MUTU wrote:Dumbledore7 wrote:You naive backward-looking boomers. How is it a "win for football" when smaller clubs aren't given the capacity to break through? When was the last time we saw a club grow "organically"?
This takeover fell through not because Newcastle were taking dodgy investments. It fell through because Liverpool and the others don't want more competition, just as the FFP was made so the European aristocrats don't get disrupted by the likes of City. How can you be so damn blind?
Do you realise that the ONLY reason we could win the treble is exactly because FFP has slightly limited the insane spending? If you have it your way, there would be no way for a club to be successful organically, and the basis for success would be who has the biggest sugardaddy. That's no competition.
I don’t think so. FFP is worse for small clubs. The big ones still get away with murder whole the small ones find it very hard to improve because they do not earn enough and if they get cash injections examples will be made out of them. In England it is a bit different thanks to their insane TV deal. In every other major league a status quo has developed since FFP that was never as pronounced before. Even the Bundesliga now has a big 3/4 whereas in the past it used to be different teams in Europe every year.MUTU wrote:Dumbledore7 wrote:You naive backward-looking boomers. How is it a "win for football" when smaller clubs aren't given the capacity to break through? When was the last time we saw a club grow "organically"?
This takeover fell through not because Newcastle were taking dodgy investments. It fell through because Liverpool and the others don't want more competition, just as the FFP was made so the European aristocrats don't get disrupted by the likes of City. How can you be so damn blind?
Do you realise that the ONLY reason we could win the treble is exactly because FFP has slightly limited the insane spending? If you have it your way, there would be no way for a club to be successful organically, and the basis for success would be who has the biggest sugardaddy. That's no competition.
Dumbledore7 wrote:MUTU wrote:Dumbledore7 wrote:Well clearly not because Manchester City circumvented it and still haven't won? We know that money doesn't buy you trophies, but it does get the smaller clubs close enough to make it competitive. The infrastructures of the superpowers still dwarf the impact of big money signings, but clubs like Manchester City and PSG would never have any hope of becoming big if they're not boosted by investment in the first place. Money gives other teams a chance.
There's no such thing as organic growth, you're talking like you just learned these terms at school and so detached from reality.
Bazi wrote:The easiest way to improve the equality in European football is to decrease the Uefa Champions League prize money and increase the Europa League winnings. That would do more good than any other change I can think of.
Big teams, many of which are where they are because they could spend money in the past, will almost always attract more revenue than smaller teams. As long as you stop cash injections it becomes a race where the ones behind find it very hard to catch up.MUTU wrote:How is it worse for small clubs? Take Spain as an example. Imagine you're a club trying to grow organically with no owners, but you have Real Madrid and Barcelona in your league who are spending more money than they are earning, and buying 'Galacticos'.
Compare it to now. Real Madrid are buying young promising players and working within their limits instead of buying multiple established world stars every summer. Now they are less of an impossibility to compete against.
PSG struggled to get past Atalanta. Without FFP they would be spending more than they are now, and they would have steamrolled Atalanta, and maybe beat Bayern in the final.
The same Atalanta didn't stand a chance against Milan and Inter pre FFP, but post FFP they aren't doing too shabbily now.
FCBayernMunchen wrote:Big teams, many of which are where they are because they could spend money in the past, will almost always attract more revenue than smaller teams. As long as you stop cash injections it becomes a race where the ones behind find it very hard to catch up.MUTU wrote:How is it worse for small clubs? Take Spain as an example. Imagine you're a club trying to grow organically with no owners, but you have Real Madrid and Barcelona in your league who are spending more money than they are earning, and buying 'Galacticos'.
Compare it to now. Real Madrid are buying young promising players and working within their limits instead of buying multiple established world stars every summer. Now they are less of an impossibility to compete against.
PSG struggled to get past Atalanta. Without FFP they would be spending more than they are now, and they would have steamrolled Atalanta, and maybe beat Bayern in the final.
The same Atalanta didn't stand a chance against Milan and Inter pre FFP, but post FFP they aren't doing too shabbily now.
ramsej84 wrote:Well said.
In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.
Agents have to be made redundant.
Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.
I don't know who Liverpool owner is (apparently some hedge fund manager), but nothing is as bad as being owned by a human rights-abuser monarchy or Putin's BFF.Jorge wrote:Kloppo is at it versus Chelsea and Manchester City: "owned by countries and oligarchs". While I agree that the Liverpool model is less of a travesti Football club it is all relative. Many smaller clubs in England and across Europe can certainly accuse Liverpool and Klopp of the same thing that they are acussing the big spenders of.
Can't see tweet? Click here!
You also want to add cheerleaders in the mid-time? The model of American sports is not an example to follow at all, ugh.ramsej84 wrote:Well said.
In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.
Agents have to be made redundant.
Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.
PunkCapitalist wrote:You also want to add cheerleaders in the mid-time? The model of American sports is not an example to follow at all, ugh.ramsej84 wrote:Well said.
In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.
Agents have to be made redundant.
Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.
Ironic that I say this because I'm super pro-American in most things but in two areas I think they s4ck; how they organize sports and their aversion to adopt the standardized metric system (also the format of dates).
Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk
Look, I don't like player agents either but banning them would 1) be a violation of the players' right to freely associate in their businesses 2) most probably serve no purpose as players would find workarounds (for instance calling them "advisors" and demanding higher sign-on fees that would get passed through to the "advisors").ramsej84 wrote:PunkCapitalist wrote:You also want to add cheerleaders in the mid-time? The model of American sports is not an example to follow at all, ugh.ramsej84 wrote:Well said.
In order to save this sport beside stopping such bastards from taking over our clubs.
Agents have to be made redundant.
Capping of transfer fees at least.... I would prefer to cap the wages as well but that is very difficult to do.
Ironic that I say this because I'm super pro-American in most things but in two areas I think they s4ck; how they organize sports and their aversion to adopt the standardized metric system (also the format of dates).
Sent from my Mi A3 using Tapatalk
Your last two lines.... so true.
But you have to agree with the agents issue, right?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest