Barclays Premier League 13/14 Thread

[Crimey]

First topic message reminder :

Well the season is nearly upon us, with matches starting next weekend, so I thought it was time for a thread for it.

I'll start with my predictions with the finishes, although a lot depends on signings so mine might change by the end of the window.

1. Chelsea
2. Manchester United
3. Manchester City
4. Tottenham Hotspur
5. Liverpool
6. Arsenal
7. Everton
8. Norwich City
9. Swansea
10. West Bromwich Albion
11. West Ham United
12. Sunderland
13. Newcastle United
14. Fulham
15. Aston Villa
16. Southampton
17. Stoke
18. Cardiff
19. Hull
20. Crystal Palace

[Soldier_Of_Fortune]

I usually do £10 4fold now. I won £108 first game of the season with QPR, Reading, Notts Forest and Wigan.

The second set of games I would have won £150 but QPR drew with Huddersfield. I had Reading Bolton draw, Dortmund, Notts Forest and QPR.

Didnt do a footy bet last week, I stuck £10 on Cleverly to KO Kovalev @ 6/1

Going to make it up this week though

[mystiroakey]

Yeah if you have the exposure you can make a good return for sure. You don't even need any complex systems just a lot of capital.

You can always knick a percent here and there if you were on the ball due to the fact we have back and laying systems in place.. And if you have people offshore you can rake it in

For example you could have laid england here at 7/1 for the world cup- you could back it in the states at 14/1(just an example not an exact)

and you can just knick a nice profit whatever happens.

You can also do the same thing here with different bookies but you will never get the same return.

If you have 100k though you can make money. You need to put a lot on for it to be worth while. because you need so much exposure on the lay side- you have to use different bookies..

[mystiroakey]

I might have mentioned this before, but my best mate once lost a potential £3,500 on a bet. It was a 50p accy with about 24 international teams, and the first 23 came in, Portugal were 2-0 up on Liechtenstein, who then ended up drawing 2-2 and losing my mate that £3,500. We both cried.

England cost me 15k once

I had an 8 fold- 200/1 100 pound stake- I have no idea why i made the crazy bet but i did..

I won the first 7 bets and England played late and were 2-1 up. England went to 1.1(1/10) on the lay side- so a 20k lay(costing 2k) would have been sufficient to turn a 20k win into a 18k one either way.

I couldn't get enough in to my account due to my exposure limit and I had to limit the bet to an exposure of 300 for a 3k win or 19.7k win.

England let the goal in the 92nd minute.. I only won 3k. I was still seriously gutted..

[JamesLincs]

im about 7 quid up so far

[JamesLincs]

i was 1 result of an 800 quid win once, but i didnt think to put an insurance bet on a double for the final game and so i came out with nothing

[Soldier_Of_Fortune]

Yeah if you have the exposure you can make a good return for sure.  You don't even need any complex systems just a lot of capital.

You can always knick a percent here and there if you were on the ball due to the fact we have back and laying systems in place.. And if you have people offshore you can rake it in

For example you could have laid england here at 7/1 for the world cup- you could back it in the states at 14/1(just an example not an exact)

and you can just knick a nice profit whatever happens.

You can also do the same thing here with different bookies but you will never get the same return.

If you have 100k though you can make money. You need to put a lot on for it to be worth while. because you need so much exposure on the lay side- you have to use different bookies..

For the 2006 world cup England where like around 6/1 - 7/1 to win. My manager was so adament that England wont win it, he said you might aswell give the money to him and he offered 14/1 on England. I betted a tenner along with a few of the other lads, one of them betted £50   He racked in a couple of quid anyway!

[Soldier_Of_Fortune]

i was 1 result of an 800 quid win once, but i didnt think to put an insurance bet on a double for the final game and so i came out with nothing

Me mate tried to cover his back once, he was sweating on Norwich which was the Sunday game so he put £100 on the other team to win and it ended up being a draw (dont ask me why he never backed the draw ) so he came out with nothing and owed his dad £100!

[mystiroakey]

well if you were clever you would have taken his 14/1 and laid it at 7/1!!

I would put down as much money as i could afford with him!! Free money mate!

[mystiroakey]

i was 1 result of an 800 quid win once, but i didnt think to put an insurance bet on a double for the final game and so i came out with nothing

Me mate tried to cover his back once, he was sweating on Norwich which was the Sunday game so he put £100 on the other team to win and it ended up being a draw (dont ask me why he never backed the draw ) so he came out with nothing and owed his dad £100!

typical isn't it- you lay the win!! or back both other possibilities!!

[Soldier_Of_Fortune]

well if you were clever you would have taken his 14/1 and laid it at 7/1!!

I would put down as much money as i could afford with him!! :)Free money mate!

No he fronted the bet I was goin to stick on England with the bookies.

[mystiroakey]

well if you were clever you would have taken his 14/1 and laid it at 7/1!!

I would put down as much money as i could afford with him!! :)Free money mate!

No he fronted the bet I was goin to stick on England with the bookies.

well yes but point being its what i would have done..

You could have just had a free 7/1 bet if you had laid it at 7's- yes you would have needed 70 quid in a betfair account/or other exchange account to do this. But still- Its the principle behind getting free bets or making money out of nothing!

I do understand that 70 quid to youngster can be a lot of money though.

Its also a basic example of why making money from exchange betting(on trends) over actual gambling requires massive capital and exposure ability in the first place. And if you did have enough to do it- you could probably get a better return out of a different business.

[Soldier_Of_Fortune]

I see what you mean now but free bets where scarse but in 2006

I done one with bet365 (I think) for the champions league final where you could not lose but you had to bet big. I deposited £100 and got a £100 free bet. A Bayern win was the least return you could get, a £14 profit which is what happened. But a win is a win though

[mystiroakey]

A win is a win!

[Guest]

Why are Spurs in a Europa League qualifier tonight? Woulda thought they'd have gone straight in. Strange.

[mystiroakey]

Is it because the cup teams get precedent over the places in the league?

[Guest]

Looks that way Myst. Ridiculous.

[mystiroakey]

Well it guarantees our teams get through. So I am kind of all for it!

However from a quality point of view it surely isn't the best way of allocating play off spots. The Uefa cup could be worse off for it!

[mystiroakey]

Just checked

Yeah swansea and tottenham play the play offs. Wigan the championship side go through automatically
 

[Guest]

They should never have done away with the Cup Winners' Cup. I loved that competition.

[Guest]

They should never have done away with the Cup Winners' Cup. I loved that competition.

Yeah that competition threw up some great finals. Bring it back!

[mystiroakey]

Not enough money in that system dude.. Too many random teams could get through to the later stages.. And we would also have to take out the CL dropouts..

Big teams win the Europa these days- like chelsea last year- The revenue from that type of game talks to much

[Guest]

Champions League = max of top 3 from each country
Europa League = 4th-7th max of each country
Cup Winners' Cup = cup winners / runners-up/semi-finalists of each country, only the losing teams if the winner is in the CL.

Tuesday = Cup Winners' Cup + Champions League
Wednesday = Champions League + Europa League

[GSC]

I don't think we really need another European competition.

Europa League does a good job of sweeping up all the good teams.

[mystiroakey]

Oh right so 3 cups!!

[Guest]

It's the most boring competition in European football history. I'd rather watch League Two football than the dross the Europa League brings up.

[Crimey]

It's the most boring competition in European football history. I'd rather watch League Two football than the dross the Europa League brings up.

That's unfair, once you get to the latter stages you get some really interesting matches. A chance to see the best of the rest rather than the same old faces like in the Champions League.

[mystiroakey]

If we limit the CL to less clubs we will only encourage the direction we are going in that there are so few decent clubs- having 4 allows more competition domestically than having 3.

I say have more teams in the CL- a max of 6 and have more play offs.

Then we have the possibility of having better quality domestic leagues.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Norwich City FC ‏@NorwichCityFC
Hughton: 'No Gary Hooper yet unfortunately. But Snodgrass and Bassong have trained and are in contention.'

Elliott Bennett also out for a few months with a knee injury.

Injuries

[Guest]

I disagree mysti, if you have three places rather than four then teams like Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool Everton, have to improve and take the league seriously. I think it would be better for the PL to lose a spot than to gain two, all you do then is lower standards.

[mystiroakey]

Or how about this- a max of 8 clubs from leagues get into europe- we have loads of play offs and all the losers go onto the Europa cup.

That could potentially allow a lot more distribution of wealth around europe..and we could get better domestic leagues as a result.

[mystiroakey]

I disagree mysti, if you have three places rather than four then teams like Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool Everton, have to improve and take the league seriously. I think it would be better for the PL to lose a spot than to gain two, all you do then is lower standards.

They cant improve for the below reasons

1. the teams won't get CL money
2. The best players wont come unless you are in the CL.

If we have more teams potentially getting in the the CL we will distribute the riches of the cl to more teams. and players will be happier to sign at a lower level team over bench warming at a great team

[Guest]

Or, you take the top 8, and have a knockout tournament:

winners = CL group seeding
runners up = CL group pot
3rd place = CL playoff seeding
4th place = CL playoff pot
5th place = Europa group seeding
6th place = Europa group pot
7th place = Europa playoff seeding
8th place = Europa playoff pot

So United could lose a 1-off game and end up in the Europa League playoff pot.

But our clubs would never agree to it, the rest of Europe would laugh at us, and I don't think the CL sponsors would take too kindly to it either.

[Guest]

They cant improve for the below reasons

1. the teams won't get CL money
2. The best players wont come unless you are in the CL.

If we have more teams potentially getting in the the CL we will distribute the riches of the cl to more teams. and players will be happier to sign at a lower level team over bench warming at a great team

1. City and Chelsea improved with new money, other teams would have to do the same. Plenty of rich people out there looking for a project.
2. They don't leave the big clubs even for teams in the CL (see Arsenal for evidence of that)

[mystiroakey]

If the rest of europe all had more potential cl spots they may all sign up(if the PL, bundles and la liga all get 8- others will also get more). It wouldn't just be about the PL.

[GSC]

I like it as it is tbh

Wouldn't be adverse to a Championship style playoff between 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th though. Final winner gets CL, loser gets 5th place etc

[mystiroakey]

They cant improve for the below reasons

1. the teams won't get CL money
2. The best players wont come unless you are in the CL.

If we have more teams potentially getting in the the CL we will distribute the riches of the cl to more teams. and players will be happier to sign at a lower level team over bench warming at a great team

1. City and Chelsea improved with new money, other teams would have to do the same. Plenty of rich people out there looking for a project.
2. They don't leave the big clubs even for teams in the CL (see Arsenal for evidence of that)

If there are more potential CL places for teams all over europe - it would push the price of more clubs up in value. and yes players do want CL..

By allowing more teams to get into the cl we are distributing the wealth more and making the lower top teams in leagues much more desirable.

[mystiroakey]

BTW

Arsenal didn't bid enough for any player mate- Its that simple , they could have picked up plenty of signings. They just didnt, its typical arsenal. They haven't been in the buying market for a decade. They are very inexperienced or trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes by pretending no one wants to go there- when they know full well if they paid the money they would have got!

[Guest]

I don't see it mysti. No-one currently involved in the CL would vote for an expansion, as they'd lose money. That's one gigantic obstacle. Second, no self-respecting 'big' player is going to sign for one of those lesser CL teams, as they'll have little chance of actually doing anything in the CL. Lucky to make the group stages probably. Which means you may as well stay at the big club.

Then you have the problem of if these clubs do sign big players, they now have massive financial burdens that even CL football can't completely solve. I reckon it would ruin clubs to go out and spend big just because they have a shot at CL football in a season. Look at what Leeds did with their CL run, that would happen to a club every season under that system.

[mystiroakey]

"No-one currently involved in the CL would vote for an expansion, as they'd lose money."

The leagues may- but teams currently in wouldn't no. However the teams that aren't would!

We need to somehow distribute the wealth around our top european leagues.

The only thing that makes the PL such a great league is that this league has so much support all over.. The bundesliga seems to be a feeder for Bayern. Even Borussia dortmund sell them there best players !! La liga is a two horse race.= and has been for decades.

For a top league the Pl is great because we have a wider spread talent pool.

If we brought the cl allocation down to 3- how are teams like tottenham, everton liverpool or arsenal going to cope. How could they break the top 3- It would kill our league.. But they do potentially have a shot at a top 4!

Because even in our league(a more competitive one than the spanish or german) we still have a rigid top 3!!



Going by that rationale the more the better in my mind- The less places we have for the CL the gap will just widen and widen!


You are correct though - nothing will change as drastically as my suggestion. But In my mind going down to 3 max is a no go and will not help the top leagues out..

"I reckon it would ruin clubs to go out and spend big just because they have a shot at CL football in a season. Look at what Leeds did with their CL run, that would happen to a club every season under that system."

thats a circular argument though isn't it. You are right- however how can they ever penetrate the top without extra money(from something like the CL). Its about having good business sense tbh. The clubs need to be level headed. A club has to be able to see in to the future- There problems are their own making. But if we can stop the super clubs getting bigger(which they would unders a reduced CL system) then we can potentially lessen the gap -Otherwise we may as well just have a European super league.

[Guest]

One thing that would help is forcing teams to pay all transfer fees up front, cut out agents and have all transfers negotiated by an independent body for a nominal fee, and not allow any teams to be bought 'on credit' like United are. Stop state aid, like Real Madrid and West Ham. Give financial incentives for clubs to grow and play English players:

- £1m if you have a player come through your youth system and make 20 PL starts
- £2.5m if you have a player come through your youth system, make 30 PL starts and 5 England U21 starts
- £5m if you have a player come through your youth system, make 50 PL starts, and make an England appearance of any sort
- £10m with 75 PL starts and 10 England starts
- £15m with 150 PL starts and 25 England starts

Every time you hit the milestone, you get that cash again. So for a player you develop who starts 150 PL games for you, and gets 25 England caps, you get £33.5m from the FA.

That would be a far better use of their money than the way they waste it at the moment.

[GSC]

No offense Azzy but that sounds awful

[Guest]

Why? It would make sensible PL teams grow their own talent, and reward them for doing so. Bad players who don't make the international grade don't get the same rewards as Rooney-esque talents.

[mystiroakey]

One thing that would help is forcing teams to pay all transfer fees up front, cut out agents and have all transfers negotiated by an independent body for a nominal fee, and not allow any teams to be bought 'on credit' like United are. Stop state aid, like Real Madrid and West Ham. Give financial incentives for clubs to grow and play English players:

- £1m if you have a player come through your youth system and make 20 PL starts
- £2.5m if you have a player come through your youth system, make 30 PL starts and 5 England U21 starts
- £5m if you have a player come through your youth system, make 50 PL starts, and make an England appearance of any sort
- £10m with 75 PL starts and 10 England starts
- £15m with 150 PL starts and 25 England starts

Every time you hit the milestone, you get that cash again. So for a player you develop who starts 150 PL games for you, and gets 25 England caps, you get £33.5m from the FA.

That would be a far better use of their money than the way they waste it at the moment.

Well ok you are looking at it from a national team perspective. I was looking at it from the top leagues and perspective. Your points are fine. And if we wanted to look more into the national team then lets be honest CL doesn't really help anyway!




But you raise a point about funding, and the wage rule isn't going to work-There are too many loopholes to get round it that are completely legal

Just limit the debt to capital ratio of a club to say 75% capital and 25% debt. Have a top team of auditors that go throw the accounts with a tooth comb to make sure its up held.

Basically what that means is that the barcas and reals of this world can't keep borrowing money from banks and the abramovich's of this world can't keep loaning their own team money. If they want to spend more- they add capital- It basically means teams can never go bust.. Because they will always have much more assets than debt. This will also bring down the ridiculous sums of money being spent on players.

[Guest]

So the question is, if we can see how to fix the game, why aren't the powers that be doing so?

[mystiroakey]

Money.

Why would any top club want to be limited on what they can borrow. The top clubs have to much say.

The amount of different leagues involved- If the FA was to change a rule that the other leagues didn't(your examples) , it would put the PL brand at stake(the PL brand makes the UK loads of money- and this is possibly more beneficial than having a top england team)

The whole wage thing is a scam to appease people. The players will all have companies where they get paid sponsorship deals etc to make up any difference. In Fact it could actually help them getting paid more..More scope for offshore tax, and less tax revenue to govenments

[GSC]

The PL don't want to remove the sugar daddies. UEFA want to protect the big guns of Europe.

In a nut shell

[mystiroakey]

Yep thats pretty close to the truth GSC

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Chris Lepkowski ‏@chrislepkowski 5m
Nicolas Anelka left #wba training ground this morning. Had meeting with Garlick, packed bags, left. Major doubts over future.

Chris Lepkowski ‏@chrislepkowski 5m
Assured there was NO bust-up - Anelka decision (whatever that will ultimately be) is based on either football/personal matter #wba

Chris Lepkowski ‏@chrislepkowski 2m
It has been suggested that Anelka's walk-out based on a personal matter. Wait and see until #wba say more at this stage

Rut oh

[CFCNick]

At least West Brom still have time to replace him. Unlike when Ilya Kovalchuk "retired" from the Devils after all the top free agents had been taken.

[GSC]

Who?

[Sponsored content]