Reply to: Champions League

[BoredBloke]

"Those were the days when only Champions took part. Man Utd got knocked out early in the next two seasons, and on both occasions they had to drop one of their foreigners for the crucial games."

Not quite - they had to drop loads of players. This is where Beckham and the rest got their early starts. I remeber games where the discussion was would they play Peter the red nosed goalie or Cantona. There were other overseas players who could have played but they had to play English fringe players instead. During those games our bench looked like a youth club.

[wendigo100]

Or, more accurately, in the treatment room!

They are the only two who get a game!

[shaunbhoy]

and most of England's strikers are kicking their heels week after week on the bench

Or, more accurately, in the treatment room!

[wendigo100]

There used to be a limit of four foreigners per team, including subs.

Coincidentally, Stuttgart came unstuck in 1992/3 for bringing on a fifth foreigner as a sub in the last minute while 3-0 up, against Leeds. They were forced to replay, lost, and Leeds went on to lose to Rangers in the next round.

Those were the days when only Champions took part. Man Utd got knocked out early in the next two seasons, and on both occasions they had to drop one of their foreigners for the crucial games. So they campaigned to get rid of the rule, and were helped by the case of a cr * p Belgian player called Bosman.

Nowadays, Arsenal just take the p*ss, and most of England's strikers are kicking their heels week after week on the bench instead of getting quality net-bulging time on the pitch.

[snaw]

DUh, domestic sides

I thought you were talking about rugby for a minute there ...

[daviejones]

Isn't the limit for foreign players in the national team currently 0?

Don't think decreasing it will help any.

DUh, domestic sides

[TheFaQQer]

Does anyone agree that there would be a huge benefit to the national teams if we put a limit on the number of foreign players in each team? I recall many years ago that this was discussed but have not kept up to date on it...

Soz if this has already been covered...

Isn't the limit for foreign players in the national team currently 0?

Don't think decreasing it will help any.

[shaunbhoy]

Does anyone agree that there would be a huge benefit to the national teams if we put a limit on the number of foreign players in each team?

That used to be the case, but not sure if it made a lot of difference back then. Seems to be working for the Scots at the moment though. Worth a try IMHO.

[daviejones]

Does anyone agree that there would be a huge benefit to the national teams if we put a limit on the number of foreign players in each team? I recall many years ago that this was discussed but have not kept up to date on it...

Soz if this has already been covered...

[FiveTimes]

Maybe so, I put it down to the fact that both halves of the Old Firm have been forced down the road of promoting homegrown youngsters much more. That is starting to pay dividends now both at domestic and national level. Too much cash in the premiership for it ever to happen down in England though. Seems to be adversely affecting the national side down south very much for the worse. Anyway, what's all this whining by Rafa about the Board not backing him? £21M for Torres alone? Wish our board were that stingey!

The fact that the big two were skint has really helped the national team as the big two had to field and play young scottish players.
Although this has caused a few shock results.

The longer this happens the better the national team will become.

Agreed that there is far too much money in the prem.

[FiveTimes]

Maybe so, I put it down to the fact that both halves of the Old Firm have been forced down the road of promoting homegrown youngsters much more. That is starting to pay dividends now both at domestic and national level. Too much cash in the premiership for it ever to happen down in England though. Seems to be adversely affecting the national side down south very much for the worse. Anyway, what's all this whining by Rafa about the Board not backing him? £21M for Torres alone? Wish our board were that stingey!

21M for Torres is all they have really spent. The rest of the transfers he made in the summer have been recouped by selling.. Our net outlay this summer was about 25-28M.
Before the Yanks invested we were spending that anyway, so they haven't really increased his transfer funds.
He is having a bit of a moan about missing out on Bosman/free players and they don't understand the speed needed to get things in place.
Gillette and Hicks are only coming over mid December to "discuss" things, by then the players could have gone.

One thing that could get sorted out ASAP is the perm signing of Mascherano which the board seem reluctant to sanction

[shaunbhoy]

Correct SB, but its still new for the SPL teams to be in europe this long.

Maybe so, I put it down to the fact that both halves of the Old Firm have been forced down the road of promoting homegrown youngsters much more. That is starting to pay dividends now both at domestic and national level. Too much cash in the premiership for it ever to happen down in England though. Seems to be adversely affecting the national side down south very much for the worse. Anyway, what's all this whining by Rafa about the Board not backing him? £21M for Torres alone? Wish our board were that stingey!

[FiveTimes]

They are both looking in better shape than Liverpool though.

Correct SB, but its still new for the SPL teams to be in europe this long.

They do have a history of falling at the last hurdle, a bit like the national side

[shaunbhoy]

So let the huns and hoops have there little journey in Europe. It won't last long anyway

They are both looking in better shape than Liverpool though.

[FiveTimes]

So let the huns and hoops have there little journey in Europe. It won't last long anyway