Re: The Football Thread - 2011/12

by skully Sun 28 Aug 2011, 21:34

Here's your coat, beams. Very Happy

by LeFromage Sun 28 Aug 2011, 22:36

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, you're right, they are a rabble. It must be all about Wenger not wanting to spend the money, heard there's 80 Million plus in the kitty. Dello, you must know, remember on champ it was always more of a pleasure to get cheap signings and they 'blow up' into one of the world's big stars - I think he's just got addicted to that.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he's a major CM/FM caner when he gets home. Because there, in made up computer land, his model works perfectly: sign up all the youngsters with high potential ability, get them cheap, train them up, watch them fly, sell them on at a massive profit, bring through the next batch.

Works every time. Because IT'S NOT F*CKING REAL!!!

Maybe he thinks it's a documentary or something.

"Ah kennot understand wah zis iz not, 'ow you say, woking. Ah ran frew multiple scenarios on may leptop and we win every time. Maybe ver iz a glitch in ver Premier League."

(appalling effort at a French accent there, for which a better man than me would apologise)

by lardbucket Sun 28 Aug 2011, 22:46

use the fors, Dello

by Basil Mon 29 Aug 2011, 00:37

beamer wrote:They'd be allowed to write the debts off, pay local businesses and charities 1p in the pound and carry on where they left off...

Are you a Portsmouth creditor by any chance?

by Zat Mon 29 Aug 2011, 03:09

eowyn wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:Not sure what you're going on about really Ange, narcotics? Is the football league dying? What's brought on this tirade?

Sorry, I just hate The Reds. And think more and more small clubs might not survive in the current economic climate.

Just ignore me, it's safest to be honest.

beamer wrote:Clubs always survive, they've been saying for 30 years lots of clubs will go out of business, and there's always someone steps in to save them. They're part of local communities so there tends to be someone rich enough who wants to see them continue, or a professional bankrupter and rescuer of clubs like Mandaric, Ridsdale, Bates etc. OK, not many will challenge the big sides but even the very few that do go under are restarted and eventually return to the Football League.

Come on guys... Football's great when it's dominated by a handful of clubs where nobody else gets a look in. I mean, the Scottish Premier League is terrific!

by skully Mon 29 Aug 2011, 03:15

Aye Z. Scotland, Portugal, England, Holland and Spain (prolly others as well) always have one of 2 or 3 teams that are basically guaranteed to win the comp. Makes you wonder why the supporters of other clubs even turn up.

by taipan Mon 29 Aug 2011, 04:26

skully wrote:Aye Z. Scotland, Portugal, England, Holland and Spain (prolly others as well) always have one of 2 or 3 teams that are basically guaranteed to win the comp. Makes you wonder why the supporters of other clubs even turn up.

Aye, I blame Frerguson for all of the above.

by Henry Mon 29 Aug 2011, 04:29

Well, all Arsenal need is two quality defenders and they wont be terrible. After all, we did score two goals at Old Trafford, and should have scored about four....

by LeFromage Mon 29 Aug 2011, 08:39

Yes, because two slightly better centre backs will suddenly solve the issue of a side so positionally indisciplined and disinterested that not one player outside of the back line has any intention of tackling or tracking back or protecting their defence in some proactive way that doesn't involve standing on the halfway line flapping their arms at the injustice of it all.

They're a shambles. They could have had Vidic and Terry at the back and they'd have still gotten smashed.

Arsenal are so easy to overload. You just need midfielders running from deep - which United had in abundance - and their defence collapses as no-one follows the runs and they're constantly left with a back four (or three, as one of the full backs is usually wandering aimlessly miles up the field) trying to contain five or six.

It's not rocket science - you defend as a team. That's never changed in the history of football. You make it as hard as possible for the opposition to even get to within 30 yards of your goal, let alone into space in a dangerous area.

Fundamental, basic, schoolboy stuff - all beyond a team with the fourth highest wage bill in the country and a manager on £6 million.

by JGK Mon 29 Aug 2011, 14:56

skully wrote:Dear God in Heaven. 8-2 belting for the Arse!!!! WTF??? I had hoped that the send-off was some sort of excuse, but they were down 6-2 when it occurred. FMD.

Just watched the match. Could have been 10-4 on another day...

by PeterCS Mon 29 Aug 2011, 14:58

F.ed in the A indeed.

by JGK Mon 29 Aug 2011, 15:04

eowyn wrote:Death of the small clubs. Someone tell me why it's good only likes of Man U will carry on.

I willlingly bitch slap Alex Freguson over and over and over and over and over again, if any kind of difference could be made to the football league, which is dying a slow and painful death.

Is it worth pointing out that Ferguson was the coach of the title winning team the last time someone other than Rangers or Celtic won in Scotland. That was in 1985 FFS.

by beamer Mon 29 Aug 2011, 17:45

I think the only way to make football much more competitive would be to have a closed shop European Super League with salary caps and a draft system, like the NFL etc. Of course it would cut off the smaller clubs for good, and the pyramid system is what the English game certainly and probably a lot of other countries are based on. That system does have its drawbacks though - every club wants to better itself and chase the Premier League dream, only a few can succeed, and to chase that dream you have to spend money you don't have in most cases. Supporters will demand investment as if you stand still you go backwards, so owners have the choice between "ambition" and balancing the books. That's why there's no money to be made in football really and clubs are just billionaires' toys.

So the European system versus the American one - which is better?

by beamer Mon 29 Aug 2011, 22:20

Anyway, Arsenal reportedly after Benayoun and Alex. Surely it's in Chavski's interest to string them along until Wednesday then pull the plug at the last minute?

by Gary 111 Mon 29 Aug 2011, 22:56

beamer wrote:I think the only way to make football much more competitive would be to have a closed shop European Super League with salary caps and a draft system, like the NFL etc. Of course it would cut off the smaller clubs for good, and the pyramid system is what the English game certainly and probably a lot of other countries are based on. That system does have its drawbacks though - every club wants to better itself and chase the Premier League dream, only a few can succeed, and to chase that dream you have to spend money you don't have in most cases. Supporters will demand investment as if you stand still you go backwards, so owners have the choice between "ambition" and balancing the books. That's why there's no money to be made in football really and clubs are just billionaires' toys.

So the European system versus the American one - which is better?

Could you not have an NFL style Super League system just in England alone? Bet you could find at least 15 teams that would front up 30,000+ fans.

by beamer Mon 29 Aug 2011, 23:19

Gary 111 wrote:Could you not have an NFL style Super League system just in England alone? Bet you could find at least 15 teams that would front up 30,000+ fans.

If there were salary caps though, all the best players would just go to other countries and we would end up with a Championship-standard league. Would have to be Europe wide to work, and even then there may come a time when another part of the world has the financial power.

Another problem of course would be the absence of promotion and relegation, with most teams having nothing to play for for most of the season - the only way around that is a play-off system that keeps most teams in with a chance for the majority of the season. I know people criticise the "parachute payments" that relegated teams get now, but if it wasn't for those I expect the Premier League would have closed off to promotion and relegation by now. And as for the rest, if there was a closed shop - I know I couldn't be bothered supporting a team that didn't even have a theoretical chance of reaching the top level. The rest would probably shut down or go semi-pro.

by taipan Tue 30 Aug 2011, 07:21

JGK wrote:
eowyn wrote:Death of the small clubs. Someone tell me why it's good only likes of Man U will carry on.

I willlingly bitch slap Alex Freguson over and over and over and over and over again, if any kind of difference could be made to the football league, which is dying a slow and painful death.

Is it worth pointing out that Ferguson was the coach of the title winning team the last time someone other than Rangers or Celtic won in Scotland. That was in 1985 FFS.

Sage JGK. I am getting pissed off with SAF and MU getting slated every time this comes up. There are far worse out there.

Of course you could also point out that MU hadn't won the league for about 27 years until he arrived.

by skully Tue 30 Aug 2011, 07:45

Aye, Fergie must have something. The Aberdeen thing then all his success at ManU certainly cannot be a fluke.

by LeFromage Wed 31 Aug 2011, 23:29

Deary me.

Arsenal sell their two best players for a combined £60 million.

They replace them with Chelsea reserve Yossi Benayoun - on loan - and Everton's poor man's Fabregas (at least he was two years ago before he f*cked his knee and became a shadow of even that mediocre player) Mikael Arteta for £10 million. After promising to reinvest the Farbregas and Nasri money in the side, and buy "super quality" players.

And this, a few months after raising season ticket prices to their highest ever level.

Unlucky, Arsenal fans. Your club has officially accepted mid-table mediocrity. And you're paying through the nose for the pleasure of watching it sink down the gurgler.