New League Structure

Seems rather lively !!! Some bloke got well flattened by a flying seat.

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Of course there is. However when the FA went to the premier clubs asking for contribution to grassroots they got told to FO.

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda yadda yadda.

I know the argument: "how can it be right that Rooney gets paid X when a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher only gets paid Y".

The thing is it is comparing apples with oranges. They are not the same thing at all. Rooney (or whoever) is one of the very best in the world and can do what very few others can do and he works for an employer perfectly able to afford paying him what they do - and if they did not pay it to him then they would pay it to somebody else.

On the other hand if you are a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher then there is only so much money in the pot for wages and there's many people able to do, or at least able to be trained to do, what you do.

In fact the more the Rooneys of this world get paid the better because as higher rate tax payers they contribute hugely to the exchequer and help to pay for all those soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers and if they got paid less there'd be less in the pot for the "deserving" professions.

Totally agree about Sky but if it wasn't Sky pumping the cash in it would be BT or Virgin or Amazon or Google or some entirely new company. And there quite clearly is more than enough money in the game to go around if only the PL teams were prepared to share it out but given that the PL was formed explicitly so that they wouldn't have to do that I am not holding my breath that it'll ever happen.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda yadda yadda.

I know the argument: "how can it be right that Rooney gets paid X when a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher only gets paid Y".

The thing is it is comparing apples with oranges. They are not the same thing at all. Rooney (or whoever) is one of the very best in the world and can do what very few others can do and he works for an employer perfectly able to afford paying him what they do - and if they did not pay it to him then they would pay it to somebody else.

On the other hand if you are a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher then there is only so much money in the pot for wages and there's many people able to do, or at least able to be trained to do, what you do.

In fact the more the Rooneys of this world get paid the better because as higher rate tax payers they contribute hugely to the exchequer and help to pay for all those soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers and if they got paid less there'd be less in the pot for the "deserving" professions.

Totally agree about Sky but if it wasn't Sky pumping the cash in it would be BT or Virgin or Amazon or Google or some entirely new company. And there quite clearly is more than enough money in the game to go around if only the PL teams were prepared to share it out but given that the PL was formed explicitly so that they wouldn't have to do that I am not holding my breath that it'll ever happen.

How very capitalist and establishment you've gone Franny,Blair will be turning in his grave. Shorely the answer to this is tax, not by the exchequer but by the FA, tax players like Rooney and pass that money to the lower leagues, the FA could also tax Sky and pass of that down, shame it doesn't work when we're all it together, well not us ut they all are.

Would love to know if Tom Cruise/Bruce Willis' mad wages get sent to the lower regions of film making.

alannotivvy wrote:

Would love to know if Tom Cruise/Bruce Willis' mad wages get sent to the lower regions of film making.

I can assure you they don't.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda yadda yadda.

I know the argument: "how can it be right that Rooney gets paid X when a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher only gets paid Y".

The thing is it is comparing apples with oranges. They are not the same thing at all. Rooney (or whoever) is one of the very best in the world and can do what very few others can do and he works for an employer perfectly able to afford paying him what they do - and if they did not pay it to him then they would pay it to somebody else.

On the other hand if you are a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher then there is only so much money in the pot for wages and there's many people able to do, or at least able to be trained to do, what you do.

In fact the more the Rooneys of this world get paid the better because as higher rate tax payers they contribute hugely to the exchequer and help to pay for all those soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers and if they got paid less there'd be less in the pot for the "deserving" professions.

Totally agree about Sky but if it wasn't Sky pumping the cash in it would be BT or Virgin or Amazon or Google or some entirely new company. And there quite clearly is more than enough money in the game to go around if only the PL teams were prepared to share it out but given that the PL was formed explicitly so that they wouldn't have to do that I am not holding my breath that it'll ever happen.

How very capitalist and establishment you've gone Franny,Blair will be turning in his grave. Shorely the answer to this is tax, not by the exchequer but by the FA, tax players like Rooney and pass that money to the lower leagues, the FA could also tax Sky and pass of that down, shame it doesn't work when we're all it together, well not us ut they all are.

Not really. If you think on a bit it is really quite Marxist.

Using Rooney as an example again he is able to negotiate a contract where he is paid what he is worth rather than what some uberlord decrees is enough. This is a triumph of workers and workers' rights bequeathed down through the generations first by Jimmy Hill getting the maximum wage abolished and secondly by Bosman who established freedom of workers to move on once their contracts were up.

And none of this would have been possible without the PFA's support and that of the Euro equivalent.

From whence the redistibutive effect of our taxation system kicks in (or should anyway) and poor old Wayne loses £150k/week to the tax man.

And what would happen if Rooney didn't earn it? Cheaper admission? Lower Sky TV subscription fees? I very much doubt it.

The money would just go directly to the owners, in this case the Glazers, who would squirrel it away overseas or offset it like Starbucks do so that no tax gets paid at all. At least this way the money stays here and gets taxed.

And you can hardly say that Rooney hasn't earned a right to it in his record-breaking career.

Compare and contrast to Fred Goodwin and his vast remuneration for failing abysmally and wrecking the nation's banking system. Now there's a fella whose income is an outrage.

That doesn't mean that soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers etc should be underppaid but that is a whole different argument. I expect nearly everybody thinks they should all be paid more but if you tell them that they'll have to pay another 2% on income tax, cough up some death duty or some such many of them'll be apoplectic with rage at the very thought.

Exactly Al. It's all a joke and a sham.
The very idea of big premier club private companies "giving" more of their market forces share to the likes of Jimmy Brent's own private company is frankly preposterous. And actually, I don't think they should.
Taxation is the proper avenue for redistribution of wealth. One other way of doing it is if Murdoch actually insisted on a certain distribution of his football sponsorship as a condition of the contract. But no chance of that.
By the way, having spent much of my younger life involved in sport and football, the very idea that footy improves the lot of the poorest is a nonsense. Just as cricket or ice hockey for youngsters once a week makes their life expectancy any the greater. IT's all surface dressing faux charidee bullshit. A bit like Hallet's view of a "community" football club that fully intends to go against the majority of the community in a big way come October. It's all bullshit. Sound bite economics.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda yadda yadda.

I know the argument: "how can it be right that Rooney gets paid X when a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher only gets paid Y".

The thing is it is comparing apples with oranges. They are not the same thing at all. Rooney (or whoever) is one of the very best in the world and can do what very few others can do and he works for an employer perfectly able to afford paying him what they do - and if they did not pay it to him then they would pay it to somebody else.

On the other hand if you are a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher then there is only so much money in the pot for wages and there's many people able to do, or at least able to be trained to do, what you do.

In fact the more the Rooneys of this world get paid the better because as higher rate tax payers they contribute hugely to the exchequer and help to pay for all those soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers and if they got paid less there'd be less in the pot for the "deserving" professions.

Totally agree about Sky but if it wasn't Sky pumping the cash in it would be BT or Virgin or Amazon or Google or some entirely new company. And there quite clearly is more than enough money in the game to go around if only the PL teams were prepared to share it out but given that the PL was formed explicitly so that they wouldn't have to do that I am not holding my breath that it'll ever happen.

How very capitalist and establishment you've gone Franny,Blair will be turning in his grave. Shorely the answer to this is tax, not by the exchequer but by the FA, tax players like Rooney and pass that money to the lower leagues, the FA could also tax Sky and pass of that down, shame it doesn't work when we're all it together, well not us ut they all are.

Not really. If you think on a bit it is really quite Marxist.

Using Rooney as an example again he is able to negotiate a contract where he is paid what he is worth rather than what some uberlord decrees is enough. This is a triumph of workers and workers' rights bequeathed down through the generations first by Jimmy Hill getting the maximum wage abolished and secondly by Bosman who established freedom of workers to move on once their contracts were up.

And none of this would have been possible without the PFA's support and that of the Euro equivalent.

From whence the redistibutive effect of our taxation system kicks in (or should anyway) and poor old Wayne loses £150k/week to the tax man.

And what would happen if Rooney didn't earn it? Cheaper admission? Lower Sky TV subscription fees? I very much doubt it.

The money would just go directly to the owners, in this case the Glazers, who would squirrel it away overseas or offset it like Starbucks do so that no tax gets paid at all. At least this way the money stays here and gets taxed.

And you can hardly say that Rooney hasn't earned a right to it in his record-breaking career.

Compare and contrast to Fred Goodwin and his vast remuneration for failing abysmally and wrecking the nation's banking system. Now there's a fella whose income is an outrage.

That doesn't mean that soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers etc should be underppaid but that is a whole different argument. I expect nearly everybody thinks they should all be paid more but if you tell them that they'll have to pay another 2% on income tax, cough up some death duty or some such many of them'll be apoplectic with rage at the very thought.

I was advocating that the FA, as the controlling body of football, should tax the players and redistribute the wealth, and no Biccy not to Brent, via academies, coaching and training, facilities ect. It's not rocket science it's obvious but with all the apologists worrying about what could be worse then it's never going to happen. I havent followed the prem for years it's a wankfest using money as the object rather than porn and the sport is the worse for it. The fact that Leicester won the prem and it's so unbelievable says it all, it's more like the Forbes rich list most years.

I'd love Argyle to be a genuine community club. All football clubs should be. It's why they were all established in the first place. The clue is in the word "club".

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda yadda yadda.

I know the argument: "how can it be right that Rooney gets paid X when a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher only gets paid Y".

The thing is it is comparing apples with oranges. They are not the same thing at all. Rooney (or whoever) is one of the very best in the world and can do what very few others can do and he works for an employer perfectly able to afford paying him what they do - and if they did not pay it to him then they would pay it to somebody else.

On the other hand if you are a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher then there is only so much money in the pot for wages and there's many people able to do, or at least able to be trained to do, what you do.

In fact the more the Rooneys of this world get paid the better because as higher rate tax payers they contribute hugely to the exchequer and help to pay for all those soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers and if they got paid less there'd be less in the pot for the "deserving" professions.

Totally agree about Sky but if it wasn't Sky pumping the cash in it would be BT or Virgin or Amazon or Google or some entirely new company. And there quite clearly is more than enough money in the game to go around if only the PL teams were prepared to share it out but given that the PL was formed explicitly so that they wouldn't have to do that I am not holding my breath that it'll ever happen.

How very capitalist and establishment you've gone Franny,Blair will be turning in his grave. Shorely the answer to this is tax, not by the exchequer but by the FA, tax players like Rooney and pass that money to the lower leagues, the FA could also tax Sky and pass of that down, shame it doesn't work when we're all it together, well not us ut they all are.

Not really. If you think on a bit it is really quite Marxist.

Using Rooney as an example again he is able to negotiate a contract where he is paid what he is worth rather than what some uberlord decrees is enough. This is a triumph of workers and workers' rights bequeathed down through the generations first by Jimmy Hill getting the maximum wage abolished and secondly by Bosman who established freedom of workers to move on once their contracts were up.

And none of this would have been possible without the PFA's support and that of the Euro equivalent.

From whence the redistibutive effect of our taxation system kicks in (or should anyway) and poor old Wayne loses £150k/week to the tax man.

And what would happen if Rooney didn't earn it? Cheaper admission? Lower Sky TV subscription fees? I very much doubt it.

The money would just go directly to the owners, in this case the Glazers, who would squirrel it away overseas or offset it like Starbucks do so that no tax gets paid at all. At least this way the money stays here and gets taxed.

And you can hardly say that Rooney hasn't earned a right to it in his record-breaking career.

Compare and contrast to Fred Goodwin and his vast remuneration for failing abysmally and wrecking the nation's banking system. Now there's a fella whose income is an outrage.

That doesn't mean that soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers etc should be underppaid but that is a whole different argument. I expect nearly everybody thinks they should all be paid more but if you tell them that they'll have to pay another 2% on income tax, cough up some death duty or some such many of them'll be apoplectic with rage at the very thought.

I was advocating that the FA, as the controlling body of football, should tax the players and redistribute the wealth, and no Biccy not to Brent, via academies, coaching and training, facilities ect. It's not rocket science it's obvious but with all the apologists worrying about what could be worse then it's never going to happen. I havent followed the prem for years it's a wankfest using money as the object rather than porn and the sport is the worse for it. The fact that Leicester won the prem and it's so unbelievable says it all, it's more like the Forbes rich list most years.

There's no way the FA/FL could levy a charge against the wage somebody earns and nor should they be allowed to.

They could, however, charge their participating clubs an entry fee into competition and raise revenue to be re-distributed that way.

In turn the clubs would have less money to pay ridiculous wages to the Rooneys of this world and his £300k/wk might be reduced to £275k as a result.

But nobody should be able to make a forced deduction on somebody else's wage. That's nonsensical.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The only way I think it would make any sense whatsoever is if used in conjunction with the old election/re-election method of joining the league and scrapping the national league with just conference south and north below.

What will happen otherwise is more clubs spending beyond their means to get to the league. Truro is an example of this where they have thrown the kitchen sink at getting to the conference and are now broke having missed.

Even then it just seems bonkers, there isnt enough to go around as it is.

But there is enough to go around if the money in the game was more evenly distrubuted....but Sky would soon stop that.....if more people didn't sign up to Sky we might get our national game back..... is not players getting £100/200/300,000 a week just not obscene.

Market forces. Supply and demand. Yadda yadda yadda.

I know the argument: "how can it be right that Rooney gets paid X when a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher only gets paid Y".

The thing is it is comparing apples with oranges. They are not the same thing at all. Rooney (or whoever) is one of the very best in the world and can do what very few others can do and he works for an employer perfectly able to afford paying him what they do - and if they did not pay it to him then they would pay it to somebody else.

On the other hand if you are a soldier/fireman/nurse/teacher then there is only so much money in the pot for wages and there's many people able to do, or at least able to be trained to do, what you do.

In fact the more the Rooneys of this world get paid the better because as higher rate tax payers they contribute hugely to the exchequer and help to pay for all those soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers and if they got paid less there'd be less in the pot for the "deserving" professions.

Totally agree about Sky but if it wasn't Sky pumping the cash in it would be BT or Virgin or Amazon or Google or some entirely new company. And there quite clearly is more than enough money in the game to go around if only the PL teams were prepared to share it out but given that the PL was formed explicitly so that they wouldn't have to do that I am not holding my breath that it'll ever happen.

How very capitalist and establishment you've gone Franny,Blair will be turning in his grave. Shorely the answer to this is tax, not by the exchequer but by the FA, tax players like Rooney and pass that money to the lower leagues, the FA could also tax Sky and pass of that down, shame it doesn't work when we're all it together, well not us ut they all are.

Not really. If you think on a bit it is really quite Marxist.

Using Rooney as an example again he is able to negotiate a contract where he is paid what he is worth rather than what some uberlord decrees is enough. This is a triumph of workers and workers' rights bequeathed down through the generations first by Jimmy Hill getting the maximum wage abolished and secondly by Bosman who established freedom of workers to move on once their contracts were up.

And none of this would have been possible without the PFA's support and that of the Euro equivalent.

From whence the redistibutive effect of our taxation system kicks in (or should anyway) and poor old Wayne loses £150k/week to the tax man.

And what would happen if Rooney didn't earn it? Cheaper admission? Lower Sky TV subscription fees? I very much doubt it.

The money would just go directly to the owners, in this case the Glazers, who would squirrel it away overseas or offset it like Starbucks do so that no tax gets paid at all. At least this way the money stays here and gets taxed.

And you can hardly say that Rooney hasn't earned a right to it in his record-breaking career.

Compare and contrast to Fred Goodwin and his vast remuneration for failing abysmally and wrecking the nation's banking system. Now there's a fella whose income is an outrage.

That doesn't mean that soldier/fireman/nurse/teachers etc should be underppaid but that is a whole different argument. I expect nearly everybody thinks they should all be paid more but if you tell them that they'll have to pay another 2% on income tax, cough up some death duty or some such many of them'll be apoplectic with rage at the very thought.

I was advocating that the FA, as the controlling body of football, should tax the players and redistribute the wealth, and no Biccy not to Brent, via academies, coaching and training, facilities ect. It's not rocket science it's obvious but with all the apologists worrying about what could be worse then it's never going to happen. I havent followed the prem for years it's a wankfest using money as the object rather than porn and the sport is the worse for it. The fact that Leicester won the prem and it's so unbelievable says it all, it's more like the Forbes rich list most years.

There's no way the FA/FL could levy a charge against the wage somebody earns and nor should they be allowed to.

They could, however, charge their participating clubs an entry fee into competition and raise revenue to be re-distributed that way.

In turn the clubs would have less money to pay ridiculous wages to the Rooneys of this world and his £300k/wk might be reduced to £275k as a result.

But nobody should be able to make a forced deduction on somebody else's wage. That's nonsensical.

Rubbish, they can and should, why not have a 5% levy on all footballers wages and put it into a fund to provide for the grassroots of the sport that provides them with their multi million pound lifestyle? I'm surprised to be having this convo with you, you've gone all Rickler on me.

Not at all and they do have a levy on their wages - to the PFA. This in turn does all sorts but they choose to be a PFA member.

It is the core function of the FA to look after grassroots stuff and they obviously could do more if they had more money but as a third party they can have no call on wages paid by a club to an individual.

Just plain wrong.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all and they do have a levy on their wages - to the PFA. This in turn does all sorts but they choose to be a PFA member.

It is the core function of the FA to look after grassroots stuff and they obviously could do more if they had more money but as a third party they can have no call on wages paid by a club to an individual.

Just plain wrong.

And fans wonder why Our national game is so shite and we have no national academy, it's not down to lack of money it's down to fairness! You are welcome to it mate. I used to follow the world tour surfing comps even traveled to Europe for a few of them but with the sponsorship and big money prizes it became a circus just as the prem has become now. The more money they get, the more they want the more they hoard.

Would an academy be necessarily a good thing? I suppose in many ways it would but on the other hand an integrated national structure would be quite a thing to impose and administer.

For starters there would need to be a common ethos regarding approach to skills training and preferred tactics this would inevitably lead to it becoming a processing algorithm churning out identikit players.

In many ways an ad hoc approach with nobody co-ordinating anything but kids all over occupying every bit of land they could to play 25-a-side games using jumpers for goalposts and all the rest of it would see the genuinely talented players develop at their own rate in their own way leading to the fulfillment of the maverick talents most teams once had: Hudson, Bowles, Currie etc

I'm not really arguing for that though. For starters today's society is so paedo-obsessed that kids of the age of 7 and upwards simply don't fill our parks with games of football like they did when I was a kid so unless and until that changes - and it probably won't - it just can't happen.

We're not really a million miles apart here: it's just the direct "taxing" of players - something else that can never happen, too - by the FA I'm against: the FA should deduct the money they require before it gets anywhere near the clubs let alone the players.

And then put somebody in charge to ensure that our young talent isn't sausagemeated by the system.

I think this whole idea of attaching a morality to the sharing out of the devil's money downward from some Russian oil thief to the likes of Brent, is about as useful as complaining about the work ethic forced on youngsters from cradle to grave by wealthy skimmers of the communal pot that nature has given us by living in a temperate  friendly climate.

Pro footy has nothing whatsoever to do with good causes and raising young poor people out of their malaise and comparable bad health. That sort of "community" talk is the cover that Brent is using for his own personal gain and humane profile, having duly filled his boots earlier in the procedure we call life.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

And then put somebody in charge to ensure that our young talent isn't sausagemeated by the system.

Somebody like Trevor Brooking...?

How did that world changing appointment work out?

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

And then put somebody in charge to ensure that our young talent isn't sausagemeated by the system.

Somebody like Trevor Brooking...?

How did that world changing appointment work out?

or even someone more recent..Garth southgate

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

And then put somebody in charge to ensure that our young talent isn't sausagemeated by the system.

Somebody like Trevor Brooking...?

How did that world changing appointment work out?

He played a key role in opening the National Football Centre in St Georges Park and left the organisaition in far better state than he found it. I'd say he did very well all things considered.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

And then put somebody in charge to ensure that our young talent isn't sausagemeated by the system.

Somebody like Trevor Brooking...?

How did that world changing appointment work out?

He played a key role in opening the National Football Centre in St Georges Park and left the organisaition in far better state than he found it. I'd say he did very well all things considered.

I've no idea who it should be. I suspect the best candidate would be somebody under the radar who is beavering away coaching kids at county level, or similar, somewhere.

Quite why an ex-player, e.g. Brooking, would make a good administrator is beyond me. He might - it isn't impossible after all - but it is a completely different skill set.

If I had to nominate somebody then maybe Dario Gradi? But like I said - I don't really know who it should be.

Pro football is a pyramid. It sends energy to the top to flower blatantly. It takes nutrients from down below ..... it's not a root vegetable that sends it's best back down to store. Tulip or turnip ?

Football and football fans forget the ethos of sports, it should be sport first and a business secondly, any business that doesn't reinvest profits into infrastructure and the future is going to struggle, football itself doesn't struggle but individual clubs do and the national game could be much better. It's not like the money isn't there to do it.

A PL De facto closed shop is at least part of the motivation for these proposals IMO.

Next season the bottom club in the PL gets c.£100m + £70m parachute money. Add fewer clubs to compete with in the Championship & a longer slog back for any big clubs who have dropped down the leagues and the results should be obvious.

In any case future Wigans & Boltons will be better insulated from the troubles that have led to those clubs going into freefall. You have to try pretty hard to squander the sort of cash PL clubs will be getting in future - a football finance expert was on the radio claiming that future worldwide streaming rights will dwarf even the current mega PL TV deal.