The game we all love - what would you change?

8-10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123828206#Comment_123828206

ok. I completely disagree with that idea. An 80min game is completely different to 90mins and don’t forget that sometimes you have competitions where some games have VAR and some don’t depending on the ground drawn and this can even be at the same point of the same competition

To me that’s a fundamental part of the sport - how long a half is - and something that FIFA should dictate

I’m not disagreeing with the ridiculousness of stoppages but I don’t think we should be selectively changing the time that teams actually “play for” depending on how the game is reffed

Having shorter times for young underage sides I can understand as it’s done blanketly.

pjohnson

You can't start randomly shortening some games and not others.

The amount of time given to VAR should be no more than 60 seconds to make a decision. None of the 4 minute zoom and enhance with slow motion from 4 different angles shìte.

Dogsdodogsstuff

Players faking injuries to slow down games. When a ref has to stop a game a new stop watch starts and the player has to remain off the pitch for the same amount of time the game has to stop after he’s back up on his feet and slowly walking to the sideline.

I’m sick of players cynically going down and holding their head or faking pain to break momentum. Something has to be done to stamp that sh*t out and will encourage teams to quickly move players off pitch.

IncognitoMan

Every new contract going forward has a max release clause inserted into it that is 10x the players yearly salary.

For a while now the transfer market feels like the wild west. Fees seem to get plucked from thin air and the bubble will surely burst if left unchecked in some way.

If you are paying a player 3.5M per year then you value them as a 35M quid player. If another club wants to pay the 35m release clause and the player wants to move then fair game.

Player can obviously refuse the move or the "selling" club can offer new terms.

Release clause is only active in the summer to avoid teams being stripped of players mid-season.

Clubs can agree a lower fee if they wish.

Special rules need to be in place for youth players to avoid issues. Maybe the clause doesn't come into effect until the player turns 21

8-10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907373#Comment_123907373

"Release clause is only active in the summer to avoid teams being stripped of players mid-season."

That's mid season for Irish clubs though

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907425#Comment_123907425

Make it relative to whatever league the contracted player is in so
Release clause for summer leagues are active in Jan window

Clubs can still agree to sell during the summer but they cannot exceed the 10x the yearly wage at any time.

Maybe need to add something that ensure clubs that are further down the pyramid get some future fee also. 1% of players yearly wage goes back to the club or something along those lines

artanevilla

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907373#Comment_123907373

What happens when a players value outstrips what they're being paid and the refuse to sign a new contract based on this fact?

cgorzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907533#Comment_123907533

Big club A/B/C gets to sign them for a low fee. Bournemouth get about 50-60M for Huijsen, Zabarnyi and Kerkez instead of about 150M. Player with 1 year left on contract on 15k a week is valued at the same amount as a player with 4 years left on 15K a week. I wouldn’t be in favour of that rule.

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907639#Comment_123907639

Why? The club is paying him 15k a week - that is a club valuing the player at 7/8m

They can offer a new deal on better terms to reflect the better player he has become.
Or the player can move for a bigger team to reflect the better player he has become.

It cuts an awful lot of the nonsense around agents and clubs chancing their arm with massive fees because a player has 3/4 years left on his deal.

Everyone has a price tag and everyone is operating on a more even playing field.

You outline that Bournemouth only get 50/60m for their players but it works for them as well. They sign players on smaller fees also as those players will also have release clauses.

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907533#Comment_123907533

They move? If that is what the player wants to do

artanevilla

So an example could be Bournemouth have a youth player on their books, develop him up, he signs a 5 year deal pro-deal at 10k a week, reflective of his value to Bournemouth at that time, by the end of year 3 he's really blossomed into a great player. Chelsea want to buy him, but the max they're allowed pay is £5.2 million.

Bournemouth want to reflect the new value of the player, so offer him 60k a week, all they can afford, which would bring up his max allowable transfer fee to £31 million.

However Chelsea are willing and able to afford to pay him £150k a week which means that value him at £78 million.

This guy is refusing to sign the new deal as he wants a big pay day, which is fair enough. But rather than Bournemouth being able to get the market value of their asset, they are forced to sell him for £5.2 million to Chelsea, which is around 7% of the amount Chelsea value him at, and 17% of the value Bournemouth can afford to put on him.

Now lets throw a spanner into the works, every club in the league can afford to pay £5.2 million for a player of this caliber, so a bidding war happens, but not for a transfer fee, but his wage. Man City are not overly keen on him, but are willing to pay him £250k a week as the transfer fee is so low, if it doesn't work out for them they are able to sell him for anything up to £130 million. Bournemouth still only get £5.2 million.

Mulitiply that out throughout the leauge. How big a squad do you reckon Chelsea, Man City etc would have after a few years?

Do you think that's a fair system?

cgorzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907712#Comment_123907712

Club buy a player with no Premier League experience, give him a contract on 15K a week, develops player into a proven Premier League player over a season/seasons but his valuation stays the same as he isn’t willing to sign a new contact.

I think the big winners in this system are the biggest clubs who can just offer more in wages than the smaller club can afford and then buy players at lower cost and at very low risk as they can just sell below the wage valuation, yet still at a profit, if the player is not successful enough.

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907767#Comment_123907767

Well under your assumptions what benefit would Man City get in offering 250k for a player they will never really use?

They would tie the player into a long term contract at 250k and nobody is going to come in and offer that wage for the player anyway.

Other members of Man City's squad will see a player joining and not playing at 250k per week so they will be onto the City owners to up their wage or they will be off - and City knows they can because they too have a release clause. It would be completely counterintuitive for them.

You talk about Bournemouth losing out on the "market value" of their player. They don't. They get the market value of their player which is 10x what they valued him at per year.

If they don't want to lose him then it's up to them to agree a deal with the player to keep him there. Again, the player can still choose to stay. The club just cannot price them out of a move.

Once the player and club have a good relationship then there should be no issue.

Some players will move for a pay day. Some always have.

artanevilla

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907985#Comment_123907985

The market decides the market value, not a fixed price rule.

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123907863#Comment_123907863

You can add other measures to counter stockpiling of players.

Set limits on the number of players a club can register.
Set limits on the number of players a club can loan out.

Anyone outside of that you have broken your contract and the player can walk if they wish.

It would massively simplify the transfer market. Everyone has a top end price, a value.
Either club pay the player what they value them at or they risk losing them to a club who will.

More freedom for players to move clubs.

Transfer fees will come down slightly and money spent will be more balanced.

Clubs will pay the players they want to keep.

cgorzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123908000#Comment_123908000

Having a simple formula to calculate a valuation doesn’t necessarily mean it is better. A club with a player multiple clubs want to buy, and can pay more in wages than the selling club can afford, doesn’t get a value set by a market, it is a valuation set by their contract agreed in the past. Club with a player under contract can only reassess the valuation with the agreement of the player.

How many players should a club be allowed register? Should a player who is not registered by their club, whose club has already reached their loan limit and who no club will offer his current wage be blocked from playing football unless they take a pay cut?

How do you see this playing out for clubs, do you see it being advantageous to the already biggest clubs, smaller clubs or it to be pretty much the same as now?

IncognitoMan

@cgorzy

A club with a player multiple clubs want to buy, and can pay more in wages than the selling club can afford, doesn’t get a value set by a market, it is a valuation set by their contract agreed in the past. Club with a player under contract can only reassess the valuation with the agreement of the player.

Yes, the clubs agree on a valuation with a player, which includes what they will receive in a transfer fee. If they value the player more, they pay him more. It's a very fair system. They are still getting 10x the money they were spending on the player every year. A very very fair price. Also, you need to remember the knock-on effect. The replacement players they go for will be cheaper also. It's just a new topline to keep things in check.

The current system if left unchecked I think is heading for disaster. Anything that slows down Oil states and simlar playing with football like they are in a computer game can't be a bad thing IMO.

I do not want football to be a billionaire's dick measuring competition.

A salary cap tied to club turnover would also be good for keeping things from spiralling out of control.
If you generate more, you can pay players more. Fair enough.

Help make and KEEP clubs more sustainable

How many players should a club be allowed register? Should a player who is not registered by their club, whose club has already reached their loan limit and who no club will offer his current wage be blocked from playing football unless they take a pay cut?

You are overcomplicating this. Clubs already have registration limits. We are just adding that you can't force a player to stay on the sideline under contract if you aren't going to play them. The contract between the club and player is at that stage broken (barring injury obviously). Why would the player be blocked from playing football? Once he has a contract with a club and is registered, he can play…

How do you see this playing out for clubs, do you see it being advantageous to the already biggest clubs, smaller clubs or it to be pretty much the same as now?

I see it helping to level off the playing field in some ways.

I do see more players moving to bigger clubs when the transfer window opens, and more activity in the transfer market in general.

I see far fewer transfer sagas.

I would also likely put a deadline of June 30th or something for the release clause, so clubs don't get pillaged in August with no time to replace players. Again, Clubs can sell in August but never above the 10x value but they are not held to the release clause at that stage of the window.

I think it would help put a cap on transfer fees and open the possibility of a player being able to move to more clubs outside the PL. If you look at someone like Brighton, they currently sign in large volume on low wages and hope one of them clicks so they can sell for max profit and repeat again. They stockpile talent and hope they hit it big, when they do they look for big internal sales inside the PL mostly as that is where the outrageous fees come from.

Some of this talent could be playing at AC Milan or other big clubs in Europe but that will never be an option for Brighton as they hold out for the mega bucks sale to the top end of the PL.

It cuts out the massively overpaying on fees and the huge % agents stand to get when those deals balloon.
The current system encourages agents to find a way to get the deals to the highest fee possible..

I think the clubs would adjust to the new "normal" level of fees that players go for. i.e a very good player on 100k a week (which isn't a crazy wage for a decent player) still has an upper limit of 52m.

It's not chump change and it represents a fairly "fair" compensation being 10x the yearly wage they were paying.

Spitballing an idea and 100% there will be downsides and kinks to iron out.

But yeah, I see a fair amount of upside to it

IncognitoMan

Take Brighton and Carlos Baleba as an example.

Brighton currently pay Carlos Baleba a weekly wage of 12.5k. They value Baleba at a yearly cost of £650,000.

Man Utd and probably other clubs came in for Baleba in the summer and were quoted 100m+ or whatever it was.

Nothing Brighton has done or given Baleba suggests they actually value him at this level. Or even a 10th of this level.
They are purely chancing their arm and Baleba as he has a contract with Brighton is kinda stuck in no man's land.

He's not paid for his perceived value at Brighton and the club won't let him seek other avenues because they want the big pay day so they are happy to wait it out.

I just don't see how you can pay a player so little and demand so much in return..

I'm sure there are countless more examples…

cgorzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123909312#Comment_123909312

I don’t see this plan levelling the playing field at all, I think it will widen the gap between the already big clubs and those behind them. I think this is a big problem in football and I’d be prefer changes that reverse that. It completely ignores length of contract remaining and ignores all past investment in the players development. As you push it down the pyramid there is little return for small clubs in developing players as they cannot pay a wage that gives a player a value that will bring a return and they can potentially lose multiple players in one window without any control on this so how do they plan?

You think 10% of the current wage is fair but others will see this as an unfair valuation. Bournemouth and Huijsen had an agreed valuation. Real Madrid also agreed on the valuation, it wasn’t 10% of the players annual wage. They might have Yoro from Lille already there with this rule for under 5 million. I think Madrid would be delighted with this rule.

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123909763#Comment_123909763

It allows more clubs to get to the top end of the prices being paid for players though.

You keep framing it vs the current market rates and saying it is poor value.
I am saying that the level set out becomes the new market rate.

Huijsen was on 1.6m per year at Bournemouth so he is a 16m player by his clubs valuation under this.

There will be loads of other players also in this valuation due to their wages.
There will be even more below this valuation.

Football price inflation is way out of sync with all other form of inflation.
When you have 150/200m players realistically there is only a very small handful of clubs they can go to. All talent flows to those clubs.

With it being 10x their yearly salary it at least allows someone like AC Milan, Juve, Dortmund maybe a few more to put an offer in for a player.

Sure he might end up going to the other club for a higher wage but it will be his choice.
It won't be the choice of the club to send him to the only club who will pay way over the odds for him. They will get a fair market price relative to all other deals and wages and what they have valued him at.

The player has more options. Clubs have more options when looking for new players and they know what price range their targets will be in so can plan better.

Going round in circles and I've my point so I'll leave it there

cgorzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123910091#Comment_123910091

Yeah think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

csirl

Roster limits are a more effective way of stopping stockpiling than salary caps.

Limit clubs to 24 players. Ban loans full stop. No reserve teams. If a player doesnt make the 24, they get released.

csirl

They need to do something about timing and stoppages. Why cant the referee stop the clock for injuries and other long stoppages ala rugby? Would eliminate the very untransparent and inconsistent "injury time" at the end of each half.

KaiserGunner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123910629#Comment_123910629

Yeah id be in favour of this. Have each half between 30-35 mins but the clock stops when the ball goes out of play and restarts once play resumes. Once the time is up for each half, blow up once the ball is out of play.

IncognitoMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123910619#Comment_123910619

Yeah squad limits was in there in one of my posts

Nalz

.<dupe>.

Nalz

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/ckgk1vglkepo

Pauliedragon

I think that Liverpool "goal" should have stood but I can also see why it shouldn't. If your offside that should be it free out. This idea of not interfering with play/goalkeeper is too subjective and will vary too much from game to game and ref to ref.

Macy0161

Ideally I'd bin off VAR, but if it must, all decisions should be based on real time footage, not super slow mo/ freeze frames. And it should be time limited. They've missed the whole point that it was supposed to be clear and obvious errors - if it takes 5 minutes and super slowmo from multiple angles, it isn't clear cut and on field decision should stand.

thebaz

FIFA and UEFA pushing too much football, in ther battle for greed . Too many international breaks, used to be much more enjoyable with fewer 2 weeks breaks, season momentum is disrupted.