I honestly cannot understand how anyone can defend Laudrupp's proposal that a club should financially support another club in this way. It's simply wrong. Do we really want to be seen as corrupt as Italian football?
Can't believe there is even a debate over this! Player/manager bonuses are the same as a bonus in any work where success can be quantified: make X sales = Y bonus, finish the building early, get a bonus, sign up more than 20 new customers, get a bonus... Sponsorship again is easily quantifiable, where greater success leads to higher payments and the sponsor has their brand linked with a winner, hence the top teams have household names whilst the teams in the conference have a local builders merchant emblazoned on their shirts... BUT, when you start talking about payments from one team to another based on anything other than say the add-ons of the player sales - e.g. we sign your player, he helps us go up, we pay extra for your player - then that's just perverting the course of the game and HAS to be wrong!
I actually think it's a moot point. If you wanted a club to beat another, and were willing to pay them a bonus, you'd want to be dam sure they were going to win, thereby in doing so throwing your money away.
I'll post what I put up on my board... I wonder what shefflied fans would say about this. Last game of the season in 2008, Manchester united have already won the title and face West Ham at home. West ham need to be win to survive. Manchester United field a weakened team, West Ham win, Sheffield get relegated. Now they are plying their trade in league one. I wonder if they would have payed Manchester United to field a full strength team if they were able. What Michael Laudrup says actually makes a lot of sense. It would make football more even rather than advantage the teams who are playing against under strengthens sides. Replace Sheffiled with Cardiff in that scenario, how sick would you feel? Would you deem it fair that you played manu mid season at full strength yet westham played against their youngsters?
So I take it your all in favour of this then? Could help your play-off promotion this season, may actually see you up with the big boys!............
I should also mention that although my response was in favour of it, I think it would be almost impossible to control and could push other barriers slightly further. Although i think if it was controllable and was done in the right manner then it would give the league a more fair and balanced outlook in terms of what squads are played in competitive matches. Either that or make a rule that teams should always field a full strength side, regardless of league position.
laudrup claims he was misquoted so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt...... i agree with swans m, indirect match fixing happens all the time with teams fielding weakened teams in the cup competitions and this is supposedly ok because it means so much to stay in the league?
Could have been, doesn't mean that we did. I think that's the point Laudrup is trying to make. Your not fixing the match because the outcome is still uncertain. Paid to lose however, well the outcome is already determined isn't it.
[video=youtube;TecR_5-rQ4U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TecR_5-rQ4U&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Hope so Drag but then again there are only about 6 big boyz in the prem the rest just make it up ..........now then if we go up it would be 7 .;o)
spewsy your not even top 7 in the championship you tool. to be a top club you need to have made it to the promised land. something you have never done in your history
