OhForAGreavsie

Joe Hart is a great illustration of my attitude on goalkeepers. The wildly different opinions of his abilities come about because he does make brilliant saves, and he does mess things up too. All keepers make wonderful saves, pretty regularly in fact, and they all also make howlers. In my opinion, there just isn't enough difference between the best of them, and the worst of them, to ever make it worth spending superstar type amounts to get a goalie. Unless your side's outfield squad is already the best in the world then a club will always, always, always do better to buy a cheaper keeper and spend more on the other ten positions instead. I can't prove it of course but I'm convinced that even those who disagree with what I'm about to say, will change their mind one day; If we had signed Allison, and Liverpool had captured Kepa, they would still be champions, and we would still have been fourth. The thing that makes them a much better team than us is their outfield players, not their goalie. Two years ago I argued we should promote Bulka and forget signing Kepa because the £71m expenditure could never be justified. My idea was ridiculed at the time, but it would have been the right choice. Let's hope we are not about to repeat the error.

Yes, it is the NFL where I first encountered the salary cap. When it was introduced it was about $35m! I no loner follow the sport as avidly as I did in the 80's and 90's, partly because of embarrassment at the name of my team. It's funny but I've been calling them Washington's NFL team for decades and now they do too. Well more-or-less they do. I used Walsall to illustrate the point that some clubs will never be able, independently, to afford the spending of glamour clubs. Nor are they likely to attract an investor who would enable them to, but at least, under the cap, they would be allowed to do it if they could. Under the current system, it wouldn't matter if Jeff Bazos himself bought Walsall, the rule would prevent them spending much more than their natural level. As I said, this makes the current system financial unfair play. Budget caps, not just salary caps, must come to football. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that full revenue sharing will ever come to football. Even if it did, it would only be within divisions, not entire national pyramids. That could never make sense.. P.S. I also love MLB. Baseball is a wonderful, endlessly fascinating sport, but I hate the NBA with a passion so know next to nothing about it.

Maybe it's already done, pending announcement?

I'm not big on Rice so I'm looking forward to finding out what I've been missing about him up to now. What sort of price are West Ham going accept/want for him? Nothing less that £70m I'd have thought. Could someone like Denis Zakaria be had for less? If so, that's a no contest in my opinion.

I've never believed that FFP is against EU law. Organisations are allowed to set rules of association. If you want to be a football club, and spend whatever you want on transfers and wages no one is stopping you. You just can't join the uefa club. It would be interesting to see this tested and established, one way or the other, once and for all..

What we need is a US style budget cap; a single figure which applies to all clubs. Any club is allowed to spend up to the cap figure, as long as it can do so without falling into unsustainable debt. Just as now, club's books must be subject to annual inspection to ensure that this is so with heavy sanctions if the rules are broken. This is never going to mean that Walsall FC can compete with Barcelona, but it also is never going to mean that they are not even allowed to.

I don't want FFP to be destroyed, I just want it to be altered so that it lives up to its name. That is, I want it transformed from financial unfair play, into something which is genuinely financial fair play. I've said it a zillion times on here before, so apologies for repeating myself, but it is one thing to say that less well-off clubs cannot afford to spend a much as richer ones, but it's altogether a different, and grotesque, thing to say that smaller clubs are not allowed to spend as much as bigger ones, even if backers are prepared to put up the money. How any sporting organisation can make rules which actively create a self-replicating advantage for some of its members over some of the others, is utterly beyond me. A level playing field may not be achievable in reality, but it should at least be the theoretical aim. On the day Platini was appointed head of uefa, I said he was not intelligent enough to hold that job, and so it proved. The G14, or whatever it was at the time, easily manipulated him into enshrining their already huge de-facto advantages, into rules which protect their position. Shameful.

But, but, but... didn't City get off on a technicality? Namely that regulations stipulate a time limit between offence and charge, and that this limit had expired? It may be that City could have been found not guilty in substance, but the charge timed out so CAS never gave that determination. They simply said out of time, thank you and goodbye. So, if my understanding is correct, the City case is not a precedent for what others can get away with.

I remember when we first chased him, some, including me, raved about his qualities and were totally in favour of signing him, while others were unimpressed. For myself I liked his power, his one on one defending, his poise in possession and his ability to carry the ball out from the back. I have not watched him this year so can't really offer a current opinion on him but, I previously rated him so highly that my only red flag against trying to get him now is the excessive price tag. Given our urgent need, I'd consider paying big, but not that big.

Wow, as much as that? It was £1.92m per place last season but I didn't know the details for this season.

This will be interesting. A month and a half ago I posted that I couldn't understand why some lists of this kind did not include Puli as a starter. Don't think any will exclude him now.

Agreed.

I see. Well, if he wants 10, I see no reason why he shouldn't get it. For now however, Willian is yet to take up an alternative offer so it seems he's still holding out hope of keeping it for a few seasons more.

Interesting. Is that so even in tournament play? As a protest against international breaks, which I loathe, I only watch international tournaments and completely ignore in-season matches. Last time I noticed however, run-of-the-mill international fixtures tend to feature starters wearing 1 to 11 don't they? There is room for more flexibility during tournaments, but I've known some coaches to resist pandering to marketing preferences. For example, some just go with alphabetical order, or at least some have done in the past. National associations, like the FA, are not immune to exploiting famous shirt numbers in their own marketing however.

Ah, Watneys. I'm tearing up.

Poor little Man United, trying to compete with all those rich clubs. You've got to love a trier. 🙂

People who describe Michy in that way are as wrong as you are. Frequently, when I make this point, I mention my own feelings about Chris Sutton. I was so furious the moment I heard we had signed Sutton that I very nearly threw a party 7 can through a mate's window. True story. If I can keep my cool and stick to criticising Sutton without stepping over the line, then I think everyone can do the same for the players they don't rate.

I will never understand why self-professed Chelsea fans talk about Chelsea players in such terms.

There will be agents, high powered execs and club officials in that discussion before it's decided, but why not stick with 22 and establish a legacy number of his own? Some people have managed to get out from Pele's shadow; Best made no. 7 a big thing, Michael Jordan made his number almost as famous as Pele's despite playing what is a minority sport when compared to football. There's no danger Pulli can make 22 as big as 10 or 23 but he can create a strong association of his own. I'd advise him to stick with the number he's worn his entire professional career.

I think if we look across the entire season then Kova has to be in the conversation. In fact, I have Kova on top of the list.

Good, good player but it looks like we would not even have been his second choice destination. Such a shame, but we move on.

This is an issue for CHO I think. I'm reading comments here about his passing not being good and/or that he's edgy and a bit too inclined to go for glory. These are symptoms of a lack of confidence. In development games, where it was clear to everyone, Callum included, that he was a standout, his passing was a big positive and his decision making was calm and cool eyed. He didn't need to prove that he belonged at that level and, as a result, he proved it all of the time. Look, for example, at his pass for Tino's goal in the 2018 Youth Cup Final. I was behind the goal at the far end that night, but you could see from the moment Callum picked up the ball that he already knew the pass he was going to play 30 metres later. When the pass came, its timing, weight and angle were absolute perfection. Look too at his performance in the U17 World Cup Final earlier that season. Phil Foden scored twice and picked up man of the match, but it was Callum who produced the game's deciding performance. That was one of the moments I liked from him. He was decisive, sharp and the shot was well struck, just misdirected. It could be argued that he should have squared the ball, but going for goal was a perfectly reasonable option. The chance was there and he can't be blamed for taking a pop. It would have been spectacular if it had gone in.

Really good is a bit stronger than I'd go, but it was pleasing to see some positive glimpses from Callum on Sunday.