• 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

BrainOfLevy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Parma are doing what you suggest. They have about 200 senior players out on loan or playing for farmer clubs.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...market-like-cattle-market--Martin-Samuel.html
 
Did anyone manage to watch Atletico Madrid last night? Very very nice football - moving it around beautifully. A player I very much wanted (Arda Turan) being central to a lot of it. I hope they finish above their city rivals!
 
Harry_Perkins said:
Hope they keep him because I'd love to see Fulham go down. One of the original sugar daddy clubs.
Click to expand...

How funny it will be if the big-headed Berbatov gets relegated with Fulham. I think Berbatov is one of the main reason Fulham are struggling now as he has only scored 1 goal so far this season.
 
Harry_Perkins said:
Hope they keep him because I'd love to see Fulham go down. One of the original sugar daddy clubs.
Click to expand...

Tbh I cant believe he hasnt gone this morning. Surely the owner will the pull the trigger soon. Much as I loved him in charge at Tottenham. he is floundering at Fulham and probably needs to go back to Holland and manage back in a League he is comfortable in, get some confidence back maybe
 
SWP29 said:
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?
Click to expand...

To be honest I'm not even as annoyed with City because they at least made an effort to be sustainable a lot sooner than Chelsea did, and so far they haven't gone about signing players so close competitors can't get them when they had no real need, or signing them and loaning them out a year or two later so they are still on their books and not of the other clubs, so they can't join a competitor. Even with Barry, it wasn't like they signed him for that objective, as he did play an integral part for the years he was there.

So I wouldn't even lump City in with Chelsea as it relates to their conduct and how they effect competition. They are were they are because they have 'won the lottery' so to speak and if it wasn't so that we probably would have had at least one or two seasons in the CL ourselves...but Chelsea are on another level even to them IMO.
 
galeforce said:
with the new guy coming in they have to give them a few games surely
Click to expand...

Possibly, they have two more matches before our visit, could be better for us if he is still there, rather than a new manager who could be having the benefit of the 'new boss in charge' bounce
 
paxtonwolf said:
Possibly, they have two more matches before our visit, could be better for us if he is still there, rather than a new manager who could be having the benefit of the 'new boss in charge' bounce
Click to expand...

We have two (for a few more hours at least), they have one. I think they're in for a rough ride as long Berbatov doesn't bail them out.

West Ham (A)
Tottenham (H)
Aston Villa (H)
Everton (A)
Emirates Marketing Project (H)
 
Jordinho said:
We have two (for a few more hours at least), they have one. I think they're in for a rough ride as long Berbatov doesn't bail them out.

West Ham (A)
Tottenham (H)
Aston Villa (H)
Everton (A)
Emirates Marketing Project (H)
Click to expand...

Yes, my bad.

West Ham v Fulham next weekend. Another london derby for the Hammers, wonder if they will sell out for that one too??
 
BrainOfLevy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that Chavski have had the biggest wage bill in England for 9 out of the past 12 seasons, spending over £1.5billion in the process which is around 83% of their total turnover in that time, says it all really... Fingers crossed that Financial Fair Play can be fine tuned to level the playing field somewhat, as it was difficult enough trying to compete for the top honours with the likes of ManU and ARSEnal before the Chavs and Emirates Marketing Project won the lotto ](*,)

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/393373994595807232/photo/1
BXWLkFwCcAAr91U.jpg:large

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2013/10/24/arsene-wenger-what-is-he-good-for-251001/
 
milo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good ideas.

Maybe there could just be a limit on the number of transferred players.

Someone suggested no loans to Prem clubs. Maybe that could just be transferred players.

When you get to the nuts and bolts it is tricky to think of positive rule changes.
 
Neymar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd say it matters massively, and as Spurs fans supporting a club that is trying to grow and be sustainable and compete above our means, we should fundamentally disagree with a club like Chelsea and how they do things.

If there's nothing wrong with it, there is literally no point in us ever trying to achieve anything. What is the point of trying to sign players based on careful analysis, developing them through coaching and deploying them in a way that allows us to compete...if a club can just get bought by a super rich olgliarch and overtake us then we may as well all pack up and go home.

I don't agree that if it wasn't for Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea that Arsenal and Man United would just have been dominating. Arsenal got there though good signings, innovative coaching and then growing sustainably. There's no reason we couldn't have got there too. Liverpool once were dominating and fell badly, so Man United can too. And we could have got there competing if we were against clubs also competing on a fair playing field.

Clubs aren't profit maximisers but if they have a bottomless pit of money, it is no longer competition. It becomes futile to try and compete because as soon as we get near, they will steal a player from a medical or take our Director of Football or they'll sign players only to loan them out to non competitors a year later. It's awful for the game.

Teams can get rewarded for success but that doesn't mean they will definitely be a success. Liverpool wasted a lot of money and are now spending good money. It doesn't distort the competition too much if a team gets rewarded. Swansea are a great story, they did a lot of things very well to get where they are and are now being rewarded for it.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that teams can rise up and compete a level beyond where they were previously if they do a lot of things right, careful planning and good use of ther resources. But if a club has a bottomless pit of money that wasn't gained from good work but from simply winning the lottery, then it makes the whole concept of this sport very pointless.
 
Chelsea’s 75-man ‘squad’. Why abuse of the loan system threatens England team | Pitchside Europe - Yahoo Eurosport UK
Chelsea may have a better chance of winning the Dutch title this season than the Premier League. Or at least six of the London club's players will. Patrick van Aanholt, Gael Kakuta, Lucas Piazon, Cristian Cuevas, Sam Hutchinson and Christian Atsu are representing Dutch Eredivisie side Vitesse Arnhem in the Netherlands this season rather than attempting to prove their worth to Jose Mourinho on the King's Road.

...Somehow it does not feel morally or ethically correct when clubs are allowed to deploy players from other clubs to fuel their success. Not that Chelsea will care too much.

...If the 'Arnhem six' succeed to any sort of level, they will be brought back to Chelsea having enhanced their value. More likely, they will be sold on for greater than their purchase price. This is the way of modern day football.

It is a legal abuse of the loan system where clubs who complain about agents actually become agents themselves in handling and moving on players who have no realistic chance of playing for them.

It is comparable to fattening livestock for slaughter, according to Crawley Town's director of football Steve Coppell during his days as Bristol City manager. "Fattening lambs for slaughter. Talented youngsters who can't get a game in the Premier League club's first team or reserves are coming here, getting some real value added, then being sold on at benefit to [the parent] clubs. These youngsters would have come anyway, for free."

Chelsea have an astonishing 23 players farmed out elsewhere at the moment. What chance do the 'Arnhem six' have when Mourinho is hellbent on working with a squad of only 22.

...Chelsea are not the sole offenders of apparently signing players with little or no prospect of seeing the light of day in the club's first team. Emirates Marketing Project have 82 players on their books with Chelsea overseeing 75 and Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur on 74.

...Clubs like Chelsea should be made to keep players in their 25-man squad if they sign them from abroad while the loan system should be restricted to home-grown players under the age of 23, or players who have players who turned out in less than 40 Premier League games.
Click to expand...
 
Fellaini and Cleverly two central mids for Man Utd... and I thought we had **** creativity.

Difference being Man Utd have Rooney.
 
Rapid and Salzburg drawing one a piece in entertaining game in Austria. Rapid have to win really to give the rest of the league hope of catching Salzburg.
 
Mumorn said:
Fellaini and Cleverly two central mids for Man Utd... and I thought we had **** creativity.

Difference being Man Utd have Rooney.
Click to expand...
United football IMO has been worse than ours but their taking it on the chin as change.

They have changed a manager and brought in 1 player!!!!

Their relying on individuals attacking brilliance which helped the win the league last year.

We don't really have that brilliance and were not playing as a team so were fooked
 
The smallest player on the pitch scores from a corner. Amazing what can happen when players actually make runs inside the penalty area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back