Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[ewerk 28236]

6 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Unchecked both of us could buy the very best players from our opponents, the best in the world, and trade titles as they do in Spain. 

 

And the problem with that is?

[The Fish 9873]

29 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

And the problem with that is?

 

It's boring and devalues the league. There's got to be an element of competition to maintain what makes the Premier League the more marketable brand. Otherwise we're just spanking a bunch of farmers around and we'll invite more and more tourist fans, more and more "ManlikeBruno" accounts, and Arsenal tv and shit like that.

[ewerk 28236]

50 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

It's boring and devalues the league. There's got to be an element of competition to maintain what makes the Premier League the more marketable brand. Otherwise we're just spanking a bunch of farmers around and we'll invite more and more tourist fans, more and more "ManlikeBruno" accounts, and Arsenal tv and shit like that.

City have won six out of the last seven league titles. A two horse race would be an improvement.

[Dazzler 7429]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

City have won six out of the last seven league titles. A two horse race would be an improvement.

Aye but the FA is still pining for Liverpool, everyone’s (ie. Half of Liverpool, some of Ireland and a subsection of wales) favourite plucky underdog. They can’t disadvantage them any further than the poor, skint cunts already are.

[Kid Dynamite 6438]

Ronaldo scoring his 130th goal for Portugal tonight 🤯

[MrRaspberryJam 548]

ETH staying. 

[ewerk 28236]

[Meenzer 14570]

Magnificent

[Dougle 3087]

Tremendous

[aimaad22 3794]

[RobinRobin 10165]

5 hours ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

ETH staying. 

[Gemmill 39328]

Jim Ratcliffe continues to impress me. 

[Gemmill 39328]

I can heartily recommend offering your congratulations to Man United fans on twitter and then muting the conversation. 

 

Check back in half an hour and you'll be shocked to find that they are less than grateful for your well wishes. 

[LondonBlue 666]

17 hours ago, The Fish said:

 

 

To be fair, the amount of money that you (and we) can bring to bear would ruin the league as a competition. Unchecked both of us could buy the very best players from our opponents, the best in the world, and trade titles as they do in Spain. 

 

There has to be a limit on what clubs can spend, and it has to be significantly below what our clubs' owners can afford.

 

not so sure about that.

 

it doesn't need to be unchecked. just not restricted. 

 

you have way more money than us. we have way more money than chelsea. chelsea have more money than anyone would reasonably spend on a football team.

 

the squad limits alone would probably keep things fair as the very best players want to play not sit on the bench.

 

for me the rules should be aimed at keeping the overall quality high. so investment good, debt bad.

 

[LondonBlue 666]

15 hours ago, ewerk said:

City have won six out of the last seven league titles. A two horse race would be an improvement.

 

We don't win it at a canter though. and last year was a 3 horse race until 1 of the horses pulled up lame.

 

An uncomfortable number of our titles have been final day wins. Older City fans have been dropping like flies due to the stress i'm sure.

 

Our spending is not the reason we've won so much (yes a massive factor as it always has been). the reason was very clearly Pep.

 

Unrestricted spending doesn't win you the league. The correct squad / manager combo does.

 

[toonotl 2662]

There are mitigating circumstances but given City's current dominance to argue that loosening the purse strings wouldn't see City become even more dominant (at least until we caught up) doesn't ring true for me.

 

As much as I'd like it to be otherwise and despite how much fun it would be and is normally, please trust me when I say that this pains me to admit, I think I agree with Dave. 

Edited June 12 by toonotl

[LondonBlue 666]

and another thing. they should abolish the rule that says you can have £105m debt over a 3 year people. I thought that was meant to be whilst clubs got used to spending restrictions to help with rainy days. It's now used like a speed limit on a road. 

 

make it zero debt.

[LondonBlue 666]

and ban red as a shirt colour

[The Fish 9873]

15 hours ago, ewerk said:

City have won six out of the last seven league titles. A two horse race would be an improvement.

They have, but not always by a massive gap and not always ahead of the same opponent.

 

In 4 of Man City's titles, the gap between 1st and 2nd was 2pts or less and for their 6 titles second place was Arsenal (2), Liverpool (2) Man Utd (2).

 

 

[The Fish 9873]

38 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

not so sure about that.

 

it doesn't need to be unchecked. just not restricted. 

 

you have way more money than us. we have way more money than chelsea. chelsea have more money than anyone would reasonably spend on a football team.

 

the squad limits alone would probably keep things fair as the very best players want to play not sit on the bench.

 

for me the rules should be aimed at keeping the overall quality high. so investment good, debt bad.

 

 

I don't follow? What do you see as the difference between the two?

 

The best players in the world would sit on the bench for £500k a week and 2 or 3 medals every year. Look at the array of talent at Real Madrid. 

 

Way I see it, you should only be allowed to spend what you can afford without putting the future of the club at risk, if your owner can afford to put hundreds of millions into the club without mortgaging the stadium go for it. But entangling your wage bill to the poorest club in the league reduces the widening of the gap between the haves and have nots. Keeps it more competitive and more interesting.

 

If we were allowed to spend what we could reportedly afford, where's the incentive to produce our own talent? And without local lads getting their chance at the club the divorce between so called legacy fans and the team becomes more permanent. Fans like you or me would be replaced with kids who follow a player and have no interest in the club and fuck that.

 

[LondonBlue 666]

19 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

I don't follow? What do you see as the difference between the two?

 

The best players in the world would sit on the bench for £500k a week and 2 or 3 medals every year. Look at the array of talent at Real Madrid. 

 

Way I see it, you should only be allowed to spend what you can afford without putting the future of the club at risk, if your owner can afford to put hundreds of millions into the club without mortgaging the stadium go for it. But entangling your wage bill to the poorest club in the league reduces the widening of the gap between the haves and have nots. Keeps it more competitive and more interesting.

 

If we were allowed to spend what we could reportedly afford, where's the incentive to produce our own talent? And without local lads getting their chance at the club the divorce between so called legacy fans and the team becomes more permanent. Fans like you or me would be replaced with kids who follow a player and have no interest in the club and fuck that.

 

 

so unrestricted in terms of pumping cash into the club, the team, the infrastructure, the ground, and the wider local community

 

but checks could be, zero debt, squad limit, home grown requirements, academy players in first team should be rewarded somehow (and i mean long term academy like Foden) etc. 

 

and i don't believe that the VERY best players would be happy sitting on the bench. i think real madrid are an exception. 

 

 

 

[The Fish 9873]

19 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

so unrestricted in terms of pumping cash into the club, the team, the infrastructure, the ground, and the wider local community

 

but checks could be, zero debt, squad limit, home grown requirements, academy players in first team should be rewarded somehow (and i mean long term academy like Foden) etc. 

 

and i don't believe that the VERY best players would be happy sitting on the bench. i think real madrid are an exception. 

 

 

 

Ah, I see. 

 

I don't disagree with any of that (besides the bench warming stuff). 

 

But, given my reputation on here I'll say it's all horseshit and you should feel bad.

[Dr Gloom 20731]

16 hours ago, Dougle said:

Tremendous

 

 

[aimaad22 3794]

12 hours ago, Gemmill said:

Jim Ratcliffe continues to impress me. 

 

Contract extension on the table too apparently. going by the model Ratcliffe seems to be following.......another 8 years lets say?  

[Gemmill 39328]