RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted June 2, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2012 So what solution do you have? Should we return to a situation where the great Stanley Matthews received the maximum wage of 12 pound a week? http://en.wikipedia....tanley_Matthews Admittedly 12 pounds was a lot of money in 1949-50, but is nothing like the dizzy heights of today, way beyond inflation. Funny in regard to sporting 'wages', its the employer that encourages OTT payments and not as usually claimed a push by a union. Sorry to bring politics into this debate, but I think this issue is off the norm bashing. I guess clubs COULD gang together to reduce transfer fees & player wages, but they have little desire to do so. The need for the big clubs to spend BIG money to ensure access to the benefits of playing (better still, to do well) in the UCL, means they need the best players. After all the top Spanish & Italian clubs do exactly that. Kevin Martin It's an interesting thing - totally out of normal economic theory when you think about it. The wages should only be marginally above those that a player could earn elsewhere, to tempt them away from other careers. So a starting salary for a pro footballer should be about £40k per year (being kind - Rooney would probably be working in McDonalds if he wasnt a footballer?) Local Authorities have recently been told by the governement that the top earners in an organisation should earn no more than 10 times the lowest (do as I say not as I do, obviously) so that means Messi and co on £400k PER ANNUM. Still way over the top for what they could earn doing anything else. So how do we get to where we are now? Can't see Abramovich paying staff 50 times what he needs to to in any other part of his empire so why in football? Could the clubs get together and reduce player salaries massively and say ok, if you dont like it, go and get a proper job? I don't have the answer either Kevin, but it's fascinating. As an aside, can I say how good this forum is. Given the hatred football can engender, and the vitriolic comments on some other posts in RM Web, we seem to have really good conversations here conducted in a realy good spirit. I really enjoy this and thanks everyone! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 the offside law Why not just get rid of it altogether... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted June 2, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 2, 2012 do you remember schoolboy playground football and "goal hanging?" That's why you need the offside rule! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 How about making it like American football. An attacking side, a defensive side and a penalty taking side all exchanged as and when necessary. It would have to happen 'on the hoof' though, as play switched from one end to the other, so as not to slow the game down. Or base it on (ice) hockey? 20 players dressed, 6 at a time on the ice, changes either when the game is stopped or 'on the fly', with penalties for too many men on the ice at any time. So, with 11 at a time on the pitch, the equivalent for football would be 37 players dressed for each team - with continual unlimited substitution, that could be fun to watch! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 do you remember schoolboy playground football and "goal hanging?" That's why you need the offside rule! But just think how exciting it would be. Plenty of goals for all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 At least it would use the whole pitch and not just the middle! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium DavidLong Posted June 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 2, 2012 As an aside, can I say how good this forum is. Given the hatred football can engender, and the vitriolic comments on some other posts in RM Web, we seem to have really good conversations here conducted in a realy good spirit. I really enjoy this and thanks everyone! Couldn't agree more, Colin. Brilliant, isn't it? David 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium DavidLong Posted June 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 2, 2012 But just think how exciting it would be. Plenty of goals for all. Sorry, can't agree with that one for three reasons. One is how boring to see the ball lumped forward to some lump of a goal hanger. No thanks. Second reason is that 0-0 draws aren't necessarily dull. Thirdly, defending and preventing goals is just as much an art as scoring them. Besides, recent changes in the interpretation of the offside law seem to have considerably reduced the number of teams who deliberately play an offside trap. David 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Between the Football League, the FA, the Premier League, and the Referee's Association, there's so much backtracking, meddling, and over enthusiastic rewriting of the laws of the game in specific areas that it's become something of an in joke over the last decade. The basic laws have remained the same in principle, but in trying to remove one grey area they normally introduce two more. The offside rule and its wording hasn't changed largely since its inception but how it is taught and how referees/officials play it has (and it's normally different to how the clubs, fans and pundits interpret it). It's not the only one for which that rings true. You're absolutely spot on there, and it's the same over here in the US. The subtle changes in law 11 for instance confused players quite a bit. We have all manner of guidance from US Soccer Federation to mix in with the LOAF, such as the Advice to Referees book, guide to procedures, position papers and directives etc etc. I think it's dawned on IFAB that they need to let it settle down a bit because there hasn't been much change over the last couple of meetings that applies down to grass roots level. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sorry, can't agree with that one for three reasons. One is how boring to see the ball lumped forward to some lump of a goal hanger. No thanks. Second reason is that 0-0 draws aren't necessarily dull. Thirdly, defending and preventing goals is just as much an art as scoring them. Besides, recent changes in the interpretation of the offside law seem to have considerably reduced the number of teams who deliberately play an offside trap. David It's surprising what a difference it made to change from "even with is off" to "even with is on", I think that little change made the trap quite a bit harder to pull. Coupled with the altered interpretation of involvement with play, and it liberated attackers quite a lot. I quite agree that the 0-0 draw can be a very absorbing game, there's a lot more to enjoy in football than just goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 There is an assumption from some of you that if it was removed it'd play the same way as we did when we were kids... As its not been tried at the top level we just don't know, as said earlier teams would have to work out different tactics, in some cases, where a team has a reputation for the big hoof forward, it may well happen that way, but who's to say unless its tried... Though I can't see it happening and the comment was just thrown into the melting pot as there's so much controversy over the existing rule it could be a sensible way out... The only way is to try it out and see what happens, but that just won't happen! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted June 3, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 3, 2012 But just think how exciting it would be. Plenty of goals for all. How wrong can you be. In Australia the local Footy code (Australian Rules Football) has games where one side scores more than 20 goals isn't uncommon. 6 points for a Goal & 1 point for a Behind (or a reward for a near miss as I see it). The theory is that a lot of goals makes a 'good game' and many Australians hate Soccer for that reasons. Funny thing they love cricket which can go for 5 days, without result! The AFL league is a fixed competition without relegation, the worst that can happen is that they get a wooden spoon. Also they get first pick at the draft for players for next season. Also has salary caps for the entire team, but individuals have no limit, as long as it doesn't breech the team limit. So there are others ways of controlling what happens. Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Or base it on (ice) hockey? 20 players dressed, 6 at a time on the ice, changes either when the game is stopped or 'on the fly', with penalties for too many men on the ice at any time. So, with 11 at a time on the pitch, the equivalent for football would be 37 players dressed for each team - with continual unlimited substitution, that could be fun to watch! Just dawned on me when I reread this, every time there is a substitution a minute extra time is added. With unlimited substitutions we would have never ending games. A lot of games seem like they have gone on forever now, let's not make it worse. Edited June 3, 2012 by Ohmisterporter 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted June 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 3, 2012 Anybody see the England "friendly" yesterday. ITV don't think much of Hodgson's England, they could only find about 15 minutes of highlights for each game so far. Have to say I was appalled by that childish, petulant assault on Gary Cahill by the Belgian forward. Hope his jaw is OK and he does not miss out on the Euros. Lucky Joe Hart wasn't injured too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) The Press will never be satisfied until we have won something... The papers i read yesterday were all talking up England's chances, several saying they had a chance of winning it! Fat chance!! It's about time they got realistic instead of winding everyone up so much they blame Hodgson when he hasn't got a hope in hell's chance... But of course that's what they do to everyone they report on and then enjoy taking them apart when they inevitably fail... Edited June 3, 2012 by Hobby 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Anybody see the England "friendly" yesterday. ITV don't think much of Hodgson's England, they could only find about 15 minutes of highlights for each game so far. Have to say I was appalled by that childish, petulant assault on Gary Cahill by the Belgian forward. Hope his jaw is OK and he does not miss out on the Euros. Lucky Joe Hart wasn't injured too. Just seen on TV that Gary Cahill is ruled out of Euro 2012 as he has a fractured jaw. Many thanks to the Belgian Burke. Is it realy worth playing these friendlies just before a Major competition ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 I was appalled at how much of the Belgian tactics seem to centre around injuring, or attempting to injure, our players yesterday. If it were up to me, we wouldn't play international friendlies at all. Best way to practice I think would be to concentrate on the methods football clubs partake in for their league and cup matches. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium DavidLong Posted June 3, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 3, 2012 Anybody see the England "friendly" yesterday. ITV don't think much of Hodgson's England, they could only find about 15 minutes of highlights for each game so far. Have to say I was appalled by that childish, petulant assault on Gary Cahill by the Belgian forward. Hope his jaw is OK and he does not miss out on the Euros. Lucky Joe Hart wasn't injured too. I didn't think that Joe Hart covered himself in glory in this incident. Cahill was calling for Hart to come and collect the ball but he seemed to stay rooted on his line so a collision, with or without the rather petulant push, was pretty much inevitable. Tough on Cahill just as he had played himself into the starting line-up but the way this squad is going it will soon be a case of 'last man standing'. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 The Press will never be satisfied until we have won something... The papers i read yesterday were all talking up England's chances, several saying they had a chance of winning it! Fat chance!! It's about time they got realistic instead of winding everyone up so much they blame Hodgson when he hasn't got a hope in hell's chance... But of course that's what they do to everyone they report on and then enjoy taking them apart when they inevitably fail... and then they can whip up thier campaign to get rid of woy and get there golden boy " our arry " in the ingerland job Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted June 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 3, 2012 That's why I was glad 'Arry didnt get it. He had no more chance of success than anyone else, and the press would have been after his blood within 6 months. I quite like 'Arry and wouldn't wish it on him. He's best off out of it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I read in the newspaper that Micah Richards refused to be in the squad because he was phoned with an invitation by Stuart Pearce, and not Roy Hodgson. Is that the kind of prima donna that we get for £200k a month? Because if so, we might as well give up any pretence of having a team of players rather than posers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucky Duck Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I read in the newspaper that Micah Richards refused to be in the squad because he was phoned with an invitation by Stuart Pearce, and not Roy Hodgson. Is that the kind of prima donna that we get for £200k a month? Because if so, we might as well give up any pretence of having a team of players rather than posers. Erm… dunno where you heard that. Micah would almost cut his arm off to be in the squad. I read that he was phoned by Stuart Pearce and not by Roy Hodgson, to be told that he hadn't been selected. Richards, as with all top footballers, may be vastly over-paid but he comes closer to earning it than a lot of so-called journalists we have to suffer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bike2steam Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 There is an assumption from some of you that if it was removed it'd play the same way as we did when we were kids... As its not been tried at the top level we just don't know, as said earlier teams would have to work out different tactics, in some cases, where a team has a reputation for the big hoof forward, it may well happen that way, but who's to say unless its tried... Though I can't see it happening and the comment was just thrown into the melting pot as there's so much controversy over the existing rule it could be a sensible way out... The only way is to try it out and see what happens, but that just won't happen! It would make it interesting with todays 'touch tight' marking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodshaw Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The offside rule was abolished in hockey some years ago. Apparently the game got more defensive, presumably to prevent goal-hanging, but at the same time more goals were scored. That suggests more goalmouth scrambles. In football it might end up a right mess, but I think it would be interesting to try it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Erm… dunno where you heard that. Micah would almost cut his arm off to be in the squad. Bit more about it here... all speculation as usual, I tend to agree with you that he would have jumped at the chance of playing, a view which is confirmed by just about every other report on him and England selection... I do tend to think that he has been treated badly by England managers over the past few years, I'd have thought that they need a back who is prepared to push forward, can't see how they are going to get the ball to the lone forward otherwise as those in the midfield seem pretty useless at it! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2149009/Micah-Richards-upset-Euro-2012-snub-Man-City-defender-wont-turn-England.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now