The whatever footie that's going on (with actual fans) thread
Comments
-
pinno said:
It's seven years ago, tbf. Chelsea had only been founded 11 years earlier...Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/1 -
Look on the bright side, Arsenal lost to a team that has more European trophies than thempinno said:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Funny, but I rate what Arteta is doing there, dragging that player off in the first half showed what he's about as does the Abamuyang (sp) stuff.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
won't really work though - City and Chelsea (for two) spend massive on transfers but also have mega academies.......pblakeney said:
Make it based on transfers and wages? High spenders obviously have the income.pinno said:A tax on big clubs to fund lower league clubs.
Interesting idea.
Clubs who spend the time and money successfully developing players get a reward.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
don't remind him about Chelsea 0 Oxford Utd 3 in, ooh, 1991 or summat.pinno said:
he'll go apopopopoplectic.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Okay. Have an offset system in place.MattFalle said:
won't really work though - City and Chelsea (for two) spend massive on transfers but also have mega academies.......pblakeney said:
Make it based on transfers and wages? High spenders obviously have the income.pinno said:A tax on big clubs to fund lower league clubs.
Interesting idea.
Clubs who spend the time and money successfully developing players get a reward.
I'd put an immediate stop to the loan system though. How many players do Chelsea have?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Doesn't matter again - how many do City, Manure, L'verpool, etc etc have?
Loaning is just a way of developing a player cheaply and giving that player opportunities that they wouldn't get staying with one team.
Same as feeder clubs.
What they should do is tax based on a club's revenue/worth vs CSR payments: City, Chelsea, Liverpool have massive CSR budgets and pump massive amounts back into their respective communities, however Manure - the so called biggest club in the world - not so much. Buggerall infact, but hey, thats the Manure way.
For them, its all about the money, money, money, so hit them where it hurts..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Nah. It's a way of controlling the market.MattFalle said:
Loaning is just a way of developing a player cheaply and giving that player opportunities that they wouldn't get staying with one team.
Limit the number of players and smaller teams will be able to develop them without the players having stars in their eyes, egos and wages before they've played at the top.
The cream will still rise.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Limiting the number of players a club can register won't make any difference - there will just be more feeder clubs/clubs linking together/etc.
by doing that all you're doing is restricting player movement and choice and essentialy, moving anti Bosman....
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Let's have a proposal to even up then.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Loans: good for developing players and giving them experience - as long as the coaching at the club they are on loan to is good.
Restricting numbers is also detrimental to the overall talent coming through and therefore, detrimental to the standard of home grown footballers vis-a-vis national squads.
I think that the quality of foreign managers, Teuchel, Pep, Manicini, Klopp, Arteta, Ranieri, Benitez etc, has had an immeasurable effect on the rise in the technical ability of recent England squads and the recent international campaigns.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Ranieri?pinno said:Loans: good for developing players and giving them experience - as long as the coaching at the club they are on loan to is good.
Restricting numbers is also detrimental to the overall talent coming through and therefore, detrimental to the standard of home grown footballers vis-a-vis national squads.
I think that the quality of foreign managers, Teuchel, Pep, Manicini, Klopp, Arteta, Ranieri, Benitez etc, has had an immeasurable effect on the rise in the technical ability of recent England squads and the recent international campaigns.0 -
Anyone who can get a team like Leicester a PL win must have a heck of a lot of talent.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
The loan system unfortunately scuppers lower teams. How many teams have been promoted from the Championship with quality loans to only then lose the player(s) that brought them up back to the parent club? It's a system these days that helps in the main to protect the biggest budget clubs that can carry the numbers0
-
The middle man/team has all the control.pinno said:Loans: good for developing players and giving them experience - as long as the coaching at the club they are on loan to is good.
Limit team player numbers and the players would end up in roughly the same place.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
eh? it doesn't scupper them because they know the players are only on loan.Tashman said:The loan system unfortunately scuppers lower teams. How many teams have been promoted from the Championship with quality loans to only then lose the player(s) that brought them up back to the parent club? It's a system these days that helps in the main to protect the biggest budget clubs that can carry the numbers
its a pure business transaction benefitting both parties.
its like borrowing your mates car then moaning that you have to catch the bus when you give it back..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
What I mean is that they then no longer have the quality after they've made the step up as they invariably lose that loanee. i understand the principal as you explain it but it just means you end up with a raft of clubs yo-yoing at the bottom prem/top championship as they don't have the assets that the top clubs have pooled. This means the likelihood of clubs surviving is reduced as soon as they step up. In order to mitigate this, they have to then spend potentially beyond their means causing issues down the lineMattFalle said:
eh? it doesn't scupper them because they know the players are only on loan.Tashman said:The loan system unfortunately scuppers lower teams. How many teams have been promoted from the Championship with quality loans to only then lose the player(s) that brought them up back to the parent club? It's a system these days that helps in the main to protect the biggest budget clubs that can carry the numbers
its a pure business transaction benefitting both parties.
its like borrowing your mates car then moaning that you have to catch the bus when you give it back.0 -
...and then the numbers don't filter downwards?pblakeney said:
The middle man/team has all the control.pinno said:Loans: good for developing players and giving them experience - as long as the coaching at the club they are on loan to is good.
Limit team player numbers and the players would end up in roughly the same place.
These players prop up lower division teams one could argue.
Yes, I understand the point that after promotion, the players go back and there are holes to be filled.
The value of on loan players in the PL is at a staggering £500m plus and the number of on loan players from PL clubs is iro 100. One could argue that without the loan players, the jump from say the Championship to the PL would be an even bigger one and anyway, with promotion comes sponsorship and bigger incomes.
I do not know how you 'level up' and I don't know what efficacy 'levelling up' would have. I do think more money should filter downwards but how you do that fairly, I do not know. There are clubs who are being run well and then there are clubs who aren't. If there is issue, the rules regarding percentages of sustainable debt and the low interest money available makes the whole system a somewhat inflated and fragile bubble.
The buying power of the bigger clubs supported partly on what is subjective 'sustainable debt' creates a bigger disparity.
The PL managers would argue that FIFA set those rules and whilst they do, it would be far more prudent to take a more stringent approach but there is no way they will that.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Old school. If the big clubs can't sign all the good young players then smaller clubs develop them and sell when developed. Seems straightforward but must be holes.pinno said:
I do not know how you 'level up' and I don't know what efficacy 'levelling up' would have. I do think more money should filter downwards but how you do that fairly, I do not know.
Players that aren't good enough to be signed immediately, and fit into, the the big teams will soon find out which lower clubs are good at developing players.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The Spanish have mandatory minimum fee release clauses. So whilst the big 3 Atl. Madrid, RM and Barca dominate, the release clauses means the club bringing the player on at least realise the value of that player if sold and the money goes back into facilities and coaching staff. The Spanish FA will pay 50% of wages and Youth academy costs to smaller clubs too.pblakeney said:
Old school. If the big clubs can't sign all the good young players then smaller clubs develop them and sell when developed. Seems straightforward but must be holes.pinno said:
I do not know how you 'level up' and I don't know what efficacy 'levelling up' would have. I do think more money should filter downwards but how you do that fairly, I do not know.
Players that aren't good enough to be signed immediately, and fit into, the the big teams will soon find out which lower clubs are good at developing players.
Surely we need a similar system. Youth academies in the UK are entirely voluntarist i.e it's up to individual clubs to run - and only those who can afford them do, whereas in Spain, clubs right down in la liga adelante have youth academies mainly I think, because they are financially, supported and supported legislatively through the MFRC's.
It makes no financial sense for a smaller club in the UK to even attempt to create much more structured youth systems.
Holland provides good examples of community based Clubs with youth systems.
Remember 'little Osasuna' knocking out Rangers in the CL? What a silly headline. Osasuna (Capacity 22,000 at the time) have had a youth academy since 1957 (Rangers, 2001). In a region of a little over 600,000 people, they have developed a hell of a lot of talent.seanoconn - gruagach craic!1 -
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
i'm away to preston on saturday along with nearly 6k other Boro fans0
-
Oof. I'd hate to be an Abu Dhabi FC supporter this morning.0
-
I couldn't find anything on this.First.Aspect said:Oof. I'd hate to be an Abu Dhabi FC supporter this morning.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Shucks, looks like City will be European trophy dodgers for at least another year.
Come on Real
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0rSkx8kdwY
