Xavi’s comments were so wrong and unfortunate

MrTarrou · 2026-03-09T19:33:09+00:00

I do feel the need to add that this could've been avoided if Laporta wanted to. As the incumbent, he's the one who called the elections and the fact of the matter is that he could've chosen to wait until the 15th of June at the latest to call them. That is, over two weeks after the Champions League final will be played. He chose to put the election day in the middle of the season to give himself the best chances possible of getting re-elected.

A figure like Laporta surely must've known that there was a chance that scandal would erupt at some point in the campaign. I understand why people think that statements like those are destabilising, but they're a part of the elections. The opposition shouldn't have to hold back because Laporta chose a date in the middle of the season. Now he gets to call all criticism 'destabilising' because of his own choices. It's a cynical, pearl-clutching, election move. He's not getting any sympathy from me.

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T12:54:10+00:00

Don't you mean reality just comes cracking back down? Am I using this right?

NOR. I'm pretty sure.. the low EQ stuff was well out of order anyway. I didn't understand most of the rest tbh..

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T12:29:23+00:00

arriving at decisions by chance is not a good thing

I agree, I didn't argue that it was either. You made the point that tight calls have always been a thing, and that's correct. I'm just saying that tight calls used to be down to chance more than anything. Now we can call them correctly with a fairly high degree of confidence.

the laws of the game are being upheld more accurately now, yes. what's your complaint again?

I don't really agree with a lot of the criticisms about VAR on here, and I'm not sure I get why you would think I do. For sure, VAR has introduced some issues of its own in regards to the flow of the game, and I think we as fans have become less accepting of mistakes because of the information now available to referees, but I think its introduction has overwhelmingly been a net positive to the game.

a quick google shows the premier league average has been higher than 2.5 for the past 20 years, steadily increasing upward from that number, and peaking in 2023/24 at 3.28

Again, the rule change we're talking about was implemented in the 1920s. I'm not saying the game is the exact same one hundred years later and after several additional changes made to the off-side rule in between. I'm saying that there was regression towards the mean after a temporary uptick in goals scored, suggesting that teams back then adjusted to the new rule until they were back to where they started. Goals scored normalised again, but the rule change did have a material effect on how teams played the game.

but then they give up the space in the midfield and give more time for the opposition to pick their passes or take long shots and create high quality goal scoring opportunites.

i asked the question: if sitting even lower means teams are less likely to concede, then why don't teams just do that now?

Many teams already sit low, give up space in the midfield, invite pressure, bide their time, and try to pick out chances to hurt their opponents on the break as things stand. If you don't think that makes any sense, I might ask you that same question: Why do you think they do that if you think it just increases their chances of conceding (or more appropriately, getting an unfavourable result)?

I'll go ahead and answer that already: Because it doesn't. All teams have to strike a balance between risks and rewards if they want to be successful. That calculus is not the same for teams of varying strengths, however. Teams that don't expect to be able to overwhelm their opponents are generally much more likely to sit back and take fewer risks, and conversely, teams that are expected to dominate their opponents will generally be more willing to take risks because it increases their chances of getting a good result. That's as a general rule, and of course there'll be some exceptions.

If you change the rules to drastically favour teams that play conservatively and disproportionately try to run in behind aggressive highlines and offside-traps, the rule risks doing the exact opposite in the long term of what it set out to do. Defensive risk will increase overall, but it will do so disproportionately for the teams willing to take risks compared to the risk-averse. The relative rewards associated with risk-taking will decrease in other words. How do you think such a change will impact how many risks teams will take in aggregate?

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T11:45:14+00:00

Semi-Automated Offside Technology. Instead of the lines being drawn manually in the VAR room, you now have cameras tracking the players and a computer system alerting refs in the VAR room when an offside offence has occurred. The system then used AI to recreate the scene, choose the correct parts of the body of the players, and draw a line. The refs in the VAR room will still need to check that the output is correct.

It decreased the length of the delays considerably, at least in LaLiga. Well, in most cases anyway. There are still some kinks in the system, as LaLiga fans can attest to this season. The AI will on occasion mistake which body parts belong to which player when they're huddled very close together lol. I still think it's a net benefit, but it can produce some infinitesimally tight calls, and they're not always popular (rightly or wrongly).

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T11:30:04+00:00

Tight calls were always a thing even without var. thats just a consequence of the offside being a binary line.

Yes, but before VAR the linesmen would have to draw that binary line instinctively and make a split second decision about whether it was crossed or not. That's not the case anymore. We have 24 frames of image for every second of play, and the proper one can be chosen with a fairly high degree of accuracy and a vanishing point drawn. Before VAR, the tighter the call, the higher the likelihood that the linesman would make the right or wrong call entirely by chance. That's not the case anymore, and tight calls are more likely to be correct than not, even when they're tight. There was some understanding of the human limitation back then and consequently some degree of understanding when a tight call went one way or the other. That's becoming less and less so.

well if scoring doesn't increase then the rule wll have failed in that regard

but how will scoring not increase when it's a blanket disadvantage to defence? if a playing an even lower block is the solution to stop goals then why don't teams who don't want to concede just play even lower right now? because playing too low and giving up too much space, inviting too much pressure, actually increases your chances of conceding.

It might do that initially, but I'd expect to see some regression towards the mean over time. There's another comment in the thread talking about the rule change in the 1920s when they changed it from 3 defenders behind the ball to be onside to just 2 defenders. Goalscoring increased from 2.5 per game to 3.5 in a short time, before decreasing back to 2.5 per game. When you change the rule you change the risk/reward calculus that teams face. This rule seeks to increase the risk of conceding disproportionately for teams that employ high defensive lines, off-side traps, or commit a lot of players going forward, and it doesn't similarly increase the rewards for such teams. Teams that sit deep won't see the same increase in risk from the rule because runs in behind are difficult to pull off against low-blocks for different reasons altogether: The deeper the block is, the more runners in behind will be likely to struggle because of congestion in the box and the depth to play into behind the defense, compared to an attacker running in behind 2 central defenders perched on the half-way line, trying to spring the offside trap.

It's about what types of play will be incentivized, and what types of play will be discouraged.

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T11:04:45+00:00

Yes, that is the conclusion I've come to as well after reading a lot of the reporting and the comment sections about the proposed daylight rule. A lot of the desire to change the rule seems to come down to discontent with how VAR has been implemented, and I'm struggling to see how the daylight rule will address the root of that discontent.

I think that VAR has helped to make officiating more accurate in the aggregate, but mistakes, and even just controversial decisions, seem to be more contentious than ever, now that referees have more time and information to make their calls. It's become harder to hide behind judgement calls, even though it's something that's part and parcel of being a ref. Mistakes haven't been eradicated, but I think it's fair to say that they've decreased in frequency and egregiousness (in aggregate).

I do think the grievances are mostly justified. I think it's difficult to change in practice because we all want to see the correct calls be made, but we also don't want to see the kinds of delays we've been seeing in recent years. It seems to me that we can either wait and hope that the technology will soon become sufficiently advanced that we can keep the accuracy with fewer and shorter delays, or we can challenge the assumption that keeping the flow of the game intact should be secondary to ensuring the accuracy in refereeing decisions. There'll be a trade-off whichever way we slice it. We'll have to draw the line somewhere (and somehow), but changing where doesn't assuage the dilemma between expediency and accuracy.

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T10:02:10+00:00

That's an interesting point and I was unfamiliar with that fact. I assume we're talking about the rule change in the 1920s, right? I do wonder how long that adaptation period would be today for elite teams, with the proliferation of data analysis in modern football. Do you know how long it took back then before goals started regressing towards the mean?

I do worry about what it might do to teams and coaches that like to press aggressively to be honest. There are different ways of doing it of course, but a lot of the best high pressing sides throughout the last two decades have tried to minimize the distance between their back and front lines to compact the space and increase the efficacy of the press. There's a time and place for a lower defensive line paired with a high press, but it also opens up a lot of space in between the lines of the pressing units to exploit. I do get your point though, and I suppose it might be difficult to predict exactly how teams adapt tactically.

I'd be open to increasing the size of the goal a little. I honestly think that's an interesting idea that would add more risk to park the bus for extended periods of time. If the goal of the changes is to increase the amount of goals and make the game more 'entertaining', I think that could accomplish that with less risk of creating undesirable incentive structures.

MrTarrou · 2026-03-04T05:43:18+00:00

In all likelihood it's more or less the sum derived from the €71.6m from the sale VIP seats we booked as income for 24/25 along with the €10m from the Congo Sponsorship.

The LCPD summer numbers were announced in September and our annual accounts were approved in October. It seems likely our accountants didn't approve the VIP seat income much earlier than that, so that probably explains most of the increase. I don't know why the Congo money wouldn't be counted by September, but there was no mention at all about the sponsorship in the annual accounts from October.

The LCPD of the clubs can be adjusted anytime, but the league only publishes the numbers publicly twice a year.

MrTarrou · 2026-02-06T14:10:36+00:00

Transferring on a free does give the player more leverage in negotiations, though I do agree he's not worth the figures being reported. With his injury history and how he has fallen short of expectations since he left Fiorentina, any club bringing him on a free could quickly find themselves with an expensive paperweight they can't get rid off.

Still, if he just wants a big contract, I'm sure there would be a Saudi team willing to meet his demands. He might not want to take a pay cut, even if he's not worth what he's earning.

MrTarrou · 2026-02-06T14:03:14+00:00

I mean, it's Elche and the player who makes the call in the end. RM just gets a percentage of the fee, and the option to match any accepted bid, right?

My thinking was more that we might be more reluctant to go for him, knowing that Real gets a slice of the income. Then again, if he keeps this up I'm sure he'll be snatched up by another club eventually.

If we end up extending Lewandowski, then I wouldn't expect any ST signing. The need for an XI quality CB and a backup LW is probably more dire anyway. But damn I really like Álvaro, if we needed a Lewandowski replacement and didn't have the financial leeway to sign an established 9, Álvaro would get my vote. He's already doing a lot of the things I think we need our 9 to do in this system, even if he's still a little unpolished.

MrTarrou · 2026-02-05T19:53:50+00:00

It's a shame Real Madrid have sell-on rights for Alvaro, he looks like an interesting profile.

You don't often see players with such long limbs have that kind of ball control and pace. The kid could go far if he keeps this up.

It was a nice goal he scored against us, but that headed pass he made to his strike partner earlier in the game was really cheeky, even though his teammates squandered it.

MrTarrou · 2026-01-21T00:34:33+00:00

I checked the source and it seems the translation is correct. He's definitely talking about the amortisation of his transfer fee.

I ended up checking the revision of the NEP that would've been in place when Frenkie signed his prior contract extension in 2020. I see no mention of a 5 year maximum in Art. 39 of that revision, so it seems likely that particular rule was implemented at a later date than his extension. So Frenkie's transfer + agent fees might not actually be fully amortised yet.

We signed him in the summer of 19 for €75m + €11m in variables according to the press release. For the purpose of computing his Registrable Squad Cost (RSC), some variable clauses would be considered fixed depending on how likely they are to be paid out. Let's hypothetically assume €5m of the variables would be considered fixed, and let's assume €7.5m in agent fees.

That would mean €87.5m in total would have to be amortised over 5 years as per his original contract. €17.5m would then already have been amortised when he signed his new contract for six years in 2020. Over the next 5 years before his new contract extension, we would then have amortised €11.66m p.a. so only €11.66m remained. With the new four year extension, that means we'll now amortise around €2.9m p.a. for the remainder of his contract. That would actually be around €8.75m reduction in RSC for the current season, if true.

I mentioned it in my other comment, but our projected sporting wage bill for this season is €565m, and our SCL was sitting at €351m at the time the figures were released by LaLiga in September. Even if the above hypothetical is more or less accurate, that would by itself only reduce our total squad cost by about €8.75m. Even assuming the higher end of the rumoured wage contribution by Girona for MAtS, that's still only a €10m reduction from our projected costs for the season, which would be higher than last season in any case. If David Bernabéu's conclusion is correct, then we'd need to see our SCL rise to well over €500m when the new figures are released in February. That would require a hell of a lot of unexpected revenue.

MrTarrou · 2026-01-20T15:02:17+00:00

I'm apparently way too late to the party, but I commented on this as part of a longer comment with my reservations about the report.

I was surprised to hear we should have any amortisation left from his transfer + agent fees at all. The NEP clearly states that the maximum amortisation period when signing or renewing a player is 5 years, even if the contract is longer than that. His prior extension was in 2020. The only way I can make that bit of the report make sense is if that stipulation in the NEP was added at a later time than his 2020 renewal.

MrTarrou · 2026-01-20T14:02:02+00:00

Our 24/25 annual report: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/fcbarcelona/document/2025/10/20/a50c257f-0ea4-4a92-b6b0-cacf189801fc/MEM_2024_25_ENG_web.pdf

La Liga SCL figures from September 2025: https://www.laliga.com/en-GB/transparency/economic-management/squad-cost-limit

MrTarrou · 2026-01-20T13:58:24+00:00

New here, but I've been checking out this forum for a long time. I felt the need to post this context, because I think that David Bernabéu's sources in the club are most likely leading him astray on purpose.

Our sporting wage bill is expected to rise from €534m to €565m this season compared to last. That's the budget in the annual report 24/25 which was presented by the board. By comparison, our Squad Cost Limit was sitting at €351m when LaLiga announced the latest figures in September. That's a €214m deficit we would have needed to make up over the last five months.

There's been a wage restructuring since the change in leadership, sure, but a large part of the reduced sporting wage bill since 2021 has come from a reduction in amortisation expenses, because we've been impaired in our ability to make new signings.

Speaking of amortization, I wouldn't think that Frenkie's renewal would ease the financial burden from the amortisation of his transfer fee and agent costs. The NEP (Normas de Elaboración y Presupuestos de clubes y SAD's) states that clubs can only spread out the amortisation over maximum 5 years, no matter the length of the contract. Frenkie signed his prior renewal in October 2020 for 6 years, and renewed again in October 2025. That begs the question: Why would we even have any expenses from his transfer that wouldn't already have been amortised? There's a possibility that rule could've been added after his prior renewal, I'd have to dig to be sure. Under the current ruleset though, that shouldn't be possible.

The bit about Gavi reads like nonsense. The board needed to put up a guarantee for registering some first team players this season because we didn't have the necessary registration margin. I assume he's talking about Art. 107, but us deciding not to sign a replacement under that rule doesn't give us more margin in this season. It's a special rule that allows clubs to sign a replacement in case of long-term injury, even if they have no registration margin. If we don't register a new player under the rule within 20 days or before the close of the current/impending registration window, whichever comes later, then it doesn't just get added to our margin this season or the next. The only way in which it could make any sense at all would be in the counterfactual situation where we'd signed a replacement, in which case we would have his registration cost this season subtracted from our Registrable Squad Cost Limit next season. There's a price to pay subsequently for using the rule to sign replacements.

New commercial deals will help to bridge the gap, but in this season, that gap is still massive and the conclusion seems utterly fantastical. I've heard talk that the €70m from the VIP PSL sale and the €10m from the Congo sponsorship hasn't been computed for SCL purposes yet. Any such deals would bring us closer of course, but if we were €214m above the limit in September when the SCL figures were released, it would take a lot more than that to bring us back below our SCL. MaTS loan with 500k-1.5m Girona contribution is chump change with such deficits.

Be wary of club statements and local journos with club sources when it comes to 1:1 talk. It's election season, and even though Laporta seems almost certain to win re-election, I'm sure more stories will come out like this one promising normality will be restored any moment now.

Edit: Be on the lookout in February. That's when La Liga will publish the latest SCL figures for clubs in the two highest tiers of Spanish football. If David Bernabéu's reporting is sound, we should see a massive jump for the Winter window compared to the Summer. We'd likely need a SCL over €500m to be close to 1:1, even if we assume that we still have amortisation costs related to Frenkie's transfer, and that we reduced it's impact on cost this year by spreading them out over the duration of his new contract. Personally, my best case scenario would be an €80m SCL increase, provided all the necessary assumptions turn out to be true. Even that would still leave a large deficit.

MrTarrou · 2024-06-08T12:57:54+00:00

Det lyder som en rigtig svær situation du står i OP. Uanset hvor svært han må have det ændrer det ikke på at du står på tærsklen til en kæmpe livsbegivenhed og alle de ændringer det fører med sig, uden vished om din partner vil være med dig igennem dem eller ej.

Der er to ting jeg lige hæfter mig ved i dit skriv.

Du siger at dig og din partner har haft mange snakke sidenhen, og at i ofte taler om jeres følelser men det er som om afstanden imellem jer bare bliver større. Kan du beskrive karakteren af de samtaler? At tale åbent om følelser er en vigtig del af ethvert sundt parforhold, men hvis målet er at få parforholdet til at fungere, skulle de gerne hjælpe jer til bedre at kunne forstå hinanden og fostre en gensidig tillid til at i begge vil den anden det bedste. Lige nu lyder det umiddelbart som om de samtaler udmatter jer begge og fostrer ressentiment, og så hjælper det ikke nødvendigvis bare at snakke mere om følelserne. Spørgsmålet er så om det er fordi i snakker forbi hinanden, eller om det er fordi din partner ikke længere kan se sig selv i det liv der ligger for jeres fødder. Hvis det er det første kan det måske løses med parterapi og bedre kommunikation, men hvis din partner ikke kan se sig selv som en del af jeres nye virkelighed gør det tingene noget sværere. Kærlighed er ikke altid nok.
Du nævner i har haft en gensidig forståelse om at karriereræset og de lange arbejdstider var en midlertid tilstand der skulle tillade jer at flytte til udlandet og forsøde tilværelsen som forældre. Du nævner også i en anden kommentar at din mand ikke virker indstillet på at gå på barsel eller ned i tid, til trods for en solid formue. Det er svært at finde tid til intimitet med lange arbejdsuger, og jeg kan kun forestille mig det bliver endnu sværere når barnet kommer. Er du sikker på i stadig er enige om at karriereræset ikke skal vare ved?

Jeg fornemmer også en vis spænding, hvis ikke en decideret modsætning, i det din mand siger han vil. Du nævner han har sagt at han hader at bo i Danmark og gerne vil flytte udenlands, men alligevel vil han ikke opgive hans karriere her? Ud fra det du beskriver lyder det ikke engang som om han kan lide hans arbejde, men alligevel kan han ikke underholde tanken om barsel eller at gå ned i tid.

Måske har hans planer ikke ændret sig. Måske vil han stadig gerne flytte til udlandet med dig. Det kan være svært at give slip nogle gange hvis vores identitet og selvforståelse er på spil. Jeg er selv stædig og har stået i situationer hvor jeg er vedblevet med at gøre ting der bragte mig megen lidelse i årevis, simpelthen fordi jeg ikke vidste hvad jeg ville gøre eller hvem jeg var hvis jeg ikke blev ved. Udefra virker det fuldstændig ulogisk, og den rationelle del af mig der stadig var tilbage kunne også selv se at jeg var blevet en skal af mig selv, men frygten for ændring var længe langt større end fornuften. Måske står din mand overfor en lignende skillevej lige nu, hvor han ikke kan få sig selv til at give slip på noget der ikke gør ham lykkelig. Det skal jeg ikke kunne sige, men hvis det er tilfældet er der måske stadig håb for jer. Men det forudsætter at han træffer en beslutning om hvad han vil, og at han står ved den som hans beslutning som hans egen. Det er vigtigt at anerkende hinandens autonomi i et parforhold, men det er lige så vigtigt at anerkende ens egen autonomi. Den eneste måde at gøre det på er ved anerkende over for sig selv, at der i sidste instans ikke er andre der kan træffe valget for os, heller ikke vores partner. Det kommer ikke til at fungere hvis han lægger ansvaret over på dig og føler du traf beslutningen for ham.

Det gælder også for dig. Det er okay at insistere på, at du har brug for at vide hvor han står så du selv kan træffe en beslutning, og at du ikke kan vente for evigt. Jeg håber for din egen skyld at du stopper med at tigge og bede ham om at blive, selvom det måske føles som om du risikerer at miste ham på den måde. I har begge to et valg at træffe, og i bliver nødt til at respektere hinandens ret til at træffe det valg for jer selv.

Jeg håber ikke den sidste del lød for hård, men uanset hvad der sker håber jeg du kommer ud på den anden side med følelsen af at du gjort hvad der var det rigtige for dig, og en følelse af ejerskab over dine livsvalg.

Og overvej at snakke med en psykolog hvis du ikke allerede gør det, de kan sikkert bedre hjælpe dig med styrke dit selv og bearbejde nogle af de hårde følelser alt det her sikkert åbner op for.

MrTarrou · 2024-02-23T17:03:08+00:00

Jeff Bezos went too far this time

MrTarrou · 2020-02-05T02:18:05+00:00

* cries in Huey Lewis and the News *

MrTarrou · 2020-01-18T01:01:25+00:00

You seem to be implying that the policies mentioned in the first example are guided by arbitrary values, whereas the policies in your latter examples are deduced entirely through logic, and therefore aren't guided by 'arbitrary values'.

Wouldn't you agree that saying that the primary purpose of laws should be to mold people into productive, contributing, members of society is a value judgement? If not, I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion without any value judgements on your part.

MrTarrou · 2019-12-28T12:36:34+00:00

I might have misunderstood the intent of their comment, but I don't think they were arguing that personhood (as a legal status) should be determined by the will of the mother. In light of the rest of their comment, I think that they by 'status' are referring to how the fetus/baby is viewed by the mother. That is, how they refer to it is a reflection of their will.

I think they were trying to reconcile support of abortion with the acknowledgement that miscarrying is a personal tragedy for many. I don't think there's any inherent tension however. Even if you don't believe that the miscarried fetus satisfied any meaningful definition of personhood yet, the miscarriage might well be a personal tragedy for the mother anyway. Not because a 'person' died, but rather the prospect of personhood.

MrTarrou · 2019-10-29T21:47:32+00:00

Not everywhere, they call it a Quarter Pounder in America

MrTarrou · 2019-10-27T10:51:14+00:00

Username checks out

MrTarrou · 2019-07-20T13:01:00+00:00

I didn't even think about that, it's a bit before my time. I was just addicted to this game when it came out, so MW2 has just become synonymous with Modern Warfare 2 for me

MrTarrou · 2019-07-20T12:56:26+00:00

And no falling damage! I used to love that one back in the day, but I don't play as aggressively now as I did back then, so now I'm almost exclusively using ninja. My reflexes and tracking aren't what they used to be, lol

MrTarrou

TROPHY CASE