What would you change in football?

[brummie]

Lots of good ideas here, but for me, no end of fiddling with competitions, domestic or European, is going to change things measurably.

 

Two things we need - salary cap, transfer limits.

 

And I say that as a supporter of a club with a rich, benevolent owner. It is ruining football to the point at which it just becomes a rich man's plaything, about as much of a "sport" as Formula One.

 

Provincial, mildly successful businessmen we scorned in the past - Ellis, Swales, Edwards (Louis), the one Cloughie used to argue with at Derby, that lot - might have been small time in their thinking, but at least back then we had a league where clubs like Nottingham Forest could come from nowhere and win the league.

 

For all the new money in the game these days, we may have a shiny, spangly, well marketed competition, but unless you support one of four clubs, you're largely insignificant.

 

[madras]

You are wrong on so many fronts.

 

How did it use to be:

 

1. Teams shared the match proceeds (this was when TV money was not as big as now, so match proceeds mattered even in the first division. Teams with 50K crowds would get the proceeds forma 50K crowd every other week and at all other times share the smaller gates. This meant that the bigger supported teams had a bigger pot over the season and could give themselves an edge.

 

2. The Football League took the TV money (plus whatever sponsorship) and awarded prizes throughout the leagues. The winners had the lions share but the difference was not the gulf we get today.

 

3. Money was reserved for developement of the game.

 

 

What changed?

 

It started for me with Manchester United's campaign to keep all the gate money, not satisfied with the edge that extra money every other week gave them they wanted it all. The League buckled under pressure and changed it so the home team kept the home gate.

 

There were numerous threats of breaking away as the 'bigger' teams wanted more of the TV money but the League would not give on this, hence when Sky appeared on the scene and offered sums of money never seen before in the game, the opportunity was taken by the bigger teams to break away.

 

The Premier League was formed on behalf of the 'bigger' teams so that they could cream the TV recenue.

 

The League had to come to some compromise to retain a way into the money for other teams.

 

 

I'm not saying that the winners should not have rewards, its just the rewards are now on a scale totally unjustified and makes the top end of the Premier League a 'privileged members club'.

 

 

A well run small team always had a chance, the likes of Ipswich, Burnley, Derby all won the League, it cannot happen these days.

 

 

Some clubs have far too much power and they have syphoned the money into their pockets to mismanage and drop down the drain.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be mistaking teams buying success with earning success. The wealth in the game right now could make for an enteraining league, isn't it funny, at a time when there is more money in football than at any other time, the number of teams in financial trouble is at record levels.

 

 

 

It's normal practice when you think someone is "wrong on so many fronts" to offer up an argument that contradicts what they said, rather than backs it up. All of that is about scale.

 

Some clubs have always bought success, it's [again] just on a bigger scale now, hence why it's harder for a well run small team to win something.

 

You can't take the influence of money out of football, it's simply not possible, people who think it is are deluding themselves. There are ways that it could be made more competitive - perhaps a restriction on senior squad size or something like that - but a wage cap isn't one.

true in that you can't take the influence of money out but never in the history of the game has it been set up in such a way, via the competitions and the media so the rich get richer and the possibility of a lesser club to reach the heights deliberatly lessened. from the champs league money to the way attendance money isn't shared to the medias over the top coverage of the top league and therein the big 4 creating a s elf fulfilling prophecy to continue the hegemony of these clubs.

[indi]

You are wrong on so many fronts.

 

How did it use to be:

 

1. Teams shared the match proceeds (this was when TV money was not as big as now, so match proceeds mattered even in the first division. Teams with 50K crowds would get the proceeds forma 50K crowd every other week and at all other times share the smaller gates. This meant that the bigger supported teams had a bigger pot over the season and could give themselves an edge.

 

2. The Football League took the TV money (plus whatever sponsorship) and awarded prizes throughout the leagues. The winners had the lions share but the difference was not the gulf we get today.

 

3. Money was reserved for developement of the game.

 

 

What changed?

 

It started for me with Manchester United's campaign to keep all the gate money, not satisfied with the edge that extra money every other week gave them they wanted it all. The League buckled under pressure and changed it so the home team kept the home gate.

 

There were numerous threats of breaking away as the 'bigger' teams wanted more of the TV money but the League would not give on this, hence when Sky appeared on the scene and offered sums of money never seen before in the game, the opportunity was taken by the bigger teams to break away.

 

The Premier League was formed on behalf of the 'bigger' teams so that they could cream the TV recenue.

 

The League had to come to some compromise to retain a way into the money for other teams.

 

 

I'm not saying that the winners should not have rewards, its just the rewards are now on a scale totally unjustified and makes the top end of the Premier League a 'privileged members club'.

 

 

A well run small team always had a chance, the likes of Ipswich, Burnley, Derby all won the League, it cannot happen these days.

 

 

Some clubs have far too much power and they have syphoned the money into their pockets to mismanage and drop down the drain.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be mistaking teams buying success with earning success. The wealth in the game right now could make for an enteraining league, isn't it funny, at a time when there is more money in football than at any other time, the number of teams in financial trouble is at record levels.

 

 

 

It's normal practice when you think someone is "wrong on so many fronts" to offer up an argument that contradicts what they said, rather than backs it up. All of that is about scale.

 

Some clubs have always bought success, it's [again] just on a bigger scale now, hence why it's harder for a well run small team to win something.

 

You can't take the influence of money out of football, it's simply not possible, people who think it is are deluding themselves. There are ways that it could be made more competitive - perhaps a restriction on senior squad size or something like that - but a wage cap isn't one.

true in that you can't take the influence of money out but never in the history of the game has it been set up in such a way, via the competitions and the media so the rich get richer and the possibility of a lesser club to reach the heights deliberatly lessened. from the champs league money to the way attendance money isn't shared to the medias over the top coverage of the top league and therein the big 4 creating a s elf fulfilling prophecy to continue the hegemony of these clubs.

 

Yeah, like I said, it's all about scale.

[wacko]

You are wrong on so many fronts.

 

How did it use to be:

 

1. Teams shared the match proceeds (this was when TV money was not as big as now, so match proceeds mattered even in the first division. Teams with 50K crowds would get the proceeds forma 50K crowd every other week and at all other times share the smaller gates. This meant that the bigger supported teams had a bigger pot over the season and could give themselves an edge.

 

2. The Football League took the TV money (plus whatever sponsorship) and awarded prizes throughout the leagues. The winners had the lions share but the difference was not the gulf we get today.

 

3. Money was reserved for developement of the game.

 

 

What changed?

 

It started for me with Manchester United's campaign to keep all the gate money, not satisfied with the edge that extra money every other week gave them they wanted it all. The League buckled under pressure and changed it so the home team kept the home gate.

 

There were numerous threats of breaking away as the 'bigger' teams wanted more of the TV money but the League would not give on this, hence when Sky appeared on the scene and offered sums of money never seen before in the game, the opportunity was taken by the bigger teams to break away.

 

The Premier League was formed on behalf of the 'bigger' teams so that they could cream the TV recenue.

 

The League had to come to some compromise to retain a way into the money for other teams.

 

 

I'm not saying that the winners should not have rewards, its just the rewards are now on a scale totally unjustified and makes the top end of the Premier League a 'privileged members club'.

 

 

A well run small team always had a chance, the likes of Ipswich, Burnley, Derby all won the League, it cannot happen these days.

 

 

Some clubs have far too much power and they have syphoned the money into their pockets to mismanage and drop down the drain.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be mistaking teams buying success with earning success. The wealth in the game right now could make for an enteraining league, isn't it funny, at a time when there is more money in football than at any other time, the number of teams in financial trouble is at record levels.

 

 

 

It's normal practice when you think someone is "wrong on so many fronts" to offer up an argument that contradicts what they said, rather than backs it up. All of that is about scale.

 

Some clubs have always bought success, it's [again] just on a bigger scale now, hence why it's harder for a well run small team to win something.

 

You can't take the influence of money out of football, it's simply not possible, people who think it is are deluding themselves. There are ways that it could be made more competitive - perhaps a restriction on senior squad size or something like that - but a wage cap isn't one.

true in that you can't take the influence of money out but never in the history of the game has it been set up in such a way, via the competitions and the media so the rich get richer and the possibility of a lesser club to reach the heights deliberatly lessened. from the champs league money to the way attendance money isn't shared to the medias over the top coverage of the top league and therein the big 4 creating a s elf fulfilling prophecy to continue the hegemony of these clubs.

 

While I do agree that the money is unevenly spread in the PL, the situation is much worse in other leagues. I think a large part of the "Big 4" CL oligopoly in England is that in addition to being that bit richer, the Big 4 are also very well run clubs. You could easily imagine another club breaking into the top 4 if the current incumbents had comedy management like Perez or Ashley.

 

You don't see the same correspondence between income and success in the Bundesliga, for example. I think a lot of this is due to the fan-controlled nature of clubs, which means their executive management is much more political and their board members can't afford to look beyond the next elections. What's more, many elected chairmen are afraid to keep a low profile, or to employ a manager/coach with a higher profile than themselves. Self-made billionaires generally know a thing or two about running a successful organisation, and can take a much longer-term view.

 

We might have a right couple of dicks in charge, but they know better than to fire Benitez even if they hate him, because right now it would probably have  a massive negative impact on the value of their investment. An elected chairman would rarely think twice about firing the manager in a similar situation, because there's no downside for him personally.

 

Also, what about giving one player on each side one of these:

http://www.supersumo.co.uk/Gladiator%20Sticks%20-1.jpg

[Village Idiot]

Eh? Barcelona and Madrid are two out of four fan-run clubs in Spain... aren't they quite successful? The real state billionaires that own Atlético are doing quite fine too  (not)

[wacko]

Eh? Barcelona and Madrid are two out of four fan-run clubs in Spain... aren't they quite successful? The real state billionaires that own Atlético are doing quite fine too  (not)

 

Yes, very. In Madrid's case it's largely in spite of the structure and management, not because of it. They both do so well because Spanish clubs have individual TV-rights deals, meaning those two take over half of the TV money in the entire league. Madrid and Barca are the 1st and 3rd richest clubs in the world in terms of turnover, while there isn't a single other Spanish club in the top 25 (by value). Valencia made it into last year's table with little more than a third of Barca's income.

 

Atlético is and always has been a basket case. Businessmen only run clubs well if they treat them like businesses, not playthings.

[Village Idiot]

Don't get me started on the Real Madrid tv contract. A Catalan company of all things bought the rights of that scum and they pay them more than they pay us 

 

Aye, we get more money from out TV contracts, but La Liga doesn't give out prize money like the Premier League does, and the CL market pool money is also absorbed by the media rights holders (this has the side effect of giving more financial stability to Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, by the way, since a bad European campaign or failing to qualify - like it happened to us once - doesn't hit the bottom line as badly as it would do to an English team. Of course and exceptional campaign like ours last season isn't rewarded as much either, but I prefer the stability).

[MW]

 

Champions League to be for the Champions of each top league of each country, the 2 cup winners, last years winner and the Europa League winner, should also be a knockout round only competition.

 

 

You think teams that win the league in N.Ireland and Wales should be in the Champions League ahead of the likes of Arsenal/Chelsea/whoever doesn't win the league that season?

 

Pthmadog vs Barcelona and some N.Irish team vs Inter Milan...sounds amazing whilst Chelsea play Real Madrid and Arsenal vs Juventus in the UEFA Cup.

 

Think this is a bad idea but each to their own.

[cubaricho]

 

Champions League to be for the Champions of each top league of each country, the 2 cup winners, last years winner and the Europa League winner, should also be a knockout round only competition.

 

You think teams that win the league in N.Ireland and Wales should be in the Champions League ahead of the likes of Arsenal/Chelsea/whoever doesn't win the league that season?

 

Pthmadog vs Barcelona and some N.Irish team vs Inter Milan...sounds amazing whilst Chelsea play Real Madrid and Arsenal vs Juventus in the UEFA Cup.

 

Think this is a bad idea but each to their own.

 

While you have a point, the thing I took most from it was the part bolded.  I hate all of the group stages and what-not.  They are designed just to give whatever teams are in the CL more TV revenue.

[Mowen]

Top two into the CL, next two into the UEFA, two into the cup winners cup. Sounds fine to me, there's way too much european football as it is.

[Groo]

 

Champions League to be for the Champions of each top league of each country, the 2 cup winners, last years winner and the Europa League winner, should also be a knockout round only competition.

 

 

You think teams that win the league in N.Ireland and Wales should be in the Champions League ahead of the likes of Arsenal/Chelsea/whoever doesn't win the league that season?

 

Pthmadog vs Barcelona and some N.Irish team vs Inter Milan...sounds amazing whilst Chelsea play Real Madrid and Arsenal vs Juventus in the UEFA Cup.

 

Think this is a bad idea but each to their own.

 

 

 

 

Why is it called CHAMPIONS LEAGUE?

 

The Ironioc thing is, it was exactly as proposed above before the big clubs united to enforce the change from the Eurpoean Cup to the Champions League. The problem they saw were:

 

1. Unless you finished top you did not get into it.

2. Early rounds were not top SKY attractions.

3. Possibility of a shock early exit.

 

All of the above had finincial implications, so it changed to the Champions League, thanks to the mega rich grouping together and (once again) threatening to create their own Super League.

 

So it changed to the current format.

 

1. The Leagues that contained the mega rich have up to 4 entries (so much for Champions), thus giving them an each way bet, no need to actually win a league, just get close enough (those extra pennies come in handy, can buy the best opposition players to warm the bench and play in the reserves, so they can't hurt you).

 

2. Make the unwashed play off so the mega's have no need to go to their grounds.

 

3. Make mini leagues (again a deterent to the freak one off result knocking a mega out), this by the way again generated more money.

 

4. If a mega does get knocked out, the bets are they will be 3rd, so let them go into the EUFA (or whatever its called), at least not all is lost.

 

 

EVERY MAJOR DECISION THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS BEEN HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY THE FEW TO THE BENEFIT OF THE FEW AND DETRIMENT TO THE MASSES.

 

 

The Football authorities are always too frightened of being pushed aside by the mega's. As I said before the only way I see it controlled is by only allowing a team to play under licence, they don't play ball they don;t play. The threat of a break away would be nulified as they cannot play under any circumstances without said license.

 

Until the mega's influence is taken away the game will contiunue to be manipulated and plundered by the mega's.

[merlin]

Nobody needs to do anything - football is in for the biggest wake-up call in its history before long.

 

As yet, the Global Financial crisis has not reached its zenith - certainly as far as the Western World is concerned. The export of jobs(and therefore prosperity)is going to continue remorselessly from West to east and  already Murdoch is whingeing because he wants people to pay for access to Internet newspaper sites..unless others play ball(which looks unlikely right now), he will NOT get his wish...Murdoch's worldwide Newscorp outfit relies heavily on borrowed finance to continue..once Interest rates start to rise(as they will because the UK/USA cannot afford to keep printing money without losing their International credit ratings), Murdoch will find it harder to make the profits the organization is used to and SKY will not be able to keep financing the Prem as they have done in past years.

 

In addition, as well-paid jobs go overseas and Benefits start being cut back(also inevitable for reason as above and insufficient Tax Revenues coming in), people will not be able to keep buying SKY packages...

 

This will not happen overnight, but it WILL happen...unemployment is scheduled to keep rising in the West over the next 2 years and eventually, the Debts will have to be paid.

 

Do not make the mistake of thinking football is immune - it ISN'T, and in 10 years' time, you will see a different set-up altogether..it is the that the well-run clubs with good youth policies  will be successful and football will return to being the People's Game once again.

 

In the meantime, the Dinosaurs at FIFA and UEFA need putting away so the game can join the 21st century and start using technology to ensure TOTAL FAIRNESS in games....don't hold your breath....

[Guest float one in]

Three foreigners rule.

[wacko]

 

Champions League to be for the Champions of each top league of each country, the 2 cup winners, last years winner and the Europa League winner, should also be a knockout round only competition.

 

 

You think teams that win the league in N.Ireland and Wales should be in the Champions League ahead of the likes of Arsenal/Chelsea/whoever doesn't win the league that season?

 

Pthmadog vs Barcelona and some N.Irish team vs Inter Milan...sounds amazing whilst Chelsea play Real Madrid and Arsenal vs Juventus in the UEFA Cup.

 

Think this is a bad idea but each to their own.

 

 

 

 

Why is it called CHAMPIONS LEAGUE?

 

The Ironioc thing is, it was exactly as proposed above before the big clubs united to enforce the change from the Eurpoean Cup to the Champions League. The problem they saw were:

 

1. Unless you finished top you did not get into it.

2. Early rounds were not top SKY attractions.

3. Possibility of a shock early exit.

 

All of the above had finincial implications, so it changed to the Champions League, thanks to the mega rich grouping together and (once again) threatening to create their own Super League.

 

So it changed to the current format.

 

1. The Leagues that contained the mega rich have up to 4 entries (so much for Champions), thus giving them an each way bet, no need to actually win a league, just get close enough (those extra pennies come in handy, can buy the best opposition players to warm the bench and play in the reserves, so they can't hurt you).

 

2. Make the unwashed play off so the mega's have no need to go to their grounds.

 

3. Make mini leagues (again a deterent to the freak one off result knocking a mega out), this by the way again generated more money.

 

4. If a mega does get knocked out, the bets are they will be 3rd, so let them go into the EUFA (or whatever its called), at least not all is lost.

 

 

EVERY MAJOR DECISION THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS BEEN HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY THE FEW TO THE BENEFIT OF THE FEW AND DETRIMENT TO THE MASSES.

 

 

The Football authorities are always too frightened of being pushed aside by the mega's. As I said before the only way I see it controlled is by only allowing a team to play under licence, they don't play ball they don;t play. The threat of a break away would be nulified as they cannot play under any circumstances without said license.

 

Until the mega's influence is taken away the game will contiunue to be manipulated and plundered by the mega's.

 

Which is a perfectly valid way to see it. It isn't just the big clubs, though, it's the sponsors as well. They really, really don't want to see the big teams going out early because the big teams bring big audiences (including neutrals), and wouldn't be prepared to pay as much as they do without the system being set up to keep the big teams in the competition as long as possible.

 

The four, three, two or one teams per league system vs champions only comes down to whether you'd rather see the best sides in Europe or a few top-notch sides plus a bunch of little-league sides who'd struggle to make the top half of the Prem. It shouldn't be called the Champions League though, not even the Champions' League.

 

Obviously, my preference is for the current system, as we're a much better European than domestic side under Benitez. If we were regularly winning the league, I'd rather have the old European Cup format with a few good sides, but mostly minnows.

[NG32]

Not wanting to bring Hockey into this but they have gone a long way to making their league competetive for all teams.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap

[Groo]

Not wanting to bring Hockey into this but they have gone a long way to making their league competetive for all teams.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap

 

That was the first time I came to Canada, I spent 9 months in Montreal and was looking forward to go see a game.

 

The players went on strike and a whole season was cancelled, in the end the players signed up to the capping ready for the following season.

[huss9]

should ban all loan deals between clubs in the top tiers of their leagues. wouldn't prevent the best young talent being mopped up by the big clubs but would maybe make the players stop and think about who they signed for.

players are stopped playing against their own teams but they can still affect outcome of the league and champions league in general as towards the end of season relegation and top of the table issues can be decided by what goes on in other matches - open to coruption and cheating  ( i hope that sounds clear, as not making the point very well).

also loans should be emergency only. if u want a player - sign him. can't be doing with having a team made up of loanees.

[Mowen]

Yeah, I've made a thread about this before. All loans should be abolished imo.