European League discussion (La Liga, Ligue 1 etc) - Page 59 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Sports

  #581  
Old 13.07.2012, 07:06 AM
Gengar's Avatar
Gengar Gengar is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 28.12.2008
Posts: 5,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
cos theres a difference between running a club and using the money it makes to buy players etc
and getting someone with more money than sense, who spends like theres no tomorrow to get overnight success.
Saying the PSG owners (or Man City's/Chelsea's) have more money than sense isn't exactly a bold statement.

I agree with Smograider fwiw. I'm not a huge fan of what's happened at Chelsea, Man City etc, but I'm also not a fan of the idea that because a team is already the biggest/most popular, that it should be given the most prize money, to spend more on players, win more stuff and attract more fans.

Nobody wants to watch the Barclaycard Hegemony. That's what's most important to me. I'd like a completely level playing field, but in the absence of one, rich benefactors are a breathe of fresh air in an otherwise stale league and European set up.
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 13.07.2012, 07:16 AM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smograider View Post
That's just biased judgmental nonsense. An attempt to put a vaneer of rationality onto the fact you don't like the status quo being threatened.
This is spot on. The media wills on Man Utd to win the league - there's something they don't like about City or anyone else having the temerity to change the order of things. People seem to view football as a hierarchy with a common order - if a given West Ham player is playing above the West Ham level, that's not a sign that West Ham might improve with that player's help, it's a sign that that player should move to a bigger club such as Man Utd. And nobody complains about that. United then proceed to win the league again and all are delighted by that (who in the media do you hear saying "I'm bored of seeing United win things - they've won about 2/3 of the titles since the Premier League began"?). What upsets people is some upstart team trying to barge their way in above their level. They hated Chelsea for it, they hated City and they will hate PSG. Ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 13.07.2012, 07:21 AM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,299
Default

That said, I'll be interested to see what these signings do for PSG and its fanbase. I didn't realise til I went to live in Paris just how uninterested in football Parisians are - Paris is not a football city. I don't mean in the sense that some say London club atmospheres aren't as good as those in some northern cities, I mean people in Paris don't like football, don't care. They like tennis, sailing, skiing. Marseille is a football city - you'll see people wearing shirts, flags hanging out of windows, scarfs and pennants hung in cars and stickers in car windows. But not in Paris. I wonder what these signings will do for the PSG fanbase in the city and outside of it.
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 13.07.2012, 09:22 AM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Admirer View Post
Saying the PSG owners (or Man City's/Chelsea's) have more money than sense isn't exactly a bold statement.

I agree with Smograider fwiw. I'm not a huge fan of what's happened at Chelsea, Man City etc, but I'm also not a fan of the idea that because a team is already the biggest/most popular, that it should be given the most prize money, to spend more on players, win more stuff and attract more fans.

Nobody wants to watch the Barclaycard Hegemony. That's what's most important to me. I'd like a completely level playing field, but in the absence of one, rich benefactors are a breathe of fresh air in an otherwise stale league and European set up.
its not but its the truth.

i dont think a team should be given the most prize money because its the biggest team already but those teams tend to of done well over time, put trust in managers and built themselves up.

it would be nice if things were more even but rich nutters ruin any chance of that, for me its better to be a well run club.

i see the point about it being a way for teams to compete but teams without a sugar daddy have no chance, at least in the past they had some chance.
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 13.07.2012, 09:29 AM
Smograider's Avatar
Smograider Smograider is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 22.08.2009
Posts: 5,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
huh? (i support Charlton)

no its called logic

to match say Man Utd or Arsenal a team could in theory generate the same level of cash but to match City or Chelsea they would need to be bought by a very rich man who is careless with his cash.

one side work on balancing the books, the others dont give a you know what about them.
lol ... my commiserations (just kidding, I'm a Boro fan so our clubs are not too far apart). The reality is, you don't have to support one of the big clubs to want to protect the existing order. Man city are drawing criticism from fans right across the football league. Similarly, I recall the amount of criticism Boro received back in the days when they signed Juninho & Ravanelli for example - how dare they sign such players!

It's true that most other clubs now need a super rich investor to compete of course. This is a situation that has been created by the big clubs over the last 20 or so years. Transfer fees and wages were inflated massively by Utd and co - nobody had a problem. Now that so called 'unfashionable clubs' can compete (due to a few rich owners) - there's this big 'hue and cry'. The fact is, Man City (and a few others) have had to spend to the level they have, just to be competitive - it is not a situation they have created. They are however, being blamed.

This 'balancing the books' talk is a misnomer, it creates the illusion of a level playing field. It's far easier for Man U et al to balance books and still pay high wages and lay out huge transfer fees due to the greater revenue they have coming in as a result of their prominent position over the last 20 years. It's a bit like comparing M & S with your local corner shop and saying that as long as they both balance the books - all things are equal.

A similar situation has now occurred within the football league with the new financial measures. It's presented as a 'leveling of the playing field'. The reality is, they are measures intended to protect the status quo and curtail the spending of any new rich buyers of the so called 'unfashionable' clubs.

If they were serious about leveling the playing field, they would be introducing a salary and transfer cap, but they are not. They are discussing and introducing measures that will protect the status quo under the illusion of a more equitable system.
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 13.07.2012, 09:57 AM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smograider View Post
lol ... my commiserations (just kidding, I'm a Boro fan so our clubs are not too far apart). The reality is, you don't have to support one of the big clubs to want to protect the existing order. Man city are drawing criticism from fans right across the football league. Similarly, I recall the amount of criticism Boro received back in the days when they signed Juninho & Ravanelli for example - how dare they sign such players!

It's true that most other clubs now need a super rich investor to compete of course. This is a situation that has been created by the big clubs over the last 20 or so years. Transfer fees and wages were inflated massively by Utd and co - nobody had a problem. Now that so called 'unfashionable clubs' can compete (due to a few rich owners) - there's this big 'hue and cry'. The fact is, Man City (and a few others) have had to spend to the level they have, just to be competitive - it is not a situation they have created. They are however, being blamed.

This 'balancing the books' talk is a misnomer, it creates the illusion of a level playing field. It's far easier for Man U et al to balance books and still pay high wages and lay out huge transfer fees due to the greater revenue they have coming in as a result of their prominent position over the last 20 years. It's a bit like comparing M & S with your local corner shop and saying that as long as they both balance the books - all things are equal.

A similar situation has now occurred within the football league with the new financial measures. It's presented as a 'leveling of the playing field'. The reality is, they are measures intended to protect the status quo and curtail the spending of any new rich buyers of the so called 'unfashionable' clubs.

If they were serious about leveling the playing field, they would be introducing a salary and transfer cap, but they are not. They are discussing and introducing measures that will protect the status quo under the illusion of a more equitable system.
but they did that by being run well and by things other clubs could do with time.

i agree that all the financial fair play rules are a bit of a joke as there are ways around them but a salary/transfer cap would never would because of the global nature of the sport.

for me it does make a difference that a side had to spend within reason and cant just offer silly wages/fees. i dont have a problem with sides having owners that add in there own cash (within reason) as that has always happened its just at this silly level.

so now its get a rich owner or well your screwed lol.
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 13.07.2012, 10:51 AM
Smograider's Avatar
Smograider Smograider is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 22.08.2009
Posts: 5,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
but they did that by being run well and by things other clubs could do with time.

i agree that all the financial fair play rules are a bit of a joke as there are ways around them but a salary/transfer cap would never would because of the global nature of the sport.

for me it does make a difference that a side had to spend within reason and cant just offer silly wages/fees. i dont have a problem with sides having owners that add in there own cash (within reason) as that has always happened its just at this silly level.

so now its get a rich owner or well your screwed lol.
I have tried twice to post a reply - but this stupid thing wont let me post more than two lines, it cuts the rest. (again).
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 13.07.2012, 10:59 AM
PavlovsDog's Avatar
PavlovsDog PavlovsDog is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 06.11.2004
Posts: 18,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smograider View Post
I have tried twice to post a reply - but this stupid thing wont let me post more than two lines, it cuts the rest. (again).
I'm guessing you are trying to post a pound sign, still seems to be a problem.

I have resorted to putting 15GBP instead (for example)
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 13.07.2012, 11:14 AM
Smograider's Avatar
Smograider Smograider is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 22.08.2009
Posts: 5,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul31 View Post
I'm guessing you are trying to post a pound sign, still seems to be a problem.

I have resorted to putting 15GBP instead (for example)
Yeah, there was a pound sign in there. I will try again in a short while.

Thanks for that Paul.
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 13.07.2012, 11:50 AM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
its not but its the truth.

i dont think a team should be given the most prize money because its the biggest team already but those teams tend to of done well over time, put trust in managers and built themselves up.

it would be nice if things were more even but rich nutters ruin any chance of that, for me its better to be a well run club.

i see the point about it being a way for teams to compete but teams without a sugar daddy have no chance, at least in the past they had some chance.
Did teams ever really have a chance before the sugar daddy era? There were 11 or so seasons between the Premier League starting and Abramovich buying Chelsea. 3 teams won the league - Arsenal got 2, Blackburn 1 and United 8. Hardly open competition, then. Actually since the Abramovich takeover we've had far less dominance by one club, and indeed 4 different champions. Maybe most of the league has no chance to win the title, but let's not pretend they did beforehand either -the list of champions speaks for itself.

I hate the role of money in football, but you can't blame City or Chelsea or whoever for doing what they're allowed to. It's not their fault the rules are so lacking. I mean, the whole English football system is built on money buying success - do you think football in England would be so competitive without money? It was rubbish in the early 90s compared to Serie A, and that was a time when England had better footballers than today, by and large.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 07:48 PM.