On December 07 2012 01:38 Twisted wrote: No idea why that comment gets so much attention. It's obvious trolling.
how is it trolling? I just used his stupid logic on himself.
I cant believe how no one of you realised I didnt mean any of what I said.
The stupid logic and the analogy used to turn it around relied on the premise that Fabregas is not an a-teamer. As far as I am aware Poldi and Per are not regular starters for Germany.
Fabregas could be good or bad, but he is very much an a teamer which is what most people jumped on . Trolling or not it was a terrible analogy.
On December 06 2012 18:29 Pandemona wrote: He needed to sign Metersacker and Poldolski like 2 season's ago, then Arsenal would of been really good. With Cesc and RVP still there as well.
The problem they are having is they produce good quality youngsters who will eventually be good, but in the time they produce say a cesc fabregas, they have lost a world class striker or defender, so it becomes a big long circle of, 2 good amazing players, then lose 2 good amazing players etcetc.
This is basically the problem with any team that doesn't rely on having huge debt. Arsenal are actually the ones doing it right and I applaud them for it. In Germany (and also in Holland) teams aren't allowed, or it's not their policy, to have huge debt. Football would take a huge step forward if every club doesn't just buy all their players but actually uses their youth academy.
It sickens me when 16-18 year old players get lured in by clubs like Manchester City/Chelsea with a big contract with of course the aid of their agents who also get a pretty penny. What happens is that they don't play for 3 years or whatever which considerably halts their progression. They should just stay with their club to make sure they get playing time. Thankfully clubs like mine (Ajax) can keep their most promising talents most of the time for a couple years. Sad thing is they still get bought away when they are 21/22.
Christian Eriksen for example is 20 right now and he will probably get bought by some club at the end of the season. They've been gunning for him since 2 years ago and now that he finally becomes somewhat consistent, he feels he is ready 'for the next step'. If only players like that stay on for about 4 years more, then a club like Ajax could actually be a contender in the CL. Same thing with Arsenal.
Because Chelsea have a huge debt.......
Arsenal could do what i stated and still not have a debt, they make a decent profit every year. They didn't have to sell RVP, and they only got 20million for him anyway. What happens is players "want" to leave because they get offered a chance to win trophies now not in 2-3 seasons time. Like im pretty confident RVP will win a peice of silverware this season with Man Utd (most likely the premiership title) and Fabregas won the Champions League in his first season at Barca right? If they could of signed Podolski and Metersacker in the summer they were "about" to lose Fabregas (and still had RVP who was about to score 30goals in 30games) they probably would of won the league or won something pretty easily that season (or maybe the next) and right now they would still have good players and a very good squad.
This is the last article I could find on the Chelsea debt so maybe it's outdated but if it isn't the debt issue is still there.
Did you not see our financial records for June 2012, the Chelsea brand (as a company) made a profit of £1.5million. After everything. (debt/wages/transfers/stadium/staff/training camps etcetcetc)
On December 07 2012 04:39 Pandemona wrote: Did you not see our financial records for June 2012, the Chelsea brand (as a company) made a profit of £1.5million. After everything. (debt/wages/transfers/stadium/staff/training camps etcetcetc)
We are no longer a club in debt.
NO your still in debt, fiscal year ending nets are not your final overall position. It just means the debt is not increasing, which is actually quite fine. If you can manage your assets well enough to make the debt count for you I see no problem with it. And for the most part Chelsea is actually doing fine even on and off paper.
Unless ofcourse somethings being hidden but thats exceptionally hard (but not impossible) these days. The amount of grey money Roman has is probably unimaginable so he could probably throw as much many at them and write it off as he wants for a little longer.
This makes alot of sense, I knew atleast for a fact that Arsenals wage model is garbage and their merchandising and ticketing (while still doing well) is going to go of its rocker soon.
On December 07 2012 01:38 Twisted wrote: No idea why that comment gets so much attention. It's obvious trolling.
how is it trolling? I just used his stupid logic on himself.
I cant believe how no one of you realised I didnt mean any of what I said.
Because his logic, as bad as it was, at least contained some truth (Lukas and Per aren't regulars in the German side). Your mocking imitation failed utterly because you chose a player who is absolutely an a-teamer for his national side.
I don't like it. It'll be hard on both the fans and the players to travel around like that - never mind all the complications that come with it such as visas, travel expenses, and accommodation.
If this does happen though, I hope they use venues that normally have difficulty hosting occasions like this. If it just goes to the big and popular ones like Wembley, Camp Nou and etc, what's the point?
1 stadium per european country would be what it looks like;
England - Spain - France - Portugal - Italy
Will most likely host a few games, but like you say what is the point. Be like having Group A spread over England/France/Holland?/Belgium? Group B - Spain/Portugal/Italy? Group C - Russia/Ukraine/Lithuania/Belarus/Latvia/Romania (one of those countries) Group D - Germany/Poland/Austria/Switzerland
Then maybe the finals, in central Europe? I don't know seems alot of effort for something with so few teams in it and so little time. (5days per group game and knock out game)
I wasnt around during the USA World cups but I'd assume the games were all over the country as well, no? So how would this be different to a whole Europe tournament?
On December 07 2012 21:08 sharkie wrote: I wasnt around during the USA World cups but I'd assume the games were all over the country as well, no? So how would this be different to a whole Europe tournament?
I'd think travelling around america is a lot easier than travelling across europe. You are country hopping so there will probably be tons of visa issues and all that. Sounds like a pain in the ass.
On December 07 2012 21:08 sharkie wrote: I wasnt around during the USA World cups but I'd assume the games were all over the country as well, no? So how would this be different to a whole Europe tournament?
I'd think travelling around america is a lot easier than travelling across europe. You are country hopping so there will probably be tons of visa issues and all that. Sounds like a pain in the ass.
On December 07 2012 21:08 sharkie wrote: I wasnt around during the USA World cups but I'd assume the games were all over the country as well, no? So how would this be different to a whole Europe tournament?
I'd think travelling around america is a lot easier than travelling across europe. You are country hopping so there will probably be tons of visa issues and all that. Sounds like a pain in the ass.
What?! It's EU for a reason? You don't need visa or something like that to travel around in the EU.
EPT
