Abrak

So with christmas around the corner what would you like Santa to bring your club in the January sales? And who do you think might be available?

Actually I dont ask for that much for LFC, simply the strikers hitting the back of the net.

I would quite like a striker in the January window but there doesnt seem much available.

I dont want Torres (misfiring striker to solve misfiring striker problem) or Tevez (I'll take your money and screw you.) I dont want Yakubu (too flukey) or Hoilett (yes we can create chances already). The Germans have a something to offer I guess.

I would say that if there we are not going to get anything you could give RVP at Arsenal a cruciate knee ligament injury. Chelsea a high defensive line and place a small nuclear device at the 3 other clubs that are ahead of us.

But I think overall there is going to be a massive shortage of strikers in January. Chelsea need one. Both Man U and Spurs could do with one. Liverpool need one and so do Arsenal. And Man City probably dont need one but as Tevez is off and they have buckets of cash they might take one anyways.

All the signs that I see are that FFP will fail both because it is quite subjective and almost impossible to implement.

However I dont think that it is very sporting for this game to be totally dominated by money - like the America's cup. i like the concept that clubs are funded by fans and fans determine how much a club can spend etc.. However if one individual can simply replace millions of fans by a cheque book it isnt much fun.

Actually a fairly simple concept that is 'sporting' is that a club should be handicapped by there spend. So for instance in order to win the league a club that spends 300m needs to score more points than a club that spends 100m. It should not be a total burden - a club wouldnt have to score 3x as many points - but perhaps 10% more or maybe 15% more (for 3x the spend.) It would also make the relegation battle fairer.

This would not help Liverpool (apart from 08/09). United would still come top most years. Spurs might have won a Premiership, Arsenal would have done better. Swansea would not get relegated. And City can still win the PL but they would need to do it by 7 or 8 points. Money will always play a huge part in this game. But it should not be based on he who spends the most wins (that is not a money game.) The clubs that are more efficient with their spend should be rewarded.

As a system it would be incredibly simple to implement. All clubs report their cost structure and you simply apply a coefficient - say 1.3x for Blackpool with 50m spend and 0.8x for City with 350m spend.

I thought we should have a relegation thread to talk about some of the teams we dont usually mention.

In fact there are 14 teams with lower odds of being relegated than of making the top 4 - with Newcastle 25/1 to achieve either.

But there are 8 teams with relegation odds of 5/1 or less.

WBA 5/1
QPR 3/1
Norwich 15/8
Bolton 13/8
Wolves 7/4
Swansea 11/10
Blackburn 1/1
Wigan 1/2

The real shocker at the moment is Bolton. They are looking a real mess. It is not just the points as the bottom clubs are only a few points apart.

(1) Medium term positions in the league are very tightly correlated with goal difference. Bolton have let in 27 goals and have a goal difference of -14 - easily the worst in the league. Gary Cahill anyone.
(2) There is a very high deviation in their scores. They have lost 5-0 and won 4-0. Theoretically this is bad for the manager on the basis that it means they can be good but can be terrible (admittedly there seems to be a lot of this in the league this year.) But 5 straight home losses with an aggregate of 17-4 is pretty dire.
(3) I didnt wath the Swansea match and Bolton did lose a player later in the game. But apart from the score line, it looks as though Bolton simply didnt turn up. 31% possession compared to 69% for Swansea. And 231 completed passes (at 80%) compared to 617 (92%) for Swansea.

So Coyle, who has a massive reputation, could easily be gone before Christmas. And with matches against WBA, Everton and Stoke coming up, he probably wont last 3 more matches if they go against him. 27 goals against in 10 games, can Gary Cahill really be as good as everyone thinks he is?

The other big surprise this year could be that all three newly promoted teams stay up.

Watching the rugby World Cup it is incredibly refreshing to see how decisions made by the referee are not questioned by the players. I think in rugby only the captain can question a referees decision and if say a player questions a penalty then the penalty is simply advanced 10m. In football questioning the referee is mandatory so that you imply that say as penalty is a 50:50 decision that goes against you on the basis that it will pressure the referee to give you a 50:50 decision at the other end later in the game. We also see the managers claiming that referees are bias against their team to pressure the referees into being bias for them.

Football just seems to be a lot about refereeing decisions. Now of course Rugby and say tennis have good reasons why referees are not questioned in that they use technology to make major decisions. In rugby a try can be subject to a decision by a fourth official who uses slow motion replays etc. In tennis a player can appeal a call. And actually the decisions that referees make in football that are so subject to debate almost entirely surround penalties and goals. So it wouldnt be difficult to appeal penalties to a fourth official nor would it be difficult to give a team 'two appeals' a match to the fourth official. Either against a penalty or a goal that you felt was offside.

Anyway the obsession with refereeing is not healthy in the game and you dont see it in most other sports. The reality is that referees will get 90% of decisions right and 10% wrong and that decisions will go in your favor 50% of games and against you 50% of games. If the referees decisions basically 'decide' the games then you need to amend the decision making process. You cant be both a believer in 'bad refereeing' and against the use of 'technology'.

There is definitely something wrong in football that the referee seems so 'important'.

Now I know you guys are not that interested in Football Club financials but here is a PDF chart that sets out all the numbers with a comment which can be read in 2 minutes a club. It is based on 09/10 financial results.

http://image.guardia...rtscribddoc.pdf

And for those who dont want to bother here is a key point summary.

If you dont count clubs losing or making +/- 10m profit a year, out of 20 clubs there are 11 losing more than 10m and one club making a profit of more than 10m.

If you look at the numbers the most obvious thing that stands out is that there is the top 6 and then noone comes close in terms of financial resources to compete with them over a full season. To give you an example Spurs is 6th in terms of revenue (although it has the second strongest profit model) with turnover 119m. Now 7th is theoretically Aston Villa with 91m revenues but the club is such a basket case with 110m of debt and a loss of 38m that it is really only Lerner keeping it alive. A more realistic 7th is Everton with turnover of 79m (and which basically breakeven). Still Spurs in 6th has 50% more revenues (and that was in a year that didnt include CL).

Of the top 6 they fall into 3 categories. The top 2.

Man U lost 79m but it was mostly banking fees to refinance their 500m bond issue. Has the highest turnover and wont have problems meeting FFP.

Arsenal made a profit of 56m. However 90% of this is due to property sales so they are not quite as strong as they look. Where they are going to do very well is that they will renegotiate their shirt and naming rights deals over the next couple of years and that will add 30m. There financial position is so strong under FFP, it is possible they will over take Man U as the team to beat.

The big spenders

Chelsea have losses a minimum of 40m every year in the last 6. Last year it was 78m. They also have a need to rebuild their squad. If they really have to cut back spending by 80m to breakeven, then Liverpool and Spurs would likely overtake them. But that is a HUGE IF. It is going to be very difficult for Chelsea to meet FFP requirements.

Man City. Well they lost 121m and will lose even more in the current year. Luckily their revenues are growing fast - they are now in CL and I suspect they stand a better chance than Chelsea of meeting FFP.

The hopefuls

Spurs have a profit model very similar to Arsenal and they are in the unique position amongst the top 6 that they dont have to be in CL to be profitable. (They are in fact more efficient than Arsenal in the their cost base is 70m lower.) This puts them in a strong position. Imagine if say Chelsea had to cut costs sharply and as a result they missed out on a top 4 finish replaced by Spurs, the following year Chelsea would have to cut costs further because it had 30m less revenues and Spurs could increase their costs accordingly.

Liverpool is suffering because it is not in CL, needs to spend to rebuild the team and has a whole load of expensive baggage from the last lot. If they get into CL the extra revenues will solve the problems. If they dont they will struggle. In the long term their large global fan base which is driving commercial revenues (the main driver of revenue growth) should mean they eventually get back in the top 4 consistently.

Still what is most surprising about the league given the financial inequalities and wage bills ranging from 20% to 50% of the clubs in the top 6, is that they sometimes win matches against them.