Champions League

[FC433]

A few hundred thousand that one has and most others do not. Analogous cases throughout football history.

Resources aren't nearly as much a problem as made out. Monaco get nowhere near the shit Chelsea does/did. Nor did Malaga. Where do people think Barca got the money to build Camp Nou and then sustain the loan? Fell out the sky? 50's UNICEF?

BTW how many foreign owners with similarly bottomless pockets are there in the UK now? I read somewhere it's something like 80% of Premier League investment capital is abroad + some Championship teams often benefitting from geographic location to get investors also. But muh 'historic clubs' with their moral high ground

I agree. Barca and Madrid have been robbing Spanish teams for years, and yet some of their supporters complain about City & PSG.

Sure, no disagreement on PSG deserves to go through part, I have been clamoring for PSG to eliminate Bayern since day 1, by the way.

Not sure about the part that Bayern needs to reconsider their approach. You mean changing how they play? Less crosses? Less wing play? That’s in their blood.

No. They need to spend $$$$$ you finish off strong and then you buy Bouna Sarr, Marc Roca, Douglas Costa, and Choupo-Moting. Why?

 

[Morten]

See some potray this tie as Poch's 'masterclass'. People like to blow things out of proportions.

Masterclass? If you are talking about what i said, i said he improved his approach from the first game, where he clearly got lucky, thats all, not like he reinvented football or something.

 

[Luftstalag14]

A few hundred thousand that one has and most others do not. Analogous cases throughout football history.

Resources aren't nearly as much a problem as made out. Monaco get nowhere near the shit Chelsea does/did. Nor did Malaga. Where do people think Barca got the money to build Camp Nou and then sustain the loan? Fell out the sky? 50's UNICEF?

BTW how many foreign owners with similarly bottomless pockets are there in the UK now? I read somewhere it's something like 80% of Premier League investment capital is abroad + some Championship teams often benefitting from geographic location to get investors also. But muh 'historic clubs' with their moral high ground

There is a difference though, although the lines are increasingly blurred. Most of the big clubs today were built up through hard work, diligence and sometimes luck involving mostly their early founders and local businessmen who owned them. Whatever favors, grants or loaned they received paled in front of the kind of big money many clubs got in the last two decades from foreign owners. Not saying the former are necessarily morally superior to the latter though.

By the way I just finished reading this book and I seriously recommend any football fans to read it:

https://www.amazon.com/Billionaires...ocphy=1018127&hvtargid=pla-616106735437&psc=1

 

[Horatio]

There is a difference though, although the lines are increasingly blurred. Most of the big clubs today were built up through hard work, diligence and sometimes luck involving mostly their early founders and local businessmen who owned them. Whatever favors, grants or loaned they received paled in front of the kind of big money many clubs got in the last two decades from foreign owners. Not saying the former are necessarily morally superior to the latter though.

By the way I just finished reading this book and I seriously recommend any football fans to read it:

https://www.amazon.com/Billionaires...ocphy=1018127&hvtargid=pla-616106735437&psc=1

Will give it a read.

 

[FinBarcelonafan]

See some potray this tie as Poch's 'masterclass'. People like to blow things out of proportions.

Well, what did you expect from Bayern today? PSG learned from the first game and dominated the game.

Bayern had no chance today.

 

[El Gato]

These are literally all things I morally disagree with though inclduing the stadium affair. The PL is a plastic shitshow, yes you are completely right, I enjoy all their losses. Yet this is just whataboutism that ignores some cases are just ultimatively worse than others. And City/PSG, even Chelsea are on a different level at this than the entire pre 2000s.

It wasn't even much of an issue back then with Bosman not being a thing. Teams got bailouts from private investors during world wars or shit, and we compare that with multibillion funds that hyperinflated the sport into a direction where 5-7 clubs compete for everything now.

Why would you not compare it? Currently it's only an argument of scale rather than fundamentals.

Inflation was always going to be the case the moment playing football was made a paid job that can be sustained by spectators contributing to the magnitude of the worker's wage.

Anyway, the only way I see of changing the state of things is to Americanise it - salary caps, drafts, taking autonomy away from the player. Then you'd get your 'fair' distribution of talent + success, or at least a much better chance at it. And we know full well how both players and investors would respond to that.
So never understood the point of complaints how this or that club is plastic and built on vanity when it's clear as day most of those working in successfully run 'fake' clubs really do just care about seeing a good game. And they deserve it no less than anyone from 'historic' teams who benefitted from structures passed down from predecessors and often times external support. Equally no problem with money necessarily playing a massive role in growing the sport in the US where tradition is just not there and must be 'bought'.

 

[Luftstalag14]

I agree. Barca and Madrid have been robbing Spanish teams for years, and yet some of their supporters complain about City & PSG.


No. They need to spend $$$$$ you finish off strong and then you buy Bouna Sarr, Marc Roca, Douglas Costa, and Choupo-Moting. Why?

They were spending money when they needed the players though, like Neuer, Hummels as Khaled mentioned before. However Bayern is not invincible like some portrayed them to be, sometimes they couldn’t get the players they wanted (Hudson-Odoi and Dest for example), they too have to battle burgeoning and inflated transfer prices like the rest of us have to, they don’t always get what they wanted, of course. They made do with the situation and what they have. Who else was available? Who could they or should they have spent big money to buy, in your opinion?

Why am I sounding like a Bayern apologist here. That’s the last thing I want to be.

 

[Joan]

Masterclass? If you are talking about what i said, i said he improved his approach from the first game, where he clearly got lucky, thats all, not like he reinvented football or something.

No, didn't even see what you wrote. He certainly improved his approach both from the last game and the 2nd game with Barca. Pretty even tie which went Psg's way.

 

[FC433]

They were spending money when they needed the players though, like Neuer, Hummels as Khaled mentioned before. However Bayern is not invincible like some portrayed them to be, sometimes they couldn’t get the players they wanted (Hudson-Odoi and Dest for example), they too have to battle burgeoning and inflated transfer prices like the rest of us have to, they don’t always get what they wanted, of course. They made do with the situation and what they have. Who else was available? Who could they or should they have spent big money to buy, in your opinion?

Why am I sounding like a Bayern apologist here. That’s the last thing I want to be.

I do not really know. I do not follow Munich a lot, but to me, I think they have not been investing as much as they: 1) could, and 2) should. Any Munich's supports in here could please share their thoughts regarding this matter?

 

[Luftstalag14]

Why would you not compare it? Currently it's only an argument of scale rather than fundamentals.

Inflation was always going to be the case the moment playing football was made a paid job that can be sustained by spectators contributing to the magnitude of the worker's wage.

Anyway, the only way I see of changing the state of things is to Americanise it - salary caps, drafts, taking autonomy away from the player. Then you'd get your 'fair' distribution of talent + success, or at least a much better chance at it. And we know full well how both players and investors would respond to that.
So never understood the point of complaints how this or that club is plastic and built on vanity when it's clear as day most of those working in successfully run 'fake' clubs really do just care about seeing a good game. And they deserve it no less than anyone from 'historic' teams who benefitted from structures passed down from predecessors and often times external support. Equally no problem with money necessarily playing a massive role in growing the sport in the US where tradition is just not there and must be 'bought'.

The biggest problem with Americanizing European or non-North American football is, at least how I see it, is the elimination of promotion and relegation in order to help assure investors that their clubs/teams will always stay in the top flight and therefore get a piece of the cake no matter how poorly they fare. And it essentially blocks any lower tier/grassroot clubs from entering the top flight unless they get bought out/receive big investment from some investor and get accepted by the top league and the other owners (like how the MLS or any American sport expands these days) to join them.

Basically saying to get a seat on the top flight football table you will have to be rich, one way or the other. That is just bullshit in my opinion.

 

[Yannik]

Why would you not compare it? Currently it's only an argument of scale rather than fundamentals.

You can definitely compare both the scale aswell as the fundamentals. There were clubs that held their hands open for administrative funds, invesments and in few cases even borderline corruption. But there was no increasing trend of clubs literally selling the whole operation to be someones wealthy playtoy forever. Tell me how much does a ticket for a fan cost in England. And then how much does it cost in Germany with 50+1 still intact? Giving away full control for money to businessmen was always gonna result in those people then making football further into a business in which fans are seen as customers.

Inflation was always going to be the case the moment playing football was made a paid job that can be sustained by spectators contributing to the magnitude of the worker's wage.

Inflation has not been as much of an issue since everyones income improved in comparable pace. That's how teams from Eastern Europe, the Netherlands and in earlier decades even teams outside Europe held the standard. Everyone equally became richer, stuff inflated but most teams were equipped with the means. The problem with the modern inflation is that the money influx comes only from a few ends, while 99% of clubs just see rising market prices but they themselves arent actually richer.

Anyway, the only way I see of changing the state of things is to Americanise it - salary caps, drafts, taking autonomy away from the player. Then you'd get your 'fair' distribution of talent + success. And we know full well how both players and investors would respond to that.

Yeah caps should happen at this point. Unsurpringly investors are against that, thats why I said I am fully against these people and their clubs.
Best thing would've been that such clubs would have never even sold themselves out to investors, because then these people wouldnt have the power to oppose such a thing if it was proposed.
Which brings us back to why the modern football version is ultimatively worse than the occasional payments made up to the 90s: Investors are not just payment sources anymore, but they literally are having a vote now.

 

[El Gato]

There is a difference though, although the lines are increasingly blurred. Most of the big clubs today were built up through hard work, diligence and sometimes luck involving mostly their early founders and local businessmen who owned them. Whatever favors, grants or loaned they received paled in front of the kind of big money many clubs got in the last two decades from foreign owners. Not saying the former are necessarily morally superior to the latter though.

By the way I just finished reading this book and I seriously recommend any football fans to read it:

https://www.amazon.com/Billionaires...ocphy=1018127&hvtargid=pla-616106735437&psc=1

Pretty sure most working for heavily sponsored teams would disagree with the implication that they have to work any less hard for their success on day in day out basis.
You do have me rambling here but IMO the difference isn't in the work any one person puts in over a single year, but how many years it took to get the team from League C to winning League A. And if you ask me, I'm OK with it because the goal isn't to watch some 20 year journey from sweet fuckall to glory. Football's enough of a waste of time.

The biggest problem with Americanizing European or non-North American football is, at least how I see it, is the elimination of promotion and relegation in order to help assure investors that their clubs/teams will always stay in the top flight and therefore get a piece of the cake no matter how poorly they fare. And it essentially blocks any lower tier/grassroot clubs from entering the top flight unless they get bought out/receive big investment from some investor and get accepted by the top league and the other owners (like how the MLS or any American sport expands these days) to join them.

Basically saying to get a seat on the top flight football table you will have to be rich, one way or the other. That is just bullshit in my opinion.

Pretty sure the way tiers would work could be amended. Issue would be working out how transfers work across the different levels.

Tell me how much does a ticket for a fan cost in England. And then how much does it cost in Germany with 50+1 still intact? Giving away full control for money to businessmen was always gonna result in those people then making football further into a business in which fans are seen as customers.

Depends which ticket. Don't live in England, but last time I've been to a game in 2015 (Wolves vs Middlesbrough, fun match) it was 30 GBP I think. Arsenal season ticket is around 900 from what I remember last.

Inflation has not been as much of an issue since everyones income improved in comparable pace. That's how teams from Eastern Europe, the Netherlands and in earlier decades even teams outside Europe held the standard.

And everyone suffered through the (relatively) poor standard of football on display. I mean we are just talking about the differences between some Frosinone not being able to afford a video analyst while Wolves have about 5 of them because of where they are and who they're affiliated with. Things were fairer, but so so much poorer knowing how well it can be played when you help it be played better with a bit of money.

Honestly I don't see the oil funding as a reason to demonise fanbases or clubs and those who work for them. It for sure would be nice if players were forced to earn less and I don't think they themselves would mind if they were to unionise and take one referendum over it (I would hope anyway).
But I'm not bothered because on the whole we as spectators get to watch good games and truth be told I don't care that PSV will never be positioned as well as Liverpool on European stage. Why should I? Why should anyone? Do you watch football to experience a cinderella story from your local area that makes you feel fuzzy inside, or to see it be played at high standard no matter who it is that gets to the final? Is it a competition or just a bit of fun? Perennial fundamental arguments that underpin all these discussions that will never be resolved as they're just a matter of preference and there is no right answer IMO

 

[BerkeleyBernie]

Can't see anyone but ManCity, Real, or PSG winning the competition at this point. My bet's on Pep.

 

[Horatio]

But what if...Chelsea...

 

[Luftstalag14]

Pretty sure most working for heavily sponsored teams would disagree with the implication that they have to work any less hard for their success on day in day out basis.
You do have me rambling here but IMO the difference isn't in the work any one person puts in over a single year, but how many years it took to get the team from League C to winning League A. And if you ask me, I'm OK with it because the goal isn't to watch some 20 year journey from sweet fuckall to glory. Football's enough of a waste of time.

Yeah, I am not saying those clubs that received huge amount of foreign money didn't have to work hard, I'd argue some of them actually worked equally hard if not harder, at least skillful enough so that foreign investors saw enough potential in them to even consider buying them or investing in them in the first place. My point was simply the favors, grants, loans or whatever clubs received early on when they were in the hands of founders and local owners could not be compared to the huge amount of money those so-called "plastic clubs" received in the last two decades, in terms of magnitude.

Honestly I don't see the oil funding as a reason to demonise fanbases or clubs and those who work for them.

This I wholeheartedly agree. There is nothing wrong with somebody like a club, regardless of the club's ownership model or who owns it, where money comes from etc.