The UEFA super league have tried sticking it to Man City several times. Chelsea bought their recent rise with a billion pound investment and now want to close the door. Plastic hypocrites.
Would love someone else to challenge the cartel with a big investment. Thought it was going to be the Geordies.
only1salty wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:23 pm
Indeed. All FFP does is keep the cartel closed.
The UEFA super league have tried sticking it to Man City several times. Chelsea bought their recent rise with a billion pound investment and now want to close the door. Plastic hypocrites.
Would love someone else to challenge the cartel with a big investment. Thought it was going to be the Geordies.
I agree, but think we'll have to wait until this Covid nonsense is sorted out before we start to see serious investment again. In fact there may be a few clubs whose values will reduce because of the financial implications which, of course, could make them potentially more viable as acquisitions.
Time will tell I guess.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
only1salty wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:23 pm
Indeed. All FFP does is keep the cartel closed.
The UEFA super league have tried sticking it to Man City several times. Chelsea bought their recent rise with a billion pound investment and now want to close the door. Plastic hypocrites.
Would love someone else to challenge the cartel with a big investment. Thought it was going to be the Geordies.
I agree, but think we'll have to wait until this Covid nonsense is sorted out before we start to see serious investment again. In fact there may be a few clubs whose values will reduce because of the financial implications which, of course, could make them potentially more viable as acquisitions.
Time will tell I guess.
As i've said elsewhere on here, the stadium operators will be losing more money than they already have been, so can really see them off loading for way below value, making us a more attractive proposition.
Whiskyman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:06 pm
Tbh it's not about liking or disliking today's game, it's about the fact that money has always been the determining factor in football. No, young players were not hoarded and loaned out pre PL. And if young players actually prefer going to clubs like Chelsea and being hired out, rather than a club lower down the food chain and maybe breaking through into the first team, well, isn't it their right ? Freedom of choice is still alive and well and if a kid decides he's rather go somewhere where he might make quicker progress he can do so.
Granted a contract worth, say, £250k a year, particularly when offered to a promising 17 year old, is more attractive than a £100k one. But if clubs find it worthwhile to act as footballing factory farms one must assume it's financially viable, maybe even lucrative, for them to do so. And if the young players in question are hired out in a professional manner their development on the field can only be improved.
Of course players have the right to choose what they do within the rules of the sport and society, but that does not mean it adds to the spectacle. Sounds like a devils advocate argument to me.
How can Chelsea hoarding 50 players and loaning them all around Europe be good for the balance of competition in English football? It is simply nonsense to suggest that the Sport would not be better off with them at other clubs.
Money has always determined success to a certain degree but the difference between the haves and the have-nots was not as cavernous as it is today. I suppose it just replicates society. we are all rich compared to 100 years ago but some people are richer than entire countries.
To bridge the economic gap was not as much of an ask as it is today and it has a material impact on the sport, its integrity and its ability to attract young viewers.
Like a movie, if you know the ending what's the point in watching.
Exactly my point.
@Whisky, you wrote....A considerable number of them are at other clubs. Albeit still contracted to Chelsea but out on loan. It may be a devil's advocate argument but if those players were essentially obliged to sign for other clubs, because Chelsea had reached some sort of imposed quota, they would potentially be deprived of the higher earnings they are presumably achieving.
But you are missing my point.I get that no one is breaking the law and everyone has the 'right' to do this but the fact that it is allowed and indeed encouraged is ruining the sport itself.
I dont at all blame the players here by the way, if a player wants to go and sit in the Chelsea youth team and constantly get loaned out before being sold abroad that is up to him and I dont blame him if he is getting huge sums of money to do so (as they are). I blame the sport itself for allowing and indeed encouraging this.
I just think players were hungrier for the game when they had to clean boots, get paid fuck all and get kicked in the combination league before becoming first team players. It was better for the sport even if it was not so glamorous.
only1salty wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:23 pm
Indeed. All FFP does is keep the cartel closed.
The UEFA super league have tried sticking it to Man City several times. Chelsea bought their recent rise with a billion pound investment and now want to close the door. Plastic hypocrites.
Would love someone else to challenge the cartel with a big investment. Thought it was going to be the Geordies.
Man City have upset the apple cart and UEFA hate them for it. The Premier League the same and if you look at SKY sports they still focus more on Man Utd and Liverpool than they do on Man City. (and before Whisky starts.....yes I get the commercial reasons behind it but it shows that a main sponsor and the main broadcaster are completely biased).
I remember the PL guy Scudamore actually saying that the PL was worse off because Man Utd were poor and Man City were taking over their mantle a few years ago. To come out and say that shows that the game here is geared up just as a feeder for a European Super League.
only1salty wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:23 pm
Indeed. All FFP does is keep the cartel closed.
The UEFA super league have tried sticking it to Man City several times. Chelsea bought their recent rise with a billion pound investment and now want to close the door. Plastic hypocrites.
Would love someone else to challenge the cartel with a big investment. Thought it was going to be the Geordies.
Man City have upset the apple cart and UEFA hate them for it. The Premier League the same and if you look at SKY sports they still focus more on Man Utd and Liverpool than they do on Man City. (and before Whisky starts.....yes I get the commercial reasons behind it but it shows that a main sponsor and the main broadcaster are completely biased).
I remember the PL guy Scudamore actually saying that the PL was worse off because Man Utd were poor and Man City were taking over their mantle a few years ago. To come out and say that shows that the game here is geared up just as a feeder for a European Super League.
You're arguing against yourself aren't you ? You say you get the commercial reasons behind the focus but then go on to say they are biased. The BBC have, I believe. shown Manchester United's F A Cup matches something like twenty plus consecutive times.
Most neutrals would rather watch Manchester City than their city neighbours but as you have already recognised United's global fan base, and therefore marketability, is far greater. Biased ? I suppose it could be argued they would rather see a successful United but, as you realise yourself, they over focus on them at the moment to keep the global fanbase onside.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
Of course players have the right to choose what they do within the rules of the sport and society, but that does not mean it adds to the spectacle. Sounds like a devils advocate argument to me.
How can Chelsea hoarding 50 players and loaning them all around Europe be good for the balance of competition in English football? It is simply nonsense to suggest that the Sport would not be better off with them at other clubs.
Money has always determined success to a certain degree but the difference between the haves and the have-nots was not as cavernous as it is today. I suppose it just replicates society. we are all rich compared to 100 years ago but some people are richer than entire countries.
To bridge the economic gap was not as much of an ask as it is today and it has a material impact on the sport, its integrity and its ability to attract young viewers.
Like a movie, if you know the ending what's the point in watching.
Exactly my point.
@Whisky, you wrote....A considerable number of them are at other clubs. Albeit still contracted to Chelsea but out on loan. It may be a devil's advocate argument but if those players were essentially obliged to sign for other clubs, because Chelsea had reached some sort of imposed quota, they would potentially be deprived of the higher earnings they are presumably achieving.
But you are missing my point.I get that no one is breaking the law and everyone has the 'right' to do this but the fact that it is allowed and indeed encouraged is ruining the sport itself.
I dont at all blame the players here by the way, if a player wants to go and sit in the Chelsea youth team and constantly get loaned out before being sold abroad that is up to him and I dont blame him if he is getting huge sums of money to do so (as they are). I blame the sport itself for allowing and indeed encouraging this.
I just think players were hungrier for the game when they had to clean boots, get paid fuck all and get kicked in the combination league before becoming first team players. It was better for the sport even if it was not so glamorous.
Surely even the most die hard sentimentalist would not argue that today's football, played on pristine playing surfaces, and watched by people not having to endure river of urine flowing down the terraces, as used to be the case in Chelsea's shed when it was raining, is a better overall spectacle.
I concede those who lap up the old terrace atmosphere may miss those days and I do believe there is a case for the "safe standing" areas being suggested. But the abolition of terraces wasn't football's decision so the sport itself can't be blamed. And of course we all see things differently as teenagers and 20 somethings, my period being mid 70s and 80s, than we do as we get older which I guess sometimes has us crying into our beer , moaning that things used to be better "in my day".
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
@Whisky, you wrote....A considerable number of them are at other clubs. Albeit still contracted to Chelsea but out on loan. It may be a devil's advocate argument but if those players were essentially obliged to sign for other clubs, because Chelsea had reached some sort of imposed quota, they would potentially be deprived of the higher earnings they are presumably achieving.
But you are missing my point.I get that no one is breaking the law and everyone has the 'right' to do this but the fact that it is allowed and indeed encouraged is ruining the sport itself.
I dont at all blame the players here by the way, if a player wants to go and sit in the Chelsea youth team and constantly get loaned out before being sold abroad that is up to him and I dont blame him if he is getting huge sums of money to do so (as they are). I blame the sport itself for allowing and indeed encouraging this.
I just think players were hungrier for the game when they had to clean boots, get paid fuck all and get kicked in the combination league before becoming first team players. It was better for the sport even if it was not so glamorous.
Surely even the most die hard sentimentalist would not argue that today's football, played on pristine playing surfaces, and watched by people not having to endure river of urine flowing down the terraces, as used to be the case in Chelsea's shed when it was raining, is a better overall spectacle.
I concede those who lap up the old terrace atmosphere may miss those days and I do believe there is a case for the "safe standing" areas being suggested. But the abolition of terraces wasn't football's decision so the sport itself can't be blamed. And of course we all see things differently as teenagers and 20 somethings, my period being mid 70s and 80s, than we do as we get older which I guess sometimes has us crying into our beer , moaning that things used to be better "in my day".
There was more competition previously that there is now and with all the money coming into the game you pay a hell of a lot more to see it as well.
I'd rather take the old days and 3 or 4 quid to get in to an atmospheric ground with teams battling each other, young players hungry to make their debuts and the cup competitions which most teams in the top two divisions had a chance of winning. I liked the muddy pitches at the end of the season....it was a great leveller. the only time I remember the urine rivers was at the Dell but I managed to avoid that everywhere else.
Games like the Littlewoods cup 4-1 win over Liverpool, the FA cup semi v Everton and the Eintracht Frankfurt game may not have been as technical as a game played on a carpet in front of politely clapping corporate fans now but it was terrific to watch and I remember leaving the ground breathless from the swaying crowd and the excitement of the game.
Nowadays, the Cup is not really taken seriously by anyone because they are more interested in finishing fourth which makes our league a feeder to a European Super league, And as for the Frankfurt game, nowadays that would be on a Thursday and no one would give a fuck.
Surely even the most die hard sentimentalist would not argue that today's football, played on pristine playing surfaces, and watched by people not having to endure river of urine flowing down the terraces, as used to be the case in Chelsea's shed when it was raining, is a better overall spectacle.
I concede those who lap up the old terrace atmosphere may miss those days and I do believe there is a case for the "safe standing" areas being suggested. But the abolition of terraces wasn't football's decision so the sport itself can't be blamed. And of course we all see things differently as teenagers and 20 somethings, my period being mid 70s and 80s, than we do as we get older which I guess sometimes has us crying into our beer , moaning that things used to be better "in my day".
There was more competition previously that there is now and with all the money coming into the game you pay a hell of a lot more to see it as well.
I'd rather take the old days and 3 or 4 quid to get in to an atmospheric ground with teams battling each other, young players hungry to make their debuts and the cup competitions which most teams in the top two divisions had a chance of winning. I liked the muddy pitches at the end of the season....it was a great leveller. the only time I remember the urine rivers was at the Dell but I managed to avoid that everywhere else.
Games like the Littlewoods cup 4-1 win over Liverpool, the FA cup semi v Everton and the Eintracht Frankfurt game may not have been as technical as a game played on a carpet in front of politely clapping corporate fans now but it was terrific to watch and I remember leaving the ground breathless from the swaying crowd and the excitement of the game.
Nowadays, the Cup is not really taken seriously by anyone because they are more interested in finishing fourth which makes our league a feeder to a European Super league, And as for the Frankfurt game, nowadays that would be on a Thursday and no one would give a fuck.
The fans of West Ham and Frankfurt would still lap up the occasion. And the only difference between Wednesday night, which was when the original game was played, and Thursday night is 24 hours. If we ever do draw Frankfurt again I just hope the weather is a hell of a lot better than when the original was played.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
There was more competition previously that there is now and with all the money coming into the game you pay a hell of a lot more to see it as well.
I'd rather take the old days and 3 or 4 quid to get in to an atmospheric ground with teams battling each other, young players hungry to make their debuts and the cup competitions which most teams in the top two divisions had a chance of winning. I liked the muddy pitches at the end of the season....it was a great leveller. the only time I remember the urine rivers was at the Dell but I managed to avoid that everywhere else.
Games like the Littlewoods cup 4-1 win over Liverpool, the FA cup semi v Everton and the Eintracht Frankfurt game may not have been as technical as a game played on a carpet in front of politely clapping corporate fans now but it was terrific to watch and I remember leaving the ground breathless from the swaying crowd and the excitement of the game.
Nowadays, the Cup is not really taken seriously by anyone because they are more interested in finishing fourth which makes our league a feeder to a European Super league, And as for the Frankfurt game, nowadays that would be on a Thursday and no one would give a fuck.
The fans of West Ham and Frankfurt would still lap up the occasion. And the only difference between Wednesday night, which was when the original game was played, and Thursday night is 24 hours. If we ever do draw Frankfurt again I just hope the weather is a hell of a lot better than when the original was played.
It would be a game played on a carpet with people politely applauding and hopefully cheering when they get back from their half time experience.
Even if it had still been at UP pre covid, it would be nothing like the raw emotion of that night.
That said, I'm sure the armchair fans in the UK as well as China and Vietnam would appreciate this more though as they would all get to see it rather than before when you more or less had to be there.
Noone else would give a damn about a Thursday night game. I remember the day after that game everyone (non-West Ham fans) was talking about it like it meant something. It is parked on a Thursday because its not the European Super League where a 0-0 draw between Barcelona and some Russian team would likely draw more attention than a UK club progressing.
Its not a West Ham thing. The whole game is geared towards the European Super League....everything else is a distraction that means little.
