The Game's Gone

[Mic09]

15 hours ago, villa4europe said:

FIFA have done a report that their 2 year world cup nonsense will earn FAs £3.3bn to share among themselves 

Expect that to get voted through then 

Imagine if they did a yearly world cup. I spent the night doing calculations, and it's an additional £2.1bn, 3 pints of lager and a packet of walkers EXTRA that the FA's would make each year.

It's a no brainer!

[villa4europe]

21 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Imagine if they did a yearly world cup. I spent the night doing calculations, and it's an additional £2.1bn, 3 pints of lager and a packet of walkers EXTRA that the FA's would make each year.

It's a no brainer!

They probably would... 

Especially if they then do this thing where different teams go in to the rotation 

As a random example Georgia as an FA would see this as the opportunity to qualify for their first ever world cup and earn more money regardless

the English FA might say no its a stupid idea but will Georgia say the same? Even if FIFA do get their eventual 48 team tournament that's still 163 FAs who aren't there, how do you think they will vote? For 100+ of them with no realistic chance of going to a WC how do they vote? Will they give a shit when it is or where it is or will they just want the money? 

There are more shit teams than good teams when the vote will take place 

[ender4]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Imagine if they did a yearly world cup. I spent the night doing calculations, and it's an additional £2.1bn, 3 pints of lager and a packet of walkers EXTRA that the FA's would make each year.

It's a no brainer!

also if they did a world cup every 6 months, they could earn quadruple billions!  Lets do it!

[villa4europe]

I thought the original plan was a club world cup every 4 years, not sure where that went

That was supported by the big Japanese bank and would no doubt also be a terrible idea but still more interesting than this 

[Zatman]

1.5 billion in debt Barcelona agree a 65 million deal for Ferran Torres

Football is in fine shape

Edited December 22, 2021 by Zatman

[The_Steve]

8 minutes ago, Zatman said:

1.5 billion in debt Barcelona agree a 65 million deal for Ferran Torres

Football is in fine shape

Yep, nothing to see here. 

[pas5898]

27 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Yep, nothing to see here. 

Refinanced a fair bit of debt, to be fair and at least Torres is a sensible signing. He's a player they need, young enough to amortise over 10 years (or sell) and not on massive wages. Basically the complete opposite of Griezeman.

To be able to register him to play, they must hit La Liga FFP regulations, therefore they need to sell this winter. I could imagine a Newcastle going for a Coutinho, or Dembele at crazy money (to make a statement), I wonder if they have something lined up?

[villa4europe]

Got themselves in to a ton of credit card debt, bought a load of stuff on the never never, took out the full sky package despite not liking sports or movies, refinanced all their debt, took out a huge loan to pay it all off... And the first thing they've done is bought a new flat screen TV

Its the council estate school of economics 

[El Zen]

Ferran Torres is the right kind of signing, if they’re going to spend big money. Problem is, no way should they be able to spend any kind of money in their situation. 

You’d think they’d be willing to let just about anyone not named Pedri, Gavi and Fati leave for an affordable price in the Jan window. 

[villa4europe]

10 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Ferran Torres is the right kind of signing, if they’re going to spend big money. Problem is, no way should they be able to spend any kind of money in their situation. 

You’d think they’d be willing to let just about anyone not named Pedri, Gavi and Fati leave for an affordable price in the Jan window. 

Put the majority of the squad up for sale apparently, even ter stegen

Dembele is the obvious one but with his history record I'm not sure who will touch him, all of them would need to take pay cuts too

[OutByEaster?]

Player welfare seems to be the latest weapon in the super league's drive to get rules changed - so here's an idea.

Each club registers 25 players over 18 at the start of the season, but each player can only play in forty games.

So if you're Villa, and you're not in Europe, you might play your strongest team in every league game, which will help your Premier league performance - you might find that you're doing well in the FA Cup, so rest a few in the league to strengthen for that competition - managing that balance would be part of a managers art.

If you're Liverpool and you're looking to compete on four fronts, you might play sixty games, but Jordan Henderson can only play in forty. That protects the player. It also encourages and helps develop competition, with Jurgen Klopp perhaps looking at whether he plays Mo Salah in the final two league games or in the Champions league semi-final because he only has two games left and perhaps playing six youngsters early in the season at home to Norwich so that he can bank a game for Sadio Mane for later in the season.

It'd mean that the very top teams would be forced to rotate, City have 25 world class players, but they get injuries the same as everyone else and using that squad, bringing in kids when necessary would add something to the game - it'd also mean that if they get an injury crisis it affect them in the same way as if would affect everyone else - if De Bruyne as injured, you might end up using all of Phil Foden's appearances early in the season and need to make decisions late on that could weaken you - it'd mean that Premier league managers would be keener to play a young player in a game and help with their development.

It'd mean that for Wolves or for us, we'd have a chance at closing the gap in the league as the top three sides are forced to rotate, for the game it'd add a level of intrigue and strategy on selections, rewarding good management and it'd mean that players would get more rest - poor Jordan would be able to get his feet up a bit more often. Competitions would benefit as different teams were forced to apply different judgements on how strongly they can afford to compete in them - no one should threaten to win everything.

I like it.

It's not where we'll end up.

We'll end up with squads of forty and nine substitutions, protecting the advantages that money allows, we'll end up with poor Jordan still having to play fifty-five games a season, especially if you include the six in the middle east and USA on those money spinning pre-season and midseason tours, but we'll end up with some happy people in big glass buildings looking at numbers.

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

Nice to see Pep threatening strike action by managers and players if they don't get to have five substitutions.

 

[Tomaszk]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Player welfare seems to be the latest weapon in the super league's drive to get rules changed - so here's an idea.

Each club registers 25 players over 18 at the start of the season, but each player can only play in forty games.

So if you're Villa, and you're not in Europe, you might play your strongest team in every league game, which will help your Premier league performance - you might find that you're doing well in the FA Cup, so rest a few in the league to strengthen for that competition - managing that balance would be part of a managers art.

If you're Liverpool and you're looking to compete on four fronts, you might play sixty games, but Jordan Henderson can only play in forty. That protects the player. It also encourages and helps develop competition, with Jurgen Klopp perhaps looking at whether he plays Mo Salah in the final two league games or in the Champions league semi-final because he only has two games left and perhaps playing six youngsters early in the season at home to Norwich so that he can bank a game for Sadio Mane for later in the season.

It'd mean that the very top teams would be forced to rotate, City have 25 world class players, but they get injuries the same as everyone else and using that squad, bringing in kids when necessary would add something to the game - it'd also mean that if they get an injury crisis it affect them in the same way as if would affect everyone else - if De Bruyne as injured, you might end up using all of Phil Foden's appearances early in the season and need to make decisions late on that could weaken you - it'd mean that Premier league managers would be keener to play a young player in a game and help with their development.

It'd mean that for Wolves or for us, we'd have a chance at closing the gap in the league as the top three sides are forced to rotate, for the game it'd add a level of intrigue and strategy on selections, rewarding good management and it'd mean that players would get more rest - poor Jordan would be able to get his feet up a bit more often. Competitions would benefit as different teams were forced to apply different judgements on how strongly they can afford to compete in them - no one should threaten to win everything.

I like it.

It's not where we'll end up.

We'll end up with squads of forty and nine substitutions, protecting the advantages that money allows, we'll end up with poor Jordan still having to play fifty-five games a season, especially if you include the six in the middle east and USA on those money spinning pre-season and midseason tours, but we'll end up with some happy people in big glass buildings looking at numbers.

 

 

On fire.

Get this man in charge of football.

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Nice to see Pep threatening strike action by managers and players if they don't get to have five substitutions.

 

He keeps moaning about his small squad. Prick 

Pep and Klopp are trying to do more damage to English football than they are helping it

[a-k]

Maybe if these "big" clubs also focused on developing their own players rather than just buying from other clubs in their prime, they wouldn't be so mopey about having to fill some holes with kids (KW.gif, AdamJohnson.gif)

[a m ole]

Basketball players play 60-80 games a season, every two or three days, sometimes the day after. They manage the stars by limiting their minutes. There’s absolutely no reason why these clubs shouldn’t have to do that themselves, especially when they have the financial means to buy better reserve players than players that are first choice for the rest of the league.

I think there should be less pointless games and minutes - new International proposals and replays and extra time is all superfluous and are becoming a problem, but as OBE says that’s not what Pep and Klopp are moaning about. They just want it all arranged so they can play the very best players in every game they think they can’t win by turning up. If they want to look after their players they can very easily, just use your over inflated squads of top class players and the best youth talent in the world.  words removed.

The even more annoying thing is that is exactly what Liverpool did yesterday, called upon Jota off the bench to win the game. It’s what Chelsea did, called upon Kante off the bench to win the game. What have they got to complain about?

Edited December 24, 2021 by a m ole

[Hamburglar]

3 hours ago, a m ole said:

Basketball players play 60-80 games a season, every two or three days, sometimes the game after. They manage the stars by limiting their minutes. There’s absolutely no reason why these clubs shouldn’t have to do that themselves, especially when they have the financial means to buy better reserve players than players that are first choice for the rest of the league.

I think there should be less pointless games and minutes - new International proposals and replays and extra time is all superfluous and are becoming a problem, but as OBE says that’s not what Pep and Klopp are moaning about. They just want it all arranged so they can play the very best players in every game they think they can’t win by turning up. If they want to look after their players they can very easily, just use your over inflated squads of top class players and the best youth talent in the world.  words removed.

The even more annoying thing is that is exactly what Liverpool did yesterday, called upon Jota off the bench to win the game. It’s what Chelsea did, called upon Kante off the bench to win the game. What have they got to complain about?

When you’re at the top there is only one way to go if you can’t stay there and the competition is raising its game they’ll catch up soon enough or at least make it less easy to stay at the top. It feels as though (guardiola especially) is trying to use the influence you garner from being at the top to change rules to their advantage. This will only help for so long but by then he’ll probably be retired and his legacy and stats secured in the history books. 
I’m convinced this is not about player welfare but to gain an advantage, his approach to matches are the same. Gain every possible advantage you can through fouls, simulation etc... and make a big deal of decisions that go against you. It’s all quite tedious. 

[VillaJ100]

Key thing with basketball is its non contact

[Zatman]

25 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

Key thing with basketball is its non contact

Football is pretty much non contact as well these days  

[Rds1983]

6 hours ago, Zatman said:

Football is pretty much non contact as well these days  

Having grown up playing rugby, I've never really thought of football as a contact sport.