wastecoatwilly Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 9 hours ago, Spring Onion said: So basically the money moaners want every team in the whole leagues set up, to receive the same amount? Win their leagues climb the divisions then get into euro qualifiers and then get into group stages and then for all their hard work give the rewards to everyone else for doing sweet F A? Superb great idea!!! Good post,this idealistic brain fart that football can be controlled on the business side to keep equality in the game when you have greedy basturd's asking enough is never enough. Inequality will win every time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: Good post,this idealistic brain fart that football can be controlled on the business side to keep equality in the game when you have greedy basturd's asking enough is never enough. Inequality will win every time. We don't have to applaud when it gets exponentially worse though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 2 hours ago, sjc said: Pre Bosman, when the Clubs held the balance of power, players wages across the European leagues varied but nowhere near to the extent they do now. The transfer of this power from the Clubs to the players via their Agents plays into the bigger, richer Clubs. Smaller Clubs suffer due to not being able to pay the relative wages of bigger Clubs and know full well that as part of the Bosman rules, potential transfer fees diminish as the players contract runs down. Clubs now being able to sign "World 11s" and the shift in attitudes towards far larger squad sizes has swung the balance in power even further towards the bigger, richer Clubs. The real check and balance (pre Bosman) in football was in restricting the number of foreign players. It acted 2 fold in 1. Preventing Clubs from building "World 11s" which suits the rich Clubs and 2. It created a development conveyor belt transfer system in each of the domestic leagues with money filtering down from the top. It wasn't perfect but far more equitable than what we have now. One of the obvious ways of tackling this, to me at least, would be a hard line on squad sizes. Standardise a first team squad of 20 senior players, with no limit on the number of under age players who were born in that particular country. Would take a few years and it would still see the top clubs able to field "World 11's" as you put it, but it would at least dilute the quality a little. Salary caps are another thing to be looked at but I struggle to see how they can be implemented without the top players taking the authorities to court. FFP was good in theory and should have helped in that respect, but in practice has done very little. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: We don't have to applaud when it gets exponentially worse though. Money tennis you would have gretna scenario's all over the place,it's the sustainability that would be the problem?it would end up a cull of the clubs Edited July 31, 2018 by wastecoatwilly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: Money tennis you would have gretna scenario's all over the place,it's the sustainability that would be the problem?it would end up a cull of the clubs What, seriously what are you now talking about? I was violently opposed to Gretna and the dishonest 'fairy tale' narrative that accompanied their elongated suicide. It's a Gretna style playground that you wish to annually join. What are Chelsea and Man City, but for Gretnas who had a different starting point. The game I want to see at home would be the antithesis of such a place, because the wealth would be better spread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Ross. said: One of the obvious ways of tackling this, to me at least, would be a hard line on squad sizes. Standardise a first team squad of 20 senior players, with no limit on the number of under age players who were born in that particular country. Would take a few years and it would still see the top clubs able to field "World 11's" as you put it, but it would at least dilute the quality a little. Salary caps are another thing to be looked at but I struggle to see how they can be implemented without the top players taking the authorities to court. FFP was good in theory and should have helped in that respect, but in practice has done very little. It would also be good if we again limited the number of subs who could be named and fielded, back to just one or two. Edited July 31, 2018 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: It would also be good if we again limited the number of subs who could be named and fielded, back to just one or two. Always felt 5 was a reasonably good figure in that respect. Goalkeeper, defender, midfielder, forward and one spare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Ross. said: Always felt 5 was a reasonably good figure in that respect. Goalkeeper, defender, midfielder, forward and one spare. All it does though is accentuate the problem you're trying to mitigate against with your point about squad sizes and salary caps. It motivates the powerful clubs to sign many more players than they 'need' and it motivates top players to sign for clubs already stuffed with other top players. If only 11 or 12 could play on a given day, such clubs are less attractive. It also enhances big clubs' ability to additionally exert their financial advantages, by introducing real talent in various areas of the field to replace injured, tired or off-form players. It's yet another change that exacerbates imbalance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 23 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: All it does though is accentuate the problem you're trying to mitigate against with your point about squad sizes and salary caps. It motivates the powerful clubs to sign many more players than they 'need' and it motivates top players to sign for clubs already stuffed with other top players. If only 11 or 12 could play on a given day, such clubs are less attractive. It also enhances big clubs' ability to additionally exert their financial advantages, by introducing real talent in various areas of the field to replace injured, tired or off-form players. It's yet another change that exacerbates imbalance. May be an age thing(I don't know how old you are but if you hark for the days of 0 or 1 sub then I am guessing perhaps a child of the 60's...) but I think 5 subs is a reasonable balancing act in a progressive age. Big clubs will always have the advantage, but that would go someway towards reducing it a little. I don't see it as desirable to have a lower figure, it would encourage clubs to take risks with players who maybe aren't 100% fit and that creates it's own issues over the longer term. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Ross. said: May be an age thing(I don't know how old you are but if you hark for the days of 0 or 1 sub then I am guessing perhaps a child of the 60's...) but I think 5 subs is a reasonable balancing act in a progressive age. Big clubs will always have the advantage, but that would go someway towards reducing it a little. I don't see it as desirable to have a lower figure, it would encourage clubs to take risks with players who maybe aren't 100% fit and that creates it's own issues over the longer term. A child of the 70s who wouldn't advocate doing away with subs altogether. Too many games were ruined in an earlier age by injury. We really don't need anything like as many though. They were introduced to ensure numerical parity unless people were sent off. Now they've become an additional way to strengthen. Richer sides are better able to do that. Often you find that the same people who are fond of telling us it's all perfectly fair because it's 11 v 11, like also to remind us that it's a squad game these days. There's a contradiction in there that again favours the powerful. Edited July 31, 2018 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSP Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Monkey Tennis harks back to the halcyon days of Association Football. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, OSP said: Monkey Tennis harks back to the halcyon days of Association Football. Gosh that was facile. Why not engage with what I'm saying instead and if you think I'm wrong, explain why. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSP Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: Gosh that was facile. Why not engage with what I'm saying instead and if you think I'm wrong, explain why. I'll be honest, I typed out a big response debating the point. Then realised it was a waste of time trying to debate with someone so blinkered, and no fun. So I replaced it with a waste of time post that was more fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Ross. said: One of the obvious ways of tackling this, to me at least, would be a hard line on squad sizes. Standardise a first team squad of 20 senior players, with no limit on the number of under age players who were born in that particular country. Would take a few years and it would still see the top clubs able to field "World 11's" as you put it, but it would at least dilute the quality a little. Salary caps are another thing to be looked at but I struggle to see how they can be implemented without the top players taking the authorities to court. FFP was good in theory and should have helped in that respect, but in practice has done very little. I've long been an advocate of limiting squad sizes. 20 players age 21 and over. 20 players age 18-21 and 20 players age 16-18. The should cover an u18's, u21's, Reserve and 1st Team easily. Agree with MT regards number of subs TBH. I'd go back to 3 named with one being a GK. 5 or 7 named gives the bigger Clubs a huge advantage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Just now, OSP said: I'll be honest, I typed out a big response debating the point. Then realised it was a waste of time trying to debate with someone so blinkered, and no fun. So I replaced it with a waste of time post that was more fun. I honestly don't think I'm blinkered at all. I'm also a veritable hoot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 12 minutes ago, OSP said: Monkey Tennis harks back to the halcyon days of Association Football. So you don't think the "halcyon days" of the 50s and early 60's, where Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee and Kilmarnock all won league titles was a good thing for Scottish football? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBuckfastTriangle Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, sjc said: I've long been an advocate of limiting squad sizes. 20 players age 21 and over. 20 players age 18-21 and 20 players age 16-18. The should cover an u18's, u21's, Reserve and 1st Team easily. Agree with MT regards number of subs TBH. I'd go back to 3 named with one being a GK. 5 or 7 named gives the bigger Clubs a huge advantage. It's not just squad size, really it should be "players registered" to avoid teams just hoarding players (I think Chelsea had about 40 players out on loan last season, for example). In fact, I'd probably limit the number of players a team can loan out in a similar way to how many players can be loaned in by a club - although I suppose that could be seen as stopping young players from getting 1st team experience. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Onion Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Remember when this thread was about how the coefficient was going? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 32 minutes ago, Spring Onion said: Remember when this thread was about how the coefficient was going? It's still to do with the coefficient and why/whether it matters. It's sparked some wider, related questions. That's all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 2 hours ago, sjc said: So you don't think the "halcyon days" of the 50s and early 60's, where Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee and Kilmarnock all won league titles was a good thing for Scottish football? What about the halcyon 43 years from 1904-1947 when OF won every title, except for Motherwell in 1931-32? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.