Following the premiership

[gunnar hendershow]

Fulham's an all-around good club. Definitely agree with many of the other posters here. I went to a match of theirs a few years ago and definitely enjoyed the atmosphere of Craven Cottage.

Edited July 3, 2009 by damshow

[Pesci]

Out of the two I think Villa is a better match for you if you want excitement. Fulham had a lot of 1-0 results last season, which I know doesn't go down too well with you Yanks. Villa have 4-4s and poor defending and everything else you want to get your heart racing. Then again they don't have any outfield American players (Friedel in goal, sure) whereas Fulham have the wonderful Clint Dempsey - he doesn't start every game though. Maybe just go into next season trying to catch as many games as you can and see who you gravitate towards.

[Liam]

Dempsey didn't start off the season as first choice, but he played the majority of the second half as a first choice player. As for the 1-0's, that is true, but generally, we do play good football, so they can still be fairly good to watch.

For a chance of actually getting somewhere with your team, Villa is definitely the better bet out of the two though.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Without being biased I'd say Spurs cover all of those apart from the US player and generally get good coverage on international TV showings too (in Japan we get the Worldwide Premiership programme and I get to watch them most weeks. Indeed the only clubs shown more than them are Arsenal/Man Utd/Liverpool/Chelsea).

If you NEED the American player then Everton or Fulham. Everton will do better and will get better coverage.

Everton's main rivals are Liverpool (so you get to hate those by default) and Fulham's are Chelsea.

Edited July 3, 2009 by ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster

[MGW]

Nooooo you want to support Liverpool, we have American owners

In all seriousness, Fulham are the way to go. A decent team, with a good squad and a likeable manager. Plus you get the added entertainment of "Mad" Mohamed Al Fayed as the owner

[ZJ Penn]

Hull.

We just battled it out with Manchester United for Michael Owen (). We're going places.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

The last thing this forum needs is another Hull fan. Took us ages to get rid of the other one.

[KeepinThatFunkAliveV4]

So there is nobody from the US that can confirm if they show games on 360? =\

And from the sounds of it I'll either be going with Aston Villa or Fulham. I'll probably end up doing what Pesci said and not fully pick a side when I first start watching.

[thuganomic]

Read this. It's Bill Simmons' take when he had a similar problem some time ago. He settled on Tottenham

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

But Burnley wasn't one of the choices then.

[The Kraig]

I like Everton. Very solid team, a good "old fashioned" English team in my opinion with a high workrate. Always seem to do well despite not having any 'major' stars. They regularly get into Europe, and are of course well-known local rivals of Liverpool FC. Everton FC are named after an area in the larger Liverpool area.

Tim Howard plays for them if you absolutely need an American connection. These connections never last forever.

[KeepinThatFunkAliveV4]

That's another thing I was going to ask...in the Premiership, how often do players get reshuffle to new teams? I have no concept of how frequent transfers are, it would be nice if someone could compare them in relation to say, the NBA.

[The Kraig]

That's another thing I was going to ask...in the Premiership, how often do players get reshuffle to new teams? I have no concept of how frequent transfers are, it would be nice if someone could compare them in relation to say, the NBA.

They don't 'shuffle' and there is no such thing as a draft.

Clubs sign players as any company would sign employees. Players often sign multi-year contracts, which can be sold to other clubs, allowing the bidding club to sign that player for their own team.

At the end of a contract, players are not obligated to renew their contract and can simply walk free from their club, and be signed to another. This is known as a 'Bosman' transfer, named after a player who took his case to European Union court.

Player can also be 'loaned' to other clubs, mainly to gain experience if they are not good enough to play for the team they have their contract with. Loan contracts are temporary, and often the player will return to their club at the end of the loan contract. Sometimes high-paid players are loaned out as well, as the club they are at may not be able to afford to pay their wages. Usually if that's the case the club which the player is loaned to will pay a percentage of the players wages, sometimes even all of his wages for the duration of the loan.

Typically, MLS is totally different. All the players in MLS are contracted to MLS directly, and not the club they play for. This is the only place that I know of where it's different. I assume this is how most American sports are set up (i.e. NBA, etc).

A player generally plays for a team for as long as the club and the player want each other. If a player wants to move, he can ask to be transferred, or he can leave under the Bosman ruling when his contract expires. If a club don't want a player, they usually try to sell his contract, and the player is generally forced to leave for the next best offer. Players can also be released from their contract, but this isn't very common (it's like getting fired, your contract is paid off).

I seem to have rambled slightly. Sorry.

[9 to 5]

But Burnley wasn't one of the choices then.

Oh Jesus!

I am going to have words with higher powers about you.

[Lord Nibbler]

As far as the frequency of transfers, it varies a lot.

Last summer Tottenham sold twelve players, Everton only sold one. Stoke bought twelve players, Manchester United only bought one. It really depends on how well the team did the season before, how much money they have, the age and happiness of players, whether there's a change of manager... etc. etc.

And of course, they don't just move between Premier League clubs. Clubs buy players from foreign clubs, sell players to foreign clubs, bring in players from lower leagues, loan players in and out...

[Crybaby Bunting]

The bonus thing about players being on contracts instead of being assigned to clubs is that over time you can become familiar with the players on your team because the only way they're going to leave is if their contract runs out or someone buys them.

If you choose Everton you get the bonus of being familiar with that team for a LONG time

[KeepinThatFunkAliveV4]

That's another thing I was going to ask...in the Premiership, how often do players get reshuffle to new teams? I have no concept of how frequent transfers are, it would be nice if someone could compare them in relation to say, the NBA.

They don't 'shuffle' and there is no such thing as a draft.

Clubs sign players as any company would sign employees. Players often sign multi-year contracts, which can be sold to other clubs, allowing the bidding club to sign that player for their own team.

At the end of a contract, players are not obligated to renew their contract and can simply walk free from their club, and be signed to another. This is known as a 'Bosman' transfer, named after a player who took his case to European Union court.

I didn't mean literally "reshuffle"...lol. And I'm not new to sports in general, far from it. The contract process isn't really different here

But I appreciate the info, thank you very much

And next comes figuring out to do all the nifty shit on FIFA properly

Edited July 4, 2009 by KeepinThatFunkAliveV4