-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** English Football Season 2018-19
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
No, he won't go because of this result, but it is incredibly lolsy
andmark
International Captain
I'm not saying he will go, but I reckon he needs to at this point if United want a good season.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
I don't think it's too late (depends on what counts as a "good" season though I suppose), but it's not looking promising at the moment tstl.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
We're competing with Arsenal and Spurs for fourth and I don't think sacking Mourinho would change that. Since the board have made it clear that he has no future at the club, in theory I would prefer him to be sacked sooner rather than later so we could use the rest of the season to implement a decent style for next season. But I don't think we could get anyone worth having at this point in the season, and it might make sense to wait until the new Director of Football is in place. The club is such an unholy mess that sticking with the utterly embarrassing status quo might be the least bad option.
Tangles
International Vice-Captain
I'd also prefer he was moved on if that's the January or end of season plan anyway. They may wait till CL elimination or 4th is unreachable. I don't have any idea who a good replacement would be. Ideally you want someone who can promote youth and some attacking football. I don't think they will trust anyone not proven.
I still don't know how to start a completely new thread any help on that would be gratefully received.
Forget that for now the title of this thread is 2018-19 so here goes:
Why the hell are we having international friendlies/euro nations league surely after a big tournament the next season there should be no games.
View attachment Euro nations.pdf
Forget that for now the title of this thread is 2018-19 so here goes:
Why the hell are we having international friendlies/euro nations league surely after a big tournament the next season there should be no games.
View attachment Euro nations.pdf
Furball
Evil Scotsman
If there's no future for Mourinho then get him sacked now before the likes of Martial, Pogba and Rashford decide there's no future for them at the club either.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Surely the not so special one will be gone before christmas and the names mentioned will be convinced that their futures lie at Old Trafford.
Tangles
International Vice-Captain
If the results don't tank and the players don't force the issue then they will wait till theres a big excuse like CL failure or being unable to get 4th. Woodward gave him the extension so he won't force the issue. Others might.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Thoughts on the proposal by FIFA to limit the number of loans per club as per this story?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45643965
I think a limit of 6 is far too hard, and I think the unintended consequence of such a move would be for B teams to come into the English game.
I'm not necessarily looking to debate the merits of B teams per se, I understand that most of the guys in this thread are opposed and I understand your reasons behind that. However, I think the example given of Chelsea having 40 players out on loan is a bit of a red herring and something they get a bit of unfair flak for. The figure of 40 itself is too high, they've clearly hoovered up a ridiculous amount of talent to do so, but loaning a player out for first team football at 18-21 is a legitimate development pathway. At Bayern Munich or Barcelona, if you're a talented 18 year old you're probably playing B team football at a lower level against other first teams to gain experience. At Chelsea (or any other English club) you need to be loaned externally to get first team experience at the same age. I reckon there would be around half the players on loan if Chelsea had a B team down the leagues instead.
What I think is more concerning and needs looked at urgently is the abuse of the transfer system by clubs like Manchester City, who stockpile players and essentially insert themselves as an intermediary to inflate fees and cream off a profit for themselves, the two most obvious examples being Aaron Mooy and Daniel Arzani. Both players were transferred from Melbourne City for a nominal fee, immediately loaned out to Huddersfield and Celtic respectively, and City creamed off a fee of £8m from Huddersfield for Mooy after loaning him for a year. Not bad considering he was a City player for 6 days. Arzani could potentially do similar, he was immediately loaned to Celtic for 2 years with an option to buy.
Stuff like that distorts the market and inflates fees, and is a far bigger problem than Chelsea having loads of players they loan out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45643965
I think a limit of 6 is far too hard, and I think the unintended consequence of such a move would be for B teams to come into the English game.
I'm not necessarily looking to debate the merits of B teams per se, I understand that most of the guys in this thread are opposed and I understand your reasons behind that. However, I think the example given of Chelsea having 40 players out on loan is a bit of a red herring and something they get a bit of unfair flak for. The figure of 40 itself is too high, they've clearly hoovered up a ridiculous amount of talent to do so, but loaning a player out for first team football at 18-21 is a legitimate development pathway. At Bayern Munich or Barcelona, if you're a talented 18 year old you're probably playing B team football at a lower level against other first teams to gain experience. At Chelsea (or any other English club) you need to be loaned externally to get first team experience at the same age. I reckon there would be around half the players on loan if Chelsea had a B team down the leagues instead.
What I think is more concerning and needs looked at urgently is the abuse of the transfer system by clubs like Manchester City, who stockpile players and essentially insert themselves as an intermediary to inflate fees and cream off a profit for themselves, the two most obvious examples being Aaron Mooy and Daniel Arzani. Both players were transferred from Melbourne City for a nominal fee, immediately loaned out to Huddersfield and Celtic respectively, and City creamed off a fee of £8m from Huddersfield for Mooy after loaning him for a year. Not bad considering he was a City player for 6 days. Arzani could potentially do similar, he was immediately loaned to Celtic for 2 years with an option to buy.
Stuff like that distorts the market and inflates fees, and is a far bigger problem than Chelsea having loads of players they loan out.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah fair point.
He’s acting as a flak jacket for the owners and Woodward. Maybe that’s why he’s still there.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
I think I saw something about a homegrown club player not counting towards that 6, so in actual fact Chelsea would still be able to loan out 16-18 players with their current setup
cpr
International Coach
I don't particularly mind the loan system for the reasons Furball mentions, it gets youngsters game time etc.... Problem with the Chelsea model is these youngsters get next to zero time at Chelsea, as they are loaned year after year with barely a preseason training with the parent club. It undermines the notion that the parent club are looking to develop the player and not just hold on to a potential talent until they can profit.
I'd like to see a limit on loans a player can have, rather than a club. So only one long term loan (6months +) between 16-21, no more than 2 short term loans/12 months out in any 18 month window, max 18 months out on loan between 18-21, then 6 months for every 12 months after. At least that way young players know when they sign for a big club they will see some training and benefits from being at a large team, rather than having no say in being a globe trotting/lower league money farm.
I'd like to see a limit on loans a player can have, rather than a club. So only one long term loan (6months +) between 16-21, no more than 2 short term loans/12 months out in any 18 month window, max 18 months out on loan between 18-21, then 6 months for every 12 months after. At least that way young players know when they sign for a big club they will see some training and benefits from being at a large team, rather than having no say in being a globe trotting/lower league money farm.