Football : Season 2009/2010

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Shadow Demon UK

You've just listed the players that won the carling cup last season and have got us to the semi-finals this year, they are far better than most teams reserve/squad players.

Can't really say I rate any of those players and compare who we field to Arsenal. We have to field a few fringe players too whereas Arsenal can field a complete youth line up and still win.

[Matty_]

In other news i was watching La Liga earlier and they touched on quite an interesting little deal between Man City and Real Madrid.
From what i understand the clubs have a "Gentleman`s agreement" that if one of the clubs is looking to buy a certain player, the other will make it 100% clear that they do not wan`t to sign said player. If circumstances occur where the initial inquirer pulls out (for whatever reason) then the other club can make a move so to speak.
Apparently Barcelona and Real used to, or still have a similar thing going on!

To me this sounds like a good thing as it means that the clubs don`t get dragged into a bidding war in the future which could cause acrimony with regards future deals.
I seem to recall a premiership club having a not to rosy relationship with a foreign club (can`t remember which) over some underhand transfer tactics and now the 2 clubs won`t do business!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Uefa's proposed rules are designed to stop that. It's a conspiracy either, Chelsea would have been affected.

No they aren't designed to stop it, you can still be mortgaged up to the hilt to banks

Platini added: "If a club can get loans from a bank to buy players and is able to pay back bank loans then it is not a problem.

Not a conspiracy, Chelsea are in on it pffft

"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something - Roman Abramovich, (AC Milan's) Silvio Berlusconi, (Inter Milan's) Massimo Moratti. They do not want to fork out from their pockets any more," added Platini.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...pe/8225941.stm

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No they aren't designed to stop it, you can still be mortgaged up to the hilt to banks

Platini added: "If a club can get loans from a bank to buy players and is able to pay back bank loans then it is not a problem.

Not a conspiracy, Chelsea are in on it pffft

"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something - Roman Abramovich, (AC Milan's) Silvio Berlusconi, (Inter Milan's) Massimo Moratti. They do not want to fork out from their pockets any more," added Platini.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...pe/8225941.stm

I said it was to stop clubs just getting buckets of money from wealthy owners (who write it off because it's the cost of buying the trophies) not to stop bank loans. In theory there is nothing unfair about bank loans because they are secured against some assert and have to be paid back. The club can't just get, say, £300 million to buy a new team without a drawback.

It is funny that Chelsea asked for it though. LOL.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

I said it was to stop clubs just getting buckets of money from wealthy owners (who write it off because it's the cost of buying the trophies) not to stop bank loans. In theory there is nothing unfair about bank loans because they are secured against some assert and have to be paid back. The club can't just get, say, £300 million to buy a new team without a drawback.

It is funny that Chelsea asked for it though. LOL.

Of course they can, Real Madrid do it every few years and when it costs to much they'll just sell of their training ground to a government stooge again for £300 million and Man City's Shiek isn't just giving the club money, he has turned his investment into shares which is a hell of a lot better way of doing things than just "loaning" the club money like most owners seem to do these days.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Of course they can, Real Madrid do it every few years and when it costs to much they'll just sell of their training ground to a government stooge again for £300 million and Man City's Shiek isn't just giving the club money, he has turned his investment into shares which is a hell of a lot better way of doing things than just "loaning" the club money like most owners seem to do these days.

Real Madrid are a bunch of crooks anyway. I don't understand the City thing but I thought he completely owned the club anyway? Shiek is pretty much giving the club money, they won't make that back, so he can make the club league winners and in turn prompt Abu Dubai or where ever it is.

Is the way football going that billionaires compete against each other by putting money from other ventures into the game?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Real Madrid are a bunch of crooks anyway. I don't understand the City thing but I thought he completely owned the club anyway? Shiek is pretty much giving the club money, they won't make that back

He does but by turning the money he puts in into extra shares he doesn't burden the club with debt, unlike what Abramovich has done.

Is the way football going that billionaires compete against each other by putting money from other ventures into the game?

It's the way football has always gone, it used to be local millionaire business men putting their cash in, now the game has grown it's foreign billionaires, imo they aren't the problem, the problem is people trying to make a quick buck from the game, the Glazers and Hicks of this world and the people that never had the cash in the first place like at Pompey, they are the problem UEFA should be addressing.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

He does but by turning the money he puts in into extra shares he doesn't burden the club with debt, unlike what Abramovich has done.

It's the way football has always gone, it used to be local millionaire business men putting their cash in, now the game has grown it's foreign billionaires, imo they aren't the problem, the problem is people trying to make a quick buck from the game, the Glazers and Hicks of this world and the people that never had the cash in the first place like at Pompey, they are the problem UEFA should be addressing.

Those clubs eventually suffer as a result. Leeds got massive bank loans to try and become a massive force and they almost destroyed the club, 2 relegations, lost ownership of the stadium and training ground, and all their players. There is a incentive to be responsible with their credit because it will limit a clubs options in future. There is a kind of balance there that allows clubs like Arsenal/Villa/Spurs to compete.

Man City and future clubs with the same system can spend, spend, spend without any natural limitation because profit and sustainability are not concerns for their owners. Winning titles is the main concern. Any time a player is better than a existing player in their team they will simply buy them.

No other club will be able to compete at all. Football will be the playthings of billionaires who spend their own money. It doesn't matter if you get champions league football money, it will be a drop in the ocean of what these teams will pay.

I agree UEFA also need to stop scammers from coming into the game to make a profit. Owners need to be responsible and run the club probably, so no stealing from the club when you first arrive and no spending excess sums of money just to distort the league. All clubs should be business with the responsibilities that entails.

I am wondering who this guy Stan Kroenke is, he seems to invest in Arsenal bit by bit, just like the Glazers did with United, if he had the money, why not just make a bid to take the club over from the outset?

I woudn't mind betting that he has a debt to service from the profits of another company, but I hope I am wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...ons-clear.html

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Man City and future clubs with the same system can spend, spend, spend without any natural limitation because profit and sustainability are not concerns for their owners. Winning titles is the main concern. Any time a player is better than a existing player in their team they will simply buy them.

No other club will be able to compete at all. Football will be the playthings of billionaires who spend their own money. It doesn't matter if you get champions league football money, it will be a drop in the ocean of what these teams will pay.

I don't buy that argument, Man City can only play 11 players at one time and you only have to look at Barcalona and Arsenal to see what can be achieved with lesser financial means, imo when those clubs win things it makes the achievement even more specia.

Originally Posted by yesman

I am wondering who this guy Stan Kroenke is, he seems to invest in Arsenal bit by bit, just like the Glazers did with United, if he had the money, why not just make a bid to take the club over from the outset?

I woudn't mind betting that he has a debt to service from the profits of another company, but I hope I am wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...ons-clear.html

The board seem happy with him. I would prefer he take over than Usmanov who has seem past troubles and scandals. Part of the reason for the slow buying of shares is the board are very reluctant to sale, another part is that Kroenke would have to spend out a bit to buy everyone out.

From what I have heard he is not like the Glazers. He runs other sport companies fine and subscribes to the idea that a club needs to be well-managed. He has a close relationship with Dein and likes Wenger's philosophy when it comes to developing players.

So he won't invest millions in the club but he won't pile debt onto it either. Maybe part of the reason he won't just take over is that he doesn't (seem) to have any great plan for the club.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Here is a good question, I feel really sad for Pompey, but what l don't understand if a foriegn billionaire sheik has taken over the club, why is there a problem on paying wages, l read an article in the press today, that the Sheik has told Peter Storrie to ' scrape the money together' he can't be that rich can it.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Here is a good question, I feel really sad for Pompey, but what l don't understand if a foriegn billionaire sheik has taken over the club, why is there a problem on paying wages, l read an article in the press today, that the Sheik has told Peter Storrie to ' scrape the money together' he can't be that rich can it.

There seems to be a trend of Shieks with no actually money buying clubs. Heaven knows why, maybe they underestimated the scale of the debt and required investment and got caught out. Some appear to be fantasists of the highest order. Deals are accepted because they are hoped to be loaded like Man City's owners.

The FA should be conducting a fit-and-proper persons test but the question of if the owner can actually afford to both buy the club and eliminate the debt seems not to be a priority for them.

[sherer]

the problems seems to be that unlike in the past when a local weathly business man would invest \ own a club purely because they wanted to pour their money into it and wanted the club to prosper, we now get people own clubs for profit. A football club is no longer an extension of the local community but a means of people to make money.

Personally I think all English football clubs should be English owned and not on the stock market either.

[Russ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ty/8448330.stm

Bwahahahaha!!!