Pep is being found out, like many of us predicted. Now that he has to work and try and build a team he's blank, his face on the bench today was a picture of a million words. Conte is showing him up, buying players for a team and not a name and not trying to be billy big balls alienating a key player to make a mark. A dogs dick could have won them trophies with Barca and Bayern, now he's got a challenge and he is being bossed by Conte, and given his smaller budget and squad, Klopp. He's aged about 9 year already.
The moment I heard this I thought it sounded very self serving. At a big club the idea would be like international tournaments, have your entire squad available for substitution. To then be able to change who you like and a bunch of subs would unbalance the game even more than it is already, to maintain any sort of quality outside the top 20 or so clubs in europe this sort of idea needs to be kicked out of the park. I think most fans want the exact opposite.
The introduction of so many players would end up diminishing the match in my opinion - it would soon be abused and benefit those with larger squads - a big no from me
Seems unanimous that it would only serve to widen the gap between the bigger and smaller clubs. I haven't seen any arguments against having the additional subs as youth players though, that seems like something that would work well. It may mean more English players getting time on the pitch.
Agree with this esp if the extra subs could be designated UK under 23 players - would be a step up from the EFL trophy ( I can see going from strength to strength.) Would improve the national squads of all home countries.
Wouldn't that just encourage the big clubs to continue hoovering up all the young talent they can find? I'm not against the idea I'm just resigned to the premise that every change is going to be abused.
I don't think it'd increase any hoovering, the big clubs would still go for all the best youth players as they already do. It's not like they don't bother signing talented kids because they can't use them as a fourth sub.
The big clubs would still hoover but more UK talent would be sucked up and developed for our UK National sides Agree with you every system is abused by the powerful clubs -
We're probably the most powerful club in the world now, so pray tell Wanderer, what 'system' are we abusing exactly?
The murky world of FFP and all its associated practices - to be honest other big clubs abuse this more than your lot. I really thought you would be aware of this or are you being a little devil It's not important issue as the powers that be will not introduce more subs atm
Very few clubs play financially fairer than we do, we borrow and pay back money legitimately and consistently post huge profits, perhaps not this year, but us vs Sunderland in the grand scheme of things... you're way more guilty of using sugar daddy money to keep yourselves in a strong position. The only reason you see your club as a victim, is because you're thinking small, see the bigger picture... there's 3 other professional leagues in this country. If financial fair play means you only spend what you can afford as a business, with no private funding from your owner, you wouldn't be supporting a PL club.
Agree with you there but the victimised team thing is a default mindset, at times, of sleeping or almost comatose giants - many of your fans default mindset is (begrudgingly justified ) arrogance But we move on to Chelsea now
Sleeping giant it's a term cheaply sellotaped onto a club's name, sort of a desperate caveat, usually by it's own fans, to add some sort of gravity to the fact that they've won nisht worth wiping their arses on for 500 years. When can we call Arsenal a sleeping giant? The topic we were discussing mate, is you saying the big clubs are financially cheating the smaller ones out of a fair game... the hypocrisy is incredible.
Ridiculous even mentioning Arsenal with being a sleeping giant - look sellotape or duck tape the fact is clubs immersed in cash are never going to be sleeping giants - arrogant rivalry is at play here - mendacious
You've lost me. Your original point was worth discussing although you quickly retreated and changed the subject. Now you're talking about sleeping Giants, well done. Enjoy your Xmas.
But historically all the recent history came about via circumstances that could not be predicted for a football club. ManU got lucky when it avoided being bought by Michael Knighton. Sky's inception gave you a little more wealth. Got further lucky when Hughes, Ince and Kanchelskis headed off to Europe for bigger wage packets than ManU could afford so they were forced to play kids who who were alledgedly not ready, according to Fergie, for first team football but you could not afford to buy anyone in. Got further lucky with the Bosman ruling when you filched top players who were getting to end of contract, Yorke and Bosnich especially. So for you all you are entitled to bask in the reflected glory about who or what you are now, however it was not planned but circumstances just fell your way and the backroom boys who came up with the marketing strategy are the ingredient that was the basis of establishing the club as a world wide brand.
We are not a sleeping giant. We're a relatively small club that used to be a big club. The giant left some time ago. We're more like a hobbled dwarf.
What on earth are you going on about... I don't even know where to begin. Let's just go random... You know we paid £12m for Yorke? WTF has Bosman got to do with anything? Kanchelskis forced a move away from the club in one of the most controversial transfers of all time, he went to that big European giant - Everton. Hughes was sold to European giant -Chelsea as an ageing centre forward. Ince was sold because he was the self appointed boss in his own head, Fergie did this with every big headed player. Sorry but there you go again making up your own facts and history, it's a trait of yours and I'm not prepared to engage in a serious debate with somebody who just waffles on in hope that you may blag your way to sounding valid. Seriously that post just stinks of bitterness and if you wanna apportion everything to pure luck then go ahead but I reserve my right to laugh in your face.
There's a lot of mistakes (is mistakes too kind, not sure?) in the original post but what I would agree with is that United were lucky in some part, the luck being that they dominated at the right time - just when the English league was growing far more than it ever had before. However, every club who succeeds has had some luck and overall it's fair to say you make your own luck really, they could have sacked Fergy and didn't. Man United were already a big club prior to winning lots of Premier leagues, they just weren't anywhere as big as they are now, and there's an argument to have that the Premier League wouldn't have grown as fast if it wasn't for Fergusons United (they did play attractive football in the main). Plus there is a much fairer split of the money in England than most of the top leagues!
His posts just consist of made up garbage mate it's boring debating with him cos as soon as you prove him wrong he starts claiming that you've been using Wikipedia because it's impossible to remember anything. There's elements of luck to any success story but I could argue other factors have worked against us over the course of history.
