Should there be a cap on transfers/salaries?
- Thread starter jugularvein
- Start date
stavros said:Talking to my flatmate, 22, today and he didn't actually believe that before the 90s you actually had to win your domestic title to qualify for the European Cup. He refused to believe that Forest or Villa were good enough to win the title.
Doesn't that tell you that the EPL has become so much better that you can't go down the pub before the game and still turn up and win games, ala tony adams. It really infuriates me when supporters are willing to support the improvement to their ground capacity, their players, their financial arrangements with sponsors and then hypocritical oppose chelsea for doing the same. You can't have it both ways gentlemen.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
muser said:
Unlike Adrian Mutu.
Even so Muser, the cost of the 'improvement' of the game is the stagnation of the game. I'd rather watch two fairly evenly matched but less skillful sides play a game of football than a Harlem Globetrotters style display of super skill where 'Manchester world superstars TM' crush say Charlton Athletic every week.
Yes I know they drew to Reading, before you cite that as proof that everything is rosier than ever in Rupert's garden. We'll see who finishes in the European positions at the end of the year.
It is funny isn't how premier league fans can never get their head round the fact that the premier league is an especially bad thing if you aren't in the premier league. That every time the money gets doled out, your club gets further and further away from catching up with the top teams, that every single season, the dream of being the champions of England dwindles a little - That this is the effect for 100s of teams, thousands, millions of fans.
With the champions league money distributed the way it is, and qualification arranged the way it is - that that effect described above is felt from Iceland to Turkey. The chances of actually getting into and getting through the champions league are diminished as each season goes by and the clubs from the 'big' countries, your Liverpool's, Real Madrid's, Bayern Munich's swallow up more and more of the prize money and qualify season after season, even years when they don't actually deserve to be there.
I suppose you think that the fact Celtic won the European Cup in 67 as prove that 'the competition wasn't as good as it is now?' How on earth are teams from Eastern Europe ever meant to compete with those from the west under the present system - not only is it harder to qualify but you get less money when you get there - therefore there is less money in those leagues which only exacerbates the exodus of talent from those countries?
Thus the system is run for the benefit of a cartel of already wealthy teams who dominate the TV markets and allow the governing bodies to greatfully swallow up huge sponsership deals for the competitions while making some sorry excuses about 'er... grass roots re-investment and trickledown effects'
Those of us who support sides outside of the elite are left with a feeling of hopelessness and dreaming of a multi-millionaire backer to appear, because we could never even dream of competing for even the best local young talent, such is the vastness of the academy sytems of the premiership (a by-product of the huge advantage in financial investment) - It's the same but even worse if you support say, Honved.
and if the game is so wonderfully healthy and fantastic, how come Ronaldo can score about 4 in the world cup on a diet of mars bars and B+H?
However, I do agree with you entirely about Chelsea
I'm not sure if you're insinuating that I do but I would like to point out that I don't attend top flight games, buy any merchandise, or give any money whatsoever to Sky. I also boycott watching the European Cup on free-to-air channels. Chelsea are the personification of a wider problem, showing as they do that the overriding factor in the beautiful game is not glory, talent or effort, but merely money.
stavros said:
Fuck me, I bet they're shitting themselves.
Football bubble about to burst then!
stavros said:
I commend the first part of your post, but to say it is all about money...
With aberdeen breaking up the strangle hold of celtic and rangers. Ajax winning the CL with a team comprising largely homegrown talent. Your argument implies that its all about money and not the skill of the individuals playing. The point made by tangerine is a valid one about the distribution of money, but he forgets that a few 'unfashionable' clubs have been in the final or won it of late; monaco, porto and depending on your view point liverpool and arsenal (they just scraped into 4th and had never been in a semi final let alone final of this competition).
[/PHP]
thank you, very kind Sir.
p.s. can't seem to do the seperate quote thing, hence everything is written in bold.
tangerinedream said:Unlike Adrian Mutu.
He was an exception, it wasn't endemic.
Even so Muser, the cost of the 'improvement' of the game is the stagnation of the game. I'd rather watch two fairly evenly matched but less skillful sides play a game of football than a Harlem Globetrotters style display of super skill where 'Manchester world superstars TM' crush say Charlton Athletic every week.PHP:PHP:
But you do watch two evenly matched teams when you watch league 1, or is there inequality there too
Yes I know they drew to Reading, before you cite that as proof that everything is rosier than ever in Rupert's garden. We'll see who finishes in the European positions at the end of the year.PHP:
It is funny isn't how premier league fans can never get their head round the fact that the premier league is an especially bad thing if you aren't in the premier league. That every time the money gets doled out, your club gets further and further away from catching up with the top teams, that every single season, the dream of being the champions of England dwindles a little - That this is the effect for 100s of teams, thousands, millions of fans.PHP:
How much of this is due to money and how much the personnel who participate in games, be it coaching staff or\and players.
With the champions league money distributed the way it is, and qualification arranged the way it is - that that effect described above is felt from Iceland to Turkey. The chances of actually getting into and getting through the champions league are diminished as each season goes by and the clubs from the 'big' countries, your Liverpool's, Real Madrid's, Bayern Munich's swallow up more and more of the prize money and qualify season after season, even years when they don't actually deserve to be there.PHP:
I suppose you think that the fact Celtic won the European Cup in 67 as prove that 'the competition wasn't as good as it is now?' How on earth are teams from Eastern Europe ever meant to compete with those from the west under the present system - not only is it harder to qualify but you get less money when you get there - therefore there is less money in those leagues which only exacerbates the exodus of talent from those countries?
Thus the system is run for the benefit of a cartel of already wealthy teams who dominate the TV markets and allow the governing bodies to greatfully swallow up huge sponsership deals for the competitions while making some sorry excuses about 'er... grass roots re-investment and trickledown effects'PHP:
How does this sit with other professional sports like tennis, golf. Does a person like tiger woods only win because he has more financial clout than others on the tour?
Those of us who support sides outside of the elite are left with a feeling of hopelessness and dreaming of a multi-millionaire backer to appear, because we could never even dream of competing for even the best local young talent, such is the vastness of the academy sytems of the premiership (a by-product of the huge advantage in financial investment) - It's the same but even worse if you support say, Honved.PHP:PHP:
I remember what rivaldo once said in an article about how he was discovered. He went to a scouting day and said that there was boys better than him there that day, but they didn't get a contract. Until you and the media darlings realise that the players we watch week in week out are only the best players according to a scout, who probably got his job due to a personal friendship with the incumbent manager, at whichever club, and not because those same players are the best in the country or in the city or on the day, then we will keep having this fruitless debate.
and if the game is so wonderfully healthy and fantastic, how come Ronaldo can score about 4 in the world cup on a diet of mars bars and B+H?PHP:PHP:
Go to youtube and watch how the brazil squad play Ronaldo 'into' the game, in order for him to score. One particular clip (if you are lucky to find it) will feature robinho run to collect the ball and give it to ronaldo, only for him squander a sitter. The look on his face would melt the hardest heart (bambi like) - I wanted you to score it said. Nevermind himself.
However, I do agree with you entirely about Chelsea
thank you, very kind Sir.
p.s. can't seem to do the seperate quote thing, hence everything is written in bold.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
muser said:
He was an exception, it wasn't endemic.
Point taken.
But you do watch two evenly matched teams when you watch league 1, or is there inequality there too
Most of the time yes - The football league is far less affected than the premier league because it isn't tainted by champions league money, nor at our level do you get teams with 'parachute' money. However, I am unsure how this is related to my desire to see a competitive league structure - the top level clearly isn't
How much of this is due to money and how much the personnel who participate in games, be it coaching staff or\and players.
The two are interelated. Even a shrewd operator like Wenger splashes cash like nobodies business. Of course money doesn't buy succes - see Real Madrid, but certainly it goes a long, long way towards it. (see wigan/fulham at football league level + look at who spends most in the prem - oh! it's the top teams)
How does this sit with other professional sports like tennis, golf. Does a person like tiger woods only win because he has more financial clout than others on the tour?
No of course he doesn't - Tiger isn't a team, made up of the collective skills of different individuals who can be traded in order to maximise the available pool of talent for a manager. Tiger is one man (plus coach and equipment)
That's the most bizzare thing you have ever said. I remember what rivaldo once said in an article about how he was discovered. He went to a scouting day and said that there was boys better than him there that day, but they didn't get a contract. Until you and the media darlings realise that the players we watch week in week out are only the best players according to a scout, who probably got his job due to a personal friendship with the incumbent manager, at whichever club, and not because those same players are the best in the country or in the city or on the day, then we will keep having this fruitless debate.
Look, muser - my point is, premiership clubs can afford to have 100s of youngsters at their academys, with lots of coaches to maximise their skills. Whether or not these are 'the best' youngsters we simply cannot compete with their pulling power, which perhaps explains why several BLackpool born players (John Hills, Ciaren Donnelly, Matt Shaw) all left the area and our books as kids before they'd ever even played for our reserves. The fact they later came back to us (and Shaw is the worst player in the entire footballing world) is neither here nor there - I'm sure if I looked I could find some Blackpool lads who chose clubs over us and didn't. I am suggesting the financial dominance of the premier league is stifling the ability of samll clubs to dictate there own futures, as they cannot source there own local talent - As a liverpool fan, how would you feel if Gerrard had been poached at 14?
We've got a young lad (Matty Kay) who premier league clubs are sniffing round now. It's going to hurt like fuck if he leaves and we never see him.
The other point in answer to yours, is that they can afford to make mistakes on players, they've worked out it's cheaper to have loads of YTS kids, than spend £1m on the finished article from us.
Go to youtube and watch how the brazil squad play Ronaldo 'into' the game, in order for him to score. One particular clip (if you are lucky to find it) will feature robinho run to collect the ball and give it to ronaldo, only for him squander a sitter. The look on his face would melt the hardest heart (bambi like) - I wanted you to score it said. Nevermind himself.
Well, fair enough. meh.
I ask you this - If some one came along and gave every team in the premier league £100 million, except for liverpool - would you still say the distribution of money was fair?
If those teams went out and bought great players from mars, who could play football better than ever seen and the brazilian national squad - would you say - well 'as a whole football is better than it was, so it's fine by me'
If liverpool got relegated and those teams kept getting loads of money and you didn't - would you be happy?
Would you not get increasingly frustrated and depressed as the teams from above took your players and robbed all the 'true red scousers' that your youth system thrived on?
- Or would you just say 'hey, that's the way it is' and blame yourself and your attitude for your teams demise?
(see my new poll muser - I'm sure we can continue this on there!)
i remember i read a cool article ages ago which compared football to an accelerated version of marxist history
capital becomes the deciding factor and the elites become smaller and smaller until in the not too distant future the idea of competition is farcial and everything is owned by a tiny minority
capital becomes the deciding factor and the elites become smaller and smaller until in the not too distant future the idea of competition is farcial and everything is owned by a tiny minority
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Ninjaboy said:
I can't think of anything to reply to this, because it seems to hit the nail on the head.
Blackpool are the 'Joe's Fuit and Veg stall' to the Premiership's 'Walmart inc' and people can't see the distinction between sport and business. In neither, can I say I like the 'free market' but especially in sport, which should be an escape from the everyday - not an extension of it.
It shows how ingrained that capitalist thinking is in our society that the notion that anything other than market forces dictating football seems an impossibility.
At this point I should say hegenomy I think, but I am not clever enough to apply the phrase correctly.
)jugularvein
extra
so is it fair to say that football shouldn't follow the capitalist rules of any other market because it's a sport?
there are no rules outlining the 'spirit' of the game are there? it's inevitable that the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer as that's the nature of the market (with a few exceptions)....
with salary / transfer caps or a change to the CL set up it would be effectively saying that the football world / economy is different to those in other walks of life and has to be run differently. the more i think of it the more it seems unlikely anything could change
there are no rules outlining the 'spirit' of the game are there? it's inevitable that the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer as that's the nature of the market (with a few exceptions)....
with salary / transfer caps or a change to the CL set up it would be effectively saying that the football world / economy is different to those in other walks of life and has to be run differently. the more i think of it the more it seems unlikely anything could change
You can scoff but what exactly can I do further?
As for the European Cup not killing "smaller teams'" (a horrible phrase if ever there was one; all teams start on the same points score), perhaps not if you just look at that competition; what I take issue with is the way it's structured to guarantee huge money for the competitors in order to make the domestic games, the foundations of the game throughout history, thoroughly unfare. Since the top division in England changed its name for no reason whatsoever in 1992 how many different teams have won the title? Four in fourteen seasons and two of those were heavily bankrolled to it by a single man. It is simply damaging to all but the supposed elite few, akin to the highest earners paying the lowest band of income tax.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
bigbry said:
I thought it was the World Newspaper (as a wrote below
)- it definately came from sponsorship though.
bigbry said:
There's a whole slew of stories, most of them legend and supposition rather than fact. Among the most popular is that it was originally sponsored by the New York World newspaper, but there's plenty of "proof" why that's not so...
http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldseries.asp
Ddates/references differ depending on who's account you're reading.
Similar threads
- Poll
