The College Dropout

Basing it on Dortmund and Bayern not doing well in the Bundesliga and PSG being PSG

Jude was stinky again. At least he scored his penalty.

If not for the red Barca would’ve beat them. We should’ve beat them twice. They are not that good.

Yeh it’s Real’s from here. They are legit the best team still in it.

Proper CL KO football. 2 hours of dour football. One team playing from penalties for 105 minutes.

He always gasses not long after an hour. He needs to improve on his conditioning.

Huge DGW coming up. I'm chasing #1 in the NO league who has a decent gap on me. But he only has his bench boost intact. He only has 4 doublers in his squad coming up and seems to be writing the DGW off. I'm hoping I can cut his lead by 20-30 points. Any less than 15 points is a failure. I suspect some free-hitters might overtake me. But if I'm within 30 points of #1 I'll be happy. Wildcard and bench boost to go. 25k atm. Would be happy if I ended the season at this rank. Disappointed if I end up outside the top 60k (best finish so far). Have to at least beat that from here.

We are operating a policy of full compliance and nothing that would raise serious suspicion. Without FMV we could've sold ASM for double and there's nothing anyone could've said about it. That's an extra £25m

Without FMV we could do a £50m per year stadium sponsorship, £50m per year Official Tractor Partner sponsorship and could sell Paul Dummett to a PIF Saudi club for £50m.

Looks like possibly 6-year FFP violations or 2 back to back 3-year rolling periods.

City built during FFP largely still. They didn't have to deal with FMV which is really killing us. The bolded has largely always been the case. One thing about UEFA FFP/PSR that I don't understand. Why were Milan banned from Europe for that 1 season but PSG have never been banned?

The Arsenal stadium stuff was pre-FFP & PSR. The Chelsea thing was obviously done with FFP & PSR In mind. It's totally different. No issue with infrastructure costs not being included. They improve the game more widely and add long-term value to a club and stimulate the economies of the city/towns the clubs are in.

I don't remember this match. But looking at the stats broadly. Man U had 20 attempts. Which is a lot. But no big chances. So that 1.16 is likely an accumulation of high volume of low Xg shots. Sofascore and the highlights have Bournemouth creating 4 big chances and scoring 3. They had 10 shots with 4 on target. Watching the highlights all of the goals were good chances but none were sitters. Those headers get ballooned fairly frequently which is why their individual Xg is lower than we might think. The headers weren't point blank but they were uncontested. I agree the Bournemouth big chances could cumulatively have a higher Xg. But again, good chances but not sitters or 1v1s I think a wider context of the stats paints a decent picture (when watching the highlights anyway). 4 big chances to 0, Bournemouth deserved to win and Man U deserved to lose. I agree the Xg paints a closer game than what I've seen in the highlights. Big chances is also a favourite stat of mine. Some models use it to mean an Xg of over 0.25, 1 in 4 is scored. But it differs model to model. Thanks for sharing. I remember Burnely Dyche team tended to concede a high volume of low quality chances. With Nick Pope in goal it made it look like they were lucky but really the shot quality was poor and they had a beast in goal.

We finished 5th with 50 something points iirc. 60 points is 6th/7th in most seasons. This season 6th will be 61-65 points most likely.

Do people have examples of when they thought Xg was wrong? I think sometimes specific shots might seem out of whack with the eye test. But not whole matches typically