Thiago Silva

[La Furia]

don't you mean Bonera-Mexes?

Super Mario >>> Bonera

 

[XaviMessiGirl]

I could make a similar comparsion. I hate clubs who only do well because they happen to from be a big city which allow them to have a big stadium and therefore much greater finical strength than clubs from much smaller cities. Only clubs who do well due to their own youth products are real clubs. How newcastle has achieved its success disgusts me.

I really don't get why people dislike buyer clubs so badly. Enjoy the football being played and don't ponder of how that football came to be, to me that is unimportant.

A bit like watching a good movie and then hate it because you found out an investor pumped loads of cash into it so they could pay loads of money for famous actors to play the roles.

So Newcastle "disgusts" you but you have no problem with clubs buying success? I don't get it (unless you support Sunderland, because then obviously club loyalty/bias reigns supreme). Plus by your logic of what a "real club" is, none of PSG, City, Chelsea etc are real clubs either so you should also find them "disgusting".

Yeah, a club full of superstars can be fun to watch, given they gel well together, but that's beside the point.

 

[Puyol the wall]

I am defending buyer clubs in my respone.

Its disgusting to see so much money spent,imagine had a rich owner taken over Newcastle instead of City we'll be talking about Newcastle not City,its just an unfair advantage on other clubs but anyway credit must be given to clubs which keep up with the big spending clubs.

Edit: That said I wonder how all the Cules would welcome it if a rich owner took over Barcelona they might as well change their opinions.

 

[Henry_IB]

I have to disagree with you there. A lot of the bigger cities do have an advantage but a lot of them also have a rich history behind the club that wasn't always reliant on the fact they came from a big or capitol city. I think tv rights etc should be spread about a bit more evenly, but if your team attracts the majority of people watching then you should get a bigger chunk of the change regardless.

As for rich billionaire investors buying clubs- It should be allowed but regulated more closely and strictly. Something has to stop them from buying and spending as much as they want. The salaries and transfer fees from these clubs are ruining the sport, I don't care what you say. How are smaller clubs or even big clubs without billionaire investors supposed to compete? Some of these players for City are making more money per week than half of the players on some teams in week. That is disgusting.

The transfer market has become a joke. As for the French league I feel bad, they have such a competitive league but with PSG pumping around this massive amount of money soon they'll be buying success the same way Man City did, and for me, thats neither impressive or entertaining.

And how exactly do you think these clubs gained their rich history if not for being finically stronger? For example, if you look at the winners of the english league first divisions from 1900-1992, every club who won the league had a stadium with capacity for at least 20.000. There are some outliers (such a Burnley, who still had a big stadium with +20,000) but a very large majority of the winners from 1900-1992 have been a club from one of UKs 20th largest cities. How come smaller teams from smaller cities as Grimsby Town and Oldham Athletic never ever managed to come close to winning the title and only managed to enjoy short spells in the top flight before dropping out and being replaced with teams from bigger cities? Because clubs from bigger cities could attract better players due to better wages and also afford to buy better players.

Even back then, finance played a cruical part in a club's success and back then, the majority of the revenue came from tickets.

Ever come to wonder why Manchester United has been so succesful since the 90's to today? Finance. Ferguson had been in charge since 1986 of Manchester United and he had almost been sacked although a FA cup win and later some other cup win saved him. In 91/92 Manchester united was the second english football club to put themselves on the stock market which raised a lot of money. Premier league was introduced 92/93 with vastly improved tv rights for clubs and they managed to win the league that year and the following year. After that they dominated the english game together with Arsenal for a decade. Thanks to winning the first 2 years of premier league, it gave manchester united an accumlative advantage which they have capitalized on. Since 92 until today only Chelsea has spent more money on transfers than Manchester United. I am not saying it is ONLY due to finances but do I think Manchester United would have enjoyed the same level of sucess for the last 20 years if not for 2 first wins in the premier league? Definitely not.

If not for these suggar daddies, the current paradigm would still be in place where it would almost always be about Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

You say you think the salaries and transfer fees from man city, psg etc are ruining the sport. That buying success is not impressive. Yet I haven't see you talk about a salary cap and transfer cap for all clubs, caps which all clubs in the top flight could afford so everyone would be playing on equal terms. Because honestly, Barcelona, Man United, Real Madrid - All the top clubs in the world are buying their success with salaries and transfer fees lesser clubs cannot match, some more than others but still very much buying our success. The only difference between suggar daddies clubs and clubs like man united is how their financial superiority was gained. Just as richer people only get richer, the same principal follows for clubs. To me it really doesn't matter if you have a suggar daddy or if you have finanical superiority due to geographical reasons and happened to have success at the right time which resulted in an accumlative advantage because both result in unfair advantage.

A paradigm shift in today's football can only occur in two ways, a suggar daddy or the introduction of a salary and transfer cap which all clubs can afford or at least make it so lesser clubs are drastically closer to being on the same level of today's big powerhouses. So if you think it is unfair that some clubs like manchester city and psg have an unfair financial advantage, you should very much in favor for a salary and transfer cap which would result in Barcelona would only be allowed to spend as much money on wages and transfers as say, levante or mallorca. This would almost certainly also remove the dominance of Barcelona and Real madrid in the spanish game.

I personally don't want a league with 20 medicore teams, I way prefer a league with 2-5 really awesome teams.

 

[XaviMessiGirl]

I am defending buyer clubs in my respone.

It just makes no sense to me that you would shit on Newcastle, who are doing pretty well for not being a big club or spending lots of money, then say that spending loads of oil money is ok for football. What ever happened to this sport being about things like history, tradition, loyalty. Now modern football is just all about who has the biggest pocketbook, and THAT, to me is disgusting.

And before you say it's hypocritical to support Barca etc because "we spend money too", it's not quite the same thing. Not to sound arrogant here but people want to join Barca because we have the history, the success (the same for Madrid, Man Utd and a few others). Not necessarily because we have a big pocketbook, though admittedly that may factor in for some. But with these oil clubs, money is the only reason. If PSG wasn't rich, none of these guys would want to join them.

This is precisely why I'm so against deals like Javi Martinez for 40M, Neymar for 60M. We don't need to do that. The Jordi Alba deal was reasonable (the fact that we are basically re-signing a cantera product aside) and shows we can get good players without trying to break transfer records.

 

[Henry_IB]

I'm well aware of that, no need for insulting memes. It just makes no sense to me that you would shit on Newcastle, who are doing pretty well for not being a big club or spending lots of money, then say that spending loads of oil money is ok for football. What ever happened to this sport being about things like history, tradition, loyalty. Now modern football is just all about who has the biggest pocketbook, and THAT, to me is disgusting.

And before you say it's hypocritical to support Barca etc because "we spend money too", it's not quite the same thing. Not to sound arrogant here but people want to join Barca because we have the history, the success (the same for Madrid, Man Utd and a few others). Not necessarily because we have a big pocketbook, though admittedly that may factor in for some. But with these oil clubs, money is the only reason. If PSG wasn't rich, none of these guys would want to join them.

This is precisely why I'm so against deals like Javi Martinez for 40M, Neymar for 60M. We don't need to do that. The Jordi Alba deal was reasonable (the fact that we are basically re-signing a cantera product aside) and shows we can get good players without trying to break transfer records.

You are still missing my point entirely.

I never took a shit on newcastle, it was only used in hypothetical example of how differently you can view what success is. I used newcastle because HBA used newcastle when talking about big spending clubs as an example of what he considers to be a good club. I then used newcastle to appear bad by saying it doesn't use its own youth products to make an example of how differently you can define what legitimate success is.

And my apologies if you thought the meme offensive. In my friend circut a bit of insulting is normal so I guess that has turned my humour slightly dark. I'd never judge a person's intelligence by its ability to comprehend something at one occasion because we all have brain farts and it is 6 am in the morning.

And as for people supporting barca or any other big club because of its history and success, you seem to fail to realise that its success and history are directly related to the club's financial ability. Not sure if you read my long post above where I speak of it in more detail.

 

[Jadentheman]

To add to his fact the owners will get all the money back by the end of the week.

 

[Puyol the wall]

To add to his fact the owners will get all the money back by the end of the week.

By winning lotteries or something,they invest money to market themselves I don't think they will get the money back specially in the short term.

 

[XaviMessiGirl]

You are still missing my point entirely...

I never took a shit on newcastle, it was only used in hypothetical example of how differently you can view what success is. I used newcastle because HBA used newcastle when talking about big spending clubs as an example of what he considers to be a good club. I then used newcastle to appear bad by saying it doesn't use its own youth products to make an example of how differently you can define what legitimate success is.

Well you didn't specify that, all you said was "Newcastle disgust me". And I understand where you're coming from re: using youth products but not every club is blessed with having a great youth system like Barca is. So if they have to go shopping then so be it. But they made some of the best deals in the EPL last season and it paid off.

PSG meanwhile thinks they can leech all of Serie A, both superstars and young rising talents. Serie A was already starting to become a struggling league, after being passed by Bundesliga in the UEFA rankings. Now with the mass exodus to PSG, plus the big clubs like Inter and Milan having their own financial struggles and not being able to keep up, it's just going to continue to get worse over there and harder to attract people to that league.

 

[Henry_IB]

Well you didn't specify that, all you said was "Newcastle disgust me". And I understand where you're coming from re: using youth products but not every club is blessed with having a great youth system like Barca is. So if they have to go shopping then so be it. But they made some of the best deals in the EPL last season and it paid off.

PSG meanwhile thinks they can leech all of Serie A, both superstars and young rising talents. Serie A was already starting to become a struggling league, after being passed by Bundesliga in the UEFA rankings. Now with the mass exodus to PSG, plus the big clubs like Inter and Milan having their own financial struggles and not being able to keep up, it's just going to continue to get worse over there and harder to attract people to that league.

Well... I did start my sentence of that hypothetical example with "I could make a similar comparsion." And I still have this feeling you don't get the point I am trying to make. I don't think using your own youth products is a must to be considered a real club. I have no problems with newcastle and no problems with man city, psg etc.

 

[XaviMessiGirl]

k, fine

 

[Jadentheman]

By winning lotteries or something,they invest money to market themselves I don't think they will get the money back specially in the short term.

I'm pretty sure these owners own business that make millions a day around the world. The money will be made back quicker than most clubs even if the player is a flop

 

[Baudie]

To get twice the amount or even more is just not fair. Normal clubs have no chance to sign any big player if this continue. Sugardaddy clubs have ruined sports several times, and might soon ruin football also. How should the other big teams have a chance vs PSG in the french league?

To say that bigger cities have an advantage is true, but smaller teams have a chance to make the right decisions and grow. There is a natural maximum for clubs, except sugerdaddy clubs in which "the sky is the limit".

Its like kids who cheats in games, because "the other have trained much more and have talent and its not fair" and then decide to use aimbot or similar.

/Baudie

 

[Hatem Ben Arfa]

I could make a similar comparsion. I hate clubs who only do well because they happen to from be a big city which allow them to have a big stadium and therefore much greater finical strength than clubs from much smaller cities. Only clubs who do well due to their own youth products are real clubs. How newcastle has achieved its success disgusts me.

I really don't get why people dislike buyer clubs so badly. Enjoy the football being played and don't ponder of how that football came to be, to me that is unimportant.

A bit like watching a good movie and then hate it because you found out an investor pumped loads of cash into it so they could pay loads of money for famous actors to play the roles.

your argument doesn't work.

Newcastle don't only do well because we are from a big city. We follow a model now of doing our homework and scouting with Chief scout Graham Carr picking out the players and we sign them for relatively cheap prices and it has been a success so far. We will also spend some big money on a player when we feel it is worth it. Cabaye 4mil, Tiote 3.5 mil, Ba FREE, Santon 5 mil, Guiterrez FREE, Simpson 2 mil, Krul 0.2 mil, HBA 5 mil, S.Taylor YOUTH, Williamson 2 mil, Cisse 7.5 mil (rising to 9.5mil on performances) and Colocinni 10 mil, Carroll YOUTH. we have achieved huge success with that team, and it wasn't bought in the period of 1 or 2 seasons either. £39.7 million it cost Newcastle to assemble that team, and we could have finished 3rd in the Premier League on the last day of the season.

Newcastle have a big stadium because of our success under Kevin Keegan. That is when the stadium was expanded, and we were able to get a loan to expand the stadium again because of our continued success under Keegan finishing 2nd. We had already finished 2nd in the Premier League before we bought Alan Shearer for 15 million. And this was only after we sold Andy Cole who scored 40 goals for Newcastle that season to Manchester United.

Do you put Arsenal having a big stadium as the reason for their success?

also the Premier League tv money is distributed quite fairly, with the team finishing at the bottom of the league getting £40 million. Along with the teams that were relegated the season before getting £15 million in parachute payments to help with financial troubles brought with relegation.

Just because Newcastle choose to be run like a business and be one of the very few Premier League clubs that will be due to make a profit when financial results are released for this season just ended doesn't mean we have some unfair advantage because of our stadium. we have chosen to prudent and live within our means.

 

[Henry_IB]

your argument doesn't work.

Newcastle don't only do well because we are from a big city. We follow a model now of doing our homework and scouting with Chief scout Graham Carr picking out the players and we sign them for relatively cheap prices and it has been a success so far. We will also spend some big money on a player when we feel it is worth it. Cabaye 4mil, Tiote 3.5 mil, Ba FREE, Santon 5 mil, Guiterrez FREE, Simpson 2 mil, Krul 0.2 mil, HBA 5 mil, S.Taylor YOUTH, Williamson 2 mil, Cisse 7.5 mil (rising to 9.5mil on performances) and Colocinni 10 mil, Carroll YOUTH. we have achieved huge success with that team, and it wasn't bought in the period of 1 or 2 seasons either. £39.7 million it cost Newcastle to assemble that team, and we could have finished 3rd in the Premier League on the last day of the season.

Newcastle have a big stadium because of our success under Kevin Keegan. That is when the stadium was expanded, and we were able to get a loan to expand the stadium again because of our continued success under Keegan finishing 2nd. We had already finished 2nd in the Premier League before we bought Alan Shearer for 15 million. And this was only after we sold Andy Cole who scored 40 goals for Newcastle that season to Manchester United.

Do you put Arsenal having a big stadium as the reason for their success?

also the Premier League tv money is distributed quite fairly, with the team finishing at the bottom of the league getting £40 million. Along with the teams that were relegated the season before getting £15 million in parachute payments to help with financial troubles brought with relegation.

Just because Newcastle choose to be run like a business and be one of the very few Premier League clubs that will be due to make a profit when financial results are released for this season just ended doesn't mean we have some unfair advantage because of our stadium. we have chosen to prudent and live within our means.

First of all, Newcastle had a stadium capable of 60,000 people 1905. The stadium wasn't expanded during kevan kegan, it was mordernised but had its seating capacity reduced quite heavily.

Secondly, I don't deny Newcastle being a good business, however. Apart from Man United, City, Chelsea, liverpool and Tottenham you have spent the most money on transfer, roughly 4 times as much as bolton and twice the amount of what sunderland have. If you honestly think that newcastle would be where it is today if it was from a smaller town and had a stadium with 15,000 seats, you're delusional. Newcastle spend smart but they still spend quite a lot. They would never have achieved what they are or have if they were from a smaller town with a smaller stadium.

And as for Arsenal, I do think a big reason for their success is due to their geographical location and stadium. Arsenal as well had a capacity of +60,000 before reconstuction began due to the taylor report.