Avinalaff

It couldn't be any more of a mess than it already is. Why are players on individual salaries. There should be club wage tiers. It's more about money than it is football, and how much can the game withstand. What will they earn in 10 years time, and who will pay for it. As from 2015, all players will be on a basic wage of 80 quid per week. Simple.

I'd like a rule that caps both player wages, and club spending, but also forces big clubs to withdraw funding, bringing them back in line with everybody else, and if the players don't like it, let them get a job down the mine for chips and change like normal folk. I'm fairly sure that if footballers were all paid a performance related pay, based upon a basic salary, then they'd all play better. If they were all on 5 grand per week, they'd still be amongst the countries top earners, and kids in school would still want to be footballers.

Only if you can find a suitable thread in which to discuss it (with pictures of the err .. curry) of course.

Bhoy, also regarding your billionaire ...... His wealth has got nothing to do with Celtic as a business. Celtics finances are declared yearly to the tax man independantly of private wealth, and those finances as a business would suffer should you play in our Conference league or 2nd division etc. Might I suggest you read this: In

Yes. If they weren't already involved my vote would be a no. Slightly different leagues in Wales though to be fair to them, but my principles remain similar. The thought of English teams playing cup finals at Cardiff was not a popular one.

How dare you start a new thread without checking the entire history of Toffeetalk first.

You're just taking advantage of the fact that not only do I not know what consilience means, but nor do I understand it's dictionary interpretation.

You are clearly brainwashed by some redshite alien force, or possibly Romey. Why don't we have one thread for the whole universe, as everything can be categorised if we try hard enough. Try searching for a thread on here regarding a specific player. You can't, because posts over a certain age vanish into the abyss, and although Mike will tell us how to find them, it's too much for the average earthing to navigate, when all he wants to do is share a quick post. I've been involved with forums at both ends since around 2002, so I'm not totally inexperienced on the subject. Being tidy is all well and good, but the tidiest forum of all, is an empty one, and that is what will happen if we over moderate.

I can make one for you for a price.

I know a bit about English football. I know a bit about business. I don't need to know a lot about Scottish football. The fairest option is for English teams to play in England, and Scottish teams to play in Scotland. Just like I have to tell my dog off for persistently asking for a bit of my diner, "No ! Knob off. You've got yer own diner, now go and eat it !"

It's one thing keeping a forum tidy, but it's another being too clinical. Far too many threads locked in my opinion, not that my opinion is worth Jack.. If a new guy starts a thread, why not just roll with it? Does anybody really care if we've had a similar thread before? Give the newbies a break, and let them make a thread. It gives them a chance to find their feet, and get to know a few people, and encourages them to post. The last thing you do is scare them off by moderating them immidiately, or being an OCD twit and telling them somebody already posted it. You can always merge the thread when the conversation has died down, Be patient people. If there is one thing that gets on my proverbial tits (forgive my French) it's posting something, and then having some tired of life boring sod post a link to tell me it's already been posted in 1763 BC, and that it has to be locked etc. Fine, if we both start threads in the same afternoon, but if Fellaini cuts his hair off for charity, and a member posts a thread about his baldness, does it really need to be merged with an existing thread? Doing this kills conversation stone dead. If anybody ever quotes me with a link to another post to tell me something has already been posted they will be immidiately abused in a shockingly painful way, and have very nasty pictures of their dismembered body sent to their wives. The world has been turning for a long time, and nobody is the first to post 'anything'. Capiche? If I watch a great band tonight, and want to share the experience with other members, the best way to do this is for them to see a new thread title, as opposed to them simply seeing another 'What are you listening to' thread etc. Having it's own thread keeps it specific to that band, and gives it it's own reference, where as merging it with a 'What are you listening to' diminishes it's interest, reduces it's impact, and destroys any hope of gaining forum traffic from the Google search engines. If I see a new post in 'What are you watching, or listening to', I normally can't be arsed opening it, as it's either Dalzier listing his songs as they happen, or another post regarding some band I've never heard of nor like. If It's something I 'do' like, and try to find it again, I now have oover 100 pages of crap to trawl through trying to find it. Why not give entertainment it's own board, and then if folk want to start a thread within it, it's already in the right place, rather than it getting merged etc? Talking of search engines ......... If you entitle a thread correctly, such as 'Fellaini found in bed with a Camel', instead of just 'Fellaini' like many here do, it will be more interesting, easier to find, memorable, and will get much better results in both the sites search facility, and the Google search, which again gets us more traffic. Somebody must get bored, and look for things to do lol. It's bad moderating. Whoever told you it was good moderation lied. I love you, but you get me angry ha ha.

Evil dead? Lol, oh dear.

It's not possible Rubes. It would need to be a straight entrance into the Prem (Championship at worst) or nothing, as their financial foundation would crumble should they be put in the lower leagues. They just couldn't continue as the clubs we know today. They would have only a fraction of their current funding, and would basically have to become a Conference club, to survive, if that makes sense.

This might be controversial, but it's only my opinion, rightly or wrongly informed. Glasgow teams have taken the spoils from Scottish football, and with little resistance from other clubs, have accumulated wealth, so it strikes me as unfair, that you should be allowed to join the lower ranks of the English leagues, and compete against teams that have no wealth. Firstly, would it be economical for those fans and smaller clubs to have to travel enormous distances to watch their teams play in Glasgow? Portsmouth fans for example, would have a round trip of just under 900 miles. Secondly, should they have their own chances of promotion hindered, by allowing a much bigger team to play in their division? There are 24 clubs in our 2nd division. 4 are relegated, and 2 are promoted, so should we relegate an extra 2 clubs to accomodate you? Celtic as a business would also suffer, not to mention the loss of income for the Scottish FA. You would lose the revenue you get from tv coverage, sponsorship, European football, not to mention the earnings via Scottish titles etc, and your players would all leave, as contracts would become void. Your club would enter administration. We can go on, and on, but the simple matter of fact, is that no amicable solution would be possible, and as such, it will never happen. Scotland is another country, and a totally seperate entity regarding football, and the solution long term is not to take the good teams out of Scotland, but to make the Scottish league better. You may say that this will never happen, and it probably won't to the degree of the Premier League, but everybody in the world wants what everybody else has, and it isn't possible. Your fans, in their present position, already have more than most fans do, but your clubs have no more right of passage into the English leagues as Barcelona do, or Club Brugge, and we both know it won't happen, as there is no benefit what so ever for any English clubs to be had, other than an already small piece of the cake getting smaller. There has been talk of a European league for the top clubs, but once again, that is simply a case of the big clubs wanting everything for themselves, and balls to everybody else (similar to the birth of the Prem) but it wouldn't work outside of the current European competitions, as how could fans possibly afford to travel abroad every other week. Isn't football already expensive enough? There is nothing to stop Scottish fans from supporting English clubs, but as far as becoming part of the English set up, it won't happen. A Scottish v English cup is the best you could hope for.

Ha ha, funny guy.

Jack Reacher. Watched it last night. Have to say it was a bit 'same old same old'. Very mediocre plot and light years away from ever being of the status of the Bourne films.

Is he really playing as bad as everybody says, or are we hyping it up too much?

Is it every time we play Chelsea, or everytime a window is open? Strange we should disclose our accounts smack bang at the window too.

Why you greedy guts, wanting it all to yourself.

Maybe he got stoned, and thought "Feck it, I'll buy Everton. Noooo problem buana".

Huh? United weren't too bad 30 years ago. 81 / 1982 - 3rd 82 / 1983 - 3rd 83 / 1984 - 4th 84 / 1985 - 4th 85 / 1986 - 4th Another team weren't too bad either around that time lol.

He's banned.

Pete, you have a wicked side.

You are American. Your opinion is not rational.