View Full Version : Fixing Football
It's an accepted fact now that football is shit - and this is in no way related to us being garbage.
Ways to improve it or make it more interesting?
Goalline-tech is a given.
Video tech - I want a challenger system like in Tennis; each captain gets 1 challenge per match. That ensures they won't use it for stupid stuff like a shirt-pull on the halfway line and save it for the big decisions they felt were called wrong.
Salary cap - and all that financial fairplay shit that was supposed to come in soon 5 years ago. Emphasis on results-related pay.
Transparent ranking system for referees - evaluate proportion of right calls they made during each game and rank them. The challenger system would also help to see which ones are continuously getting the big decisions wrong. And we all know reffing's a hard job so the good ones at the top of the ranking would earn some kudos.
Retrospective punishment - for dangerous tackles, diving and stuff like that. But it'd be very hard to prove someone was diving even though it seems easy.
Go.
but football isn't shit?
It is tbh
Marc Overmars
22-02-2012, 01:32 PM
Some of the issues are just hardwired into the fabric of the game. Like diving or overreacting to a tackle in hope your opponent is punished. I remember an incident in an el classico game last year when Villa went down holding his foot, 2 Madrid players pulled him up and he didn't like it, then he started kicking off...erm, I thought you were hurt? There just doesn't seem to be any honour involved in the game now. I've never seen another sport where an inclination to cheat is so prevalent. You look at other sports where genuine pain is endured, then look at football, it's laughable.
I'm hopeful that FFP can sort out some of the financial issues because that is the single biggest killer. Although there will probably be plenty of loopholes I'm sure.
Players are also celebrities now, living in a different bubble to the rest of the world. It's not their fault because if you are offered the money, you take it, but it only serves to create contempt.
Scrap the Carling Cup and have conditional two-legged ties in the FA Cup. If a team loses by less than 2 goals, they have earned the right to make it into a two-legged game. e.g. Shrewsbury lose 2-1 to Aston Villa, it helps them get the revenues of an extra game at Villa Park (but it's not a replay, the scoreline just carries forward). It might also carry an incentive for non-teams like Sunderland and Stoke from butchering their pitches.
Olivier's xmas twist
22-02-2012, 01:42 PM
Scrap the Carling Cup and have conditional two-legged ties in the FA Cup. If a team loses by less than 2 goals, they have earned the right to make it into a two-legged game. e.g. Shrewsbury lose 2-1 to Aston Villa, it helps them get the revenues of an extra game at Villa Park (but it's not a replay, the scoreline just carries forward). It might also carry an incentive for non-teams like Sunderland and Stoke from butchering their pitches.
Don't scrap it just not let the prem teams compete in it, let the lower leagues have a chance. Its so boring just seeing Prem teams win it and the fa cup.
Make the CL for Champions possibly second place teams. Maybe have the winner of the Fa cup get in the CL.
McNamara That Ghost...
22-02-2012, 01:44 PM
Football isn't shit but FIFA are, lamentably.
Change simulation from a bookable offence to an offence than can carry a ban, this can probably only be determined after a match for fairness but it would have an impact. As long as it remains only a yellow card offence though then nothing can change.
Kill Blatter.
And Phil Collins.
Cant scrap the League Cup for the Premiership. Sponsorship rules
Champions League should only be for champions and the money should be distributed to grass roots.
Change simulation from a bookable offence to an offence than can carry a ban, this can probably only be determined after a match for fairness but it would have an impact. As long as it remains only a yellow card offence though then nothing can change.
I agree. I think it's very difficult to 'prove' simulation in, say, 95% of cases. But if you place a heavy punishment whenever it is obvious - like it was when they banned-and-then-unbanned Eduardo then even players who generally fall in the 95% will stop for fear of getting caught.
It would create controversy..."why is x a definite dive while y isn't?" but controversy is caused anyway when these dives go unpunished. It should get the backing of the little Englanders on MOTD and the media considering it's an exclusively foreign trait. It'd be quite good to see some division 1 players get pulled up for it.
Definitely impossible to prove play-acting for fouls though. No way to prove a player wasn't hurt, I think. Even in the David Villa case that Moe described above.
Marc Overmars
22-02-2012, 01:59 PM
Definitely impossible to prove play-acting for fouls though. No way to prove a player wasn't hurt, I think. Even in the David Villa case that Moe described above.
Yeah there's no chance you could punish someone for pretending they were hurt. I mentioned it merely as an extreme example of the mentality involved with a footballer, it's all about gaining an advantage via the ref. It happens every week, a player might take a genuine knock, but then exaggerate it by holding his face/foot/cock or whatever just because the cameras are there and they can pressure the ref into dishing out punishment. That just doesn't happen at grass roots and if someone tried it on, they'd probably get their legs broken for real the next time.
Power n Glory
22-02-2012, 02:06 PM
Salary cap.
Good coaching and developing young talent would be the focus instead of transfer windows and trying to poach some big star from another club. Agents would actually have to do a good job of looking after their players instead of acting like pimps. Poor managers get exposed for what they are and good managers at smaller clubs get more of the limelight.
It is tbh
nah if it was we wouldn't be talking about it day and night still.
people just love to fucking moan tbh.
Dog Toffee
22-02-2012, 03:43 PM
Players that cause serious injury e.g Shawcross on Ramsey should be banned for the length of time it takes for the injured player to return. I like that one. And if they never return the player who caused the injury has to work in McDonalds.
Olivier's xmas twist
22-02-2012, 09:21 PM
Players that cause serious injury e.g Shawcross on Ramsey should be banned for the length of time it takes for the injured player to return. I like that one. And if they never return the player who caused the injury has to work in McDonalds.
yep, and Refs need to be Consistant tbh, none of this rubbish we see today, If its a bad 2 footed challenge its a red card and these rules should be enforced at the start of the season so every team knows.
Swearing at the ref should be a red, and Pens should be made clear was is and was is not one.
McNamara That Ghost...
22-02-2012, 09:43 PM
Players that cause serious injury e.g Shawcross on Ramsey should be banned for the length of time it takes for the injured player to return. I like that one. And if they never return the player who caused the injury has to work in McDonalds.
No that's silly, what happens if a player commits a tackle with the same recklessness but there's no injury resulting from it?
I think endangering an opponent should come with a greater suspension though.
Shaqiri Is Boss
22-02-2012, 10:08 PM
Obviously goal-line tech' is a given.
Scraping the transfer windows; all they do is cause panic buying and unimaginable pleasure for Jim White.
More 3pm kick offs.
I think clubs would find ways to get round salary caps, but it wouldn't hurt to look into it.
Regulate ticket prices.
I wouldn't even be against sin bins for the cynical but not-very-serious fouls.
Crack down on the ludicrous holding at corners and free kicks. If players get punished, they will quickly learn, which is why the excuse of "there'd be 8 red cards a game" is ridiculous.
Only the captains and the players involved in a situation can talk to the referee.
Zero tolerance on swearing etc to the refs.
More flexible punishment, so you can repeal a yellow card for instance.
Stop the ridiculous situation where an injured player has to go off to come back on, yet the perpetrator stays on for the entire time. Either both off, or neither.
It's a start...
Coney
22-02-2012, 10:47 PM
Obviously goal-line tech' is a given.
Scraping the transfer windows; all they do is cause panic buying and unimaginable pleasure for Jim White.
More 3pm kick offs.
I think clubs would find ways to get round salary caps, but it wouldn't hurt to look into it.
Regulate ticket prices.
I wouldn't even be against sin bins for the cynical but not-very-serious fouls.
Crack down on the ludicrous holding at corners and free kicks. If players get punished, they will quickly learn, which is why the excuse of "there'd be 8 red cards a game" is ridiculous.
Only the captains and the players involved in a situation can talk to the referee.
Zero tolerance on swearing etc to the refs.
More flexible punishment, so you can repeal a yellow card for instance.
Stop the ridiculous situation where an injured player has to go off to come back on, yet the perpetrator stays on for the entire time. Either both off, or neither.
It's a start...
I'd go with most of that.
Agree with the excuse of "there'd be 8 red cards a game" being bollocks. Maybe at the beginning there would be a high number of reds but within a week or so, they would behave.
FA/UEFA/FIFA looking at incidents after a match even if a ref had dealt with it at the time as the ref must make a snap decision but later video evidence can clarify innocence or guilt, increasing or reducing the penalty accordingly.
Unai Tea
22-02-2012, 11:20 PM
A salary cap I think is critical. It's become ridiculous. FFP is a sham and the easiest way to fix it and also inject a more open playing field is through a salary cap.
Cripps_orig
22-02-2012, 11:38 PM
Clubs can only spend what they earn
Do away with lower league football or if not possible, put less importance on it and make it like the lower leagues in Spain and Italy. Put the money saved there in developing kids for premiership clubs.
Have referees come out and face the music after matches
Olivier's xmas twist
23-02-2012, 12:23 AM
Clubs can only spend what they earn
Do away with lower league football or if not possible, put less importance on it and make it like the lower leagues in Spain and Italy. Put the money saved there in developing kids for premiership clubs.
Have referees come out and face the music after matches
That will never happen, too many teams for it to happen.
fakeyank
23-02-2012, 01:31 AM
It's an accepted fact now that football is shit - and this is in no way related to us being garbage.
Ways to improve it or make it more interesting?
Goalline-tech is a given.
Video tech - I want a challenger system like in Tennis; each captain gets 1 challenge per match. That ensures they won't use it for stupid stuff like a shirt-pull on the halfway line and save it for the big decisions they felt were called wrong.
Salary cap - and all that financial fairplay shit that was supposed to come in soon 5 years ago. Emphasis on results-related pay.
Transparent ranking system for referees - evaluate proportion of right calls they made during each game and rank them. The challenger system would also help to see which ones are continuously getting the big decisions wrong. And we all know reffing's a hard job so the good ones at the top of the ranking would earn some kudos.
Retrospective punishment - for dangerous tackles, diving and stuff like that. But it'd be very hard to prove someone was diving even though it seems easy.
Go.
Salary cap is bull.. we should never have something like that! If a player is good enough, then you pay up! Rest of them are good.
Marc Overmars
23-02-2012, 08:27 AM
Clubs can only spend what they earn
Do away with lower league football or if not possible, put less importance on it and make it like the lower leagues in Spain and Italy. Put the money saved there in developing kids for premiership clubs.
Have referees come out and face the music after matches
Our lower leagues contain a lot of clubs with a proud history and fanbase, Forest, Leeds, West Ham etc. Most Football League clubs here are much bigger than their counterparts in Italy and Spain, so I don't think it would be fair to neglect them in the same way. Plus IIRC The Championship is the 4th most watched league in Europe behind the Prem, La Liga and Serie A.
Have you tried switching it off and then on again?
Coney
23-02-2012, 12:15 PM
Have you tried switching it off and then on again?
No good. The FA forgot to put the plug in.
Olivier's xmas twist
23-02-2012, 01:00 PM
Salary cap is bull.. we should never have something like that! If a player is good enough, then you pay up! Rest of them are good.
Nah Salary caps are important, it gives everyone or every team and equal playing field and we will see more players going to clubs which they feel is best for them, not which feels up their bank accounts more.
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon
23-02-2012, 01:05 PM
dunno whats been said but here's a few:
- referees watch linked up to the main clock - when he presses pause it pauses the clock. that way everyone knows what the fucking time is and there's no need for added time as clock is paused.
- wage cap. leaves players to maximise earnings through marketing/sponsorship instead.
- monday morning a panel of ex pro's/referees sit down. look through incidents of diving, cheating, unsporting behaviour and dish out heavy fines (we're talking 500k here not 20k) or match ban. after 2 weeks they'd all stop fucking around trust me.
- have mic from ref linked to the tv so we know whats being said. also gives incentive to stop players swearing etc as the mainstream public can hear whats going on and fa can punish offendors with the excuse that children can hear it live.
- 5 minute sin bin
- referee league/linesman league published in every national newspaper on monday morning. this way we can see who the shit refs are and the mistakes they make.
- video technology or have a ref in each half
off the top of my head.
Dog Toffee
23-02-2012, 03:21 PM
No that's silly, what happens if a player commits a tackle with the same recklessness but there's no injury resulting from it?
I think endangering an opponent should come with a greater suspension though.
Yeah, of course there are obvious flaws to this one, perhaps just the threat of working in McDonalds should do it?
I just hate it that it takes players years to come back to full fitness, or never, whilst the guy who assaulted him (if anyone got their legs broken in the street ((Shawcrossed)), they'd get prison time) is back in 3 games. Very unfair.
fakeyank
23-02-2012, 07:40 PM
Nah Salary caps are important, it gives everyone or every team and equal playing field and we will see more players going to clubs which they feel is best for them, not which feels up their bank accounts more.
Why should a player not get paid for how good he is? Its like you being the most amazing programmer in the world and still making 60K a year for life!
Olivier's xmas twist
23-02-2012, 07:47 PM
Why should a player not get paid for how good he is? Its like you being the most amazing programmer in the world and still making 60K a year for life!
Are you talking about players in the same team or not. I just think if each club can offer a certain amout of wages, then we will see players playing for the love of the game not for the money.
I mean take Eto would he have gone to play in racist russia for 150K if that was the wage cap in Europe probs not he'd go somewhere else. Just seems players are selling out for top wages not because they want to play the game.
Why should a player not get paid for how good he is? Its like you being the most amazing programmer in the world and still making 60K a year for life!
Well obviously the argument is that players are getting paid for too much for 'how good they are'. I'm not happy to let the free-market decide that because the wage rates for top earners have been heavily skewed by Ambramovich and the other bored money men that have decided football clubs are more fashionable than yachts.
But I'm happy to concede on the salary cap point - not because I feel Rooney will struggle to live on less than £180k a week - but because I don't think it would really solve the problem of winning in football being so transparently about which owner has the deepest pockets. I think the 'financial fairplay' regulations - that will never seemingly come in - hints at clubs not being able to 'live beyond their means'; and so their expenditure (not only transfer fees but also wages etc.) have to be based on their income. The regulations should be tight enough - not only to prevent clubs like Man City getting a quick steroid boost but also to reward well-run clubs whose behaviour is thinking about building a good future.
Also, I think the wage structure should be tweaked towards performance-related pay. Win bonus, goal/assist bonus, clean sheet bonus...whatever. Yes it sounds Championship Managery but I'm not having Kieron Diaby earning £40k a week. That cannot happen. They could be nice guys but you can't get paid that much for being invisible.
Hard to implement that across the board...clubs like Arsenal, Wigan and Blackburn wouldn't be able to attract players if a 'win bonus' had to be some proportion of their wage. Though a 'goal bonus' might help our players grow some balls.
Impossible to solve all problems with it - there will be obvious trade offs, but there has to be a movement towards performance related pay IMO.
fakeyank
23-02-2012, 10:32 PM
Also, I think the wage structure should be tweaked towards performance-related pay. Win bonus, goal/assist bonus, clean sheet bonus...whatever. Yes it sounds Championship Managery but I'm not having Kieron Diaby earning £40k a week. That cannot happen. They could be nice guys but you can't get paid that much for being invisible.
Hard to implement that across the board...clubs like Arsenal, Wigan and Blackburn wouldn't be able to attract players if a 'win bonus' had to be some proportion of their wage. Though a 'goal bonus' might help our players grow some balls.
Impossible to solve all problems with it - there will be obvious trade offs, but there has to be a movement towards performance related pay IMO.
How do you define performance related? Is it going to be based on stats or public opinion? We cant do club success related bonus because like you mentioned clubs like Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc wouldnt be able to attract player. This is a grey area and we unfortunately cannot regulate a person's salary. In Arsene's eyes, Diaby is worth 50K when we think he is worth 50p. How do we regulate a case like that? May be that pay is based on promise of Diaby becoming a good player but based on current performance, he is worth nothing!
How do you define performance related? Is it going to be based on stats or public opinion? We cant do club success related bonus because like you mentioned clubs like Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc wouldnt be able to attract player. This is a grey area and we unfortunately cannot regulate a person's salary. In Arsene's eyes, Diaby is worth 50K when we think he is worth 50p. How do we regulate a case like that? May be that pay is based on promise of Diaby becoming a good player but based on current performance, he is worth nothing!
I've already said: It would obviously be based on results. That's how pretty much every high-paying job works; you get a base salary and the rest is on the results you bring. You could be 'unlucky' and do everything right but you don't get the result you deserve. That's life. Tough titties. etc.
Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc. wouldn't be able to attract a player if they say "If we win 35 games in the league season, you get £4m. If we don't, you get nothing". But they wouldn't say that because they do want good players. There are ways of designing contracts so that the worse clubs also benefit. Presumably they'd be more attracted to handing out player bonuses to attract better players - so instead of going on the team's performance, they give more money for good individual performers. e.g. Newcastle (not suggesting they're not a good team) say to Ba "Every goal you score, you get an extra x. Every goal the team scores, you get an extra y".
I also think it would be a pretty good way to test a player's character. If he wants to join a 'safe' club that pays out a standard amount with little variation then it says a lot about them. They're not willing to take a risk or they aren't confident of reaching a high standard. e.g. suppose Van Persie is out of contract ( <_< ) and Barca offers him £4m a year regardless of what he does, and Real madrid offer him £3m a year (+£100k for every goal he scores). If he thinks he'll score 30 goals, he'll go to Real Madrid...assuming his decision is largely motivated by money - which is the case for many footballers (and most people in general, really).
There are many variations of performance-criteria that can be used in the contract so that each club can benefit. Clubs will want to do it. That's not an issue. Once we're in a world of performance-related pay in football, everything's fine. But the problem is getting there - since no club will want to be the first to do it. I can't think of a rule but there are ways to design shit like this. Happens all the time. Someone will figure it out.
It's not a new idea. I'm sure clubs already do have some sort of performance-related pay. I'd be shocked if Van Persie didn't get some extra pocket money for his form over the past year. But the challenge is now to increase it.
I've already said: It would obviously be based on results. That's how pretty much every high-paying job works; you get a base salary and the rest is on the results you bring. You could be 'unlucky' and do everything right but you don't get the result you deserve. That's life. Tough titties. etc.
Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc. wouldn't be able to attract a player if they say "If we win 35 games in the league season, you get £4m. If we don't, you get nothing". But they wouldn't say that because they do want good players. There are ways of designing contracts so that the worse clubs also benefit. Presumably they'd be more attracted to handing out player bonuses to attract better players - so instead of going on the team's performance, they give more money for good individual performers. e.g. Newcastle (not suggesting they're not a good team) say to Ba "Every goal you score, you get an extra x. Every goal the team scores, you get an extra y".
I also think it would be a pretty good way to test a player's character. If he wants to join a 'safe' club that pays out a standard amount with little variation then it says a lot about them. They're not willing to take a risk or they aren't confident of reaching a high standard. e.g. suppose Van Persie is out of contract ( <_< ) and Barca offers him £4m a year regardless of what he does, and Real madrid offer him £3m a year (+£100k for every goal he scores). If he thinks he'll score 30 goals, he'll go to Real Madrid...assuming his decision is largely motivated by money - which is the case for many footballers (and most people in general, really).
There are many variations of performance-criteria that can be used in the contract so that each club can benefit. Clubs will want to do it. That's not an issue. Once we're in a world of performance-related pay in football, everything's fine. But the problem is getting there - since no club will want to be the first to do it. I can't think of a rule but there are ways to design shit like this. Happens all the time. Someone will figure it out.
It's not a new idea. I'm sure clubs already do have some sort of performance-related pay. I'd be shocked if Van Persie didn't get some extra pocket money for his form over the past year. But the challenge is now to increase it.
I’m not sure you can base payment on performance in a team game. For overall achievement as a unit there should be a bonus much like any job but unlike a vast majority of jobs, you cannot quantify a sportsman’s performance within a team purely on stats, as you would a salesman for example. On top of that you have incidents that are completely out of the control of the player, such as injuries, bad decisions by team mates that dictate and influence his performance as well as just pure bad luck. In every other job it is down to the individual who will not have to deal with these circumstances (bar long term illness) so it is hard to marry the two ideals.
Joker
24-02-2012, 11:38 AM
With forwards performance related pay may work (although as football's a team game, there are still problems) but what about the sort of midfielder who hasn't necessarily assisted a lot, but has contributed a lot to the team positively? For example, Wilshere was on the whole excellent last season, but if you look at his goals/assists statistics, they aren't great. Moreover, Koscielny has been excellent this season, but has been part of a very leaky defence. It may even be the case that we've conceded more goals per game when Koscielny's been playing than not, even though he's been head and shoulders better than someone like Vermaelen.
I’m not sure you can base payment on performance in a team game. For overall achievement as a unit there should be a bonus much like any job but unlike a vast majority of jobs, you cannot quantify a sportsman’s performance within a team purely on stats, as you would a salesman for example. On top of that you have incidents that are completely out of the control of the player, such as injuries, bad decisions by team mates that dictate and influence his performance as well as just pure bad luck. In every other job it is down to the individual who will not have to deal with these circumstances (bar long term illness) so it is hard to marry the two ideals.
The 'out of your hand' incidents, I don't see a problem with that. There are external factors in most high paying jobs too; you're often dependent on other members of the team performing well. As I said, you can be 'unlucky' but that's life; everyone faces that and footballers should be no different. If RVP you lose out on a team bonus because your teammates play shit, again, tough luck. You win together and you lose together. But as I've said you can still hold on to your star players by offering greater individual incentives. I accept it's harder to find player-specific performance proxies for a Modric, say, but there are ways of balancing it to achieve the optimal outcome. e.g. the back four get x for a clean sheet, the midfield get y for a cleansheet and the strikers get z for a clean sheet. If you weight it properly, you ensure that everyone finds it worthwhile to put a shift in.
We're obviously not talking about a world of exclusively performance-related pay. Players will always get a base wage regardless of performance and even regardless of whether they play. That should be fair enough for them.
With forwards performance related pay may work (although as football's a team game, there are still problems) but what about the sort of midfielder who hasn't necessarily assisted a lot, but has contributed a lot to the team positively? For example, Wilshere was on the whole excellent last season, but if you look at his goals/assists statistics, they aren't great. Moreover, Koscielny has been excellent this season, but has been part of a very leaky defence. It may even be the case that we've conceded more goals per game when Koscielny's been playing than not, even though he's been head and shoulders better than someone like Vermaelen.
If the manager feels that Wilshere and Koscielny have shown enough consistency to suggest they will continue on that trend, they would be rewarded with a higher base rate salary...which is exactly what happens right now - so you don't lose out from switching the system. But see what I've said above - I can't do it but I'm sure there are people around who could weight it all perfectly so that star performers in an average unit would be rewarded. That is the essence of performance-related pay anyway.
The 'out of your hand' incidents, I don't see a problem with that. There are external factors in most high paying jobs too; you're often dependent on other members of the team performing well. As I said, you can be 'unlucky' but that's life; everyone faces that and footballers should be no different. If RVP you lose out on a team bonus because your teammates play shit, again, tough luck. You win together and you lose together. But as I've said you can still hold on to your star players by offering greater individual incentives. I accept it's harder to find player-specific performance proxies for a Modric, say, but there are ways of balancing it to achieve the optimal outcome. e.g. the back four get x for a clean sheet, the midfield get y for a cleansheet and the strikers get z for a clean sheet. If you weight it properly, you ensure that everyone finds it worthwhile to put a shift in.
We're obviously not talking about a world of exclusively performance-related pay. Players will always get a base wage regardless of performance and even regardless of whether they play. That should be fair enough for them.
other high paying roles do mean you have to manage the team correctly in order to get the results that will benefit you, that is a stipulation of the job role, not something that players on the field are asked to do - obviously it is the mangers job to do that.
team sports players would suffer under the hand of 'bad luck' far more than corporate roles for example, as injuries etc come under that too, let alone the events out of their control on a football field.
players already have this system in place that is supposed to incentivise them. i'm pretty sure it was always in place, some time before wages went through the roof, yet the performance levels would still be as unequal as they are now in the main, because of human nature. in an office, you are usually dealing and talking about figures quite a lot so the money carrot is never far from the mind but on a football pitch, i'm not sure you would correlate your performance with what it would bring either before or after a ball is kicked.
other high paying roles do mean you have to manage the team correctly in order to get the results that will benefit you, that is a stipulation of the job role, not something that players on the field are asked to do - obviously it is the mangers job to do that.
No, I don't mean managerial roles. I mean that there are sub-groups and teams that have to achieve something and they share the rewards. In academic circles, it'd be competing for research grants. In specialist consulting roles, it'd be winning a potential client. If the people you're working with are dicks, you lose out.
team sports players would suffer under the hand of 'bad luck' far more than corporate roles for example, as injuries etc come under that too, let alone the events out of their control on a football field.
players already have this system in place that is supposed to incentivise them. i'm pretty sure it was always in place, some time before wages went through the roof, yet the performance levels would still be as unequal as they are now in the main, because of human nature. in an office, you are usually dealing and talking about figures quite a lot so the money carrot is never far from the mind but on a football pitch, i'm not sure you would correlate your performance with what it would bring either before or after a ball is kicked.
I think it's exactly the reverse; I think a team's performance on the pitch correlates more with the result. We're not talking about your average office role because the money involved is not comparable. For the very high-paying roles - which are usually involve dealing with a lot of risk anyway - external shocks has a massive impact. You can do everything right and still not get the rewards.
I do understand the point about extracting a player's performance from a team game is difficult. It does happen in other jobs - and it should happen in football also IMO - but it's difficult (and probably costly) to work out and enforce. I think once we're there, it'd be fine - players wouldn't complain and clubs wouldn't change. But getting there is the problem.
Dennis
24-02-2012, 01:42 PM
Why should a player not get paid for how good he is? Its like you being the most amazing programmer in the world and still making 60K a year for life!
Sports are a bit different. NBA has a salary cap and I'm fairly sure the better players get paid more, not to mention huge sponsorship deals. Michael Jordan isnt a poor man.
Unai Tea
24-02-2012, 02:03 PM
A salary cap is simple, in principle. Say the rules are set that player wages can be no more than 75% of club earnings. Teams must have minimum number of players. That doesn't mean you can't pay one or more players very high amounts, and these amounts would naturally be higher and clubs with greater football revenues, but it does mean that A) there is at least a cap which will mean clubs can operate with some level of certainty and knowledge that all other teams have to work within the same rules, B) greater assurance that clubs won't go under and C) a more level playing field.
I'm sick and tired of these oligarch's toy clubs (Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Anzi, Malaga, etc). Let teams build success through hard work and intelligent development, not just dump in £500m of transfers over a year or two from somebody's backpocket - inflating wages and creating unfair competitive advantages.
A salary cap is simple, in principle. Say the rules are set that player wages can be no more than 75% of club earnings. Teams must have minimum number of players. That doesn't mean you can't pay one or more players very high amounts, and these amounts would naturally be higher and clubs with greater football revenues, but it does mean that A) there is at least a cap which will mean clubs can operate with some level of certainty and knowledge that all other teams have to work within the same rules, B) greater assurance that clubs won't go under and C) a more level playing field.
I'm sick and tired of these oligarch's toy clubs (Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Anzi, Malaga, etc). Let teams build success through hard work and intelligent development, not just dump in £500m of transfers over a year or two from somebody's backpocket - inflating wages and creating unfair competitive advantages.
True, but then Man city have just sponsored themselves to the tune of £400m.
Makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Xhaka Can’t
24-02-2012, 02:59 PM
Exactly. Any cap would have to be a defined value. But even then there are so many crooks involved in football, administering the game and running fiefdom clubs that any regulatory intention is pretty much meaningless
fakeyank
24-02-2012, 03:38 PM
A salary cap is simple, in principle. Say the rules are set that player wages can be no more than 75% of club earnings. Teams must have minimum number of players. That doesn't mean you can't pay one or more players very high amounts, and these amounts would naturally be higher and clubs with greater football revenues, but it does mean that A) there is at least a cap which will mean clubs can operate with some level of certainty and knowledge that all other teams have to work within the same rules, B) greater assurance that clubs won't go under and C) a more level playing field.
I'm sick and tired of these oligarch's toy clubs (Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Anzi, Malaga, etc). Let teams build success through hard work and intelligent development, not just dump in £500m of transfers over a year or two from somebody's backpocket - inflating wages and creating unfair competitive advantages.
But that would also mean players not wanting to go to a club which makes less earnings, like Wigan, Swansea etc. They do not have the brand value that a Utd, Liverpool, Madrid have and they will not be reaching that level unless they have a sustained period of success. Which brings us back to square one really!
Like Dennis mentioned, you can have salary caps like NBA but then it'll depend on which teams give out better bonuses or are likely to win the championship, like the Lakers, Heat, Dallas etc
Coney
24-02-2012, 05:38 PM
Exactly. Any cap would have to be a defined value. But even then there are so many crooks involved in football, administering the game and running fiefdom clubs that any regulatory intention is pretty much meaningless
Yeah - they'd probably increase their pay by putting money in Swiss bank accounts for them. ;)
adegoat27, etc.
Unai Tea
24-02-2012, 05:53 PM
But that would also mean players not wanting to go to a club which makes less earnings, like Wigan, Swansea etc. They do not have the brand value that a Utd, Liverpool, Madrid have and they will not be reaching that level unless they have a sustained period of success. Which brings us back to square one really!
Like Dennis mentioned, you can have salary caps like NBA but then it'll depend on which teams give out better bonuses or are likely to win the championship, like the Lakers, Heat, Dallas etc
Of course the better players will want to play for the top clubs, not only for brand strength and bigger stage but also increased pay. Unless you make the salary cap so low that it plays to the lowest common denominator. That would be a bit too far.
There are a number of ways to effect regulation and not all very simple. If there were actually a will to make it work than it would work. There are certainly areas to look at which could be manipulated. I suspect UEFA doesn't have the balls to tell Man City they can't effectively sponsor themselves to increase their revenues in order to maintain their unfair economic advantages. But you could make a salary cap based on anything really - 100% of gate fees, 75% of gate fees/25% sponsorship, average of attendance over 3 years X avg league ticket prices, etc.
There will always be clubs who try to break the rules. Those used to 'travelling by petrol' won't be keen on walking. But that's where majority buy-in and UEFA establishing a proper regulatory regime would help.
Xhaka Can’t
24-02-2012, 09:49 PM
FY, your point makes sense the way football clubs operate and how the League is governed. North American sport is somewhat different because where there are caps they are based on League revenues. A key feature of the caps that doesn't get appreciated here is that in addition to there being a ceiling to the cap, there also is a floor. Teams cannot pay less than the minimum (floor) of the cap.
These controls are only good however if you don't have viable competing Leagues, and the owners of the Clubs, particularly those funded by oligarchs/oil barons would never go for it.
I 100% agree with OP.
Salary cap fixes one of the biggest problems.... although I would prefer for financial fair play to just be enforced better (as I would worry with a cap the players would slowly get a less and less fair share).
I see a lot of issues that Wenger (and respectively Arsenal) suffer in the transfer market (that we don't get to see) revolve around salary since the big spenders have totally skewed the market in that respect.
Flavs
01-03-2012, 01:08 PM
talking of fixing football
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17220640
talking of fixing football
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17220640
Ha. That's incredible.
Overturning a 9 goal deficit - it should be quite easy to spot if it was fixed. Indonesia playing rush-goalie would be the first clue.
Maybe we have a chance against Milan after all.
Letters
01-03-2012, 01:47 PM
Not sure if anyone has said this but Champions League should just be for Champions.
And get rid of the seeding and group stages.
Cripps_orig
01-03-2012, 01:54 PM
Keep the seedings and the group stages
No one wants to see an FA Cupesque type of Pub Team final with teams the calibre of Millwall, Portsmouth, Cardiff, Southampton, Arsenal etc in it.
Should be for champions though, i agree
Dog Toffee
01-03-2012, 02:00 PM
If only champions enter, itl last about a fortnight.
Letters
01-03-2012, 02:01 PM
The main thing which is wrong football is the level of money and the way the whole system is intended to keep the top teams rich which makes it more likely that they stay up there and sod the rest. Seeding and Group stages promote this. Football was a lot better when teams like Coventry and Wimbledon could win the FA Cup against the odds. that was the very essence of the 'magic of the cup' which is sadly lacking now as it's overshadowed by the CL and the top teams usually steamroller the rest and most years one of a small group of teams wins it.
Letters
01-03-2012, 02:01 PM
If only champions enter, itl last about a fortnight.
You understand that that's how it used to be and it lasted all season?
Cripps_orig
01-03-2012, 02:02 PM
If only champions enter, itl last about a fortnight.Like it did in the 70s, 80s and early 90s?
Dog Toffee
01-03-2012, 02:03 PM
How? Do they play each other ten times or something?
Cripps_orig
01-03-2012, 02:04 PM
How? Do they play each other ten times or something?:haha:
Newcomers :rolleyes:
Letters
01-03-2012, 02:04 PM
How? Do they play each other ten times or something?
No, it was 2 leg knock-outs. They just didn't play every 5 sodding minutes. Do we really need a bazillion games every week? Most of them aren't even very good games.
Marc Overmars
01-03-2012, 02:09 PM
How? Do they play each other ten times or something?
This is just a guess, but I think they might have had numerous champions from all over Europe and not just the big nations.
Dog Toffee
01-03-2012, 02:10 PM
I just dont remember the old european cup and how it functioned.
On reflection Id say it would be better that way too.
We'd never be in it though.
Cripps_orig
01-03-2012, 02:12 PM
I just dont remember the old european cup and how it functioned.
On reflection Id say it would be better that way too.
We'd never be in it though.Some would say we are hardly in these ones as well
Letters
01-03-2012, 02:14 PM
We'd never be in it though.
We'd have been in it 3 times under Wenger. But, and here's the point, that would make it more exciting if and when we are in it. Teams being in it year on year make it less exciting and special as it becomes routine. Plus it gives them such a big financial advantage that it makes it easier for them to stay in the top few and it can all become self perpetuating. City and Chelsea bought their way in, it's pretty hard to do it otherwise (which, grudgingly, makes Spurs achievement this season quite impressive although they've not exactly been thrifty themselves).
Dog Toffee
01-03-2012, 02:15 PM
Only for the last 15 years thanks to Wenger.
Olivier's xmas twist
01-03-2012, 02:17 PM
We'd have been in it 3 times under Wenger. But, and here's the point, that would make it more exciting if and when we are in it. Teams being in it year on year make it less exciting and special as it becomes routine. Plus it gives them such a big financial advantage that it makes it easier for them to stay in the top few and it can all become self perpetuating. City and Chelsea bought their way in, it's pretty hard to do it otherwise (which, grudgingly, makes Spurs achievement this season quite impressive although they've not exactly been thrifty themselves).
Yep and also we not be able to settle for 2nd/3rd/4th, we'd actully have to spend money and compete to get in it, it be much better for our league tbh.
Olivier's xmas twist
01-03-2012, 02:19 PM
Only for the last 15 years thanks to Wenger.
No thanks to Uefa chaning the rules.
Dog Toffee
01-03-2012, 02:20 PM
There are so many great teams in Europe that arent necessarily champions though. In spain every year one of Barca or Madrid wouldnt be in it. I think the way the CL is a.t.m isnt exactly boring and in some countries it is only the top one or two isnt it?
Marc Overmars
01-03-2012, 02:22 PM
My old man told me that back in the day, because only champions were in the European Cup, it arguably made the Uefa Cup harder to win and it carried more prestige than it does now, because the teams who finished 2nd and 3rd were involved.
My old man told me that back in the day, because only champions were in the European Cup, it arguably made the Uefa Cup harder to win and it carried more prestige than it does now, because the teams who finished 2nd and 3rd were involved.
I said shit fuck boll.....
oh.
Cripps_orig
01-03-2012, 02:25 PM
My old man told me that back in the day, because only champions were in the European Cup, it arguably made the Uefa Cup harder to win and it carried more prestige than it does now, because the teams who finished 2nd and 3rd were involved.Pretty much.
Also bring the CWC back. That and the UEFA Cup in the 90s were great trophies.
Olivier's xmas twist
01-03-2012, 02:27 PM
There are so many great teams in Europe that arent necessarily champions though. In spain every year one of Barca or Madrid wouldnt be in it. I think the way the CL is a.t.m isnt exactly boring and in some countries it is only the top one or two isnt it?
Thats just more way to make Uefa money tbh, they rather have madrid or barca in it even if they don't win their league their some rubbish russian or greek team who wins their league no one has heard of and its wrong.
We should be no where near the Cl just seems to be a safety blaket for us and its dangerous. We benefit from it being just champs or top 2 tbh.
Letters
01-03-2012, 02:40 PM
There are so many great teams in Europe that arent necessarily champions though. In spain every year one of Barca or Madrid wouldnt be in it. I think the way the CL is a.t.m isnt exactly boring and in some countries it is only the top one or two isnt it?
If you're happy with a system where a little group of clubs at the top of each club can qualify year on year and qualifying gives them the prestige and money to stay up there (or, at least, makes it easier to) then yeah, it's fine. If you're OK with knowing from the start of a season that only one of 2 or 3 clubs can win the league. I personally think that makes things less interesting.
Should be the champions, for the champs league / european cup.
Then winners of the FA cup and maybe Carling Cup for the Cup Winners Cup
Then two / three for the europa.
5 places for Europe.
Seems good to me.
Olivier's xmas twist
01-03-2012, 03:04 PM
Get rid of Plantini and Blatter that will be a start to fixing football.
Dog Toffee
01-03-2012, 04:04 PM
If you're happy with a system where a little group of clubs at the top of each club can qualify year on year and qualifying gives them the prestige and money to stay up there (or, at least, makes it easier to) then yeah, it's fine. If you're OK with knowing from the start of a season that only one of 2 or 3 clubs can win the league. I personally think that makes things less interesting.
I wouldnt say the CL is 100% responsible for the fact only a few teams have the chance to win the PL each year. In fact when we won the double, wasnt it a 2 horse race between us and united? And now Id say its a race between 4/5 clubs (United, City, Spurs, Us, Chelsea) and maybe Liverpool. Clearly only either Manchester team will win it this year, but next season you could hardly say any of those teams dont stand a chance. And you cant say its only the CL that creates an 'elite' at the top. Its down to the fact rich people like having football clubs to flaunt as their own property, CL or no CL there will always we rich successful teams and poorer less successful one IMO.
Letters
01-03-2012, 04:34 PM
It's not only the CL, no. But it's a factor.
Xhaka Can’t
01-03-2012, 06:26 PM
How? Do they play each other ten times or something?
You stayed in it until you lost 6 games or had a goal difference of -12 or greater, whichever came first.
Xhaka Can’t
01-03-2012, 06:29 PM
We'd have been in it 3 times under Wenger. But, and here's the point, that would make it more exciting if and when we are in it. Teams being in it year on year make it less exciting and special as it becomes routine. Plus it gives them such a big financial advantage that it makes it easier for them to stay in the top few and it can all become self perpetuating. City and Chelsea bought their way in, it's pretty hard to do it otherwise (which, grudgingly, makes Spurs achievement this season quite impressive although they've not exactly been thrifty themselves).
Tell me more about this 'financial advantage' you speak of.
Coney
02-03-2012, 08:51 AM
Tell me more about this 'financial advantage' you speak of.
It means the board has a financial advantage over the supporters.
Flavs
02-03-2012, 09:16 AM
get rid of sky that would be a good start. That would also increase the number of 3pm on a Saturday kick off s, sick of the fixture list getting buggered up by them and the silly money we have to pay for football.
Cap salaries and goal line tech are a must. Bring in real financial fair play rules not the bogus softly-softly shit we get now.
Hand out more retrospective bans for dangerous play, diving, play acting and abusing officials.
Premiership clubs shouldn't be allowed to loan players to each other
FA cup replays should be ditched
Ref's should be given more power to send players off for pushing and shoving them and swearing at them.
I am sure there are many others as well.
The main thing and its the one thing that would fix all other things is that the FA, UEFA and FIFA need to strap on a pair
Letters
02-03-2012, 09:18 AM
Don't agree with the Cup Replay thing. Some of the epic replay runs, like Leeds in the glorious, thoroughly enjoyable 92/93 season, were brilliant.
Agree with the rest though.
Ollie the Optimist
02-03-2012, 11:30 AM
if you swear at the ref or get abusive towards him its a straight red. it would soon stop ****s like rooney and terry going mental at every decision. make it like rugby, only captain and offending player allowed to speak to them.
Ollie the Optimist
02-03-2012, 11:34 AM
also how about one challenge per team per game for major decisions, such as offside goals, disallowed goals and penalties. nothing like minor free kicks in centre circle.
go upstairs, ref checks, if penalty then decsion stays and team lose challenge. if not decision reversed and team keep challenge
also how about one challenge per team per game for major decisions, such as offside goals, disallowed goals and penalties. nothing like minor free kicks in centre circle.
go upstairs, ref checks, if penalty then decsion stays and team lose challenge. if not decision reversed and team keep challenge
Great idea! So glad you thought of it. ;)
Flavs
02-03-2012, 12:32 PM
No fuck that cricket and rugby shit. Don't want stop starts they suck ass like Syn.
Also to letters, FA cup replays do nothing but clog up the fixture list. Oh and i think if you are drawn against a a lower league side you should always play away from home.
I don't care so much about the actual match. I don't really care if the ref is dodgy as fuck. It's half the fun of it.
I love the fact that the ref gets so much grief. It's brilliant when the ref is against you, and you go on and stuff the team you're playing. It's brilliant. That's what footballs about. That's why rugby is so fucking shit to spectate at.
Sod all this in-match replay stuff.
Use that after the game. Punish the ref. Punish cheats like Bale. Suspend Joey Barton for what he did.
Don't ruin the spectacle though. Being angry and drunk and berating the wanker in the black is what it's all about. Always has been.
Letters
02-03-2012, 12:37 PM
Also to letters, FA cup replays do nothing but clog up the fixture list.
Only because of the silly number of CL games. Change that back to just the champions qualifying and it would be fine like it used to be.
Ollie the Optimist
02-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Great idea! So glad you thought of it. ;)
sorry mate hadnt read the threat so missed you post
Flavs
02-03-2012, 12:43 PM
Only because of the silly number of CL games. Change that back to just the champions qualifying and it would be fine like it used to be.
Oh
I like the champions league, i mean yes its an extension of G8/12 and makes millions for the rich clubs year on year but i enjoy watching it.
There's another point, TV revenue should be dished out more evenly. With so many lower league clubs still facing bankruptcy due to the ITV Digital scandal they could do with a bit of help.
McNamara That Ghost...
02-03-2012, 01:17 PM
Raise the prize money in the Europa League and decrease the prize money/tv rights in the Premier League; that can be the only reason why the competiton is treated with contempt in this country but not in others.
I'd concur tentatively on getting rid of FA Cup replays or have all FA Cup games midweek or move the League Cup so it finishes much earlier in the season, or get rid of it all together. More options than I thought there would be actually.
Coney
02-03-2012, 01:25 PM
Only because of the silly number of CL games. Change that back to just the champions qualifying and it would be fine like it used to be.
Make the CL knock-out all from start to finish. That will cut down the number of games unless you end up being one of those getting close to the final.
Or.
Make the CL a knock-out tournament played at the end of the season. Scrap the WC and EC that most of us don't seem to give a toss about anyway.
Coney
02-03-2012, 01:26 PM
Raise the prize money in the Europa League and decrease the prize money/tv rights in the Premier League; that can be the only reason why the competiton is treated with contempt in this country but not in others.
I'd concur tentatively on getting rid of FA Cup replays or have all FA Cup games midweek or move the League Cup so it finishes much earlier in the season, or get rid of it all together. More options than I thought there would be actually.
The League Cup has been the poor relation of the FA Cup since it started. If it disappeared, I'd not be to upset about that.
Letters
02-03-2012, 01:36 PM
If a game is getting boring: multi-ball power play line in pinball :cool:
Dog Toffee
02-03-2012, 07:30 PM
Make the CL knock-out all from start to finish. That will cut down the number of games unless you end up being one of those getting close to the final.
Or.
Make the CL a knock-out tournament played at the end of the season. Scrap the WC and EC that most of us don't seem to give a toss about anyway.
Scrap the World Cup? :haha:
edit- To settle draws after 90 minutes in cup games, hire a sniper to take out a random player every 5 minutes with a headshot until game is settled, or everyone dies.
Letters
03-03-2012, 10:23 AM
Don't scrap the World Cup. Do scrap all the pointless international friendlies which break up a season and no-one cares much about.
Ollie the Optimist
03-03-2012, 01:47 PM
ban suarez
Cripps_orig
03-03-2012, 01:48 PM
Especially against us
The guy is fucking quality
Coney
03-03-2012, 01:50 PM
Scrap the World Cup? :haha:
:satan:
Coney
03-03-2012, 01:52 PM
Do scrap all the pointless international friendlies which break up a season and no-one cares much about.
Definitely. :good:
McNamara That Ghost...
03-03-2012, 03:14 PM
FIFA give us a £10 million bung for RVP's wages.
Olivier's xmas twist
03-03-2012, 03:19 PM
FIFA give us a £10 million bung for RVP's wages.
Wenger would go and spend it on 5 pub teamer.
Coney
03-03-2012, 03:25 PM
Wenger would go and spend it on 5 pub teamer.
Unless the board intercepted it....
Nah it's ok, football's alright now.
/thread.
Olivier's xmas twist
03-03-2012, 03:26 PM
Unless the board intercepted it....
True PHW needs a new boat.
Nah it's ok, football's alright now.
/thread.
:lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.