2021/22 Soccer Thread: It's Euro 2020 until it becomes 2021

bbk1980 wrote:

Jumping in here for the first time as I am back able to go and watch my footballing love Queen's Park again and we managed to win our play off semi final against Dunfermline at the weekend. For those who don't know (and why would you!) Queen's Park are the oldest football club in Scotland and finally moved from being amateur to professional just a few years ago after a farrago around ownership of Hampden put our very existence at risk. Despite being currently nomadic as a new stadium is built we are now on the verge of reaching the Scottish Championship and its very exciting. We have a tough two leg tie against Airdrie now but it feels very doable.

That's great to hear. It's kind of a shame they had tu turn professional to get all the financial benefits from their great player development but it seems the club's in a better position now.

After my Queen's Park FM game I started following the club's Twitter account and they do a good job with match updates for the men and women.

I think the fact that City's going to get Haaland for just £64m, as opposed to what Kane would've cost is kind of emblematic of the PL's financial power compared to the Bundesliga.

Haaland will ostensibly cost less than Angel di Maria in 2014, Kepa in 2018 and Jadon Sancho last year.

Prederick wrote:

I think the fact that City's going to get Haaland for just £64m, as opposed to what Kane would've cost is kind of emblematic of the PL's financial power compared to the Bundesliga.

Haaland will ostensibly cost less than Angel di Maria in 2014, Kepa in 2018 and Jadon Sancho last year.

Dortmund knew he was going to be a massive player when they negotiated a contract with him with a release clause so low. If they hadn't acquiesced on that point would he have signed there in the first place?

Just wanted to say it's insane that if the EPL was just City, Pool, and Tottenham, Tottenham would be champions - but we're not even currently top 4.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Just wanted to say it's insane that if the EPL was just City, Pool, and Tottenham, Tottenham would be champions - but we're not even currently top 4.

But would Spurs still be top if the three of them played each other constantly over a 48 game season? I doubt it.

UEFA just changed the Group Stage of the Champions League to a bunch of glorified friendlies. The Americanization of football continues, with or without a Super League.

Taking the total number of teams from 32 to 36 in the UEFA Champions League, the biggest change will see a transformation from the traditional group stage to a single league phase including all participating teams. Every club will now be guaranteed a minimum of 8 league stage games against 8 different opponents (four home games, four away) rather than the previous six matches against three teams, played on a home-and-away basis.

https://www.uefa.com/news/0275-151c7...

Sorbicol wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

Just wanted to say it's insane that if the EPL was just City, Pool, and Tottenham, Tottenham would be champions - but we're not even currently top 4.

But would Spurs still be top if the three of them played each other constantly over a 48 game season? I doubt it.

As long as we're doubting things I doubt they'd extend the season to 48 games if there were only three teams, but who knows?

My point was just that looking at the common games of those three clubs, Tottenham got the most points, which makes it very frustrating that we can't get enough wins off of far worse teams to lock up fourth.

Roke wrote:

UEFA just changed the Group Stage of the Champions League to a bunch of glorified friendlies. The Americanization of football continues, with or without a Super League.

Taking the total number of teams from 32 to 36 in the UEFA Champions League, the biggest change will see a transformation from the traditional group stage to a single league phase including all participating teams. Every club will now be guaranteed a minimum of 8 league stage games against 8 different opponents (four home games, four away) rather than the previous six matches against three teams, played on a home-and-away basis.

https://www.uefa.com/news/0275-151c7...

I'll try to avoid moaning too much until I see what it's actually like, but man, I thought the group stage was really great. And the World Cup is screwing up group stages starting in 2026 since they're expanding to a number of teams that isn't a power of two. Where can you go for a good group stage anymore?

Roke wrote:

UEFA just changed the Group Stage of the Champions League to a bunch of glorified friendlies. The Americanization of football continues, with or without a Super League.

Taking the total number of teams from 32 to 36 in the UEFA Champions League, the biggest change will see a transformation from the traditional group stage to a single league phase including all participating teams. Every club will now be guaranteed a minimum of 8 league stage games against 8 different opponents (four home games, four away) rather than the previous six matches against three teams, played on a home-and-away basis.

https://www.uefa.com/news/0275-151c7...

If I’ve read that right they’ve ditched the part where clubs get a slot based on past performance?

You’d think clubs will start requesting to be excused from some domestic cup competitions - the League Cup for English League clubs I’d expect) given the volumes of games they are being asked to play these days.

I'm gonna post this here instead of the Soccer Gaming thread, because it's pretty big news:

FIFA and EA Sports End Two-Decade Video Game Partnership

Sorbicol wrote:

You’d think clubs will start requesting to be excused from some domestic cup competitions - the League Cup for English League clubs I’d expect) given the volumes of games they are being asked to play these days.

Yeah, I hope players kick up a stink about this. They're being asked to play an insane number of games each seaon just to make sure the line keeps going up for UEFA and FIFA (I was introduced to the new format for the Club World Cup in FM, it's an insane ask for no reason other than $$$).

Sorbicol wrote:

If I’ve read that right they’ve ditched the part where clubs get a slot based on past performance?

It does look like they have gone back on that, yeah... It didn't even come across as particularly recent past performance. For lack of a better explanation, it felt essentially like they could just invite any of the 'big clubs' that didn't qualify through their league position for whatever reason. Though that's not what this article suggests... they're all about open competitions and sporting merit.... oh my sides... please stop UEFA..

The Scottish league may well be the beneficiary of more regular direct entry if they do indeed finalise the new format of 36 teams, but without that hideous 'big team' option.

Prederick wrote:

I'm gonna post this here instead of the Soccer Gaming thread, because it's pretty big news:

FIFA and EA Sports End Two-Decade Video Game Partnership

You gotta love how Infantino is promising that the successor FIFA game will be the best soccer game there is, despite the fact that it's probably not currently in development nor even assigned to a particular developer. But it will be the best! Because, trust me.

In footballing news, Liverpool battled to a very hard fought 1-2 victory at Aston Villa this evening. For a while there I thought the fat lady was singing on any chance Liverpool might take the title, but apparently she's still just clearing her throat.

If Villa can play like that in their game against Manchester City, there might be a final twist in the tale yet.

I am hoping Liverpool can pull it out. If not for anything other than to let their fans celebrate like they were not able to 2 years ago.

Medmey wrote:

I am hoping Liverpool can pull it out. If not for anything other than to let their fans celebrate like they were not able to 2 years ago.

And to see John Oliver cry on camera again. Love that guy.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Prederick wrote:

I'm gonna post this here instead of the Soccer Gaming thread, because it's pretty big news:

FIFA and EA Sports End Two-Decade Video Game Partnership

You gotta love how Infantino is promising that the successor FIFA game will be the best soccer game there is, despite the fact that it's probably not currently in development nor even assigned to a particular developer. But it will be the best! Because, trust me. :lol:

You know it'll make this year's PES release look like Halo 2.

/looks up

"Hey! Wolves equalized! Maybe this title race might end up interesting..."

//looks down

///looks up

"Ah."

Oh well the 2 seasons in the Premier League were fun... so glad we got shot of Bielsa for this disgrace... Least we had gone down playing the right way under Biesla.

I wouldn't go that far yet. Burnley's at Spurs, at Villa, and home for Newcastle. I'd rather be Leeds, finishing against Brighton and Brentford.

Hell, two wins and they catch Southampton on points. I'd feel safe on goal difference though, as it's completely unheard of for Saint's to ship nine goals a game ... to Liverpool ... or Leicester.

Spurs making their play here for the 4th Champions League spot. I like what Arteta has been allowed to do with Arsenal, but they are still a young team with quite a bit to learn. I hope people remember that.

Edit: Arsenal down to 10 men too. It’s going to be a long evening for them.

My FM Game: Lewandowski leaves Bayern after the 2021/22 season

Me: Pfft, like that'd ever happen.

Real Life: Ahem.

And what do we say to the God of Europa League?

Not today.

Prederick wrote:

My FM Game: Lewandowski leaves Bayern after the 2021/22 season

Me: Pfft, like that'd ever happen.

Real Life: Ahem.

Wants to be Kane's back-up?

Was playing FM today, and had a realization.

Is it just me, or does England's Work Permit rules help tilt the field in favor of the big clubs?

The way the rules appear to work, the players who will be allowed in are experienced internationals or players who have played a lot in top leagues or in club continental competitions. The kind of players who fit those requirements are often the elite players, so more often, it seems like while a City can snap up a Haaland or Arsenal can end up with starting 11s with literally no Englishmen in them, a Brentford or a QPR isn't going to be able to pluck some talented French 24-year-old from Ligue 2 because he hasn't played at the elite end enough.

Am I reading this wrong? Cuz in looking at it, as I said, seems to favor the big clubs pretty heavily.

Your not reading that wrong IMO.

Arsenal are pretty English these days (Holding even tried to KO someone today circa the 1970s. Their peak everyone speaking French squads were pre-brexit so they didn't need permits for EU players. Or am I misremembering that?

So if anything it's even more compounded now.

Like, I get the stated idea behind it, but in practice, it seems like a "squad must have X number of English players" rule would work better and be less arcane. And you could tier it through the leagues, so maybe the PL allows for 12/25 to be non-English, but League two only allows for 3/25.

Can I ask fans of the clubs that have taken massive cash injections (Chelsea, Man City, Newcastle PSG et al) How you really feel about it? The success and trophies must be great but does it in anyway feel tainted? I dont judge and really understand to compete at that level these days requires someone with silly money but is there any part that yearns for times before that? In totally unrelated things Queens Park drew 1-1 in the first leg of the play off last night and it was a very tense game. Onto the away leg in Airdrie with hope to spare.

I'm not a fan of one of those clubs, but I am a fan of a club that has seen its very recent history improve because two very, very rich men bought the club and gave us the financial power to attract better players.

For me, the game is the game. Top talent wants the $$$ (as is their right) and big clubs can afford to pay those wages, smaller clubs can't. That's the business.

So, while there is obviously a difference in levels of cash injection, does Fulham's run to the Europa League final feel in any way tainted because Mohamed Al-Fayed plowed enough cash into the club for such a thing to even be possible, even if we were still minnows compared to the other teams in the competition? Nope.

Leicester's story is absolutely amazing and wonderful, but again, they were also helped by being bought out by another billionaire. Again, nowhere near the levels of City/Newcastle, but boy howdy, I'll bet Bolton fans would love for a Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha to come swanning up and bankroll them to some silverware.

Hell, right now, Wrexham fans are absolutely thrilled with Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney, partially because they brought a bunch of $$$ to the club, which helped them bring in better talent on better wages and lo and behold, Wrexham are three points off promotion.

Plus, given how insanely financially stratified the game has become (and is continuing to get), the only way up is for someone with loadsamoney to show up and give it to your team. We're already seeing how this is turning out in the Bundesliga, where literally no-one can compete financially with Bayern (and Bayern can't compete with the top PL teams!).

Again, there's a lot to be discussed vis-a-vis where the money comes from that can make a difference, but, to me, an American, football (like all professional sports) has been partially a business since the day the first professional contract was signed. And while historical rules like the retain-and-transfer system worked well to prevent our current situation (a handful of rich clubs dominating everything), as the courts ruled, they were just incredibly anti-worker. (Also see the Bosman Ruling.)

So now, the players have a lot more power to demand the wages they want. As they should, because I'm certainly not going to a game to see John Henry and David Sullivan try and kick the ball for 90 minutes. And without any kind of meaningful revenue sharing or salary cap to balance things (FWIW, I fully believe in the competitive argument for a cap, but ethically... well, see the "retain-and-transfer" thing), plus the added unbalancing of the Champions League and lucrative TV deals, unless you're satisfied with once-in-a-decade "that one time we almost came close to almost winning it" runs, you gotta have the money if you wanna compete.

So, assuming the money didn't come from somewhere deeply morally questionable, if I was a fan of, say, Coventry, and some skillionaire showed up and bankrolled us back into the PL and a cup trophy I wouldn't feel an ounce of taint. The game is the game.

Now, if I was a fan of like, some who-gives-two-farts French team and we got bought by Kim Jong-Un, yes, obviously, I'm going to have issues. But not because of the money itself, but because he's a dictator and that money is covered in blood.

EDIT: tl;dr - I don't think money taints success, watching the PL club owners play a 5-a-side-game would be appointment television and I would happily pay $49.99 to do so.

Thanks for the thoughtful write up Prederick. Because my team are so far removed from "success" at those terms its always hard for me to imagine what being a Man City fan is like at the moment especially if you followed them through the Paul Dickov years. Queens Parks last Scottish Cup win wasn't even last century these days.

Liverpool are an interesting comparison and yes the money is just a fact of life.

You have posed an interesting question though in which of the clubs boards would win a five a side! Perhaps a mode for whoever takes over the Fifa licence!

All billionaires' money is covered in blood, some are just more obvious.