| Author |
Message |
|
| Shunyata |
 Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:28 am |
 |
|
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 1435
Location: Let's get fucked up
|
McLeish surely won't get another job for a while? He's been dining out on a solitary James McFadden strike for about 6 years now. Had to laugh when he said something along the lines of "you don't become a bad manager overnight" in his own defence the other day - he's been a bad manager for the best part of a decade.
Reckon that was the best season for quite some time - both teams at the top contriving to chuck away leads that probably shouldn't have been reeled in, the relegation battle going down to the wire, and 3-5th being decided on the final day as well.
Be an interesting summer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Shunyata |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 1435
Location: Let's get fucked up
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| BotS |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:57 am |
|
|
Joined: 10 Sep 2008
Posts: 1786
|
Jesus thats a scumy thing to do. I'm not a Kean fan personally but the man didnt deserve the treatment he got this season. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thejuice |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:39 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 3295
Location: Dena Lagu
|
So about these FIFA Financial Fairplay rules amount to what exactly?
If I'm not mistaken some oil mogul bought a team and within less than 5 years(?) they went from being relatively uncompetitive to champions.
So do these new rules prevent this somehow?
I don't know how people feel about it, but surely success being down to whim of billionaires makes it difficult to see it making it in anyway meaningful. Mr Oil Mogul could have picked pretty much any team he liked.
Why not have equally shared revenue and a salary cap. Perhaps some players might leave but is it not the clubs and fair competition far more important? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| StandupPaul |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:51 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2114
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
|
thejuice wrote: So about these FIFA Financial Fairplay rules amount to what exactly?
If I'm not mistaken some oil mogul bought a team and within less than 5 years(?) they went from being relatively uncompetitive to champions.
So do these new rules prevent this somehow?
I don't know how people feel about it, but surely success being down to whim of billionaires makes it difficult to see it making it in anyway meaningful. Mr Oil Mogul could have picked pretty much any team he liked.
Why not have equally shared revenue and a salary cap. Perhaps some players might leave but is it not the clubs and fair competition far more important?
Would people ever fuck up about City 'buying' the league? Every team that's won the league has 'bought' it.
Fuck sake... Utd's starting 11 at the weekend was on a par, or more expensive, money wise, with City's.
Just because other teams didn't do all their spending in one go, doesn't mean they haven't spent a clean fortune to get where they are (or to not get there, in my club's case!).
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thejuice |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 3295
Location: Dena Lagu
|
I don't mean to ruffle feathers. I don't support any team. I could care less which team won.
Again, the unevenness of the financial playing field, is it not damaging the league? Shared revenue + salary cap. Yay or nay? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Creeping RM Death |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:20 pm |
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6620
Location: Shite Larne.
|
StandupPaul wrote: thejuice wrote: So about these FIFA Financial Fairplay rules amount to what exactly?
If I'm not mistaken some oil mogul bought a team and within less than 5 years(?) they went from being relatively uncompetitive to champions.
So do these new rules prevent this somehow?
I don't know how people feel about it, but surely success being down to whim of billionaires makes it difficult to see it making it in anyway meaningful. Mr Oil Mogul could have picked pretty much any team he liked.
Why not have equally shared revenue and a salary cap. Perhaps some players might leave but is it not the clubs and fair competition far more important?
Would people ever fuck up about City 'buying' the league? Every team that's won the league has 'bought' it.
Fuck sake... Utd's starting 11 at the weekend was on a par, or more expensive, money wise, with City's.
Just because other teams didn't do all their spending in one go, doesn't mean they haven't spent a clean fortune to get where they are (or to not get there, in my club's case!).
Paul.
I agree, United spent bucketloads over the years on big name players, just the same as City have done, same as Chelsea too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thejuice |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 3295
Location: Dena Lagu
|
But isn't that the problem.
Only a handful of teams in each league across Europe can afford to win. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ToxicTwin |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:45 pm |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 2071
Location: Belfast
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Taranis |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1883
Location: Inis, An Clįr/Cambridge, UK/Heidelberg, Germany
|
The financial fair play thing isn't going to be about spending millions, it is going to be about sustainable business practice. Chelsea bought all of the players they bought technically on loans from Abramovich, which he then wrote off a few years later (about 18 months ago if my memory serves me correctly). UEFA sees financial doping as someone buying a club and spending hundreds of millions on new players out of his own money, rather than the club buying them out of its own money.
And before people say that is what happens with every club, United included, it is not. The Glazers bought United via a leveraged buy-out, which is what can happen to any team floated as a PLC. It is not ideal, in fact it is shit, but it happens on the stock market all the time, it was a favourite of various asset strippers back in the 1980s, Gordon Gekko types. However, in terms of FFF, the Glazers are still using club revenue to buy players and fund wages, Man City are not. Chelsea are somewhere in the middle, as Abramovich has always planned on making Chelsea pay for itself. Barca are much closer than Madrid to FFF, but they have a long way to go. Bundesliga clubs are going to be in a very strong position, as there has been legislation there for years now, and they will probably go on and dominate Europe while the other teams get their shit together, if FFF happens at all.
I'm all for it. The problem is that it will never go through to the level that Platini wants it. It would be great to see teams only able to spend the money they earn, as it would prevent smaller teams getting into trouble. It would also see teams like Everton do better I reckon, as did the really good article in 442 a few months back. Even if it did mean that Man United lost out a bit, so be it, it would be in the interest of the game and that is much more important. That said, it would still favour the successful clubs more, as success generates money, which in turn generates success, so those that are on a good footing already would probably still do well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| StandupPaul |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2114
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
|
To be honest, I'd be happy if he moves on/upstairs.
I think he's done as much as he can.
I really, really hope the reports of us going for Martinez aren't true though!
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dawals |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:16 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 5105
Location: Dublin
|
Better than McLeish though  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Padre Pio |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 6796
Location: The great omnipotent goat sits on the pentagram
|
thejuice wrote: I don't mean to ruffle feathers. I don't support any team. I could care less which team won.
Again, the unevenness of the financial playing field, is it not damaging the league? Shared revenue + salary cap. Yay or nay?
It's impossible as it is against numerous labour laws. American sports have a derogation from US labour law, but it's very hard to see that being passed in all European countries and at EU level. Not to mention the fact that, say, England won't want to be the first country to pass it because, if they did, the very next day the biggest players would start heading to other major leagues. So you would need all major European countries to do it at the same time. Which is never going to happen.
That said, it would be a great idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| GOLIATH |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 6:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 4351
|
StandupPaul wrote:
To be honest, I'd be happy if he moves on/upstairs.
I think he's done as much as he can.
I really, really hope the reports of us going for Martinez aren't true though!
Paul.
"IF", AND THERES PROBABLY NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE, KENNY DOES GO.....
WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE PAUL?? OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE CONSTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET MOURINHO ET AL! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| thejuice |
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 6:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 3295
Location: Dena Lagu
|
Would the loss of a few mercenaries it really amount to a loss in the long run. Fans will still back their clubs.
Wages could still be high its just the talent wouldn't be concentrated to a few teams. It would alsmight have the effect of seeing more players coming through the youth system and promoting home grown talent.
As for side stepping labour laws. How does rugby do it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
