FanchesterCity

You get numpty fans all over. As soon as someone utters the words 'we'll hammer you' or words to that effect - the game's already up with them. This league is too tight to guarantee a thing. And when they can't see weaknesses in their own team - then that's a weakness in itself, and when they can't see strengths in the opponent - more fool them. Much better to say "here is why I think we have the edge over you... and elaborate" - otherwise they might as well stick to innovative chants that spell out their team in letters....genius

I cannot for the life of me see what all the fuss is with Suarez. Yes, he looks decent, but I don't think you can really tell much until someone's well into their second season actually.. I've seen far too many good starts / first season wonders. Don't get me wrong, not saying he's garbage, far from it - but he's still unproven in my eyes. Liverpool blow hot and cold of late - they are capable of looking red hot (pardon the pun) but can look mediocre too. For that reason I'd normally say 60/40 in Liverpool's favour, but with Everton at home, 50/50. I'll say this for Liverpool - they don't half take some convincing that the world's changed. And they still refuse to listen to my sage advice that bringing back Kenny will end in tears. Once the second honeymoon's over, and the owner says "hey Kenny - we gave you the money when you started - there ain't no more" - that's when it'll get messy. And I guarantee you... GUARANTEE it... some numpty will start calling for Gerrard and Carragher as a management team (probably me, just to prove my prediction was accurate)

Don't be a Burkinabe wannabe if you wanna be in that team! Bit of an oversight there eh? Sounds like a genuine error of just assuming if you have citizenship you're ok. That said, I know Africa's not Europe, but surely at a national level, such rules would be known? I blame Blatter, he's at the head of it all - the buck stops with him!

Chelsea 0 - 1 Everton Chelsea look fragile and Everton were solid against City. If they can repeat the same, but be more focused on the break and take a few more risks - a win could be in their reach. However, if Chelsea get one - I can only see a Chelsea win 3-0 poss 3-1 Chelsea look better going forward than defending of late, and that isn't great news for Everton who are lacking a real cutting edge up front. Expect Everton to be carrying injuries from the Liverpool game.

What's the difference between Torres and Wayne Bridge? ... John Terry enjoyed Wayne's Missus

Ask them if they think Lampard is reaching the beginning of the end? 'cos I doubt it's been asked much

Read this a few times, it's slightly heavy reading - but relates the the 'after 3 years into your contract' rule: THE WEBSTER, MUTU AND METUZALEM CASES The new transfer regulations, however have been slow in being applied to football and it was only in 2008 that the Court of Arbitration for Sport finally ruled that the new regulations effectively abolished transfer fees for players who were out of their 'protected period' in the case of Heart of Midlothian v Webster and Wigan Athletic, (2008, CAS Decisions: 2007/A/1298-1300). Andy Webster had been a plauyer at Hearts who effectively handed in his notice to Hearts FC and signed for Wigan Athletic. He had served 3 years of a 4 year contract. The SFA’s attempt to prevent the release of his International Transfer Certificate was blocked by FIFA’s player status committee who ruled the player’s actions followed the new rules (because his protected period had expired). Hearts tried to claim a £5m transfer fee for the player. In January 2008 CAS ruled that Hearts could not demand a transfer fee and the actual amount of compensation was £150,000 – which was the residual amount of the contract remaining when Webster resigned. The case appeared to effectively implement the 2001 regulations in the way they were intended. It was thought that as a result of this case, any player who is 2 or 3 years into their contract can resign and move to a club of their choice without it having a pay a transfer fee. However the decisions of CAS in the cases of Mutu v Chelsea and Shaktar Donetsk v Matuzalem (both 2008) cast severe doubt as to how compensation for unilateral contract breach will be determined. In both cases, CAS awarded huge amounts of compensation to the club that was the victim of the breach that was akin to a transfer fee. If these cases are followed as a precident, rather than the decision in Webster, then it is likely that we will see another case before the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has in fact recently ruled that compensation for training costs is onlyproportionate and legal under EU law if it genuinely reflects the actual amount lost by the contract breach (in the Olympique Lyonnais v Bernard and Newcastle United [2009] ECJ Case C-325/08 case). At the moment the entire issue is clouded with uncertainty. Basically - it's a MESS - they haven't a clue how to properly apply the rulings. This is also one of the 'secret' reasons clubs like to renegotiate contracts - to keep that 3 year ruling topped up. If a player signs for 5 years, and has already done 3 - they are in the potential 'zone' where a player can just walk anyway. Neither the club, nor the player's advisor (if any good) could be certain of which way CAS might rule (if it went to court)

That's not quite true either. But you're right, you don't actually buy the person. The transfer fee is precisely that, a fee from the buying to the selling party of an amount that's acceptable to the selling party, in return they'll waive / terminate his contract. It's not true compensation, but yes, in 'effect' it is. The reason they can free themselves from a contract is because it's illegal to stop someone breaking it! You can sign a contract to play for a club, then change your mind. The club cannot prevent you quitting your job and seeking employment elsewhere, but you must compensate them accordingly. What can happen in the case of a player wanting to leave, AND the club deliberately asking to much for him is that the club is willfully obstructing his attempt to seek employment elsewhere by way of player registration etc. Technically, he can just resign and pay them compensation, but then he's still got a hurdle regarding his registration and ability to play elsewhere (but he could have course, go and be a fireman!). Most players are not in a position, or are unwilling to ever pay such compensation and so effectively they require a club to come in and fork up the money. This is half the issue with Tevez at the moment. He could be fired, and then he's free to do what he likes, or he can resign and be liable to compensate City (clearly he doesn't love his homeland enough to do that!). FIFA though have some nice little extras too.... IF a player unilaterally breaks a contract: If the player is under 23 they have to pay a 'training compensation' to the club The first 3 years of a contract are specially protected, so that if a player unilaterally breaks their contract, they get a 4 month ban from the sport, and must compensate the club based on their current salary AND the period left on their contract and/or in accordance with the relevant national law (no notice is taken of their potential transfer value, it's just wages and outstanding years) FIFA negotiated this with the European Commission.

I think there's a lot of stuff in football is potentially illegal - it's just it doesn't get challenged. I know the RFU in New Zealand actually gave a 'preliminary ruling' that a bunch of rules on wage caps and fees was price fixing! they asked the NZ Commercial Authority to rule on it and they judged against imposing the rules on price fixing grounds! There's stuff like 'only x foreigners' in the team which is also questionable (for Europeans)... it just takes another Bosnan to take it to court. Similar with bloody TV rights - a TOTAL stitch up - but I think from memory Sky lost a recent case on that - couldn't stop a woman from getting football from Greece... might be wrong on which way that went. I wish they'd just hammer Blatter - repeatedly. Then Gordon Taylor with his bloody liberal attitude to that stunt Tevez pulled. Gutless tosser. Don't get me started on HIM though

Brilliant! And actually, there's some sense to it... makes it all transparent! Wouldn't Karen Brady's husband (ex footballer) be a player under a hammer? ;-)

No I agree... I think a few clubs will try this... get players on the cheap, AND offload the ones they don't want as part of the deal - for them, a great option, for you - lousy. You don't appear to be a the fire sale stage of things though, just more a case of trying to keep stable with good players going / getting older and bringing in the youngsters / emerging talent. Trouble seems to be that there's now not just 2-3 clubs spending it's 5 or 6 making it harder still for Everton. It seems like in recent years the top 3 has just been left alone by most clubs - the best anyone else could hope for was 4th place, and in reality, clubs actually just wanted to be top 6, and there was still a tangible prize for that (Europe). But that top 6 looks like getting stitched up too now! so what's everybody else aiming for? a cup? I'm over simplifying of course, it does feel a bit that way. I would have liked to have seen SWP at Everton, but it wasn't to be - he was very much loved and wanted but not enough room. It's three seasons ago (I think) when City, Villa and Everton and Spurs were neck and neck - made for a brilliant season, and Avinalaff's right, 'just' short of top 4 (although in truth it was almost a lottery between the 4 of them from what I can remember). Spurs carried on spending and so did City, whilst Villa and Everton seemed to hit a financial brick wall, effectively putting a spanner in the works. Still struggling with the notion you have the best squad possible (in the circumstances) though - it's very unlikely! I don't think any club could say that hand on heart.

Ah now, that Arsenal comparison is interesting because I was thinking of them when I thought 'losing just 2-3 players' can have a huge impact. I'm on two minds in your other comments - my git feeling is that it's a bit fanciful to think you're just 3 players away from winning the league, but that said - 3 players can make a massive difference - esp if they are top notch. On balance, I think winning the league with 3 buys is unlikely. But in the top 4? with the right three - definitely. Assuming it all gelled etc etc. From what you've said, you seem to be saying "for the money, you can't better the team" i.e. there's no swap deal you could do that would help - but better use of what you have would make more progress (right positions). So, Moyes is no mug right? He must get plenty of insight from fellow professionals too, and see players day in day out - how can it be that plays players out of their best position as you see it? The problem with the above thinking (on my part) is something I hear a lot from United fans... "who are we to question Fergie?" - and yet, he makes loads of mistakes! Makes me wonder what he could have done had he actually been a decent manager! ;-)

Well, humm... Johnson was very good in his first season, but little end product recently. Don't want to get into a City convo though. Just thinking about Everton being creative - with no money to spend, could they do swap deals and improve that way (unlikely I know) - semi Fantasy Football but semi realistic too.

Chapter I of the CA98 and Article 81 prohibit agreements between businesses that prevent, restrict or distort competition or are intended to do so and which affect trade in the UK and/or EU. Agreements likely to be prohibited include those which: fix the prices to be charged for goods or services limit production carve up markets discriminate, e.g. between customers (e.g. charge different prices or impose different terms where there is no difference in what is being supplied). it's the 4th element that CAN be open to interpretation. It doesn't mean you CANT 'negotiate' different deals for each customer, but you can't have anything in place to inhibit a certain price or sale. So, if two clubs come in for the same player... (Liverpool and Udinese) and you see to Udinese, it's usually fine. But if you did that repeatedly and Liverpool kept offering all the same terms etc, you'd be in a bit of bother justifying how you hadn't disciminated

It's simply 'tricky' ground when you say "we have a player for sale and it's only available for sale to competitors a,b & c, but not x,y,z' that then CAN be construed as collusion / anti competitive. - but it's much harder to equate a player with a 'product'

That's not actually accurate... Price fixing is two fold a) Any collusion to set a minimum price between two or more business entities (usually large firm, but can actually be your local shop) - aka horizontal price fixing. Failure to offer that price across the market in an impartial manner <---- this is the aspect that matters in this case The latter is a much more tricky issue, since a player is a one off item and can only be sold 'once', and price isn't just "10 million quid", it's obfuscated with 1001 different caveats, stages payments, commissions etc all designed to make one 'deal' incomparable with another. It's a bit like you getting a job with a the local authority and your mate hires you. They really need to be interviewing others too even though it's a stitch up and the job is yours!

Right... I've got my flak jacket on. Everton: Decent teams, 2-3 signings away from being 4th place candidates <--- that's the good bit But how far are you (in terms of players being sold) away from being in deep trouble? I don't for one minute think Everton are in any danger of going down - but with the Premier League as it is, for most teams, they are only ever 2-3 signings (or leavings) away from success or relegation! (in my opinion) Realistically, how many more players could leave before serious concern sets in? - working on the assumption that clubs will only be coming in for the better players in the first place? Moyes is good, clearly, but there's a limit to any managers ability when his hands are totally tied, or worse still, having to lose key players. and... if you could swap 3 players at Everton with 3 other players of equal value (possibly different positions) who would you trade? - trying to keep it realisitic - i.e. Players out of favour or down the pecking order at other clubs... Fellaini for Van der Vaart? Cahill for Santa Cruz? Coleman for Adam Johnson?

After any loss - at least 30% of the fans will doubt the manager's judgment (70% if the manager is Roy Hodgson). Distin was very well liked at a certain other place. As was a certain Irish Right / Center Back who came from Everton. Own goal expert he was! (but well liked all the same)

it's double vision - have you been at the beer again?

I changed the name just to make it a bet less 'in your face' with FanchesterCity. A couple of folks weren't as keen on other fans as others (no surprise really) - just thought the name change might won't like quite so bad when people logged on and say 'city' all over it! Although I do find the board's sky blue background to be a lovely gesture ;-)

Excellent post this... Many people are unaware of this fact - if you offer something (a player) to a club for a certain price, you must make him available for that same price to other clubs otherwise it's technically a form of price fixing. Legally it's a bit of a minefield, and I don't believe it's ever been challenged (in football), but this notion of 'not selling to your rivals' isn't so easy.

They're all mad in Holland - I've not idea WHAT they smoke over there ;-)

Not to mention f**king your leg worse than Vincent Kompany

It's Moyesy... he makes them all look younger than they are! ;-)

I can see your point there, but I think a lot of outsiders smile when he's not in your lineup. Yeah you're right - he's not a 'GREAT' - but he's damn effective. The term irritant was accurate. 1 in 4 isn't a bad return for a player of his type but he's what? 30ish now?