Football The 2013 / 2014 Season Thread

[Scouse]

So a 10 fold increase in spending and 14 fold increase in net spending. They really do make Chelsea look tame.

Yep. Not double and quadruple then eh?

You got the same figures for Chelski, just to make @Bodhi rage like a fanboy who refuses to accept facts he doesn't like more?

 

[DaGaffer]

Perhaps but then most thought the same of Roman Abramovich.

Long haul in United terms is 20-30 years; I'd be amazed it the arabs or Abramovich are still owners over that kind of time line.

 

[soze]

Yep. Not double and quadruple then eh?

You got the same figures for Chelski, just to make @Bodhi rage like a fanboy who refuses to accept facts he doesn't like more?

Yeah I posted them yesterday they have upped spending by about 5x per season.

 

[Himse]

There was bugger all money before Roman turned up!

Long haul in United terms is 20-30 years; I'd be amazed it the arabs or Abramovich are still owners over that kind of time line.

I wouldn't, you'll probably just find their spending is scaled right back and more inline with other clubs.

I'd rather there be more super powers in the leagues, having it means the PL is actually really good to watch and exciting, rather than just Utd dominating because they had the most spending power.

Look at why La Liga is dull, Madrid & Barca (generally) have monstered it because of their spending power, it'll happen in the German league now Bayern have so much put away etc.

 

[Scouse]

I'd rather there be more super powers in the leagues, having it means the PL is actually really good to watch and exciting, rather than just Utd dominating because they had the most spending power

Actually what you're hankering after there is the league before the inception of the premier league - i.e. before it was all about money.

The days where Norwich topped the table towards the end of the season, Villa had seasons that weren't utterly pointless and bereft of any meaning whatsoever (which is the same for pretty much all of the clubs outside of the top six).

You want genuine competition. But you can't have that and the vast disparity of spending power at the same time. Period.


It's like genuine life chances for the poor don't really exist in anything other than exceptional circumstances in a capitalist economy. Football is a sugar-coated analogy for that.

 

[Bodhi]

Long haul in United terms is 20-30 years; I'd be amazed it the arabs or Abramovich are still owners over that kind of time line.

Can't speak for the Arabs but I suspect Roman is in for the long haul - he's not short of cash so can't really see him wanting to sell up - but if he did I doubt the club would be short of buyers. With revenues just under £400 million a year, brilliant facilities and 10 years now at or near the top of the game, there would bound be to be someone to snap them up. It's worth over £800 million now too, so Roman wouldn't be looking to take a major bath on his investment.

So yeah, a tiny club after all. A tiny club worth $200million more than Liverpool

 

[Embattle]

Long haul in United terms is 20-30 years; I'd be amazed it the arabs or Abramovich are still owners over that kind of time line.

Yet I wonder what data is regarding all the PL clubs and those sort of figures.

I'd rather there be more super powers in the leagues, having it means the PL is actually really good to watch and exciting, rather than just Utd dominating because they had the most spending power.

Look at why La Liga is dull, Madrid & Barca (generally) have monstered it because of their spending power, it'll happen in the German league now Bayern have so much put away etc.

The German league is already silly with just BM being a superpower, they also ensure it because they keep pinching BDs players since they have the money to do so.

 

[Scouse]

I agree with you on Abramovich. I think he likes football and chelski is a nice trinket plaything for him to have and show off with his mates with.

So yeah, a tiny club after all. A tiny club worth $200million more than Liverpool

Guess you can buy nouveaux riche success and plastic fans, but you can't buy class or a history worth reminiscing over eh?

Goddamn talkative scousers, always harping on about a history they actually have, that chelski actually doesn't, eh?

 

[Embattle]

Guess you can buy nouveaux riche success and plastic fans, but you can't buy class or a history worth reminiscing over eh?

Ironically all Liverpool fans do is talk about History, no guesses for why that might be

 

[Raven]

Because they have one no doubt

Not a lot to talk about lately though mind - They did win the champions league not so long ago.

I would still prefer them to win the prem on Sunday, simply because they have been the best to watch this season. Can't see it happening though.

 

[Bodhi]

Ironically all Liverpool fans do is talk about History, no guesses for why that might be

That's because Liverpool have history, we're making it

We also have plenty of history, I think what the Scousers keep wittering on about is success, which they didn't have much of until the investment in the 60's. You could almost say they were trailblazers, the first football club to buy success! If Arsenal hadn't beaten them to it in the 20's of course.

In fact you'll probably find most football clubs started through a generous benefactor or community donations, as lets face it, a Football Club isn't the best model for profitability is it?

Can't say I massively see the issue, without rich people bankrolling teams (Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City) I really do dread to think how many in a row Man United would have won. Each season it would be down to 2 teams (Man U and Arsenal), maybe 3 if you count the bin dippers, and that hasn't really done Scottish football much good has it?

 

[Scouse]

Ironically all Liverpool fans do is talk about History, no guesses for why that might be

Because having a great history and fantastic memories to discuss is a big part of what football is for old bean.

Unless you're Bodhi, of course, and only value clubs on their financial "worth" at a period in time. You know - the "sony view"

 

[DaGaffer]

Can't speak for the Arabs but I suspect Roman is in for the long haul - he's not short of cash so can't really see him wanting to sell up - but if he did I doubt the club would be short of buyers. With revenues just under £400 million a year, brilliant facilities and 10 years now at or near the top of the game, there would bound be to be someone to snap them up. It's worth over £800 million now too, so Roman wouldn't be looking to take a major bath on his investment.

So yeah, a tiny club after all. A tiny club worth $200million more than Liverpool

We could be at war with Russia a week from now, that's the problem with the likes of Abramovich; there are many, many ways he could end up parting with Chelsea and not all of them are in his control; lots of oligarchs have been brought low when they've fallen out with Putin for whatever reason. For example, Abramovich has already been accused of being unpatriotic for owning a foreign team rather than a Russian one, which is why one of his companies sponsored CSKA. Its no great stretch to imagine Putin forcing his hand to be more patriotic and UEFA rules say you can't own two teams...

With the arabs, their shopping spree is a giant diversification program designed to salt away their money for when the oil runs out, and football clubs are just one asset amongst many they're getting into, but the problem is they're actually quite new at this whole investment thing and generally speaking football is a high-risk investment. When they start to realise owning a chunk of Amazon is a better bet than worrying about Sergio Aguero's knees, they could fuck off in a heartbeat.

 

[Raven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27337651

Wenger actually talking sense for once.

 

[Bodhi]

One thing I'm struggling to understand:

Mourinho makes sarcastic comments after a game, gets fined £10k.

A Villareal fan lobs a banana on the pitch at Dani Alves, Villareal get fined £9850.

How the fuck does that work?

 

[Bodhi]

Because having a great history and fantastic memories to discuss is a big part of what football is for old bean.

Unless you're Bodhi, of course, and only value clubs on their financial "worth" at a period in time. You know - the "sony view"

You started with the Tiny Club bullshit, I was just calling you out on it. Not sure what other metric you'd like to use?

 

[Raven]

One thing I'm struggling to understand:

Mourinho makes sarcastic comments after a game, gets fined £10k.

A Villareal fan lobs a banana on the pitch at Dani Alves, Villareal get fined £9850.

How the fuck does that work?

Repeat offence. Maureen is just getting put back in his box again.

If it means banning him from the touch line for a few games when he throws his toys out the pram after being outwitted by another manager, then I imagine the FA will do so.

 

[Himse]

We could be at war with Russia a week from now, that's the problem with the likes of Abramovich; there are many, many ways he could end up parting with Chelsea and not all of them are in his control; lots of oligarchs have been brought low when they've fallen out with Putin for whatever reason. For example, Abramovich has already been accused of being unpatriotic for owning a foreign team rather than a Russian one, which is why one of his companies sponsored CSKA. Its no great stretch to imagine Putin forcing his hand to be more patriotic and UEFA rules say you can't own two teams...

With the arabs, their shopping spree is a giant diversification program designed to salt away their money for when the oil runs out, and football clubs are just one asset amongst many they're getting into, but the problem is they're actually quite new at this whole investment thing and generally speaking football is a high-risk investment. When they start to realise owning a chunk of Amazon is a better bet than worrying about Sergio Aguero's knees, they could fuck off in a heartbeat.

It's not always just the investment, it's the ego boosting / thrill of sport, why lots of Arabs own race horses? The gambling & thrill side of racing as well as having a super horse that boosts your status in those circles. Same with football, having a super club in the billionaire circles is just a 'look my dick is bigger than yours'

 

[DaGaffer]

It's not always just the investment, it's the ego boosting / thrill of sport, why lots of Arabs own race horses? The gambling & thrill side of racing as well as having a super horse that boosts your status in those circles. Same with football, having a super club in the billionaire circles is just a 'look my dick is bigger than yours'

No, in the case of City (and PSG for the Qataris) it is just about the investment; the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority owns City, not Sheik Mansour, it has to pay its way as part of their portfolio management policy. Its only because they have such ridiculous excess money currently in the fund that football got a look-in; normally they invest in buying stuff like banks (they own part of Citi group) and retail, but they currently have so much excess cash (like, 600-800 billion dollars) they've buying basically everything

 

[Bodhi]

Repeat offence. Maureen is just getting put back in his box again.

If it means banning him from the touch line for a few games when he throws his toys out the pram after being outwitted by another manager, then I imagine the FA will do so.

I was more thinking the punishment for Villareal was a bit weak, but hey, if it lets you go off on another anti-Mourinho diatribe feel free.

 

[Raven]

10k for a civil offence - and a fairly mild one at that, seems fine.

The club have banned the "fan" for life, there isn't a massive amount else they can do about racism except ban "fans" who are overtly racist within their ground.

It is a result of society. Spain is a far more racist country than England, despite what the hand wringers make out. All the clubs can do is remove that element from their ground, which in this case they have done.

You were trying to compare the two, not me.

 

[Calaen]

John Barnes on talk sport this morning, confirming to me why deep down I didn't really want Liverpool winning the league, regardless of the fact I've really enjoyed watching them play.

"What have Man City done in the last 4 weeks to deserve the league?" "If Steven Gerard hadn't of slipped, and Liverpool had drawn with Chelsea and then beaten Crystal Palace, everyone would be talking about how Liverpool won the league"

What a fucking bellend.

 

[megadave]

If any of you football fans were a billionaire and owned a club, and liked it enough to sink large portions of your wealth in it and became emotionally invested in it over more than a decade, do you think you'd ever get bored and forget about it? I never understand that shitty argument, even 10 years ago when it was first shat out someone's mouth.

 

[Raven]

That's probably true for abramovich but as mentioned earlier in the thread odd things are happening in Russia at the moment if he gets leaned on to get rid, he will get rid. Bigger fish than abramovich have been toppled for less. You could end up with investors rather than owners like Liverpool and utd and but without their international fanbase and therefore revenue. That is what really matters in football now, how many asians are buying your shirt and caring about your sponsor.

 

[Scouse]

You started with the Tiny Club bullshit, I was just calling you out on it. Not sure what other metric you'd like to use?

One that's other than financial. - lets face it, you're nearly up there with Manchester United in club worth.

But you're not anywhere near as big as them are you. Not even in your wildest dreams. You're not even remotely as big a club. You're like City - a load of plastic success-following fans but not much else.

You're only using financial as a metric because chelski fails so hard at every single other metric there is.

 

[DaGaffer]

Chelsea, second most supported club in SW6.

 

[Bodhi]

One that's other than financial. - lets face it, you're nearly up there with Manchester United in club worth.

But you're not anywhere near as big as them are you. Not even in your wildest dreams. You're not even remotely as big a club. You're like City - a load of plastic success-following fans but not much else.

You're only using financial as a metric because chelski fails so hard at every single other metric there is.

OK. Let's try worldwide fanbase shall we?

Yeah, let's look at worldwide fanbase, a classy historic old club such as Liverpool must have more than us right?

http://talksport.com/magazine/big-p...nited-liverpool-arsenal-barca-real-or-chelsea

Oh. That didn't go to plan.

Given the number of Liverpool fans who have crawled out the woodwork this season, criticizing another club of having glory-seeking fans seems a little hypocritical. If my memory serves me correctly, Liverpool practically invented the plastic glory seeking fan in the 80's.

 

[Raven]

A sample of 1000 people from 34 countries.

Conclusive!

 

[Bodhi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20974695

Try that then. Pay attention to the final paragraph especially.

 

[Raven]

No club or their supporters will easily, if ever, admit they are second best. As Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger once famously said: "Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home."

That bit?

Also how much of that fan base is temporary? With a bit of success and a bit of lack of success for someone else then those figures change dramatically. (Which are still the data from the rather poor study of 1000 people)

Just look at Italian football, used to be massive, huge international following...not so much any more.