• Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Do you think the bigger clubs benefit from no replays?

I always think the clubs should have to agree to no replay-replay.

For example, I don't think either of Everton-Palace wanted the replay, last year.

I don't think the likes of Sunderland-Stoke, Sheffield Weds-Coventry would have been up for a replay.

But would Dagenham have loved one? Probably.
There should be a vote allowed if you draw a side from the league to void a replay and finish it on the day. If both agree it's settled, if not, it's a replay.
 

If replays are going to be scrapped to help the big clubs' fixture congestion, then extra time should be scrapped too. If the big club can't win in 90 minutes, then the least they can do is go straight to penalties and give the smaller club the chance to win that way. It's ridiculous that the big club gets another 30 minutes in which they can bring on more world-class players. It should be down to the big club to win the game in 90 minutes, that would also possibly prevent them playing 'weaker' starting 11s, knowing full well if it ends in a draw they can bring on the 'big guns' for 30 mins to seal it.
 
Marc bolan said:
Just looking at Tamworth they were so close to taking spurs to a replay
And the money would have had from the gate at spurs would have set them up
For the next few years financial to me that is what the FA Cup is all about
Click to expand...
All so spurs get to play an extra friendly in the far east or Australia . It was klopp in particular but all the scab six flexing their profiteering muscles , this time at the expense of the lower leagues . They have no understanding much less interest in the football pyramid .

I was WhatsApp chatting to various people during a lazy Sunday watching the football and towards the end a RS responded to a message about Tamworth being robbed of a replay saying “it’s sad but nobody likes them” before it was pointed out that it was 6/8 clubs that didn’t like them the other 80 odd were happy enough and the non league loved them . The RS has since maintained radio silence , another example of them having zero awareness.
 
I think it’s slightly more complex than is being presented. A lot of clubs - not just the very biggest ones - don’t want replays for the majority of possible ties. They might want one if they’re facing a massive club and could get a bumper crowd, but realistically that’s maybe about 5% of ties, games like Sheffield united v Cardiff, Coventry v Sheffield Wednesday, Sunderland v stoke etc nobody really wants a replay there.

Tamworth have lost out on a load of money but why should they be the only ones who benefit from the luck of the draw. The issue is that the funding the clubs receive overall isn’t fair, not really that one club from that level every 2 or 3 years misses out on effectively winning raffle.
 

Replays should never have been scrapped. It was one of the few magical cup moments left, probably the last magical bit left now the semis are at Wembley.

Big PL clubs play too many games, but that's just a consequence of being good, we don't play too many games because we're crap.
 
GoldenToffee said:
Very obviously and the Spurs game is all the evidence you need to know. 0-0 going into extra time, Tamworth could have nicked it before the final whistle. Extra time starts and on comes about £100m on talent in Son and Kulusevski, with Solanke brought on 3/4 of the way through the game when he obviously wasn't planned to have been used.

What happened? Spurs are three up in 25 minutes and Tamworth are out. This is exactly why replays should be played - Spurs have a huge squad and can cope with additional games, it's just an excuse to protect the bigger teams.

Another example Liverpool, look at their squad players like Nunez, Gakpo, Bradley, Kelleher, Tsimikas, Elliott - I'm sure these players could all play an additional few games per season alongside a handful of u23s.

Everything is set up to protect the moneymaking clubs, look how United were quite literally assisted by the Premier League to get around the very rules they tried to relegate us for.

Replays should be reinstated, but I've no faith they will be. Probably some rule will come in soon where a select handful of clubs, probably Liverpool, United, City, Chelsea and Arsenal, all get a bye directly to the fifth round on account of 'historical success' in the competition.
Click to expand...

On the other side of that though, I think smaller teams have more chance of actually getting through over a one off game than over two legs. Brentford on Sat for example, went out 1-0 to Plymouth in the cup. If that was over two legs, I doubt Plymouth would have managed to win it because second leg Brentford would be wary of them now and turn up a bit better than they did first leg.

I also think if they can get them to pens they have as good a chance of winning as any other team.

If they get through then that’s another round of income, again perhaps from a bigger game if they are lucky. They should also get pretty decent gate money from any tie, anyway, don’t they share it?

I don’t know, I don’t think it’s that bad tbh.
 
Don’t know if it’s about being fair or not. Yes it takes away from the spectacle a bit. And it’s fairly obvious that the longer it goes on (extra time) the PL teams will have the legs and the squad to finish much stronger.

But it’s luck of the draw isn’t it. Straight knockout where ultimately anyone could win regardless of size of club. Not sure there’s any argument about whether it’s fair or not. Because ultimately, you could say it’s unfair pitting Man City against Salford based on budgets etc, but that’s the point of the cup.
 

Marius57 said:
Don’t know if it’s about being fair or not. Yes it takes away from the spectacle a bit. And it’s fairly obvious that the longer it goes on (extra time) the PL teams will have the legs and the squad to finish much stronger.

But it’s luck of the draw isn’t it. Straight knockout where ultimately anyone could win regardless of size of club. Not sure there’s any argument about whether it’s fair or not. Because ultimately, you could say it’s unfair pitting Man City against Salford based on budgets etc, but that’s the point of the cup.
Click to expand...
If it goes straight to pens then maybe but fitness and options from the bench feels more like the premier league side will just be too strong in extra time .
 
I love fairness, sportsmanship and equality of opportunity. I detest cheating and bending rules.

Every change in football over the last few years has been done to benefit the few top clubs and make sure they stay in the limelight of attention. They collect money from the armchair and are a safe bet. Of course - other clubs could do that too, but they're more of an unknown, a risk to the ability to collect money. So organisers ensure the known, safe brands will always be there or thereabouts, so people notice them. It's a form of advertising. Football is certainly less to do with sporting competition or achievement than it is engineering today.

Which is why I don't love or even like the game anymore.
 
chrismpw said:
I love fairness, sportsmanship and equality of opportunity. I detest cheating and bending rules.

Every change in football over the last few years has been done to benefit the few top clubs and make sure they stay in the limelight of attention. They collect money from the armchair and are a safe bet. Of course - other clubs could do that too, but they're more of an unknown, a risk to the ability to collect money. So organisers ensure the known, safe brands will always be there or thereabouts, so people notice them. It's a form of advertising. Football is certainly less to do with sporting competition or achievement than it is engineering today.

Which is why I don't love or even like the game anymore.
Click to expand...

Games alive and thriving at all levels but the PL, where 14 teams just exist.

I'd love a super league to come along and just take the greedy 6 away with it, so we can restore the English game.
 
Every change in recent years has been for the benefit of the big clubs.
The worst decision made was the introduction of the 5 subs which basically just gives the teams with big squads the chance to change the flow of the game.
When it was 2 subs you pretty much had to stick with your starting 11 as to change 2 players you were running the risk going down to 10 men when a player gets injured.
Klopp was the main instigator of the change what annoys is that 20 clubs vote for rule changes, they are like turkeys voting for Christmas
 
paultheblue said:
Every change in recent years has been for the benefit of the big clubs.
The worst decision made was the introduction of the 5 subs which basically just gives the teams with big squads the chance to change the flow of the game.
When it was 2 subs you pretty much had to stick with your starting 11 as to change 2 players you were running the risk going down to 10 men when a player gets injured.
Klopp was the main instigator of the change what annoys is that 20 clubs vote for rule changes, they are like turkeys voting for Christmas
Click to expand...

Him & Guardiola are reaponsibile for so much of what is wrong with football

5th round in midweek
5 subs
A "winter break"
Diminishing of the League Cup
Abolishment of Replays

But make no mistake the owners of the other clubs aren't innocent parties. They want return for their investment and losing them significantly impacts their chance of a return. They're always looking after themselves.

Who needs success when you're getting hundreds of millions from TV Deals?
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top