The Footie Thread

[PaulMdj]

Leicester proved that through good scouting and recruitment along with good management that a club could gain success - its sustaining after

But look through history and the sport always has dominant clubs

But most have done that through building up

Teams that break into the top 6 need to build on

But unfortunately there are always clubs that stand above everyone else and they attract the best players

That’s valid very every team sport unless in the US

No they didn’t, they broke the spending rules to get out of the Championship! They shouldn’t of even been in the PL!
What punishment did they get? A fine, no points, nothing else, just a mutual agreement with the PL.

Also, Why didn’t Leics stay at the top?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Again, You’re expecting Clubs/Investors/Fans to spend years in the doldrums building up the infrastructure while hoping other Clubs standstill!

What’s wrong with a club having to build up that’s how others did it before money became a factor

What’s the “doldrums” - getting millions from the prem ? Is doldrums now

The only teams threatened by Newcastle are City and Yous, no one else has an issue.

So if a club can spend whatever they want how does that make it fairer and more of a level playing field ?

The bit in bold mate, you’re dreaming, very few Clubs operated that way, most Clubs ran on debt against assests.

Did they ? Is what how the likes of Liverpool , Forest , Everton , Arsenal and Man Utd got success through the 70’s into the 90’s

 

[Swango1980]

I tell you what, they're all world class aren't they...

And players that have regressed? Sancho, Rashford, Maguire, Onana, Antony - the list goes on.

Not a top coach - sorry



Its my favorite thing to do...

Your original question wasn't "who has become world class under Erik Ten Hag", so I was only answering who has probably improved.

I'd argue Maguire has improved, just simply not the type of defender ETH wants. He has often been one of our better players when he has played, and people were mocking him long before ETH became manager. He didn't play much in ETH's first season, and ironically seemed to improve once he was no longer captain and would have been sold if he was willing to go. I'm not sure Sancho regressed, he has always been poor at Man Utd.

It's fine to not agree he is a top coach, personal opinion. And I've never claimed he is definitively a top coach, although I've always argued that I'd like to see him be given more of a chance to see what potential he has, as there have been some aspects of his MU career that have filled me with much more hope than other managers we've had.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

No they didn’t, they broke the spending rules to get out of the Championship! They shouldn’t of even been in the PL!
What punishment did they get? A fine, no points, nothing else, just a mutual agreement with the PL.

Also, Why didn’t Leics stay at the top

They made a loss of 21m and were fined as per the rules at that time

And players left the club because there are always bigger clubs in the sport

That’s been the way for 100 years and will always be the way

Some clubs just are bigger , they have built themselves up to be the big clubs

Some have lost their way through poor choices and poor spending

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I tell you what, they're all world class aren't they...

And players that have regressed? Sancho, Rashford, Maguire, Onana, Antony - the list goes on.

Not a top coach - sorry



Its my favorite thing to do...

You have set it off again

 

[PaulMdj]

What’s wrong with a club having to build up that’s how others did it before money became a factor

What’s the “doldrums” - getting millions from the prem ? Is doldrums now




So if a club can spend whatever they want how does that make it fairer and more of a level playing field ?


Did they ? Is what how the likes of Liverpool , Forest , Everton , Arsenal and Man Utd got success through the 70’s into the 90’s

You won’t/can’t put a figure on how long, because it doesn’t exist, without instant success Clubs can’t even dream to imagine the profiles of the biggest Clubs.

It’s a level playing field because it’s their money to spend as they wish, no other business stops an owner from spending his money to improve.

You need to check the history books about owners in the 60s-80’s

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You won’t/can’t put a figure on how long, because it doesn’t exist, without instant success Clubs can’t even dream to imagine the profiles of the biggest Clubs.

It’s a level playing field because it’s their money to spend as they wish, no other business stops an owner from spending his money to improve.

You need to check the history books about owners in the 60s-80’s

How is it a level playing field when clubs have owners with disposable billions to be able to spend when other clubs won’t

Like you say “no other business” - is it not a sport ? Is not about making the best sporting choices to be the best you can be

What’s level and fair about some clubs being backed by a state with trillions in the bank

When was the last time the season started and everyone had the same chance of winning it ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You won’t/can’t put a figure on how long, because it doesn’t exist, without instant success Clubs can’t even dream to imagine the profiles of the biggest Clubs.

It’s a level playing field because it’s their money to spend as they wish, no other business stops an owner from spending his money to improve.

You need to check the history books about owners in the 60s-80’s

To be competitive in many sports look at money being spent. AW always complaining about the cash Surrey spend in cricket but they have a model that attracts top players and they are competitive most seasons in most formats. Even in a sport like horse racing it is owners that can afford best trainers and put best jockeys on that invariably have the most success. Even F1 throughout the years has been far from a level playing field

 

[HomerJSimpson]

How is it a level playing field when clubs have owners with disposable billions to be able to spend when other clubs won’t

Like you say “no other business” - is it not a sport ? Is not about making the best sporting choices to be the best you can be

What’s level and fair about some clubs being backed by a state with trillions in the bank

When was the last time the season started and everyone had the same chance of winning it ?

When was football a sport. The Corinthian days are long gone and it has been a business since well before the PL. Leeds???

 

[PaulMdj]

They made a loss of 21m and were fined as per the rules at that time

And players left the club because there are always bigger clubs in the sport

That’s been the way for 100 years and will always be the way

Some clubs just are bigger , they have built themselves up to be the big clubs

Some have lost their way through poor choices and poor spending

Again Phil, they weren’t fined, they agreed to a settlement after breaking ffp rules, they argued with the PL for nearly 5 years!
Everton’s loss was £35m and we got 10 points.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Again Phil, they weren’t fined, they agreed to a settlement after breaking ffp rules, they argued with the PL for nearly 5 years!
Everton’s loss was £35m and we got 10 points.

Everton’s was with the Prem not the EFL

 

[PaulMdj]

How is it a level playing field when clubs have owners with disposable billions to be able to spend when other clubs won’t

Like you say “no other business” - is it not a sport ? Is not about making the best sporting choices to be the best you can be

What’s level and fair about some clubs being backed by a state with trillions in the bank

When was the last time the season started and everyone had the same chance of winning it ?

We’ll not agree on this one mate, I don’t believe ffp is fit for purpose, the PL are a bunch of clowns and I genuinely hope City beat all charges, not because I like City, but because it will force the PL to look properly at what goes on and come up with a system that’s fair to everyone.

Enjoy your weekend.

 

[GB72]

As I said earlier, peoples stance on this is pretty clear to see:

Club has loads of money and backers with more money than God: FFP is bad, we are being held back from what we can achieve.

Club has good finances and income but no big backer: FFP is great, look how it stops money winning the league (oh and look at those players we can get from lower clubs that scouted or developed them and also stops a club from lower down getting investment and overtaking us)

Club has poor or average finances and lower income: FFP is bad, we seem to get the brunt of the fines because we have no choice but to take our finances to the edge just to try and stay up and we are forced to sell the best of our talent to comply.

Not aimed at any club in particular or anyone (Honestly even though it may seem so, just fits the example)

 

[Billysboots]

And players that have regressed? Sancho, Rashford, Maguire, Onana, Antony - the list goes on.

Antony has regressed? He’s been awful since the day he signed. If you’re referring to him being a poorer player than he was in Holland, it’s quite clear the two leagues don’t compare, never have done, so it’s impossible to say whether a player is better or worse than they were before moving to this country.

Rashford regressed? He’s been over-hyped from day one. Never been anywhere near the player people seem to think he is. But to argue he has regressed under ten Hag is perhaps a little odd, given his stats just two years ago. I’m not saying he was great that season, far from it. But his stats were right up there.

Onana regressed? If anything he’s probably marginally better now than when he signed. He’s certainly no worse.

Sancho regressed? He’s never had a chance at United so it’s impossible to say. I’m willing to bet he’ll get no more game time at Chelsea.

All in all, whilst I understand your agenda, it’s an odd post.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

As I said earlier, peoples stance on this is pretty clear to see:

Club has loads of money and backers with more money than God: FFP is bad, we are being held back from what we can achieve.

Club has good finances and income but no big backer: FFP is great, look how it stops money winning the league (oh and look at those players we can get from lower clubs that scouted or developed them and also stops a club from lower down getting investment and overtaking us)

Club has poor or average finances and lower income: FFP is bad, we seem to get the brunt of the fines because we have no choice but to take our finances to the edge just to try and stay up and we are forced to sell the best of our talent to comply.

Not aimed at any club in particular or anyone (Honestly even though it may seem so, just fits the example)

The biggest issue is that it’s coming down to money

It’s sport - it should be about which club makes the best sporting choices regardless of how rich their owner is


I have no problems with a team coming through and winning after they have made the best sporting choices , it was great when the likes of Forest and Villa were winning European Cups - even when Everton were winning the title- they did so because they bought the right players ,!l they developed the players through the squad and got the rewards for that

That’s what it should be about

Players have always moved up to bigger clubs - that’s been the case since the 50/60’s that’s not a new thing -

There is a pyramid in the sport and it’s the same in rugby

The only other way to work is being like the US - the worst teams get the best players etc

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The biggest issue is that it’s coming down to money

It’s sport - it should be about which club makes the best sporting choices regardless of how rich their owner is


I have no problems with a team coming through and winning after they have made the best sporting choices , it was great when the likes of Forest and Villa were winning European Cups - even when Everton were winning the title- they did so because they bought the right players ,!l they developed the players through the squad and got the rewards for that

That’s what it should be about

Players have always moved up to bigger clubs - that’s been the case since the 50/60’s that’s not a new thing -

There is a pyramid in the sport and it’s the same in rugby

The only other way to work is being like the US - the worst teams get the best players etc

It isn't sport. It is a business. Clubs are a business. It isn't a hard concept. Look at English clubs after the ban. Woeful in Europe as Milan and others had bought in players like Gullit etc and so were winning the CL and we couldn't compete. It took the likes of Fergie to build (and get players like Cantona) to get CL success. Owners will run the business as they see fit and use players as nothing more than fixed assets and do whatever they can within the flimsy rules to achieve success on the pitch and as a commercial venture

 

[GB72]

The biggest issue is that it’s coming down to money

It’s sport - it should be about which club makes the best sporting choices regardless of how rich their owner is


I have no problems with a team coming through and winning after they have made the best sporting choices , it was great when the likes of Forest and Villa were winning European Cups - even when Everton were winning the title- they did so because they bought the right players ,!l they developed the players through the squad and got the rewards for that

That’s what it should be about

Players have always moved up to bigger clubs - that’s been the case since the 50/60’s that’s not a new thing -

There is a pyramid in the sport and it’s the same in rugby

The only other way to work is being like the US - the worst teams get the best players etc

Not the same in rugby, we have salary caps and so the playing field in that regard is level. A different team has one the title pretty much every year for the last 4 years and I could not tell you where any club will finish next season except Newcastle. Every other club could literally win the thing or finish 8th

The other way to make it work is to set annual budgets and salary caps and so your spend at Liverpool is the same as Leicester, Forest, Everton and all the other clubs. On that basis you have your ideal of sporting choices winning.

What you have now is a position where clubs such as Liverpool have a protected status based on the clubs above not being able to spend freely and so move massively ahead and the clubs that are behind or that have new investors not being able to spend and so not being able to catch up or overtake.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Not the same in rugby, we have salary caps and so the playing field in that regard is level. A different team has one the title pretty much every year for the last 4 years and I could not tell you where any club will finish next season except Newcastle. Every other club could literally win the thing or finish 8th

The other way to make it work is to set annual budgets and salary caps and so your spend at Liverpool is the same as Leicester, Forest, Everton and all the other clubs. On that basis you have your ideal of sporting choices winning.

What you have now is a position where clubs such as Liverpool have a protected status based on the clubs above not being able to spend freely and so move massively ahead and the clubs that are behind or that have new investors not being able to spend and so not being able to catch up or overtake.

So spending rules were brought in with rugby - even then one club broke them to bring in all the best players and were caught

Was it 5 wins in 7 years before they were caught ?

Setting spending levels at the lowest punishes teams that have worked to build up their revenue - Liverpool don’t have a protected status , we have build the club up to increase the revenues , and it was down through good spending/selling and scouting

If the limit is put at the lowest then the players just leave en mass because clubs won’t be able to match the wages abroad

A limit on spending at the highest revenue means that everyone can spend the same - offer the same wages etc , if a clubs revenue isn’t as high as the top then their owner can fill the gap

That makes it a level field

And some clubs like Everton have spent a lot but it’s been poor spending -their net spend at one point was bigger than the likes of Bayern and Madrid spend close to £800mil on players -

 

[PaulMdj]

Everton’s was with the Prem not the EFL

Just seen this, I know that and part of the problem is the PL and EFL not being joined up and Clubs (Leics) again getting away with breaking rules.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

So spending rules were brought in with rugby - even then one club broke them to bring in all the best players and were caught

Was it 5 wins in 7 years before they were caught ?

Setting spending levels at the lowest punishes teams that have worked to build up their revenue - Liverpool don’t have a protected status , we have build the club up to increase the revenues , and it was down through good spending/selling and scouting

If the limit is put at the lowest then the players just leave en mass because clubs won’t be able to match the wages abroad

A limit on spending at the highest revenue means that everyone can spend the same - offer the same wages etc , if a clubs revenue isn’t as high as the top then their owner can fill the gap

That makes it a level field

You could argue City and Chelsea have good scouting to get all these youngsters on their books when in reality they are then loaned up with little chance of first team playing time with the parent club and so become nothing more than a balance sheet entry.