it wouldn't. but the clock would no longer be 90mins. They would have to decide who long to get the same game length. 60mins. whatever. It'd be a radical change. depends what you stop times for. goals direct free kicks injuries cards goal kicks? not for throws. not for people would just time waste in another way then...
Well if the delay happened just before the 90 mins and the clock was stopped you would still be in normal time. So what the **** are you going on about not being able to substitute them
Then fine them half their wages lol. If persistent offender then weeks wages. If still doesn't stop, fine the club for not controlling their players
Sorry jb was out. From what I remember, going on about changing rules to try and eradicate time wasting etc and the various ways they can do this. Needs a minimum of 6 votes to change them and it was 4 votes from fifa and 4 from someone else can't remember sorry. On phone at mo and nightmare trying to copy and paste stuff.
Thanks mate. I seem to remember a while back some talk of having a stopped clock and so the game wouldn't go on forever, having two 30 minute halves i.e. 60 min game instead of 90 mins. Just wish they'd stop messing around tbh. Shankly's words about football being a simple game of giving and taking passes and controlling the ball is being made a mockery of - how very dare they
I reckon all this is to pander to the U.S. and other markets. What are they going to do about people holding it in the corner, or playing the ball about at the back. If a team wants to waste a few minutes it's easy done. All part of the game, frustrating as **** when your 1 nil down an absolute joy to watch when your one nil up.
Banning injury time substitions? Your point was made about a scenario in normal playing time. What's the relevance?
Man City boss Pep Guardiola says Premier League title is five-horse race Kevin De Bruyne in contention to start for Man City vs Tottenham, live on Sky Sports Premier League on Monday https://www.skysports.com/football/...-says-premier-league-title-is-five-horse-race
Okay As there are some great collective brains on here can someone explain the difference to me what the difference is between your contract running out in say June and having a one year option on that And your contract running out Surely if there is a years option on it which can be forced your contract doesn’t actually run out So it still your fecking contract - you have a year left, wtf !!!
Well if the club don’t want to renew it in effect runs out this year but most clubs will renew to protect value and then look to sell or tie them down for another few years
just.my opinion but the option is in the hands of the club. with De gea. they activate it and get another 12 months and the player has no option but to take thier money. with one of the other 11 they don't want they can tell him to chuff off on a free. it seems very common at old Trafford.
that's why kkk said he wished markovic had this option a year ago. club would have told him to **** off and do one.
yeah but in effect Utd sign a 4+1 and we sign a 5. the reality is markovic could have gone this summer giving us 3mil but he is stupid enough to sit on 25k a week and end his own career. I can't even see him getting another club now.
in fairness we are looking at the markovic scenario from a fans point of view. if i was him i would probably have done the same( but obviously not playing for the team i support which he doesn't). no way in the real world you would ever earn that type of money, and you got to get it while you can. still a **** though
