Emi Martinez

[ozzjim]

I also get the feeling that if Emi goes this summer, it's not necessarily all one sided. as such, he can go where he likes and gets the best for him.

[Matt C]

He’ll end up at Atletico if they flog their keeper or staying put for another year, I reckon. 

[Hookeysmith]

Paulie I agree with it all but my pathological hatred has no limits.

If he goes to anywhere else then he has our blessing, and he is our most valuable asset, but not there as he would be less of a man in my eyes for taking thier money and nothing else.

He can refuse to go

[ChicagoLion]

I am with Hookey, it would be a real shame for him to spoil his legacy.

[Dave]

Not sure which of the two quotes to respond to, so I’m choosing neither. Dave will sort it presumably. Hopefully.

Ah, I lost interest.

I'm sure exactly the same dopiness will come round again before too long and we can go once more.

[Drummond]

I am with Hookey, it would be a real shame for him to spoil his legacy.

Ah, the question is will you take a brush or mini-roller?

[Behind Bluenose Lines]

Cutting animals in half, sticking diamonds to stuff, have sex in tents - all under the AVFC brand - that we can sell for squillions. Easy

Ross McCormack's 'Unmade Bed' should be worth a few bob as well.

What about a twist: " The Unclimbed Gate"?

[ChicagoLion]

I am with Hookey, it would be a real shame for him to spoil his legacy.

Ah, the question is will you take a brush or mini-roller?

Will a bedsheet work?

[Hookeysmith]

Not sure which of the two quotes to respond to, so I’m choosing neither. Dave will sort it presumably. Hopefully.

Ah, I lost interest.

I'm sure exactly the same dopiness will come round again before too long and we can go once more.

What do you mean by that?

[Olneythelonely]

Not sure which of the two quotes to respond to, so I’m choosing neither. Dave will sort it presumably. Hopefully.

Ah, I lost interest.

I'm sure exactly the same dopiness will come round again before too long and we can go once more.

What do you mean by that?

I’m sure it wasn’t directed at you exclusively, but a lot of people keep saying “how come Man City and Chelsea keep getting away with it?” When Man City haven’t and Chelsea haven’t broken any rules. It’s fairly simple to understand but it appears that some aren’t even trying to understand that. Just assuming it’s a massive conspiracy.

I think FFP was set up to protect the “Super Club” teams, but that doesn’t mean they are allowed to break the rules carte blanche. They just have more revenue and therefore can spend more. Chelsea might be doing things that look like devious ways of getting around the rules, but we could also do similar.

Man City broke the rules, have been charged and are awaiting a ruling. Again, you might think it’s taking too long but doesn’t mean “they are allowed to get away with it”.

[ozzjim]

We'll see if they are found guilty and what the punishment is before making the judgement on whether they got away with it. Chelsea has boxed clever within the very fringes of the rules, am example we should be following to remove this false ceiling that we keep bashing against.

On Emi, beyond money I do wonder what the sudden motivation is to want to leave, if there smoke is true about him wanting a move to United.

[Pat Mustard]

I don't think there is any doubt that C115y have broken numerous rules by inflating sponsorships, related party transactions, off-payroll 'consultancy' type fees to employees and many other examples we are probably barely aware of.  The problem is, no sports governing body will have the wherewithal to properly take on a state-funded entity.  The rules as they stand are probably the best they can be to contain the likes of C115y, Newcastle and PSG and maintain a semblance of competitive balance.

Chelsea are a whole different kettle of fish.  They are repeatedly bumping up against the headroom of the rules and testing new ways to exploit loopholes, but these will surely run out.  Unless something dramatic changes there in the next 2-3 years I can't see how it is sustainable as they don't have the advantage of effectively limitless funds (at least not anymore).  I wouldn't want Villa to follow their example as it could easily end in tears.

[Toronto Villa]

Nowhere with any kind of reputation does it appear he's shown the slightest interest in Man U or vice versa. Other than popping up time and again via the same sources on Twitter with 4 followers. Just because we might need to sell in the next 11 days, and I'm even starting to doubt that given the seemingly absence of any urgency, doesn't mena the first bloke out the door needs to be our world number 1 keeper. And certainly not to club who already have a very expensive keeper, who are not in Europe, who might end up firing their manager in a few months, who are constantly under scrutiny and are a mess however much revenue they continue to generate. I cannot imagine that with the biggest motivator to Emi Martinez would be money when he hasn't even won a European trophy yet, and was a bit part player in his only domestic success.

[Dave]

Chelsea are a whole different kettle of fish.  They are repeatedly bumping up against the headroom of the rules and testing new ways to exploit loopholes, but these will surely run out.  Unless something dramatic changes there in the next 2-3 years I can't see how it is sustainable as they don't have the advantage of effectively limitless funds (at least not anymore).  I wouldn't want Villa to follow their example as it could easily end in tears.

Most of the league would say that we're doing the same thing (selling Villa Park to ourselves, selling players to each other for PSR-friendly amounts etc). We just don't have the historic revenues and academy system to do it as "successfully" as they are.

Chelsea's system will continue to work as long as their academy kicks out three or four players per year that they can sell for eight figure sums. A couple of seasons without that revenue and they'll start to struggle.

[Crown Hill]

Interestingly on the selling the women’s team some experts have said due to the potential expansion in the years ahead Chelsea may have sold at a relatively low level compared to future value. So that may be a consideration in why others haven’t copied,