sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
.
Chelsea and the Abramovic millions - good for football?
- Thread starter nonamenopackdrill
- Start date
Megaton
Resident D'N'B DJ
Well, Villa are alright - since Lerner took over we look like being a major force. He's no Magnusson - who is loaning money to WHU, but no Abramovitch either. I quite like his approach - he's employed a lot of fan consultation, the chief exec (Charles Krulak) has been on internet forms to gauge opinion, and the club will - mark my words - be a lot more successful in the future. We have some big plans in the pipeline, and I can see why they saw Villa as an attractive prospect.
Lerner and co will be in for the long run - I see no dodgyness in his takeover.
You sometimes have to see what came before it to - one of the most regressive, backwards chairman in football history, who was ripping the club out of money, not investing anything, and dabbling in team affairs. Lerner will do none of that.
Lerner and co will be in for the long run - I see no dodgyness in his takeover.
You sometimes have to see what came before it to - one of the most regressive, backwards chairman in football history, who was ripping the club out of money, not investing anything, and dabbling in team affairs. Lerner will do none of that.
ivebeenhigh
Well-Known Member
tangerinedream said:No - how exactly do you envisage it 'trickling down?' If you give Liverpool £50million, how does it benefit Tranmere in anyway, shape or form
and
No. I suggest you read the league tables between 1888 and present day and get back to me regarding the above.
Are you aware of much to do with football or are you just passing comment from a disinterested perspective?
As an example Liverpool then pay Tranmere £3million quid for a player rather than the £1million he is worth. Look how say Man City benefited from having Chelsea interested in SWP. No other team would have paid anywhere near that much. Same with Damien Duff.
I asked you the question, can you please do the work.
I am aware, I have watched everything from Conference to Premiership this season. What I do see is lots of people still wanting to go to watch football.
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
ivebeenhigh said:
Yeah and I occasionally go too see Barnet FC, as well as the Gunners. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Plus, the Prem' is the most watched league in the world. There must be a reason for that...ie, it's entertaining.
And people forget the young lads that Prem teams loan out to lower divisions. Birmingham would be fucked without Bentner this year.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
iROBOT said:
patronising attitude in my opinion. The idea we should be grateful to get a few substanderd cast off for the odd month makes me sick.
The reason we have to get players in on loan is
a) the financial limitation of our positions and
b) pretty much all decent youth talent is hoovered up by vast academies whose budgets and facilities dwarf ours. (getting a £30 million pay cheque for nothing year on year tends to help build a nice training ground and pay for a few scouts)
I really DO believe supporting the existence of the premiership and supporting Barnet is mutually exclusive or at least, very, very wierd. It's like saying, you support social justice, then voting Tory or some better metaphor....
As for your point about risng attendances, fair point BUT, attendances have more or less levelled off and more importantly, the average age of the premiership fan is rising and rising year on year (I can, if you give me time to dig books out, source this) - obviously kids aren't watching premiership football, so where are the next generation of 'insert team name' till I die-ers coming from? I don't have comporative figure for the other leagues I'm afraid - I would be interested to see if a similar trend exists.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
ivebeenhigh said:
The fact you equate Man City's relationship with Chelsea to that of Tranmere to Liverpool is absolutely hilarious. It really is. The fact you couldn't actually think of an example with some relevance and cited not one, but two utterly irrelavent transfers shows where you are coming from.
Have you watched the range of matches on telly or at the grounds? - Which of those leagues does your team belong too?
When was the last time a premiership club paid out big to a team like Tranmere? - they simply don't now - most lower league sides offer 1 yr contracts* with options these days, finances are precarious. Teams like burnley (just outside the prem) are opperating with 17/18 players. If a higher club wants a player, it is a case of sitting for a few months till the contract is up, or offering a desultory ammount before the contract is up, knowing that the small club are desperate to get more than nothing.
*not the case for Duffer or SWP is it?
What has helped clubs survive are things like wages being capped to certain limits and suchlike, not actually vast sums of money 'trickling down' - There was a brief period where, yes, silly money was paid - Jon Macken, £5m for example, but those days are long gone.
Only very exceptional and very young talents get any money these days. Such as the Bristol City kid Wigan bought - As I posted below, vastly increased scouting networks are in place nowadays, so the youth talent (i.e. the players you would expect to fetch £3million) are snapped up for academies and on pro contracts even, as Prem clubs can afford vast squads.
I can't quantify this either, but I would be willing to bet that the inflation rate of the average premiership to premiership transfer fee is higher than that of the average premiership to nationwide transfer fee over the last 13 years. - There is a challenge for someone
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
tangerinedream said:
Bentner and Lupoli and the rest are not sub-standard. 10 goals in 19 games is blinding in ANY league (Bentner) Stiokes scored two consecutive hatricks (Falkirk) when was the last time you heard that happen??...sub standard......
I'll address your other points later.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
iROBOT said:Bentner and Lupoli and the rest are not sub-standard. 10 goals in 19 games is blinding in ANY league (Bentner) Stiokes scored two consecutive hatricks (Falkirk) when was the last time you heard that happen??...sub standard......
I'll address your other points later.
Every Premiership loan we've had apart from Peter Clarke and Keith Southern have been universally shit. Steve Caldwell was OK too in retrospect, not sure how relevant that is, but there we go!
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
so overinflated transfer prices are now good for football are they?ivebeenhigh said:
also, the amount of players being bought up by premiership clubs from the lower divisions for a decent fee is tiny, because the clubs at the top know that they can pick up similarly talented players from the continent on the cheap. no trickle down effect there.
finally, my team, Bristol Rovers had an extremely talented youngster playing for us a couple fo years ago, he made his debut at 15 years of age and became our youngest ever player i think, yet chelsea saw him and because he was unable to sign a pro contract due to his his age, chelsea signed him up and he fucked off to chelsea with a fat pay check under his arm. the money we received? £200k for one of our brightest prospects in years and a kick in the teeth for any lower league club who had any idea that they were important at all in the greater scheme of the premiership etc
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
strung_out said:
Of course, forgot to put that below.
What worries me, is we sold Paul Stewart for about 500k going on for 20 years ago. I reckon, if Paul Stewart no2 appeared we would get the same or less for him today, maybe a few hundred grand more but not anything like as much as 'market value' according to prem prices. It's the Bosman + short contracts doing it.
*ignoring the fact Paul Stewart was shit for a minute!
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
strung_out said:
We had exactly the same thing, except it was Liverpool rather than Chelsea.
The idea that the Premiership is doing the lower leagues some sort of favour by loaning them a few players is laughable. Clubs do it because it's the best short term option they can afford. But it makes it impossible to build a decent team over time if you have to lean on people who are only there for a short time. The fact that the example given is a player loaned to arguable the richest club outside the Premiership says a lot as well IMO.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
LAst year we had
Danny Warrinder
JAson Wilcox
Ian Morris
Marcus Bean
Neil Wood
all on loan at the same time!
None of them, except Beano were any good, nor was it good for us or interesting because it is totally disheatening watching a player who you know is going to leave in the next few weeks or doesn't care.
Actually Ian Morris was quite good too.
the way to save football is to create a european super league imo. teams like chelsea, milan, madrid, munich etc need their own league. then everyone is a winner. the premier league without man utd, chelsea and whichever team was on form that year would be a lot more exciting
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
why not just give the money out equally instead
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Why shouldn't the successful teams get more, they generate the most of it?tangerinedream said:why not just give the money out equally instead
(I am slightly playing DA here)
sleaterkinney said:
What do you think then?
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
sleaterkinney said:
This is true. As I see it though it would be a mistake for them to assume that will always be the case (by which I mean that the money will always be there). A huge percentage of the money that comes from SKY etc is from casual fans, not the hardcore, and it's not at all unlikely that continuing to give more and more money to the top teams will result in an uncompetitive situation where a lot of them lose interest and stop watching.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
sleaterkinney said:
No you aren't 'slightly playing' anything - you are being a big club twat. Don't try and water down your traitorism with meek language. Let's give liverpool 10 billion because they won the champions league and your shite arse blue noses nothing because they have won fuck all since 95. Fair enough?
Ok.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Ninjaboy said:
Oh, market forces, worship them...
Lets make Norman Lamont the head of the FA
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
tommers said:
Like West Ham games for example?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, your a big time team when it suits. Fuck you - I hope you go down and you icelandic backer fucks off and you go bankrupt. I genuinelly do hope that happens.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Sorry am pissed.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
nonamenopackdrill said:
Exactly...
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
It's not Abramovich's money, it belongs to the Russian people.
tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
tangerinedream said:
ah see? you had me onside for the first bit. never mind though. good to see your true colours.
the interesting thing about that statement is that it might happen. and you know what? it wouldn't matter, cos I would still support west ham and I would still be a hammer. we've been around for 111 years and we'll be around long after magnusson has made his money and done a runner.
And you still haven't answered my question. Why would Sky, a TV company, pay millions of pounds for games that would get viewing figures of, at most, 50 odd thousand? They pay completely over the odds for the Premiership cos then they can say "if you want to watch top level football then you have to pay us", cos they want subscribers more than anything. I would imagine they pay more / viewer for football than anything else. And, I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that exclusive rights to League 1 isn't quite the same.
Now, personally, I think that is bad for football, for the development of british players etc etc etc. But those are the facts. So deal with them.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
tommers said:
The point is, the games authorities could redistribute that wealth in a way that made the game better. I.e, equally - however, they don't as the power balance has been fooked and the larger clubs hold the power in the game. The idea of paying seperately for different parts of the league is a very modern idea anyway and was a large part of the reason why the premier league was formed.
It's all very well being at the top and lecturing those who aren't at the table saying 'deal with it' when you aren't even throwing crumbs their way.
How would you feel if Sky decided to only pay, say the top three in the premiership cos they get the best viewing figures? Would that be fair enough? - Because that's the logical extension of your argument - and then someone will say just deal with it! to you, and your loyal supporter hyperbole will ring a bit hollow....
I apologise for my aggresion last night, I was very pissed and had a shit night. I don't hope your club goes bust and shouldn't have sworn at you.
tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
tangerinedream said:
I largely agree with you. I just don't think it will ever happen. There is no way clubs in a competitive structure are going to gift money to their competitors. It just is not going to happen.
And, in your identification of WHU as "one of the big boys" you seem to have forgotten that after relegation we had to sell or release (amongst others) di Canio, Bowyer, Glen Johnson, Sinclair, Kanoute and Joe Cole. Later in that season we sold Defoe and Carrick, our local rivals profiting the most. There were strong rumours that, if we hadn't been promoted two seasons ago, then we would have gone into administration. So please, don't start getting on your high horse about it. I am quite aware of how the loss of TV income can affect a club. As I said, those are the facts. As I also said, I don't think it is good for football but that is the situation.
I apologise for my aggresion last night, I was very pissed and had a shit night. I don't hope your club goes bust and shouldn't have sworn at you.
no problems.
