Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
humanbeingincroydon said:
Inter don't have limited resources - you don't pick up Eto'o, Milito and Sneijder in the same transfer window, as Mourinho did, if you have limited resources. You do that because your club has the means and the funds to do so. Inter have always been ready to splash the cash, right back to the late 90s where they were trying to buy titles from Milan and Juventus. The problem they had then was Milan and Juve weren't implicated in the Calciopoli scandal to get them out of the way (even though Inter were also involved but escaped detection, and were also involved in some pretty dodgy tax schemes at the time Mourinho took over - and, no, I did not just say Mourinho was involved in that, just in case someone takes umbrage)

As for the Bill Nick comments, that's a lie - Baker, Henry, Blanchflower, Norman, Cliff Jones, Smith and Dyson were all at the club before Bill Nick was manager (most of them several years before) and made up the spine of the first team for the 1960-1 season.
Click to expand...

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the Bill Nick front but he definitely splashed the cash when the squad needed rebuilding as Blanchflower and the spine were all nearing the end of their careers. Greaves was a record signing, others like Venables and Chivers were also record buys at the time.
 
District Line said:
I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the Bill Nick front but he definitely splashed the cash when the squad needed rebuilding as Blanchflower and the spine were all nearing the end of their careers. Greaves was a record signing, others like Venables and Chivers were also record buys at the time.
Click to expand...

Possibly so. However, the difference was that most of the money spent was earned, not from the pockets of some fabulously wealthy sugar daddy.
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
More than anyone else in the Portuguese league could afford.
Click to expand...

When seanDCFC asked you "how much?" it was in reference to your comment #12355 that Jose spent a lot at Porto to win the CL. What does that have to do with how much other Portuguese clubs spent? I know your experience of the CL is extremely limited but it involves clubs from all of Europe not just Portugal <laugh>
And either way we have shown that Nett he spent under 500K to assemble that squad and in the years 2002/3 & 2003/4 that was the 7th highest in Portugal anyway so was far from being "more" than any other Portuguese club.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Possibly so. However, the difference was that most of the money spent was earned, not from the pockets of some fabulously wealthy sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

It depends entirely on your definition of earned. Football has always been a business. Like any business, the more successful ones will receive more investment. I'm yet to see the difference between what Abramovich has done at Chelsea and what Norris did it at Arsenal, RBS with Sunderland, Littlewoods with Liverpool or Sky with Man U.

The issue has to be with the individual, it can't be down to the principle.

My view is that Abramovich has put his own money into the club. He is part of the club therefore his investment is legit. In contrast we have clubs like Man U who owe the taxpayer in excess of £500m in debt yet still spend heavily.

Sky and UEFA's money has killed football and fair competition. Go and see what it is doing to other leagues across Europe. CL clubs earn in excess of £50m a year. Money that can be used to strengthen at the expense of their rivals. Sky's promotion of these teams (i.e Sky 4) and dismissal of others also brings in extra commercial revenue on top of UEFA money for that cartel of clubs.

Is that really fair? What have Chelsea/City/United/Arsenal done to earn that money each year? It's a complete monopoly, IMO and any club that wishes to break it should be commended, not vilified. Football is not a script, no team should have a divine right to win or always be at the top which is the case now. <ok>

Daveunited said:
District Line said:
Probably a fair few. Don't remember calling it a "piss poor league", QUOTE]

.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I said I didn't remember though, not that I didn't say it.
Click to expand...
 
District Line said:
It depends entirely on your definition of earned. Football has always been a business. Like any business, the more successful ones will receive more investment. I'm yet to see the difference between what Abramovich has done at Chelsea and what Norris did it at Arsenal, RBS with Sunderland, Littlewoods with Liverpool or Sky with Man U.

The issue has to be with the individual, it can't be down to the principle.

My view is that Abramovich has put his own money into the club. He is part of the club therefore his investment is legit. In contrast we have clubs like Man U who owe the taxpayer in excess of £500m in debt yet still spend heavily.

Sky and UEFA's money has killed football and fair competition. Go and see what it is doing to other leagues across Europe. CL clubs earn in excess of £50m a year. Money that can be used to strengthen at the expense of their rivals. Sky's promotion of these teams (i.e Sky 4) and dismissal of others also brings in extra commercial revenue on top of UEFA money for that cartel of clubs.

Is that really fair? What have Chelsea/City/United/Arsenal done to earn that money each year? It's a complete monopoly, IMO and any club that wishes to break it should be commended, not vilified. Football is not a script, no team should have a divine right to win or always be at the top which is the case now. <ok>

Daveunited said:
Fair enough, I said I didn't remember though, not that I didn't say it.
Click to expand...

Abramovich has put over £1bln of his own personal fortune into Chelsea. Some may say that it's his money and that he can do as he wishes with it - which, ignoring the origins of his fortune this time, is fair comment. However, it is just creating an even more uneven playing field. Also, if the FFP rules don't have some bite, it will only get worse.

Ironically, if the status quo were allowed to persist, Abramovich could find himself hoisted by his own petard. He may be fabulously wealthy by almost all standards. However, he is a relative pauper compared to the potential spending power of the Arab oil state owners.

Quite what their future intentions regarding football are is still not crystal clear. What is clear is that despite having failed last year, if they are in it for the long haul, then left unchecked, the owners of City, PSG, etc will just keep spending whatever is necessary to achieve their aims.

That is why I believe that things have to change.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back