Is the goal really to keep our competitions 100% even though? I'm a big supporter of a salary cap for Australian sports but having discrepancies in the sizes of clubs allows fans to build up rivalries, context and narrative that make following sport interesting. I'm not sold on the benefit of things like Arizona boot camps either and I'm not sure how (past a certain point) backroom football spending does all that much to obtain the best players and keep them playing at their peak. I think the diversity of grand finalists both codes have seen in the last decade backs that up.Yeah was happy that the discussion came up regarding that. That being said, that doesn't prevent some teams being able to fly players to Arizona mid-season whilst others can't etc.
Its a tricky issue isn't it. Personally I am not 100% in favour of capping football department spending or numbers etc. as I think the innovation argument is strong.
At the same time, I cannot provide a solid alternative to ensure the game stays even. Particulalry if the fixture is always going to favour Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond etc. and screw over Bulldogs, Melbourne, North, Port etc.
literally wrong tbfThat's the key point here.
Unfortunately England could never implement it because there are other major leagues playing the same code in Spain, Italy, Germany etc. So this is an argument over theory.
But that doesn't mean one should criticise the cap and wear as a badge of honour the fact that the rich teams are the ones that win all the time. It's a testament to the passion of many football fans that they follow their team so passionately despite having literally 0% chance of winning the title, unless a billionaire Arab walks in and takes over their football club of course
How could I miss them from my summary. Can't remember what year they went up from League One, suspect it may have been 06-07 but possibly 07-08. If so then in this thread's lifecycle they've gone from League One to League Two via the premier leagueblackp00l