Mr_B
Niko Kranjcar
Haha David May, amazing that less than 25 years ago, Man U was worth just 20 millionSame old ManU, buying the title...
and we all saw Pogba in the euros, if thats a 100m player, my name's ronald mcdonald
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
The Premiership MoneyBall
- Thread starter Grays_1890
- Start date
and we all saw Pogba in the euros, if thats a 100m player, my name's ronald mcdonald
parklane1
Tony Galvin
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Cecil Poynton
Don't get me started!!!!!
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Goals Goals Goals though
As others have said, the fact is that the league brings in brick loads of money, and so it is unavoidable that it will go into transfer fees and wages. It has to go somewhere. So that doesn't bother me too much.
What I do hate is the superclubs that the money has created. How many seasons have Man U had without CL now? Yet they can still go out and spend like they are on managers and players. Same goes for Chelsea after their terrible season last year. Even Man C after a disappointing season. All attracting better talent than the teams that finished top 3 last year. Just makes a mockery of the word 'sport' - it's so biased in favour of a handful of clubs, two of them who reached that status purely through their rich sugardaddies.
And I can't stand the fudging hype over the superclubs / superplayers / supermanagers. Most people see it as a positive thing that the likes of Guardiola, Conte, Pogba and Ibra are being attracted to the PL; I can't stand it, as I know I'll just be subjected to hours of pundits and commentators verbally sucking their roosters at the expense of the hundreds of other players, managers and teams in the league.
If I didn't love Spurs I would stop watching. And sadly I think it's people's love for their own clubs that will prevent us all from protesting against the way the game is going. Maybe we can start a movement or petition here on GG?
What I do hate is the superclubs that the money has created. How many seasons have Man U had without CL now? Yet they can still go out and spend like they are on managers and players. Same goes for Chelsea after their terrible season last year. Even Man C after a disappointing season. All attracting better talent than the teams that finished top 3 last year. Just makes a mockery of the word 'sport' - it's so biased in favour of a handful of clubs, two of them who reached that status purely through their rich sugardaddies.
And I can't stand the fudging hype over the superclubs / superplayers / supermanagers. Most people see it as a positive thing that the likes of Guardiola, Conte, Pogba and Ibra are being attracted to the PL; I can't stand it, as I know I'll just be subjected to hours of pundits and commentators verbally sucking their roosters at the expense of the hundreds of other players, managers and teams in the league.
If I didn't love Spurs I would stop watching. And sadly I think it's people's love for their own clubs that will prevent us all from protesting against the way the game is going. Maybe we can start a movement or petition here on GG?
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Stones for 47m hahahahahaha
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
See, I see it totally different.
More money is coming into the game through TV, but I don't think that should translate to players being paid the ultimate in riches when clubs are having to borrow to improve their stadiums or the price of tickets and for me or worst of all food and drink of brick quality price is out of this world.
The product is not improving to the level that the money is suggesting. Pogba is not 90m of player in any market, so why should he be valued such? Because the arabs have invested in the TV rights? Stones at 50m? Again same argument.
I am not stuck in the dark ages but it makes no sense what so ever, to just say, because there is more money that it should go into what is ultimately a black hole, the players pocket
I
indianspur
Guest
if we sold Kane, Alli and Dier in todays market i think its safe to say we could get 200-250 mill quite comfortably. That money would pay for the stadium and even if we didnt sign anyone we would still finish in the top 6 or 7.
no stadium debt, huge increase in turnover, a continuation of the policy in scouting and developing young bright talents, the club would be a very healthy position.
no stadium debt, huge increase in turnover, a continuation of the policy in scouting and developing young bright talents, the club would be a very healthy position.
I
indianspur
Guest
This is what €90 million buys you.
Mario Gotze will look like that in a couple of years time
Yeah fair point - I couldn't agree more agree that the massive increase in TV and commercial money should go towards reducing costs for local fans.
What frustrates me is that no-one in the public eye even seems to mention this kind of thing - let alone the FA, who should surely be the body that regulates the clubs for the good of the sport and its fans.
I also don't really understand how and why businessmen benefit from owning clubs, when they make relatively little profit.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Its a ego trip, its the same at non league as it is at Chelsea, they want to own something successful and be seen with the players, rub shoulders with Shevchenko ala Chelsea etc.
They don't care about the long term future of clubs, spend borrowed money that has been leveraged against the club then leave, its as simple as that.
Levy and others who are legacy chairmen are exceptions to the rule and they do exist, just not many
They don't care about the long term future of clubs, spend borrowed money that has been leveraged against the club then leave, its as simple as that.
Levy and others who are legacy chairmen are exceptions to the rule and they do exist, just not many
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Cecil Poynton
It's just like everything else in the world people with a lot of easy money are willing to pay over the odds for items.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
You forgot to say they also have more money then sense.
The final nail is about to be hammered:
Champions, it changes: from 2018 Italy will have 4 seats, "historical merits" for big
The new formula is a compromise among the largest in Europe, who would like the Super League and the Uefa: in addition to the Series A, also Spain, Germany and England will have four fixed teams qualified thanks to a new ranking that takes into account the results of the past
Four safe places for the big leagues, some qualified teams (if any) for "historical" merits, the new ranking, protected raffles. For the Super League it is still early, but in the three years 2018-21 Champions will change, and how. It will become a SuperChampions. classical structure, 32 finalists and eight groups, but decided change in the qualification criteria: the negotiations between the big teams of Europe and UEFA have been underway for months: the Journal can anticipate where it's going the Champions.
BIG AND SUPERLEGA - Bayern, Juve, Barca, Real, PSG and English (with less haste, the Premier has unmatched revenue) would like to one day a Super League. A closed tournament, perhaps with a limited proportion of places awarded each year. One type NBA tournament, Italian-style, with a maximum of 24 teams, followed by the playoffs, which is also depressing weekend games in the national championships and canceling or downgrading the Champions. It would be sustainable both economically and legally (the EU can not oppose), but the path is not easy: apart from ripping possible by UEFA, not without consequences, it is to deal with the Premier, the true rival. The English league is now worth 3.2 billion euro TV rights to the season, while the Champions League and Europe together do not come to 2.3 in total (and point to 2.7 from 2018): the English will demand far more digits before downgrade (or abandon).
SUPERCHAMPIONS - The four great nations (England, Spain, Germany and Italy) will have four safe places, without going through the playoffs: the board is the proposal not to qualify the first 4 of the league, but the first 3, then assigning the fourth place for historical merits, through the UEFA ranking revised according to the results with the aim of ensuring a place to large (that is, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Benfica ...). In middle school federations (France, Portugal and Russia) will be 2 safe places, other 4/5 for the samples of the nations that follow in the rankings (now would be Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey and Switzerland), 5-6 to assign through the playoffs (which would participate fifty clubs). The deal goes for the election of the new president Uefa to be held on September 14. But the road is drawn.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Champ...orici-le-big-160659992455.shtml?refresh_ce-cp
The gist of it being:
The big four leagues get four teams directly qualified for the group stages, with potential wild cards for historically big clubs and a semi-closed super league somewhere down the line.
Champions, it changes: from 2018 Italy will have 4 seats, "historical merits" for big
The new formula is a compromise among the largest in Europe, who would like the Super League and the Uefa: in addition to the Series A, also Spain, Germany and England will have four fixed teams qualified thanks to a new ranking that takes into account the results of the past
Four safe places for the big leagues, some qualified teams (if any) for "historical" merits, the new ranking, protected raffles. For the Super League it is still early, but in the three years 2018-21 Champions will change, and how. It will become a SuperChampions. classical structure, 32 finalists and eight groups, but decided change in the qualification criteria: the negotiations between the big teams of Europe and UEFA have been underway for months: the Journal can anticipate where it's going the Champions.
BIG AND SUPERLEGA - Bayern, Juve, Barca, Real, PSG and English (with less haste, the Premier has unmatched revenue) would like to one day a Super League. A closed tournament, perhaps with a limited proportion of places awarded each year. One type NBA tournament, Italian-style, with a maximum of 24 teams, followed by the playoffs, which is also depressing weekend games in the national championships and canceling or downgrading the Champions. It would be sustainable both economically and legally (the EU can not oppose), but the path is not easy: apart from ripping possible by UEFA, not without consequences, it is to deal with the Premier, the true rival. The English league is now worth 3.2 billion euro TV rights to the season, while the Champions League and Europe together do not come to 2.3 in total (and point to 2.7 from 2018): the English will demand far more digits before downgrade (or abandon).
SUPERCHAMPIONS - The four great nations (England, Spain, Germany and Italy) will have four safe places, without going through the playoffs: the board is the proposal not to qualify the first 4 of the league, but the first 3, then assigning the fourth place for historical merits, through the UEFA ranking revised according to the results with the aim of ensuring a place to large (that is, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Benfica ...). In middle school federations (France, Portugal and Russia) will be 2 safe places, other 4/5 for the samples of the nations that follow in the rankings (now would be Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey and Switzerland), 5-6 to assign through the playoffs (which would participate fifty clubs). The deal goes for the election of the new president Uefa to be held on September 14. But the road is drawn.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Champ...orici-le-big-160659992455.shtml?refresh_ce-cp
The gist of it being:
The big four leagues get four teams directly qualified for the group stages, with potential wild cards for historically big clubs and a semi-closed super league somewhere down the line.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
It started some time back with the CL I guess. This is just the latest step the evolution of the game where the money decides . I honestly couldn't give a hoot if all the super rich clubs just tinkled off into their own league. It would make the domestic leagues more competitive again which is what sport is about is it not? People would soon tire of watching the same teams play each other over and over ad nauseam. The CL already is so repetitive as to have lost any real draw for neutral fans.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
What would be the point of aspiring to 4th place, only to have the reward taken away because some team, successful in the past but not in this particular season, is given a bye for "historical reasons"?
We know what that feels like - except at least in our case Cheatski had actually won something. Not justifying it, but this new rule is going a step further. I would hope it would be down to the discretion of each league how to award that 4th spot and that the PL would continue to award it on final league position.
We know what that feels like - except at least in our case Cheatski had actually won something. Not justifying it, but this new rule is going a step further. I would hope it would be down to the discretion of each league how to award that 4th spot and that the PL would continue to award it on final league position.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
To a degree you are spot on, the European Cup was made into the CL because a lot of the so called big clubs around Europe brought up the idea of a Super Lge for the biggest clubs around, ( the idiots did not seem to relise that someone has to finish bottom ) The CL was created to try and stop the breakaway talk. Now 20 odd years later the talk starts again.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
I think it could be evolution in the right direction, without the threat to revenue that relegation offers a locked central bargaining agreement would facilitate wage caps and equilibrium across a league, it could be the answer to competitiveness that people crave.
Look at the NFL, it unquestionably works.
Look at the NFL, it unquestionably works.