Football The 2012 / 2013 Season Thread

[Bodhi]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...rd-after-starting-talks-on-contract-extension

At fucking last!

You think Jose has had a word?

 

[megadave]

I had a dream where Rafa was sacked and Jose came in, waking up was especially bad that morning

 

[Raven]

Jose, you are the only hope.

tbh, he is the only guy mad enough to take the job on.

 

[georgie]

 

[megadave]

i'd be equally happy with Hiddink tbh

 

[megadave]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21370831

YES THE HULK

 

[Shagrat]

lol the Hulk's a Chelsea fan then?

 

[soze]

Sounds to me like the "old guard" of the PL trying to ensure they stay at the top of the table, and no one can do a City a propel a small, unsuccessful team to the top of the tree. It will mean those with massive grounds and followings will be at an advantage over those without.

Bit of a daft idea, but hey, Arsenal need to something to win a trophy I guess.

It is like nepotism in business. You do things the right way and build up a big following. You develop your new ground you make a sound business model which allows you to compete at a higher level. Then all of a sudden you Chav neighbour gets bought out and becomes a rich person’s toy and they are now a better team than you. It is just like working for years for the big promotion just to find out the bosses son has been given the promotion and you are now second best to someone who has done absolutely nothing to deserve it. I can see why Chelsea and City fans do not have a problem. And I can see how the teams outside of the top 8 would not care but when you are a team Like Everton doing everything right Liverpool’s recent dip in form could have meant Champions League football and that money could have been massive. But now that spot has been taken over by Man City’s owner.


And it is not just about not winning anything for me it is the fact that Roman Abramobich has won the Champions League. It is not Chelsea he could have taken over any club in the league and done what he has by throwing enough money at it. It is exactly the same at City.

I do not know what the answer is there is no fair way to institute a salary cap. If you do it based on earnings then the clubs with a big following will have the same advantage. But setting a league wide cap would be unfair. If Man U can only spend the same as Swansea then they will be making money hand over foot and won’t be able to spend it. Unless they start signing players to £20k a week with a £20m signing on fee. And without a Salary cap going worldwide you will just see our league suffer by seeing the best players follow the money.

 

[Aoami]

If Man U could only spend the same as Swansea maybe they could use some of the excess to pay back their crippling debt

 

[Raven]

It's a far better situation than having small clubs like City just rock up with someone with millions to throw at the club. What happens when the owner gets bored? How on earth would they support their wage bill?

Look at the likes of Portsmouth or Leeds...or even Blackburn? Buy success only to have the money drip taken away and then collapse.

In the end it is about protecting the clubs in the league.

 

[soze]

If Man U could only spend the same as Swansea maybe they could use some of the excess to pay back their crippling debt

I am not sure how crippling it is. Until they fail to pay the players like Barcelona I would say their debt is serviceable. Unless the arse falls out of football of course.

 

[Raven]

They can support their wage bill through the club. The debt was not created by UTD but it's owners (a deal that should never have been allowed to happen) The likes of City and Chelsea cannot. They rely entirely on a sugerdaddy, when they stop pumping money into their play thing the clubs will be done for.

 

[Embattle]

Something has needed to be done for a long while, although just thinking of Chelsea and Man City when talking about such things is flawed since so many clubs tend to make losses due to pressures of keeping up and the crazy amount being spent on wages with even the ones making a profit not exactly making a stunning amount.

Overall the effect is positive because in theory should squash a number of the current problems in the EPL and football in general, although a lot will depend if the matching rules from UEFA for the Champions League will be properly enforced because then it'll cover most of the clubs that spend too much on players etc.

As for Chelsea nothing has really changed since being in the Champions League would require this work already, it will probably just speed up the requirement to increase stadium capacity a bit more than was already required. Those hit hardest will probably be those who spend far too much and didn't have to follow FFP rules for Champions League football because now we've got our own. I do expect to see some boundaries being pushed in how the rules are used to circumvent these, in argument we've already had the Man City ground naming rear its head so I would expect more.

 

[DaGaffer]

It is like nepotism in business. You do things the right way and build up a big following. You develop your new ground you make a sound business model which allows you to compete at a higher level. Then all of a sudden you Chav neighbour gets bought out and becomes a rich person’s toy and they are now a better team than you. It is just like working for years for the big promotion just to find out the bosses son has been given the promotion and you are now second best to someone who has done absolutely nothing to deserve it. I can see why Chelsea and City fans do not have a problem. And I can see how the teams outside of the top 8 would not care but when you are a team Like Everton doing everything right Liverpool’s recent dip in form could have meant Champions League football and that money could have been massive. But now that spot has been taken over by Man City’s owner.

You could have replaced that entire paragraph with the words; "I am an Arsenal fan".

And it is not just about not winning anything for me it is the fact that Roman Abramobich has won the Champions League. It is not Chelsea he could have taken over any club in the league and done what he has by throwing enough money at it. It is exactly the same at City.

So what? Does it really matter how a team gets its money? For most teams who don't already have a large fanbase and a 60K+ seater stadium; a sugar daddy is probably the only way to get to the top. Its very easy for United and Arsenal to pontificate (and I say this as a United fan), but don't confuse an interest in "fair play" with their real agenda, which is simple self-interest. Sugar daddies upset the cosy elite, simple as that.

I do not know what the answer is there is no fair way to institute a salary cap. If you do it based on earnings then the clubs with a big following will have the same advantage. But setting a league wide cap would be unfair. If Man U can only spend the same as Swansea then they will be making money hand over foot and won’t be able to spend it. Unless they start signing players to £20k a week with a £20m signing on fee. And without a Salary cap going worldwide you will just see our league suffer by seeing the best players follow the money.

The biggest problem with the idea of a salary cap isn't fairness, its simple legality. In most European countries at least, salary caps in any private sector business are illegal. Its also a bit of a red herring, because the real differentiators of attractiveness of different clubs in different countries is actually the exchange rate and the tax system, rather than gross salary in itself (there are other issues for top tier players like personal v. collective sponsorship money as well).

 

[Scouse]

Amusing fact I didn't know: Jamie Carragher told Hello! magazine to "do one" and instead sold his wedding photo's to The Kop magazine for £1.

 

[Ch3tan]

Managers league table: based on points per game: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21372441

 

[Cerb]

That's cool but they really should have a minimum games played factor in there.

 

[Aoami]

lol McCarthy 26 and Solbakken 79, that must sting Everz

 

[megadave]

I do not know what the answer is there is no fair way to institute a salary cap. If you do it based on earnings then the clubs with a big following will have the same advantage. But setting a league wide cap would be unfair. If Man U can only spend the same as Swansea then they will be making money hand over foot and won’t be able to spend it. Unless they start signing players to £20k a week with a £20m signing on fee. And without a Salary cap going worldwide you will just see our league suffer by seeing the best players follow the money.

Only fair way would be to use something like the American system where all money is shared equally therefore the caps are equal. Even commercial income is split, so clubs only get 100% of shirt sales etc from their home city, world wide sales are split.

 

[soze]

You could have replaced that entire paragraph with the words; "I am an Arsenal fan".

Yes I agree. But I did say no one outside of the top 8 would care.

So what? Does it really matter how a team gets its money? For most teams who don't already have a large fanbase and a 60K+ seater stadium; a sugar daddy is probably the only way to get to the top. Its very easy for United and Arsenal to pontificate (and I say this as a United fan), but don't confuse an interest in "fair play" with their real agenda, which is simple self-interest. Sugar daddies upset the cosy elite, simple as that.

Again as I said only those involved in the top 8 and Europe would care. But also your assumption that the only way to become a "big" club is with a sugar daddy is wrong. That is the only way to instantly become a big club maybe. But Arsenal were not given our fan base and 60k stadium. We earned new fans by playing decent football and then we used that money to build a stadium. There is nothing stopping other teams doing the same over a number of years. The only problem is fickle fans who want it all now.

 

[Everz]

lol McCarthy 26 and Solbakken 79, that must sting Everz

Dean Saunders manager now .

 

[megadave]

Yes I agree. But I did say no one outside of the top 8 would care.

Again as I said only those involved in the top 8 and Europe would care. But also your assumption that the only way to become a "big" club is with a sugar daddy is wrong. That is the only way to instantly become a big club maybe. But Arsenal were not given our fan base and 60k stadium. We earned new fans by playing decent football and then we used that money to build a stadium. There is nothing stopping other teams doing the same over a number of years. The only problem is fickle fans who want it all now.

You say that but Arsenal had significant invest - relative to the period - years ago.

 

[Ch3tan]

The Germans can get it right: http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/21167381

 

[Aoami]

Dean Saunders manager now .

Now!

 

[Billargh]

Niall Quinn is a fucking scumbag like, laughing at Gouffran for milking it before he gets taken off on a stretcher and on Nitronox.

 

[eksdee]

No Mata, gj Benitez you fucking moron.

 

[megadave]

No Mata or Ba and we just look clueless

 

[eksdee]

When Torres releases his autobiography it better be called 'Fernando Torres: Touch of a Rapist'.

 

[caLLous]

Mata has the sniffles, you can't blame Rafa for that.

 

[eksdee]

Watching it in Dutch, so I'm oblivious.