Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Fergal on August 22, 2011, 01:11:42 PM
-
Is the football really so much better now, as opposed to Pre Sky? Or is it just over hyped?
-
Nope atmosphere is now worse.
The technical abiltiy of the players may be better but parity has gone out the window.
-
I find the game really frantic nowadays. Lighter ball and faster players.
-
Technically better yes.
Was it better standing on the Holte watching the likes of Platt and Cowans rather than a bunch of millionaires with no comprehension of the real world ?
Absolutely.
-
No, just more expensive and on tele a lot more.
-
I like the fact the coverage is much better now than as a kid growing up in the 70's.
Like the introduction of the back pass rule.
But that's about it.
-
It's the sort of question that will always get people longing for the 'good old days', but it's worth pointing out that some things are better:-
1. The lack of racism now in the game.
2. Fan safety is now much more of an issue following the tragedies of the 80s.
3. Hooliganism is now a rariety.
4. For those who can't get to games, such as living abroad, they can now see them via satellite/internet.
What we've lost, however, is the connection between the fans and the players. What were 'the lads' who we adored are now 'the mercanaries' who take too much money from our club.
-
Better on the pitch, worse off it.
-
It was better pre premiership for 18-40 year olds not so for families or females. Now its far too sanitized but, the football is better.
Kick off times mess you about more. However, you have to admit that watching a game down the pub as a netrual is sometimes a pleasent experience which comes part and parcel of TV coverage.
Thus, there are pros and cons.
Personally even though I hanker for the days of standing on the Holte as a young lad in the 80s, the actual equivalent of Saturdays 32,000 against low profile and supported club like Blackburn would of been a 16,000 crowd and a souless walk back towards Aston Station trying to avoid a slap and horse turd.
-
I think the standard of football in the PL (apart from maybe 3 teams) is terrible.
You get Sky telling you every 5 mins how great it is but in reality it isn't. Man utd last season had their worst team in at least 10 years and they won it at a canter.
-
on the hooligan/safety/racism issue
In 35 years of watching Villa I can honestly say that I have heard racist comments maybe twice.
Safety - 20k - 25K on the Holte and no-one ever got seriously injured.
hooliganism - again in 35 years i could count on one hand trouble inside the ground, fuck me the worst violence with the Lulu's and man Ure has been in the last 10 years.
-
The advantages for the average fan have been minor, the disadvantages major and for those involved in the game it is the opposite.
-
Because of the coverage and of course turf technology, eh? the pitches are miles better, the footy faster, technically superior. But notwithstanding the safety, the seats and the hype I preferred the old game. Mud, blood atmosphere and guts with players who weren't overpaid Gods. Standing where you wanted with who you wanted. Too sanitized and expensive now.
Bring back safe standing terraces as per the German model imho. At least at one end. And of course, bring in rules asap to stop the rich getting richer so that four clubs fight for everything. Every season.
Signed: Grumpy old Man.
-
on the hooligan/safety/racism issue
In 35 years of watching Villa I can honestly say that I have heard racist comments maybe twice.
Safety - 20k - 25K on the Holte and no-one ever got seriously injured.
hooliganism - again in 35 years i could count on one hand trouble inside the ground, fuck me the worst violence with the Lulu's and man Ure has been in the last 10 years.
I won't say you're wrong, but the experience of one fan at one club does not speak for the changes we've seen in the game as a whole. And it's worth pointing out that we hadn't played the side we'll always have most trouble against for a long time until 10ish years ago!
-
Most of the improvements for the paying customer were happening already. A lot of the increased skill (and there has been some - Gabby's goal last Saturday would have been talked about for months 20 years ago, but probably won't win Villa's goal of the season) is down to better technology - boots, pitches and the like.
It all depends whether you rate style over substance.
-
There is lot of improvement in the game, but football is less exciting these days compared to the 80s and 90s. I think there is too much money in the game and the big club is too rich and strong for 5th place teams and below. I would like to see NFL Salary cap and draft choice brought into the game to make it more competitive but it won't work as top players can always play in different country.
-
The quality and quantity of TV coverage has gone through the roof.
I hate Murdoch and Sky, but I have to say, their coverage is very good indeed.
I remember when ITV had the rights in the late 80s. They'd show the occasional live match, one a month or something, when they could be arsed, and there was no extra content beyond the 90 minutes, plus Saint and Greavsie on Saturday morning.
In fact, ITV's coverage is still pretty shocking.
-
More technical players, but to me less excitement and more predictable.
I hate the hype - just give me the football.
-
Didn't experience pre sky footbqall but feel it was definately better as a kid ~1994 onwards.
-
Many have said that the fact that most footballers are mercenaries is very true.
Obvioulsy, the fact that SKY money has made clubs richer is a big factor, but I maintain the bigger factor was the Bosman ruling.
It handed so much power to players, which co-incided with the SKY money hitting the game with the consequences we have now.
-
You can watch exciting games of football in any division and in non-league as you always have been able to, but there's no doubting that the levels of technical ability and fitness are far greater nowadays.
Premier League money has brought an influx of top foreign players who are an absolute joy to watch - people like Bergkamp and Zola. A lot of out-and-out cloggers and thugs made a living out of being a professional footballer in England a couple of decades ago whereas someone like Ashley Young might not have made it.
I'd rather watch a player like David Silva than say Ian Ure or Dennis Smith. But then I'd rather watch from a packed terrace having paid the equivalent of a couple of pints to get in!
-
£50+ to watch a game at QPR on a Sunday lunchtime, when it's live on telly.
Of course not.
-
No, no it isn't.
-
When the hope is gone, then there's no point. Oh look, Man U have signed a sponsorship deal for their training kit to the tune of £40m (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/22/manchester-united-kit-deal-dhl).
I'm fast becoming attracted to the cheaper options of Rugby and Cricket, both of which aren't subject to the ridiculous levels of hype, nor suffer from the utter mismatch of power between the champions league teams and the rest.
Football is not competitive.
-
Different eras.
I do feel it was more competitive in the 70s and 80s. That's not really reflected in the silverware: in the last 20 years of the original Football League set-up, seven different clubs were Champions with Liverpool winning it in eleven of those years; four clubs have won the Premier League in its 20 years, Man Utd being crowned champions on twelve occasions. However, when you consider how many different clubs finished in what is now the holy grail of the Top 4, it was a much more open competition.
Skill level has improved, as has the pace of the game. Helped by the marginalising of the player whose whole purpose was to destroy. However, in many ways footballers now are in many ways identikit athletes, which has led to the demise of the maverick.
Grounds are safer, but have become soulless arenas.
Would I rather watch Villa circa 1977 from a packed Holte terrace or the present team from a plastic seat? No contest. Would I rather watch Villa circa 1986 from a crumbling away terrace, through cage bars and barded wire or the present team from a plastic seat, but with clear sight lines. Again, no contest. Do I think £40+ for the privilege is value for money? No way.
The biggest change is the saturation coverage in the broadcast and print media.
-
Technically better yes.
Was it better standing on the Holte watching the likes of Platt and Cowans rather than a bunch of millionaires with no comprehension of the real world ?
Absolutely.
That pretty much sums it up.
-
It's easy top wax lyrical about how great things used to be. Modern football while it has plenty things wrong with it has a number of pros, and is a far safer environment than back in the 80's and a little of the 90's. Football was being pushed in the direction of cleaning up it's act before Sky, but the new money helped out. What it has created in my opinion is an obsession with a select few clubs to the point that smaller clubs have become marginalized. For the real evil in football today is the CL. It has created a financial gap the likes of which we may never see close.
-
Compared to when I started watching football, 1988, I would say the standard is better. Wimbledon had just won the FA Cup and half the league started emulating their "style" of football. Ok, we've still got bloody Stoke but most teams attempt to play football now.
While it may upset some of the "not a man's game any more" complainants, I prefer the stricter refereeing now. Pele and Diego Maradona were both kicked out of the game for long periods, football was the weaker for their absence. Teams try that now to, say, Lionel Messi, and they will be on nine bookings and three sent off before long so they have to try to stop him fairly.
The back-pass rule has also proved a wonderful invention.
Of course, I wouldn't put any of these innovations down to Sky.
Despite the fact that, I would say, the game is now more pleasing on the eye, it doesn't necessarily make football more exciting. The fact that teams can never get promoted and start challenging for the title, and that teams without billions to spend can't compete, have made football more tedious.
The cup competitions are also rubbish now. For reasons that have been stated many times on here.
-
I prefer it before Sky. I still don't think the Premiership is great as they make out every week I see players who can't control the ball, can't pass the ball, but Sky would have you believe it's the best it's ever been.
I hate what the game has become teams full of mercenaries who don't care about the team they play for or come to think of it who's bench they sit on, as long as they pick up their ridiculous wages at the end of each week.
Then we have the same teams winning things year after year, any team that gets close will lose their best players, teams being more interested in finishing fourth than winning the FA Cup, what is the bloody point?
The worst thing for me is that hope has been removed, take that away from fans and you don't have a lot left.
-
In terms of the game itself, Techicaly better- without doubt but that is really all that has improved.
The fact that they have taken competition out of the Top League and reduced the FA Cup to an afterthought has ruined it.
-
Its very interesting to see the many perceptions given by fellow posters
personally i only know the premiership era and i ask are we asking the question has the football improved?
Thhats what i see as the meaning of this thread though i ask orginal poster what is meant by question regarding hyped football?
One can argue its neglibile to compare the times before the 90s to now
i heard that livepool use to be good in 70s 80s but are they as good as man u are in premier era?
The football utd played i wuld think was far supwerior to livepool of yester era
similarly arsenal and invincibles and football wenger had/has team play was prob greatest anyone had seen in england.
Heck even newcastle werr a very entertaining side i dont know if there weere teams like this in past ?
Ginola cantona bergkamp pires henry fabregas amazing players
and i think they rose the bar for english football
but i was nevere around to see pre sky
and i m only taking question on techinica level so i think players in premiership are proper atheltes now though im sure players and football of past had there moments
-
No one wins the Premier League title now, they just buy it
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
-
It's the predictability of football now that I don't enjoy.Not just pre Sky but through most of the 90s you'd get real surprises.Norwich finishing third, well ahead of much bigger clubs.Blackburn winning the league and then getting relegated a couple of seasons later.Forest finishing third after promotion and then the Villa.I started following the Villa in the late 80s and whilst there were some crap seasons it was never predictable.Relegation,promotion,survival,title challenge,survival etc.Now money rules the roost.In the last decade every team that has threatened to break the Sky 4 cartel have gone close then subsequently lost their best player(s) to one of the aforementioned Sky4.Despite the shit MoN gets on here, we at least had three years of hope/belief that just maybe we could do it.However, as Everton found when they lost Lescott we have lost real quality in Barry,Milner,Downing and Young and we have to start again by replacing the established star approaching his peak with potential.We all know what happens when that potential is realised, they're off.Same thing is happening at Spurs with Modric now and unless there is a man City style windfall it will continue.It irks me when I see posts on message boards which wish Young well because "he's shown ambition by going to Man Utd", so what? Once they leave the club I couldn't give a shit and statements like that just highlight that we as fans know that we can't compete.As it stands 6th is the absolute limit for us which although not shameful is a disappointment.Being a football fan shouldn't be about realistic ambition, it should be about wild dreams.
Fuck me i'm a grumpy bastard!
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
Matt - are you sure Man U didn't buy the title? Did they not spend massive amounts on individual players, that most teams would have had to use for a whole team?
I love it when they bleat about not being able tomatch the Chelsea & Man Citys in fees, yet they had carte blanche during the formative years of the Premiership.
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
Matt - are you sure Man U didn't buy the title? Did they not spend massive amounts on individual players, that most teams would have had to use for a whole team?
I love it when they bleat about not being able tomatch the Chelsea & Man Citys in fees, yet they had carte blanche during the formative years of the Premiership.
It's a modern day myth.United have always spent big in the market.Without looking it up i reckon they've broken the British transfer record more times than any other club.Robson,Pallister and Ferdinand immediately spring to mind and Berbatov as well? Add to that the likes of Rooney and Veron.
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
I said NOW Matt! Not however many years ago Arsenal won it for the last time or Man U with their kids. What is most sad for me I think among the many depressing aspects of modern day football I could pick up on is how you won't ever really see a really good manager take a modest team without cash and turn them into a top four team in the way that you used to see happen with the likes of us, Forest, Ipswich, Norwich, Southampton, Everton et al back in the good old days. In fact, Everton have come closest to it recently of course but even then you felt it was something of a one off and never sustainable; it is now almost impossible unless some huge benefector was to buy out a team a la Man City or, conversely, to pull out of funding someone such as Chelsea...
-
The game has changed a lot over the last 20 years but the only positive thing Sky brought is the improved coverage. Everything else they are responsible for has degraded the game for me. Money, hype, 4pm kick-offs, Jamie Redknapp as a pundit, overanalysis and Tim Lovejoy are all down to them.
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
Matt - are you sure Man U didn't buy the title? Did they not spend massive amounts on individual players, that most teams would have had to use for a whole team?
I love it when they bleat about not being able tomatch the Chelsea & Man Citys in fees, yet they had carte blanche during the formative years of the Premiership.
It's a modern day myth.United have always spent big in the market.Without looking it up i reckon they've broken the British transfer record more times than any other club.Robson,Pallister and Ferdinand immediately spring to mind and Berbatov as well? Add to that the likes of Rooney and Veron.
And before that, they spent big sums relative to the times on Robson, Moses, Davenport, Birtles, Brazil, Muhren, Parker etc
-
Does the difficulty of getting in the CL make it harder to win now than our proudest moment?
I ask because I am in debate on a non football forum with someone who believes it was easy when we won it.
I say it was true champions cup then as runners up and 3rd placed etc werent invited, and you didnt get the chance to have an off night and scrape through on points to the knockout stage. What do you think?
-
Does the difficulty of getting in the CL make it harder to win now than our proudest moment?
I ask because I am in debate on a non football forum with someone who believes it was easy when we won it.
I say it was true champions cup then as runners up and 3rd placed etc werent invited, and you didnt get the chance to have an off night and scrape through on points to the knockout stage. What do you think?
It was before my time but I think i'm right in saying that the Italian clubs were banned at the time so that was an advantage.Less games, but the only clubs in it had won their domestic leagues.Not a definitive answer either way IMO
-
I think it's easier from the perspective that in those days you could get a good manager and allow him to build the side up to the point where you were capable of winning things. Now you need a spare billion and he'll likely be gone after 3 years anyway. But as someone above said you couldn't afford an off night in 81/82 and had to WIN your league to get in it in the first place.
I'd say on balance it was harder whne we won it, but costs more to do it today. And guess which of those most modern fans and pundits will pay more attention to?
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
Matt - are you sure Man U didn't buy the title? Did they not spend massive amounts on individual players, that most teams would have had to use for a whole team?
I love it when they bleat about not being able tomatch the Chelsea & Man Citys in fees, yet they had carte blanche during the formative years of the Premiership.
It's a modern day myth.United have always spent big in the market.Without looking it up i reckon they've broken the British transfer record more times than any other club.Robson,Pallister and Ferdinand immediately spring to mind and Berbatov as well? Add to that the likes of Rooney and Veron.
And before that, they spent big sums relative to the times on Robson, Moses, Davenport, Birtles, Brazil, Muhren, Parker etc
'Won it with kids' is a myth as well.
-
The spine of that 95/96 Man Utd side was Schmichael, Pallister, Keane, Cantona and Cole, two of which were British record buys.
-
I agree that the CL has caused the biggest (in my opinion negative) changes.
It's become the only valid competition - according to its own hype - and the constant stream of players who would prefer to be on the the bench at one of the usual suspects than stay and make their current teams more competitive shows how much their priorities have changed as well. They are supposed to be sportsmen, after all.
Being able to predict the final league placings at the start of the season with some confidence is very depressing, but this won't change any time soon as those at the top have too great a head start.
-
I am fairly certain the teams these days would smoke the teams from the 20 year ago.
When the premier league kicked off there were 11 players not from the British isles, and most of them were shit.
-
Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!
Matt - are you sure Man U didn't buy the title? Did they not spend massive amounts on individual players, that most teams would have had to use for a whole team?
I love it when they bleat about not being able tomatch the Chelsea & Man Citys in fees, yet they had carte blanche during the formative years of the Premiership.
It's a modern day myth.United have always spent big in the market.Without looking it up i reckon they've broken the British transfer record more times than any other club.Robson,Pallister and Ferdinand immediately spring to mind and Berbatov as well? Add to that the likes of Rooney and Veron.
And before that, they spent big sums relative to the times on Robson, Moses, Davenport, Birtles, Brazil, Muhren, Parker etc
The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.
-
NO!
-
The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.
Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality? Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.
-
The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.
Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality? Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.
There's been a definite change in their policy.The signings of Jones and Smalling, ie kids for big fees tells us that they haven't got anyone of that calibre in the academy.Welbeck and Cleverley are looking good but they've both had season long loans at Premiership clubs.It used to be a few months in the lower leagues.Maybe the level of competition means the top clubs don't produce their own any more.Who was Chelsea's last academy graduate to establish himself? i can only think of Terry, and he's 30 now.
-
Its very interesting to see the many perceptions given by fellow posters
personally i only know the premiership era and i ask are we asking the question has the football improved?
Thhats what i see as the meaning of this thread though i ask orginal poster what is meant by question regarding hyped football?
One can argue its neglibile to compare the times before the 90s to now
i heard that livepool use to be good in 70s 80s but are they as good as man u are in premier era?
The football utd played i wuld think was far supwerior to livepool of yester era
similarly arsenal and invincibles and football wenger had/has team play was prob greatest anyone had seen in england.
Heck even newcastle werr a very entertaining side i dont know if there weere teams like this in past ?
Ginola cantona bergkamp pires henry fabregas amazing players
and i think they rose the bar for english football
but i was nevere around to see pre sky
and i m only taking question on techinica level so i think players in premiership are proper atheltes now though im sure players and football of past had there moments
Almost anything said by Andy Gray and his 'mouth watering' comments.
-
Andy Gray is a hype machine so YES then even without knowledge from previous era.
-
I would say the biggest difference is the lack of competition and the tedious dominance of a revolting team that play in red from the North West of England. Then I remember who won most of the titles in the late 70s and 80s...
In answer to the original poster's question I would say it is very difficult to compare the quality of players in different eras and always has been. Who was better out of Athersmith, Matthews or Best? What we have now is a level of football in the media on a much larger scale than we've ever seen before. I'm torn on whether this is a "good thing". On the one hand the Sky/PL/Champs League machine is an odious thing and helps perpetuate, even exarcebate, the massive inequity in the game. On the other hand, despite all this I enjoy following the game so like reading about it, listening to it, watching it (although I've given up Sky) so saturation coverage has its up-sides. Also if you can't afford to go in person to many games like myself I look forward to being able to watch us down the pub as a supplement to watching games live.
-
The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.
Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality? Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.
I completely agree with you John. After the pathetic England performance in S Africa last year I was chatting with mates about the paucity of top quality English players in general, but also of the failure of the Sky 4 to produce their own players from their academies. Off the top of my head the last players from those clubs' academies that I would class as regular internationals would be Fletcher & O'Shea at Man U, Terry from Chelsea, Gerrard (Liverpool) and Cole (Arsenal). There must be a couple of others but none that leap out - despite the hype it is too early to judge Wilshere.
The Premier League has allowed the big clubs to generate vast sums from TV, ably abetted by the Champs League which really is a global marketing phenomenon. The inner sanctum becomes more unattainable with every passing season and the richest clubs become more wealthy and have no desire for the long game of a productive youth policy. Much easier to plunder the world and buy the ready made players off the shelf.
-
Living abroad I like the fact I can watch most games on satellite, but for me football was way better before Sky.
It's the lack of competition that kills it for me now, you know more or less every year what the top 3 or 4 will be and can have a pretty good guess at the next 3 or 4 as well.
I think some things have changed for the better but the game has been over-sanitized for me with the virtual abolition of the tackle. Sky can hype it up all they wish but an awful lot of both Villa and non-Villa games I've seen the last few seasons have been crap to watch.
-
I am fairly certain the teams these days would smoke the teams from the 20 year ago.
Certainly for Mans Utd and City and Chelsea, with their megabucks teams, that is probably true. Do you think the Aston Villa of now would 'smoke' the Aston Villa that finished runners up under Graham Taylor?
-
The football mid to late 1980s was awful. Empty crumbling stadiums. hooliganism etc. It wasn't all that great pre Sky you know.
-
The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.
Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality? Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.
I love how the media are going all misty eyed at this new generation of young Man Utd stars, and Fergie saying how Man United fans love to see youngsters given a chance. Well, pardon me, Fergie, if I don't quite buy into the romance that is shelling out the best part £45 million to buy the brightest products of other clubs' academies.
-
Every club "plunders" other clubs' academies. We did it with Jlloyd Samuel and Gareth Barry to name but two. Or alternatively pays for the young first team player developed through his club's academy, e.g. Ashley Young.
Fergie is right, and this is the case regardless of whether it is Man Utd, Aston Villa or Cheltenham Town, supporters like nothing better than seeing the youngster come through and make it in the first team. That Man Utd haven't had many in recent years makes them not that different to most of the top clubs. It also shows how remarkable that group of Giggs, Beckham, et al were.
-
Quality wise its better but excitement wise not really. Pre SKY if your club invested some money and got a good manager and some decent players you had a chance of challenging/winning the league. Now the best most clubs can hope for is a Europa place. Which is pretty shit.
-
A big difference is that you used to feel that players had an affinity with your club, listening to players of the 60s 70s and 80s, you dont have that now, they are playing for whoever pays them the most
-
$ky has helped ruin the great game and become what today is now 'modern football' all seating, some people would rather watch it in 3D then actually go to a game, like said, MOST (some still do) players really dont give a toss. No Al Calcio Moderno. Fuck Modern Football.
-
Has Sky done more to 'ruin' the game than the Bosman ruling?