobo pointed out its more the off the pitch stuff at tbe time coincided with his reign. We were hours away from being in administration with the owners not wanting to sell. 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/13/liverpool-verdict-hicks-gillett-lose

I do agree with the whole expectations and experiences being different based on the club supported but it was so toxic for years at the club, in the ground, all the protests and the owners running the club deliberately into the ground. 

[Bobfoc]

I can sympathise when a club is close to administration, but it's also worth remembering that, outside the top few Premier League teams, there are very few clubs who haven't been in that position this century. In their cases, their existences were on the line in very serious ways, whereas I can't ever envisage a scenario in which Liverpool would have come close to going out of business.

I'm not meaning to totally dismiss the fans' bad memories. As said, it's all relative. With that said, Liverpool's worst era would have been a golden age for the vast majority of clubs.

[Adam]

Yeah, whilst it will have been a dreadful time to support Liverpool with what was going on from the ownership on down, even if Liverpool had gone into administration that season and lost 10 points - it would have only dropped them from 6th to 9th in the table. There would have been no competitive difference in the outcome of their season at all, unlike the vast majority of clubs lower down who go into admin and usually are relegated as a result, if they stay in business.

As Liverpool are such a huge, famous club with lots going for it as well, there would always have been a buyer for them. The odds of them going to the wall like Bury are virtually nil. I think if anything, this further backs up @Bobfoc's original point rather than disputing it.

[stokeriño]

Now you all got me pondering what would be Chelsea's "darkest age of the last 50 years"...

Footballing-wise, the nadir was coming within 2 points of relegation to the 3rd division back in 1983. But more existentially, the fact that only sheer luck prevented the club from being liquidated in 1992 makes that the obvious choice for me (even if they were in the top division at the time).

[Hobo]

From what I have heard listening to those who were involved at a fan activism level at the time there was a genuine fear of Liverpool going the way of Leeds Utd.

Leeds' decline and relegation was still fairly recent at the time. It should also be remembered Rangers went into administration and liquidation not too long after this as well. 

Sure, the Liverpool and its supporters were in a privilege position even at the time in terms of how much success had been achieved verses a majority of other clubs.

However I'm not sure if that optimism really existed in 2010 that it would get sorted and the club would be fine.

Which is as fair for Liverpool supporters to have felt as supporters of any club who thought a big part of their life and community might be under threat.

I don't see how that, the actual impact on the fanbase (particularly the local one), changes whether you're the most successful club in a country or the least successful one really.

[Bobfoc]

2 hours ago, Hobo said:

I don't see how that, the actual impact on the fanbase (particularly the local one), changes whether you're the most successful club in a country or the least successful one really.

As an outsider, I think it's more the case that if you're supporting a smaller club, there's a very real chance that nobody will do anything to save them. There was just no way most people could have seen Liverpool not getting a buyer.

Leeds paid the price for overspending and didn't have the international reputation and fanbase to keep them going amidst poor management. Rangers, despite their status in the Scottish game, also didn't have the benefit of the big television deals the Premier League clubs were benefiting from. Liverpool going into anything like those kinds of crises would have been another level entirely.

That's not to say that Liverpool fans had no right to worry, of course. Local community support from football clubs is an often understated boon of the game, so to have that threatened is always concerning, especially if you're being run by owners who don't care about it.

[Adam]

Leeds mortgaged their existence on being in the Champions League, essentially, then missed out on the top 4 (3?) and it all went to hell. Awful mismanagement and would only ever end one way, in their relegation.

I do not recall it ever being realistically thought that Liverpool would suffer the same fate back then. They were struggling no doubt, Hodgson had them well down the table but he was also massively underachieving. It was the same when Mourinho had Chelsea in the bottom six near Christmas a few years ago, just a very bad run on the field. Never any notion that they would actually go down and then go bust.

[Szumi]

Admitted rapist Thomas Partey is now under investigation for a third potential rape case. 

Also, Everton have been formally charged for violating FFP. From ESPN:

"The Premier League has referred Everton to an independent commission for an alleged breach of Financial Fair Play rules last season, it said on Friday without giving further details.

Under Premier League rules, teams can make a maximum loss of £105 million ($128.28m) over three years, although special allowances were made for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Everton have recorded a total loss of nearly £372m in the past three seasons.

The club, majority owned by Farhad Moshiri, has attributed at least £170m of that to the impact of the pandemic."

[Twist]

37 minutes ago, Szumi - A Polack said:

Admitted rapist Thomas Partey is now under investigation for a third potential rape case. 

Also, Everton have been formally charged for violating FFP. From ESPN:

"The Premier League has referred Everton to an independent commission for an alleged breach of Financial Fair Play rules last season, it said on Friday without giving further details.

Under Premier League rules, teams can make a maximum loss of £105 million ($128.28m) over three years, although special allowances were made for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Everton have recorded a total loss of nearly £372m in the past three seasons.

The club, majority owned by Farhad Moshiri, has attributed at least £170m of that to the impact of the pandemic."

So £100m over after accounting for the pandemic? That’s an awful lot.

[Naitch]

On 23/03/2023 at 16:07, stokeriño said:

Now you all got me pondering what would be Chelsea's "darkest age of the last 50 years"...

Footballing-wise, the nadir was coming within 2 points of relegation to the 3rd division back in 1983. But more existentially, the fact that only sheer luck prevented the club from being liquidated in 1992 makes that the obvious choice for me (even if they were in the top division at the time).

I've always been fortunate to only know Chelsea as a post-Matthew Harding top PL side challenging for domestic or European silverware. Very privileged on that count but I'm sure my Dad, who used to sit in the Shed End in the early 1970s, appreciates the relative safety of the club's current position. Meanwhile, you've got post-Abramovich youngsters, glory hunters, and plastics moaning that not consistently challenging for the league is a sign of the apocalypse.

I'm also very fortunate that Chelsea's worst season during my "support" came when I wasn't paying that much attention to football. I very much fell away from following the sport in ~2011 and only really came back during Euro 2016.

Kinda wish I'd actually formed a connection with my local club (Norwich) but my Mum being a lapsed Ipswich fan kind of saw that of, and I never quite got into following the Tractor Boys either. Is it weird to have a mutual level of interest in both Norwich and Ipswich?

[Lineker]

Quote

Tottenham managing director Fabio Paratici may have to step away from his current role after Fifa extended an initial ban in Italy worldwide.

Paratici was given a 30-month ban in January after his former club Juventus were found guilty of false accounting.

The 50-year-old served as sporting director and managing director at Juventus before joining Tottenham in June 2021.

Paratici and Juventus have both appealed the decision.

Paratici's initial ban only applied to Italian football, meaning he was able to continue working at Tottenham.

However, the extended ban comes as Tottenham search for a new manager following the departure of Antonio Conte.

Conte left Spurs on Sunday with the club fourth in the Premier League, but having been knocked out of the Champions League and FA Cup in recent weeks.

Paratici told the club website on Tuesday that he and the club were "focused" on moving forward and finding a replacement.

"Fifa can confirm that following a request by the Italian FA (FIGC), the chairperson of Fifa disciplinary committee has decided to extend the sanctions imposed by FIGC on several football officials to have worldwide effect," a statement from the world's governing body read.

The entire board of the Serie A club, including president Andrea Agnelli and vice-president Pavel Nedved, resigned in November as a police investigation into the club's transfer activity continued.

Juventus were subsequently docked 15 points by the FIGC in January. The Serie A giants were accused of fixing their balance sheets by artificial gains from club transfers.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65112730

 

hey ho.

[Lineker]

 

[FLiam]

Will they use this retrospectively?

[Chris2K]

Ah, the bare minimum. What an achievement.

[The Lusophone]

15 minutes ago, Chris2K said:

Ah, the bare minimum. What an achievement.

Literally, the bare minimum. It's just bringing the league in line with existing UK law. It won't actually change anything, because the qualifying factor for the human rights abuses part is being sanctioned by the UK government for it.

Which Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar have not been.