Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
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
-
Every one is doing deals while we're sitting twiddling our thumbs,as usual,then buying cheap second raters,because the star names are all gone to new clubs,get your finger out Levy
Fulham have a knack when it comes to signing Dutch keepers from Italian clubs (see also: Van der Saar from Juventus - now that was a coup and a half!)
Anyone would think there's no football at the moment to give us something real to argue about
Chelsea, Man City, Swansea, Stoke, and Wigan failing to field a single English U21 player last season (although Swansea did field a Welsh U21, therefore aren't complete homegrown numpties)?
eak 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.
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.
Completely see where you are coming from but Abramovich and co are the effect of an already uneven playing field, not the cause.
I hate to get political about this, but the root cause of the discontent amongst football fans is down to neoliberal policies being introduced to the sport and Football Associations colluding with Football Clubs to maximise profits. This meant:
- The breakdown of relations between football clubs/players and their communities: Limited access to footballers now, no chance of seeing them down your local for a pint after the game
.
- Deregulation: Ticket prices now gone through the roof and fans priced out. Owners like Venky's/Glazers/Hicks & Gilette get to run clubs free of challenge. More profits
for the owners which doesn't see its way back to the fans. Fans get poorer, owners get richer.
- Free Market: Following on from Deregulation, there is no restriction on anything. No Wage caps or spending limits enabling players to earn far more than they should and agents able to pocket millions on the back of dodgy sales and 3rd party ownerships. TV broadcasters able to pump in millions to the PL clubs at the expense of the football league
All this means is the rich clubs will get richer and the poor clubs will get poorer (or go out of business). Chelsea (pre-Abramovich), Villa, Leeds, Pompey and Malaga are examples of clubs that have tried to play catch up and close the gap on United and co that receive at least £100m p/a (indirectly and directly) more than non-CL playing clubs. Chelsea (under Abramovich) , City, Malaga, PSG, Anzhi and now Monaco, are examples of clubs that have tried to close the gap and infiltrate the G14 cartel.
The environment is such that you can either sink or swim, there's no "getting by". Spurs classic case in point, pre-Sky, Spurs would have been lauded for producing an exciting team that plays good football, now they "have to be in the CL" or they have failed and "Bale/Modric/Berbatov should go to a club that is".
I don't mind people criticising Abramovich's spending, but all I ask is people to consider is why he does it? Why is he here? If you dig deep enough into the rabbit hole you'll see the massive collusion between Football Associations, Football Clubs and the media have acted with complete complicity to allow this arrangement to continue. If football fans were smart they wouldn't be turning on each other and lambasting clubs like City, Chelsea, Monaco as Sky Sports News et al want them to do, we should all be united in demanding the following:
- Restrictions on Ticket Pricing and banning of "Ticket Categories" (used to rip off fans of bigger clubs)
- Total Spending Cap (across all leagues)
- Total Wage Bill Cap (across all leagues)
- Abolition of the Champions League and return to old format, but with no extra cash incentives.
- Restrictions on TV Deals etc.
That's just a start
Completely see where you are coming from but Abramovich and co are the effect of an already uneven playing field, not the cause.
I hate to get political about this, but the root cause of the discontent amongst football fans is down to neoliberal policies being introduced to the sport and Football Associations colluding with Football Clubs to maximise profits. This meant:
- The breakdown of relations between football clubs/players and their communities: Limited access to footballers now, no chance of seeing them down your local for a pint after the game
.
- Deregulation: Ticket prices now gone through the roof and fans priced out. Owners like Venky's/Glazers/Hicks & Gilette get to run clubs free of challenge. More profits
for the owners which doesn't see its way back to the fans. Fans get poorer, owners get richer.
- Free Market: Following on from Deregulation, there is no restriction on anything. No Wage caps or spending limits enabling players to earn far more than they should and agents able to pocket millions on the back of dodgy sales and 3rd party ownerships. TV broadcasters able to pump in millions to the PL clubs at the expense of the football league
All this means is the rich clubs will get richer and the poor clubs will get poorer (or go out of business). Chelsea (pre-Abramovich), Villa, Leeds, Pompey and Malaga are examples of clubs that have tried to play catch up and close the gap on United and co that receive at least £100m p/a (indirectly and directly) more than non-CL playing clubs. Chelsea (under Abramovich) , City, Malaga, PSG, Anzhi and now Monaco, are examples of clubs that have tried to close the gap and infiltrate the G14 cartel.
The environment is such that you can either sink or swim, there's no "getting by". Spurs classic case in point, pre-Sky, Spurs would have been lauded for producing an exciting team that plays good football, now they "have to be in the CL" or they have failed and "Bale/Modric/Berbatov should go to a club that is".
I don't mind people criticising Abramovich's spending, but all I ask is people to consider is why he does it? Why is he here? If you dig deep enough into the rabbit hole you'll see the massive collusion between Football Associations, Football Clubs and the media have acted with complete complicity to allow this arrangement to continue. If football fans were smart they wouldn't be turning on each other and lambasting clubs like City, Chelsea, Monaco as Sky Sports News et al want them to do, we should all be united in demanding the following:
- Restrictions on Ticket Pricing and banning of "Ticket Categories" (used to rip off fans of bigger clubs)
- Total Spending Cap (across all leagues)
- Total Wage Bill Cap (across all leagues)
- Abolition of the Champions League and return to old format, but with no extra cash incentives.
- Restrictions on TV Deals etc.
That's just a start
Unfortunately, the "opening up" of the world via media, the Internet etc, plus the rises in the economies of formerly emerging markets are all contributing to the popularity, and hence the monetary value, of the game.
Football is now a global market. Like any market, if demand is there it will set prices as high as possible. So long as the punters keep paying, prices will keep rising. That's the way markets work.
Like democracy itself, FFP rules are far from perfect, it's pretty easy to pick holes in both systems. However, something has to be adopted to try and level the playing field or competitive football, as we remember it, will cease to exist.
Let's face it, neither Abramovich nor the Arab oil states are renowned philanthropists. They're here for one reason - money!
The thing is, Abramovich destabilised the playing field further.
First, I'll backtrack a little bit to focus on Serie A in the late 90s to show what a destabilised field can look like. There were the traditional powerhouses of Juventus and the two Milan clubs, who were all capable of attracting the top players in the world with their combination of status and wealth backing it up, Milan and Juve able to attract players because they were Milan or Juve whilst Inter tended to flex their financial muscle more readily (the transfer of Ronaldo from Barca springs to mind on this one), but below them were other clubs that were trying to break in - Parma were bankrolled by Parmalat and that allowed them to compete, whilst Lazio had the backing of Banco di Roma and that allowed some remarkable transfer spending by Sven Goran Eriksson in that time (and I'll give you this opportunity to make jokes about being bankrolled by the Bank of Rome...) whilst Roma weren't short of cash, and behind them were Fiorentina and Udinese who didn't have the funds but managed to stay competitive throughout.
However, the bottom fell out of Serie A and that's where the problems happened.
Milan, Inter and Juventus still had their money and status, so were relatively unaffected.
Parmalat went bust, and Parma were up a certain creek without a certain rowing implement.
Banco di Roma weren't so flush with cash (who knew?), so Lazio were forced to scale back.
Fiorentina, Roma and Udinese were unaffected as they worked within reasonable limits anyway.
In the case of Serie A, of course, there were other factors allowing things to be more organic for a few seasons - Juve being demoted to Serie B whilst Milan had a points deduction for Calciopoli in 2006, whilst the plusvalenze tax scam allegations to get around Serie A qualification rules was leveled at both Milan clubs in 2007.
Inter benefited as they had the financial power behind them as well as avoiding any scandals, even though it has since emerged they were as guilty as Milan and Juve in the Calciopoli scandal, and that allowed them to win five titles in a row (three under Roberto Mancini, two under some Portuguese bloke whose name eludes me right now...), whilst Milan and Juventus eventually came back to win the title in 2011 and 2012-3 respectively. But the other clubs mentioned earlier? Udinese still do well as they are a well-run club, whilst Lazio, Fiorentina and Roma go from finishing 4th-6th to finishing in the lower half of the table and back again - which helps keep Juve and the Milan clubs in the top positions even though Milan and Juve have had their fair share of problems in the past few years.
Similar can be said of the Premier League in the late 90's/early part of the last decade:
Man Utd have a combination of wealth and status
Chelsea, Leeds and Newcastle overspent trying to break into/stay in the Top 4
Arsenal were well-run and were a top club at the time
Liverpool had status that kept them in the mix when it came to signing players
And, again, the bottom fell out - Leeds needs no further explanation, Newcastle found their coffers bare in a short space of time, whilst Chelsea were a basket case who using plastic cutlery in the canteen and asking players not to exchange shirts in order to save whatever money they could. The difference isn't that Abramovich's money turned Chelsea around, although it helped keep them in the CL places before building to a Championship-winning team, but it helped them stretch the gap between them and the other clubs aiming for the Top 4 at the time. Since then there's obviously been the same thing happening at Man City, whilst at the same time Liverpool have discovered history can't compete with the status of Man Utd winning or the riches of Chelsea and man City, so they've slipped away as a result, although Arsenal have retained their place because they're well-run, and this is how Spurs and Everton fit into the equation as both are well-run so able to stay ahead of the basket cases who spent too much and are paying for it (although staying ahead of Leeds is quite easy, given there's a whole division between us) but the issue is that, unlike Serie A, there's so much money in the English game anyway it hands an extra buffer to Man Utd and Arsenal to stay ahead of us that doesn't exist in Italy.
First, I'll backtrack a little bit to focus on Serie A in the late 90s to show what a destabilised field can look like. There were the traditional powerhouses of Juventus and the two Milan clubs, who were all capable of attracting the top players in the world with their combination of status and wealth backing it up, Milan and Juve able to attract players because they were Milan or Juve whilst Inter tended to flex their financial muscle more readily (the transfer of Ronaldo from Barca springs to mind on this one), but below them were other clubs that were trying to break in - Parma were bankrolled by Parmalat and that allowed them to compete, whilst Lazio had the backing of Banco di Roma and that allowed some remarkable transfer spending by Sven Goran Eriksson in that time (and I'll give you this opportunity to make jokes about being bankrolled by the Bank of Rome...) whilst Roma weren't short of cash, and behind them were Fiorentina and Udinese who didn't have the funds but managed to stay competitive throughout.
However, the bottom fell out of Serie A and that's where the problems happened.
Milan, Inter and Juventus still had their money and status, so were relatively unaffected.
Parmalat went bust, and Parma were up a certain creek without a certain rowing implement.
Banco di Roma weren't so flush with cash (who knew?), so Lazio were forced to scale back.
Fiorentina, Roma and Udinese were unaffected as they worked within reasonable limits anyway.
In the case of Serie A, of course, there were other factors allowing things to be more organic for a few seasons - Juve being demoted to Serie B whilst Milan had a points deduction for Calciopoli in 2006, whilst the plusvalenze tax scam allegations to get around Serie A qualification rules was leveled at both Milan clubs in 2007.
Inter benefited as they had the financial power behind them as well as avoiding any scandals, even though it has since emerged they were as guilty as Milan and Juve in the Calciopoli scandal, and that allowed them to win five titles in a row (three under Roberto Mancini, two under some Portuguese bloke whose name eludes me right now...), whilst Milan and Juventus eventually came back to win the title in 2011 and 2012-3 respectively. But the other clubs mentioned earlier? Udinese still do well as they are a well-run club, whilst Lazio, Fiorentina and Roma go from finishing 4th-6th to finishing in the lower half of the table and back again - which helps keep Juve and the Milan clubs in the top positions even though Milan and Juve have had their fair share of problems in the past few years.
Similar can be said of the Premier League in the late 90's/early part of the last decade:
Man Utd have a combination of wealth and status
Chelsea, Leeds and Newcastle overspent trying to break into/stay in the Top 4
Arsenal were well-run and were a top club at the time
Liverpool had status that kept them in the mix when it came to signing players
And, again, the bottom fell out - Leeds needs no further explanation, Newcastle found their coffers bare in a short space of time, whilst Chelsea were a basket case who using plastic cutlery in the canteen and asking players not to exchange shirts in order to save whatever money they could. The difference isn't that Abramovich's money turned Chelsea around, although it helped keep them in the CL places before building to a Championship-winning team, but it helped them stretch the gap between them and the other clubs aiming for the Top 4 at the time. Since then there's obviously been the same thing happening at Man City, whilst at the same time Liverpool have discovered history can't compete with the status of Man Utd winning or the riches of Chelsea and man City, so they've slipped away as a result, although Arsenal have retained their place because they're well-run, and this is how Spurs and Everton fit into the equation as both are well-run so able to stay ahead of the basket cases who spent too much and are paying for it (although staying ahead of Leeds is quite easy, given there's a whole division between us) but the issue is that, unlike Serie A, there's so much money in the English game anyway it hands an extra buffer to Man Utd and Arsenal to stay ahead of us that doesn't exist in Italy.
I thought Bridge was one of Brighton's best performers and he was included in the PFA team of the season. At the right price and at a reasonable wage deal, I would have thought he was an ideal signing for Redknapp.
I agree that Bridge would be a good signing for QPR and wouldn't even cost them a fee, but his wages would presumably cost a fair bit.
Redknapp's not doing them any favours by making such a public stand, though and airing their dirty laundry like that will make shifting their deadwood even harder than it already is.
He did a very good job for us, but I can't say that I miss this aspect of his personality.
Redknapp's not doing them any favours by making such a public stand, though and airing their dirty laundry like that will make shifting their deadwood even harder than it already is.
He did a very good job for us, but I can't say that I miss this aspect of his personality.
I don't think that's the point that he's making, Spurm. It's about being able to sign the players that he wants.
He feels that he's onto a hiding to nowhere if he can't make improvements to the current squad, which is fair enough, but Fernandes has to balance things out.
I'm loving every minute of it PNP - am hoping Watford go about things nice and quietly again whilst the 3 relegated teams end up suffering real off field turmoil which will massively disrupt their preparations. Can't see wigan and Reading dong that though somehow. Think Reading are actually a very good bet to win the title.
Yeah, that's a fair call, Dan. Reading don't have to do much in the transfer market and they've got a manager that's already done the business at that level and knows how to bring youngsters through.
I see alos that Owen coyle is 2/1 favourite to be the new manager at Wigan. Short price but canlt help thinking taht if you were that way inclined it's a licence to print money. Quite why Steve Bruce is even in the betting (at 16s) is beyond me
Anyone know much about this Fernandinho fella?
£30m seems like a lot for a 28 year old with only 5 caps, who I've barely heard of...
£30m seems like a lot for a 28 year old with only 5 caps, who I've barely heard of...
So desperate to keep up with Utd, they wanted their own little Ferdinand.
van Persierinho would have been a better choice.
Very good player, one of the best I saw live last season. He's basically a better version of Ramires.
£34m is steep, but along with Yaya Toure in the midfield, City will have one of the best midfields in Europe.
They'll be a lot of Brazilian movement this summer ahead of the World Cup.
I saw the article about him, mentioned Elano who played for city
It's the first time I've seen his name in about four years!
One cap in the last 18 months.
Not sure why Shakhtar sold him, to be honest, given they got £30m+ when Willian moved to Anzhi in January.
Come to think of it, not sure why Willian moved to Anzhi - not exactly a club to boost your credentials in the year before a World Cup, is it?
Fernandinho does have fierce competition for a place, aswell as Ramires, Gustavo is very good for Bayern, and of course Sandro when fit.