EPThe already won everything he can possibly win (world cup.. never gonna happen, though)
So quite the obvious choice then, isnt it ?
2011-2012 football (soccer) thread - Page 42
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
he already won everything he can possibly win (world cup.. never gonna happen, though) So quite the obvious choice then, isnt it ? | ||
|
Purdy8
United Kingdom181 Posts
On August 22 2011 03:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: juan mata's deal to chelsea officially done, i guess he didn't want to move to Arsenal? Hopefully he fails miserably along with torres. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
BeaTeR
Kazakhstan4130 Posts
On August 22 2011 04:29 krndandaman wrote: damn it, my subs in fantasy premier league are doing better than my main players... toure + hart = 3 points vorm + richards =15 points  vorm is ridiculous... his first 2 games were just sick sick performances thats true, i watched both swansea games, he's so good | ||
|
BeaTeR
Kazakhstan4130 Posts
On August 22 2011 04:28 Purdy8 wrote: Hopefully he fails miserably along with torres. arsenal fan detected i hope he can produce some great teamwork with torres and they both will be key players in chelsea | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Telemako
Spain1637 Posts
| ||
|
Stimp
South Africa780 Posts
On August 22 2011 04:28 Purdy8 wrote: Hopefully he fails miserably along with torres. Stay classy! On August 22 2011 05:41 Telemako wrote: Mata started as a left winger but became a trequartista. He is 21 years old and really good. If EPL gives him more strength and fitness he will become a beast. He is 23  | ||
|
eburnsdaniel
United Kingdom69 Posts
In the Champs league the English coefficient is much better than Spain and I fancy the gap between Real Madrid and the English champs league teams is not much at all | ||
|
Telebear
United Kingdom107 Posts
| ||
|
Telebear
United Kingdom107 Posts
On August 22 2011 01:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: but two of the top 4 clubs are only good because of financial doping, its the year 2011, every single team is good because of the finances they have and its been the case since 1992 actually if you think that teams like barcelona, man united and real madrid are as good as they are without the huge finances they have then you must live in your own little world | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
Look at Dortmund every 7-8 years they build a really good team and end up losing all their stars this has been going on since the 90's.. and hell theres a plethora of other examples. its just the way its become you can have a problem with it but its the trend now if you want to compete.. the idea is to make the clubs self sustainable, eventually turn a profit after a while and get the return on the investment.. like a businesss for some it will work and for others it may well not.. The system may crash and burn but theres no way to say for sure at this point, although in all likelihood it will.. all in all it wont really change the status quo to drastically.. | ||
|
Stimp
South Africa780 Posts
On August 22 2011 09:56 Liquid`Drone wrote: I said financial doping, not good finances. united, liverpool, arsenal, real madrid and barcelona all make shitloads of money, and could afford to pay more for players and give higher salaries than the second tier clubs from the income they themselves generate through selling tickets and apparell. I guess chelsea also makes significant amounts now, but they only got where they are through several huge injections of money. I also guess huge debts (which applies to most good clubs) can also be considered financial doping, but what you see in manchester city is wholly different from what you see in manchester united.. I have no problems with a club like manchester united building a team over a 25 year long period and increasing their income and thus their possible expenditures through great management - having some teams that are consistently good isn't necessarily a bad thing. the problem arises when a team becomes good because a billionaire wants to play real life football manager, because 1: once/if said billionaire stops injecting money, the club isn't self-sustainable, and 2: that much money being artificially pumped into some teams, means that other second-tier teams that want to become first-tier teams have no way of accomplishing it without teaming up with billionaires of their own. Which is where Chelsea is > Man City because Chelsea has been working to Sustainability for years and are getting close. The thing is, how sustainable is United, Barca etc really? United have massive debts and so do Barca. Barca needed to get a massive sponsorship deal to help with finances AFAIK so there is no REAL sustainable model. The closest is Arsenal but, it's not enough. United have the highest revenue but still struggle to ease their debts. | ||
|
Tommylew
Wales2717 Posts
On August 22 2011 19:58 Stimp wrote: Which is where Chelsea is > Man City because Chelsea has been working to Sustainability for years and are getting close. The thing is, how sustainable is United, Barca etc really? United have massive debts and so do Barca. Barca needed to get a massive sponsorship deal to help with finances AFAIK so there is no REAL sustainable model. The closest is Arsenal but, it's not enough. United have the highest revenue but still struggle to ease their debts. I wouldnt say Man utd stuggle, they were perfectly ok without the Glazers and only now the glazers have put them into some type of debt, but they keep reducing that every year or two by doing different ventures. They paid off two high interest loans. The venture they are doing now selling of stock to asia(which is still booming) would clear all the man utd debts if thats how they use it, about £515 Millions of debts and payment of that debt at £45 million a year, just by doing the selling of shares they can get £400m - 600 million. Now I dont think i need to mention that with champions league money, selling players lie Ronaldo at £80M and then buying 3-4 players for that price as well as the fact that they make money over the entire world of easily a few hundred millions a year wihtout having attendance figures the only way man utd wont be able to pay the £45 million a year loan is if they didnt get into the champions league for 5-6 years and were consisently lower half of the table which I cant see happening any time soon. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
it's kinda funny tho - once a club's debt becomes too massive, it stops being as significant of a problem for them, and instead becomes a problem for the bank. and see, the fact that most top teams struggle with sustainability just shows how big of a problem the billionaire group really is; they artificially increase wages to such a degree that other, would-be sustainable teams can't compete for the best players without also being financially irresponsible. wages for top footballers need to drop by a significant percentage everywhere, but being a top team is so important that no top team can risk doing it. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
white_box921
United Kingdom967 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Freaky[x]
Canada995 Posts
for more info. Seems like the board is willing to splash the cash for transfers but don't want to up their wages to meet the players demands and that's why Wenger and Arsenal have been losing and missing out on player transfers. If you re watch / re read Wenger's interviews since that date, it feels like Wenger is not talking to the journos but to the board and Kroenke. | ||
| ||
