Mumorn
Vic Buckingham
theyre 4 points clear.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
The "Official" 2013/14 Other teams matches thread
- Thread starter Crawley
- Start date
theyre 4 points clear.
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
No argument from me
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
No, 7 points
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Bayern 35
Dortmund 28
Dortmund 28
Mumorn
Vic Buckingham
7 points clear of 3rd placed Dortmund, yes.
4 points clear at the top of the table.
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
My bad, I did not realise they dropped from 2nd to 3rd
Mumorn
Vic Buckingham
no worries, two losses on the bounce for Dortmund now!
I've always said depth is the main reason they aren't a top top force. Bayern though, different story.
paxtonwolf
Tony Marchi
Yes I'll give you that, having met the man I was a big Harry fan, and I agree we did have a lot of bad games, Blackpool away was dire, but as you say we had many excellent days too.
Currently, watching this AVB team, I'm struggling to see when our next excellent day will come, we just dont seem to have that oomph right now.
Having said that, we did look a lot more entertaining in the that 2nd half v Saudi Sportswashing Machine. A little light in a not-so-bright tunnel
SteveAWOL
Barry Daines
Well at least they stopped AVB getting the man he wanted... maybe they'll loan Willian out next season but definitely not to us...
Chavs could almost make a decent side out of this season' loanees: Courtois, Wallace, Chalobah, van Aanholt, Romeo, Marin, Moses, Atsu, Piazon, Lukaku... So much for Financial Fair Play stopping the richest clubs from stockpiling players...
Something must be done. Perhaps transferred players could only be loaned to the clubs they were bought from.
Maybe a limit of a season loan.
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24968169
I am losing track of the Spurs guys at Swindon. But Swindon are just 1 point from the play offs and Orient are top of the League. Why would that fan get that much of the hump?
I am losing track of the Spurs guys at Swindon. But Swindon are just 1 point from the play offs and Orient are top of the League. Why would that fan get that much of the hump?
Armchair Expert
Vedran Corluka
Today against Wolfsburg Nuremberg hit the post for the 12th time this season 
That's pretty unlucky, especially painful when your second bottom.
That's pretty unlucky, especially painful when your second bottom.
milo
Jack L. Jones
UEFA should just put a limit on how many registrations a club can hold (there could be a dispensation for players that spent three years or more at a club below the age of 20).
The other change I would make is to change the rules so that clubs loaning players in have to pay their full wages. This would stop clubs like Chelsea signing up players on big wages, to stop competitors get them, and then loan them out on subsidised wages. It also might help keep youth player wages down, which would have the added bonus of making them a little more grounded.
but is there really anything wrong with the current loan system? or even Chelsea hoovering up players? or young players on high wages?
personally, i cant see much wrong with it to be honest. this debate seems to have come up because we are upset that Chelsea can afford to spend 30m on someone and not even use him. sounds like we are just a bit jealous tbh (understandably tho).
personally, i cant see much wrong with it to be honest. this debate seems to have come up because we are upset that Chelsea can afford to spend 30m on someone and not even use him. sounds like we are just a bit jealous tbh (understandably tho).
SteveAWOL
Barry Daines
Imho loans between Premier League clubs should be outlawed, as was mooted a couple of seasons ago.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
If a club was to do it because they were sustainable, live off of the resources they generate themselves for their own success, then I don't think there's much wrong with it. If they then choose to spend the always finite they have signing up players to loan them out, more power to them.
With Chelsea though, they are just using their owner's money to sign players they don't have any real need for, so competitors can't get them. It distorts competition, unevens the playing field and they can still sign players for their first team too. So, basically, they can sign as many players as they want who they need, and if it looks like a rival is getting close they can also sign players they want too to keep them down.
There is blatantly something wrong with that. If Arsenal were doing it I wouldn't be anywhere near as annoyed.
But aren't they more or less economically sustainable now? From some (albeit basic) internet research, I see they made a loss of just £4m for the year to 31 June 2012. That's down from £78m the previous year. I know you will rant about how they have got into the position you're in, and the position my club is in, but if your main argument against the loan system is that Chelsea aren't using their own money, it's not really accurate. It's their money - surely they can do what they want with it?
BrainOfLevy,
I understand what you are saying, but i just don't understand the fascination that some people have with clubs "living off their own resources". Why does it really matter? Personally, i see nothing wrong with a benefactor. I would further add that the benefactor's funds could be viewed as part of the club's ability to generate resources.
Regarding your point about Chelsea distorting competition, football has reached a stage now whereby there is no longer going to be a "level" playing field in terms of the gap in resources between clubs. The only way to "level" this disparity now is through a benefactor. Look at England, without Abramovic and Mansour, Arsenal and Man Utd would probably have won all the titles in the past decade as no one else would have been able to compete. And if you look in Spain, unless there's a benefactor, its unlikely that anyone else will be able to mount a long term challenge to Barcelona and RM. The same applies in Germany. Clubs like Werder Bremen, Leverkusen or Dortmund etc can fight Bayern for a season or two. But eventually these clubs fade away because they simply cannot compete against the resources of Bayern.
Also, i would add that at its core, a football club does not really need to balance its books financially because football clubs aren't like traditional businesses that are profit maximisers. Instead, they are trophy (or "success") maximsers. And in searching for success and glory, football clubs will try to get financial resources from wherever. All clubs are the same in this regard, hence i don't have a problem with the likes of Chelsea.
I think people have a problem with Chelsea, Emirates Marketing Project etc, because they can see that the will never be able to compete with them long term due to the financial disparity. But lets not forget, most clubs wouldnt have been able to compete with Man Utd, Arsenal either for exactly the same reasons.
I understand what you are saying, but i just don't understand the fascination that some people have with clubs "living off their own resources". Why does it really matter? Personally, i see nothing wrong with a benefactor. I would further add that the benefactor's funds could be viewed as part of the club's ability to generate resources.
Regarding your point about Chelsea distorting competition, football has reached a stage now whereby there is no longer going to be a "level" playing field in terms of the gap in resources between clubs. The only way to "level" this disparity now is through a benefactor. Look at England, without Abramovic and Mansour, Arsenal and Man Utd would probably have won all the titles in the past decade as no one else would have been able to compete. And if you look in Spain, unless there's a benefactor, its unlikely that anyone else will be able to mount a long term challenge to Barcelona and RM. The same applies in Germany. Clubs like Werder Bremen, Leverkusen or Dortmund etc can fight Bayern for a season or two. But eventually these clubs fade away because they simply cannot compete against the resources of Bayern.
Also, i would add that at its core, a football club does not really need to balance its books financially because football clubs aren't like traditional businesses that are profit maximisers. Instead, they are trophy (or "success") maximsers. And in searching for success and glory, football clubs will try to get financial resources from wherever. All clubs are the same in this regard, hence i don't have a problem with the likes of Chelsea.
I think people have a problem with Chelsea, Emirates Marketing Project etc, because they can see that the will never be able to compete with them long term due to the financial disparity. But lets not forget, most clubs wouldnt have been able to compete with Man Utd, Arsenal either for exactly the same reasons.
Last edited: