Nerf

City haven't won more than two league games in a row in 2022, which feels bonkers to say. That's just about the only thing keeping me clinging on to hope that there's another twist in this race.

15 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I'm doing I'm breaking it - maybe 10 years that I won't be buying. I completely lost interest last year, it seemed to be completely back to pacey wingers and all that & don't have the patience to learn all the skill moves which seem to make it playable. 

Hopefully I don't cave. 

'21 was the first I ain't bought since '98 and I haven't looked back.

17 hours ago, Lineker said:

Matt loves Turks!

This is just as bad. Stop it.

16 minutes ago, Hobo said:

Hopefully it is better than it sounds

It's not

The only grim consolation is that judging by how floppy his leg was, it was a clean break, so should have an easier time healing. The kind of thing that derails a career for an 18 year old though.

not chalky white

19 hours ago, Twist said:

Does it mean more money invested in grass roots, paying academy scouts and other volunteers, etc? Do the owners just keep the profit? Do tickets become more affordable? Replica kits, etc?

none of those things would happen. i would wager the only thing that would change is that transfer fees get bigger so that the surplus money goes somewhere. the other problem you run into is that you can't get the entire world on board. the prem is the biggest league in the world because the money attracted all the superstars. whatever league pays the most would just replace it as the go-to destination.

i've never understood why people are so desperate to "fix" football wages when it's essentially the only industry in the world where the workers are paid fairly relative to the value they create.

2 hours ago, damshow said:

I understand some apprehension giving a player a new contract that'll run until he's 36 or so but between modern sports science as well as how focused a lot of athletes are to taking care of themselves there's no reason he can't continue to contribute at a high level into his late 30s. Just seems like they want to be cheap and are looking for an excuse as to "why they had no choice".

So like... don't. He still has 2 years to run. They "don't want a repeat of the Wijnaldum situation," but it's not even comparable. He'll be 33, what resale value are they protecting, exactly?

A lot of really reliable journalists bringing up the "very real prospect" that Jordan Henderson could leave Liverpool this summer.

FSG are honestly flabbergasting.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how people aren't seeing Bailly going studs up at shin height. It's a red card challenge anywhere else on the pitch.

1 hour ago, MadJack said:

It's a 15 million euro donation total, amongst the 9.

Yeah, Paul Joyce tweeted wrong. Take it up with him.

The 6 English ESL clubs will have 5% of their UEFA revenue withheld for one season, and each will make a 15m EUR donation to grassroots initiatives. That seems like the perfect punishment to me, hurting the owners and supporting the pyramid, rather than short-sighted cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Honestly, once all this is over can we get Perez on Gogglebox or something? His insanity has been box office stuff.

6 minutes ago, Colly said:

But what happened to Leeds did happen to Leeds, and they were punished for breaking the rules. I think there may have been a little sympathy for fans and players, but I don't think many felt the punishment shouldn't happen. That's why I don't get this "these clubs shouldn't be punished" attitude. Reform certainly, but there's no way these clubs should get away with it just because they were caught before climax...

I mean, fine. I certainly won't complain about it if the clubs are punished, I just think it's silly and performative and everyone will pat themselves on the back and call it a win for football, meanwhile nothing actually changes. There's a good chance John Henry isn't even around to endure the punishment, the punishment itself does absolutely nothing to address the systemic issues that resulted in this happening, the punishment (depending on severity) likely ends up harming every other club rather than the owners in question, and we're all back here in 10 years, except Farhad Moshiri has replaced Daniel Levy at the Super League table and this time they've actually got their ducks in a row.

Just now, Colly said:

On the first point I'm not actually sure which is worse, bearing in mind they aren't just betraying UEFA, they were conspiring to get an enormous advantage at domestic level too. Entering additional competitions is prohibited in the rules too so it's an actual rule break as well as a moral issue.

On the second, I agree with your main point that reform in football ownership is long overdue, however I don't see how that in any way removes the need for punishment in this case. It's that kind of "we're special" attitude that's got us here in the first place.

I mean, technically nobody entered an additional competition, so no rule has been broken. Technically. Don't get me wrong, I guarantee you that I'm more outraged than you are about what happened.

It isn't a "we're special" attitude at all. I literally said those other clubs shouldn't have been punished either, because their owners should never have had the power to do the things that they did in the first place. I'm not sure we can all in one breath say that what happened to Leeds, for example, was a travesty, but in another breath advocate for it happening again to different clubs.

FSG are fucking disgusting and I want them out of my club as soon as realistically plausible, but more than that I want national reform to the way football clubs operate to stop anything like this or anything like what happened to Bury and Rangers happening again.

10 minutes ago, Colly said:

I don't really follow how this is a "big clubs vs the rest" thing, when Leeds and Bury have both been punished for financial reasons with footballing punishments?

Why should they be punished but these 6 not?

Well, first of all, going into administration isn't a remotely comparable situation to conspiring to betray UEFA. Second of all, they shouldn't have been punished, because they shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. That was, y'know, the entire crux of my post.

@metalmanUsing the Spurs/Liverpool final, both of whom have spent less than Newcastle and Fulham, as your example of the financial advantage is a bit mad tbh.

There's an awful lot of (understandably) emotional hot takes here, but it's ultimately just distracting from the bigger picture. The only punishment for these clubs should be passing legislation for 50+1 to stop these vultures abusing their power again. United fans are as much victims of this as Leeds and Bury fans were of their owners, and as Newcastle fans are of their owners.

There's a fixation on the six clubs as if your Moshiris and Bradys and Ashleys of the world wouldn't have done exactly the same thing given half the chance. This isn't a "big six" problem, it's a fundamental problem with club ownership in football. It wasn't that long ago that the meme was you'd have to be an idiot to buy a football club because they just hemorrhage money, and there was an unspoken agreement that owners genuinely did the right thing most of the time (with a few notable exceptions). At some point in the last decade or so (I'd say it started with the Glazers) that suddenly changed.

Making it a tribal Big Clubs vs. The Rest thing is exactly what these owners want you to do because it takes attention away from the very urgent reform that English football needs from top to bottom. Besides, a lot of the proposed punishments will probably hurt smaller teams more than it hurts the six in question anyway.

Barca and Atleti seem to be insisting that they are still in. Wtf.

41 minutes ago, MadJack said:

Leeds laid out shirts saying "earn it" in the away dressing room.

Again, this is shite though. It's not the players that have made this decision. I get them wearing it during the warm up to send a message publicly, but that stunt bothers me. They know Liverpool can't wear them. So, what, we're trying to vilify players that have absolutely no say in any of this?

I think it's important to start differentiating clubs and owners here. It isn't Liverpool, Arsenal and Man United doing this. It's FSG, Kroenke and the Glazers. Fans don't want this, and if reports are to be believed, neither do players and managers. Call the cunts out outright and get them out of our game. Fan ownership is non-negotiable after this shower of shite.

15 minutes ago, DFF said:

Personally I see a compromise happening whereby there is a bigger safety net for big teams added to the champs lge than the one in the most recently mooted 'Swiss model'.

People need to accept that this is happening. If any "compromise" were possible, it wouldn't have got this far. The clubs involved have left the ECA. They literally aren't allowed to participate in UEFA competitions anymore. This is not a bluff. It's happening. Now we accept it and try to figure out how to take back our clubs from these parasites.

32 minutes ago, Tigerstyle said:

Just to make sure I’m correct, this is like a closed door Champions League?

They’re still playing in their respective home leagues right?

We'll find out today if the League Associations will ban the clubs involved. What we do know is that the 12 clubs can't compete in UEFA competitions anymore, domestically is not yet confirmed.

Fuck all of them. It makes me fucking sick that these clubs are being dragged through the mud because of their cartoon villain owners. FSG get the fuck out of my club.

Too early for the transfer window thread, but The Athletic claim Liverpool are in the process of finalising a deal for Leipzig's Ibrahima Konate.

On 26/03/2021 at 14:15, iDOL said:

It would just create a massive amount of work for modders for the benefit of basically setting up a rough list of workers. I've been going through and adding job histories and can already see why most modders leave them out as it is a vast amount of research and takes so much time to input. 

• It would basically require all mod makers to input the complete employment history of each worker up until the start date of the game. Again, many don't even bother due to the amount of time it takes to do so. 
• Employment histories don't account for face/heel disposition or gimmicks (and if it did that's creating a ton of more work again) so you'd still manually have to go in and set these. 
• It really only accounts for vague start dates (ex. January 2004) so you would still have to research who is on the actual roster
• Not to mention the types of contracts (PPA, Touring, Etc), Promotions that aren't in the database (no one is going to want to create all of those, even if you could simply use placeholders), momentum, gimmick ratings, and other factors.
• The contract function operates independently from the employment history function before the game starts (thus why you have to set an open ended Job History entry with the current promotion if you want the worker's start date set correctly).  

 

As for the original question, if the mod is set up correctly and well researched, the contracts shouldn't have the start date of the game world (for example, all WWE workers in a January 2004 game shouldn't have a contract start date of January 2004) they should reflect when the person actually started/debuted on the roster. So if you're playing a 2004 game, Chavo Guerrero's contract start date should be March 2001.

I some get your points, but here's the thing, it's not a necessity. The option to leave job history blank will still be there as it is now, I'm just suggesting that job history has an actual function so that if anyone did want to make an exhaustive database (which a lot of people do, irrespective of the actual quality), it could actually aid the process of making historical mods.

Does it require more work up front? Yes. But would it save time on building other mods? Also yes. When you're creating a historical mod you're basically starting from scratch. You can't tell me your life wouldn't have been easier if instead of manually adding contracts for your 2004 mod, you could have just set a 2019 mod back 15 years and populated an accurate list of contracts. It's more work on behalf of whoever originally does it, but less work on behalf of literally anyone else who uses other databases as the foundation of their historical mods.

On 24/03/2021 at 22:22, iDOL said:

That would cause all sorts of problems, to be fair

Now? Sure, but he built TEW 2020 from the ground up supposedly with the intention of thinking bigger. I'm no big city game developer, but I don't see how it would be particularly difficult to code some kind of language that references the job history section to populate in-game rosters. The workers section already has a similar mechanic with debut dates, and I believe so does title history?

"If Date Is [X] Then Active Is [Yes]" isn't THAT much easier to program than "If Date Is [X] Then Contract With [X]."

Yeah, it's manual only, and it's a huge pain in the pass. I've given up on real world games because of it. If Adam were a better coder than he is, then the "job history" section could be more than a cosmetic feature and actually contribute to aging or de-aging databases.