Trents
Stuart Pearce
French FA giving them max time to sort their shit out.
Also postpones the UEFA decision giving Palace less time to have any potential appeal heard before the comp starts
Conference League 25/26
- Thread starter Trents
- Start date
Also postpones the UEFA decision giving Palace less time to have any potential appeal heard before the comp starts
Notcher
Steve Chettle
Well this just gets more and more tangled. I thought that was supposed to be heard today?
UEFA have managed to make a spectacular f**k up or the whole thing.
It's neither fair on Palace or us, we've done nothing wrong but don't know which competition we're preparing for or able to recruit appropriately.
Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk
An idea I had was to limit the number of signings a team could make during any given window, that way you can spend what you like but only on ‘X’ number of players. Maybe even add that no transfer fee can exceed ‘£X’.
Raymondo Ponte'
It's all about 17th...
It's all abaggabollox this.
Hangin on every sylabul of news for what?
Fuk it off, av never heard such nonsense. Apart from Oats about the taste of Ruddles
"Cue quote"
Hangin on every sylabul of news for what?
Fuk it off, av never heard such nonsense. Apart from Oats about the taste of Ruddles
"Cue quote"
Notcher
Steve Chettle
It's the circle that is almost impossible to square.
I've said on here for the last few years that the only way to do it is to have a salary cap and to have a spending cap on each team. The problem is that this needs a unified approach across all governing bodies across the world. Nobody will take that step as an outlier because of the detriment to their own national league.
UEFA, FIFA and domestic leagues needs to really start pulling this together. It's what governing bodies are supposed to do, get a grip on things and ensure that there's clear and fair governance across the board. They've allowed things to slip beyond their control and in order to try and deal with it, they've then overcomplicated everything whilst simultaneously created a raft of unintended consequences.
Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk
Statto
Free Kick Specialist
They should just take the stance that Palace and Lyon didn't meet the deadline to have the ownership resolved, and that both clubs still had the same person with too much interest in them at the deadline.
There are then two separate issues because the places get qualified by federation then.
At that point Palace weren't eligible and so Lyon get the place for the clubs where Textor had the shareholding on the day which mattered.
The place allocated to Palace goes to Forest, as Palace aren't eligible to play in the competition, and so their place goes to the next qualifying club from England.
The place allocated to Lyon goes to them if they satisfy the requirements i.e. if their financial situation and/or relegation doesn't stop them entering. If it does then their place AIUI would go to the next qualifying team from France, so there isn't a combination which - after having ejected Palace - has them taking Lyon's place if they too get ejected for another issue.
So Lyon's status shouldn't affect that
- Palace shouldn't be in it due to their ownership not being clarified by the deadline, when ours was
- We should be in it instead of them
- Palace shouldn't make it anyway if Lyon get booted out for another issue after they couldn't qualify
They just need to have the balls to do the right thing but like City and Chelsea it won't happen
Robertson
Grenville Morris
Wouldn’t exactly have helped us in 2022.An idea I had was to limit the number of signings a team could make during any given window, that way you can spend what you like but only on ‘X’ number of players. Maybe even add that no transfer fee can exceed ‘£X’.
I think a hard limit on squad size + loans out (excluding U21s) of say 30 players would be better.
Statto
Free Kick Specialist
Well we're almost at that situation aren't we? The PL has the 25 player squad, excluding youngsters, and if a club has more players than thay they can't play in the league. Chelsea got round that one by registering a lot more players for the CL who weren't registered in the league, but only clubs in Europe can do that.
A limit of being able to register 30 over 21s would work, then say you can only loan 5 non club trained players to another club, with no limit on club trained players who can be loaned out. Once you've reached your 30 over 21s and 5 loans, you can't register any new signings without one leaving. And this would be for all competitions.
I know players know what they are getting themselves in for to sign with Chelsea and be 34th choice keeper and end up bringing the balls out for training and putting the cones out, but, in reality there needs to be the expectation that a professional football player should be employed to play football, and that a club shouldn't have too many players so that a large chunk of their staff are collecting a salary and not working.
Robertson
Grenville Morris
Not far off. But yeah the squad should be for all competitions. It really shouldn’t be hard to police.
Though then of course the loopholes will be shuffling players back and forth to subsidiary clubs etc
.Of course if successful clubs weren’t asked to play a stupid amount of matches every season they’d be less motivated to stockpile players.
Statto
Free Kick Specialist
Not if they're only allowed 30 plus 5 out on loan plus under-21s as a hard limit. They'd only be able to loan a maximum of five to the other clubs in the ownership group and if they did the full five then they wouldn't be able to loan anyone to another club.Not far off. But yeah the squad should be for all competitions. It really shouldn’t be hard to police.
Though then of course the loopholes will be shuffling players back and forth to subsidiary clubs etc
Of course if successful clubs weren’t asked to play a stupid amount of matches every season they’d be less motivated to stockpile players.
So if we loaned 5 players to Oly and Rio then we wouldn't be able to send anyone out anywhere else apart from club trained players which should be unlimited as it means you get younger players match experience.
I'd also bring back reserve football, it is useful for getting matches into players on the way back from injury, plus players in the squad or not who aren't playing, and then the ones you can't register (like for us players like Dennis, LOB, Cook in recent years).
Robertson
Grenville Morris
I was thinking more 25 + 5 on loan. i.e. max 30 on the books at any one time.
Statto
Free Kick Specialist
Well it doesn't matter too much what the actual numbers are. I think in some cases, the current 25 player limit isn't enough. Yes you can play U21s but not all clubs have them or enough that are good enough to make it. Like us...
If you're expecting managers to name the first XI and then 9 subs, that's 20 on the matchday, 3 of your 25 is going to be keepers, so that's only 4 outfield players who can get injured before you can't name a squad.
Provided it's the same for all teams, it doesn't matter too much. Plus some consistency across confederations would be good, i.e. the same limits in Serie A, Ligue 1, the PL, the Bundesliga, etc.
Robertson
Grenville Morris
25 is the existing squad size limit anyway surely? It's more a tighter limit on the number of loans out i'm proposing.
Statto
Free Kick Specialist
It is yes, but I'm not sure where the 25 limit sat with increasing subs from 7 to 9, it seems a bit light these days.
Loans out are already restricted. Whilst it would be good to have teams not loaning loads of players out after they bought them, for me the main issue with squads is the number who are not eligible to play. It seems wrong of teams to stockpile players who they actually can't use.
Bing Crosby's Head
Viv Anderson
That is basically the current rules (except it is 6 rather than 5 and there is a domestic exemption to keep the EFL happy).
RedRobbo
Grenville Morris
Chelsea have an additional coach load of first teamers just pulled up in the car park - awaiting instructions on how/when/where they will play.
Trents
Stuart Pearce
Looks like Lyon knew about the decision early last week but couldn't appeal until the official letter arrived which didn't turn up until Monday just gone. Then they had 7 day to lodge an appeal, which in turn takes 7 days to come to a decision hence why we're looking at next week now.
It all smells like the French FA giving one of their largest clubs as much time as possible to find the dosh needed to avoid the drop. PSG have also helped them out, giving the outstanding balance on the Bradley Barcola transfer rather than continue the planned instalments.
It all smells like the French FA giving one of their largest clubs as much time as possible to find the dosh needed to avoid the drop. PSG have also helped them out, giving the outstanding balance on the Bradley Barcola transfer rather than continue the planned instalments.
Joao Pedro transfer: Chelsea complete signing of Brazil forward from Brighton
Joao Pedro could play in Chelsea's Club World Cup quarter-final with Palmeiras after completing his move from Brighton.
www.bbc.co.uk
Interesting breakdown of Chelsea’s spend over the last three seasons. 18 Forwards for £560million
Notcher
Steve Chettle
I believe most of the debt figure that's being touted around is mainly debt related to the stadium, but that doesn't give a good headline and I presume that's serviceable debt.
They do seem very confident that with the PSG money and the intergroup sales that they'll be able to prove financial viability for next season.
Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk
valspoodle
Ian Bowyer
Like most things, some rules are freer than others. For instance, you can spend as much as you like on infrastructure at your club, but are limited on the quality of football, simply because the better footballers cost more.
Similarly you cannot own two clubs in the same competition, but you can spend as much as you like on lawyers. Again the richer clubs benefit.
It's the rich what gets the pleasure, it's the poor what gets the pain. Something like that, anyway.
Similarly you cannot own two clubs in the same competition, but you can spend as much as you like on lawyers. Again the richer clubs benefit.
It's the rich what gets the pleasure, it's the poor what gets the pain. Something like that, anyway.
That’s the rules so why not follow them ? They’re your own
Shearstone
Full fledged Atheist.
At this point UEFA might as well arrange a game. Us v Palace winner gets Europa League, loser conference.
It's something that has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, but something which many people don't realise.
A good few years ago, Forest's secretary was given a rather terse reminder by the FA that he hadn't replied to the invitiation which offered Forest a place in that season's FA Cup competition, and would he be kind enough to do so asap, or else..
You have not only to be an FA-affiliated club but you also have to rsvp to the invite to play in the Cup.
By the same token, to get in to [insert name of European tournament], you have not only to finish in a particular position in your national league, but YOU MUST ALSO SATISFY THE OTHER RULES AND CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO ENTRY.
Crystal Palace did not satisfy those rules.
That's it, really.
A good few years ago, Forest's secretary was given a rather terse reminder by the FA that he hadn't replied to the invitiation which offered Forest a place in that season's FA Cup competition, and would he be kind enough to do so asap, or else..
You have not only to be an FA-affiliated club but you also have to rsvp to the invite to play in the Cup.
By the same token, to get in to [insert name of European tournament], you have not only to finish in a particular position in your national league, but YOU MUST ALSO SATISFY THE OTHER RULES AND CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO ENTRY.
Crystal Palace did not satisfy those rules.
That's it, really.