Official 2012/13 Premier League thread

[brenchill]

And possibly Clarence Mason.

[Colly]

That is now my image of the society, Clarence Mason and fat D-Lo Brown in a suit. Thanks EWB.

[Gazz]

Danny Simpson, Best in the World!*

* at banging that bird off X-Factor, not Nicole, the other one, the one with the blowjob video

[Nerf]

Latest rumour going around is that City are plotting a £40m move for Suarez in January

[Summers]

City have claimed bullshit and have said Liverpool are trying to spark interest & bids from other clubs.

[MJB]

No chance. Not with Mario, Aguero, Tevez and Dzeko already on their books.

Unless of course, one or two of them are sold before hand.

[Thrilla]

Wouldn't be surprised to see them offload Mario in January.

[Nerf]

Wouldn't be surprised to see them offload Mario in January.

Yeah, that's the idea that's going around.

And Summ, where is this? Haven't seen anything of the sort on my travels.

[Summers]

Simon Mullock ‏@MullockSMirror

Lot of anger at the Etihad about being linked with Suarez. MCFC think LFC are trying to create a market for their most prized asset

Retweeted by Phil McNulty

Phil McNulty ‏@philmcnulty

Man City firmly deny Suarez interest - but I totally trust the Merseyside-based reporters who wrote those stories this morning. Intrigue.

[Thrilla]

Wouldn't be surprised to see them offload Mario in January.

Yeah, that's the idea that's going around.

Underperforming and quickly becoming a lot more hassle than he is worth. I imagine one of the Milan clubs will take him, PSG as well maybe.

[Nerf]

Simon Mullock ‏@MullockSMirror

Lot of anger at the Etihad about being linked with Suarez. MCFC think LFC are trying to create a market for their most prized asset

Retweeted by Phil McNulty

Phil McNulty ‏@philmcnulty

Man City firmly deny Suarez interest - but I totally trust the Merseyside-based reporters who wrote those stories this morning. Intrigue.

That doesn't make any sense though. Why would we be trying to create interest in Suarez when we're beyond fucked without him? At this point I don't even think Rodgers having £50 million to play with would be the brighter side.

Makes much more sense for City to deny it if they're going the backdoor way to get him.

[Dynamite]

If Suarez was to leave, he'd be to foolish to go to another English team. It'd be much better for him to go abroad and remain a favourite in Liverpool, suggesting he was driven out rather than leaving because he wanted to. Only City or Chelsea would buy him in England and both would lead to him being viewed as turning his back on the club after all the support they gave him.

[brenchill]

I think he could go anywhere. As Jamie Redknapp would say, he's a top, top player. He would fit right in at either of the big 2 in Spain not to mention City.

[Lineker]

Danny Simpson, Best in the World!*

* at banging that bird off X-Factor, not Nicole, the other one, the one with the blowjob video

That Tulisa?

Ignoring the lol Dave Whelan bit of this story:

Wigan owner Dave Whelan believes Premier League clubs will vote for a new break-even rule on Thursday.

Under plans which could be introduced next season, clubs would not be allowed to spend more cash than they generate.

Whelan told BBC Sport: "I think the clubs will say break-even is something they want. We could definitely see it."

The rule would mark a major change for the league, with champions Manchester City, for example, having made a £197m loss in their latest set of results.

Premier League clubs made cumulative losses of £361m in 2010-11, the most recent season for which there are complete financial results.

Representatives of the 20 top-flight teams will discuss the issue of financial regulation at one of their regular "shareholder meetings" in London on Thursday.

With 14 clubs needed to vote in favour of the proposals for them to pass, Whelan says Fulham are the only club opposed to any kind of new rules being brought in.

"This break-even rule will stop clubs getting into the red," he said. "There's nothing worse than seeing a club like Portsmouth getting into financial trouble - or Rangers, who are such a big and powerful club.

"I don't think Fulham want anything at all to do with it but generally it is accepted it's a very good rule. If it's passed on Thursday I think it's going to be a very good thing for football."

There could still be some flexibility permitted under any potential change, with wealthy owners allowed to put additional money in.

Uefa will introduce its own financial fair play rules next season, permitting clubs to make only set losses in the first three seasons. Failure to comply would result in exclusion from either the Champions League or Europa League.

Whelan believes the penalties should be severe if a break-even rule is introduced in the Premier League.

"We've got to say 'if you agree with this, you've got to abide by the rules'," he said. "If you don't break even, you get relegated or get a 10-, 15-, 20-point deduction."

A new £3bn television deal comes into force in the Premier League next season, up 70% on the existing arrangement. The chairmen are eager to ensure the extra money is not swallowed up by increased player wages.

Premier League clubs spent almost £1.6bn on wages in 2010-11, constituting 70% of their income. Only once in the 20 seasons of the Premier League - 2004-05 - have wages fallen year-on-year.

Manchester City spent 114% of their income on wages in 2010-11, Aston Villa 103%, and Chelsea 84%.

Another proposal is the introduction of a wage cap, pegging a club's salary bill to a maximum percentage increase year-on-year. Sunderland have pushed hard for this, but Whelan is not in favour.

"We control ourselves and don't pay what we can't afford," he said.

"I don't think they will go along with a wage cap, I can't see them getting a majority to put in too many controls.

"I say to players, get what you can while you can but be sensible and give respect to the club you play for."

Wigan reported a profit in earnings before interest, tax and other associated costs in their latest set of financial figures and Whelan expects them to be able to easily comply with a break-even rule.

"This doesn't come as any shock or surprise to a club like West Brom or Wigan, which are very carefully, well-run clubs," he said.

[Colly]

If Suarez was to leave, he'd be to foolish to go to another English team. It'd be much better for him to go abroad and remain a favourite in Liverpool, suggesting he was driven out rather than leaving because he wanted to. Only City or Chelsea would buy him in England and both would lead to him being viewed as turning his back on the club after all the support they gave him.

Why would he care?

[stokeriño]

City can't throw a hissy fit every time their name gets used as an invented link to help spark interest in a player (or provide leverage in contract negotiations) by their club/agent. It's a natural by-product of their status as A Rich Club. It's been happening to Chelsea for years.

Best to ignore the stories and just get on with it. The only reason I can think that City would care about the story is if their existing strikers were a flighty temperamental bunch who might be easily unsettled by...oh, right.

[Hobo]

Latest rumour going around is that City are plotting a £40m move for Suarez in January

Just read an article that points out any deal for Suarez would hurt City once Financial Fair Play came in as it would add a loss of 10-20 million a year.

So yeah, I can't see it. Also, didn't we sign him to a new contract recently?

In fact, here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/cbqte6b

[stokeriño]

Well the transfer fee would equate to roughly £10m a year. The wages would presumably be offset by the removal of, say, Balotelli's wages from the books and therefore not be an 'additional' cost.

Plus, Balotelli joined City in summer 2010 on a five year contract for something like £20 million (I've seen 22m quoted in both Euros and Pounds so figured I'd just split the difference...). By January 2013 half of his contract would have run meaning that £10 million of his transfer fee would still remain as yet-to-be-deducted on City's books. Any transfer fee they get in for selling him that was ABOVE £10 million would cover that remaining balance and be available for offsetting any Suarez fee.

And yes, Suarez has a contract to 2016 now I believe.

[Colly]

But signing a new contract is hardly going to stop a rich club signing a player, it just means the selling club can get a bigger fee. See Carroll, Andy.

[stokeriño]

Naturally.

Although Carroll is not the best example because I put that more down to last-minute panic.