| Forum Index > Sports |
Time to move on to the next thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sports/460943-2014-2015-football-thread | ||
Twisted
Netherlands13554 Posts
On February 04 2014 01:37 Pandemona wrote: There is differences  The only difference is Chelsea (and Mourinho's Real Madrid) has good players up front who can actually showcase beautiful things in the game. Doesn't mean it's any different in playstyle. Chelsea will definitely park the bus. But I am looking forward to the match. I dislike both teams so I don't care who wins but I think it'll be a nice match | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6274 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
There's never gonna be another Rosenborg 1995-2002~ and what chelsea represents is part of the reason. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On February 04 2014 02:28 RvB wrote: Why do you dislike Chelsea? Awesome supporters imo. Siege mentality is deeply en-rooted in the club and support, that why people don't like us.  @Drone The Italians were the ones who first started putting stupid amounts of money into football through rich owners. Also Perez and the Galacticos. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I truly dislike both Mourinho and Abramovich. Since Chelsea and those are good friends, I dislike it too xD | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On February 04 2014 02:47 Kleinmuuhg wrote: most of all chelsea is just poorly managed. any german club with half the funds would be equally as good or better. too much short term thinking Give Wolfsburg the money, I'm sure they would have the CL in the bag within two seasons. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2727 Posts
On February 04 2014 02:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: well I'm not gonna say anything positive about milan or real madrid, but I do think chelsea was the first team to really do the whole, super rich billionaire who got his fortune by absolutely shady means feels like playing championship manager in real life and then buys a decent team to make it great. And fair enough, real madrid and italian clubs were inflating prices earlier but it just wasn't at the same scale, because you only really had 4-5 teams paying stupid amounts of money back then, and there wasn't enough talent around to make anyone but the truly best go for truly exorbitant sums. Now you see Cardiff paying £10mill for a mediocre danish player - and it becomes impossible for teams that aren't in top leagues to hold on to star players because so much money is being put on the table, and it becomes impossible for teams to achieve success without a rich owner because all their competition has that, and then clubs become dependent on people who may or may not have a clue but who still insist on direct influence over football-related decisions. I think because of that, Atletico is so loved right now. They are like the anti-trend, like old school awesome managed teams in the old times. Piojo Lopez Valencia, Mourinho Oporto, etc. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18636 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On February 04 2014 02:54 zeo wrote: Give Wolfsburg the money, I'm sure they would have the CL in the bag within two seasons. Who said anything about two seasons? That's the short-term thinking he's talking about. If you allowed Wolfsburg to take a £350m loss (half the number of Chelsea) in the transfer market over the decade starting in 2004, as well as the wages, they would certainly be a continental power by now. To illustrate this, look at the other clubs that have taken at least a £350m transfer loss over that period: Real Madrid, Man City, Barcelona, PSG. It's not terribly difficult to be successful with that kind of money. | ||
|
Mensol
14536 Posts
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfgC2cJCUAAsecq.png) Drive faster, Villa!!!! | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On February 04 2014 02:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: well I'm not gonna say anything positive about milan or real madrid, but I do think chelsea was the first team to really do the whole, super rich billionaire who got his fortune by absolutely shady means feels like playing championship manager in real life and then buys a decent team to make it great. And fair enough, real madrid and italian clubs were inflating prices earlier but it just wasn't at the same scale, because you only really had 4-5 teams paying stupid amounts of money back then, and there wasn't enough talent around to make anyone but the truly best go for truly exorbitant sums. Now you see Cardiff paying £10mill for a mediocre danish player - and it becomes impossible for teams that aren't in top leagues to hold on to star players because so much money is being put on the table, and it becomes impossible for teams to achieve success without a rich owner because all their competition has that, and then clubs become dependent on people who may or may not have a clue but who still insist on direct influence over football-related decisions. Man, Italian football during the 90's was the shit. Inter, Lazio, Milan, Juventus, Parma, Fiorentina all having world class players, all fighting for the title, and most of them with shady owners washing money through the clubs. All the rest had insane talent. Brilliant. I guess too much of watching perfect 'look at all this super green grass from Holland' pitches and sensible fans in the EPL and Liga make me nostalgic for the raw athletic track stadiums filled with smoke from smoke bombs, back when everything had a greyish tone. At least you got the working class feel in Italy, even with the all the money. Don't think my post has much to do with your one, but I think the reason people don't like rich people coming into football is the nanny state painfully visible in modern football. edit: though now that I think about it the reason Serie A declined was because of the selfish division of TV rights, something being felt in Spain right now. | ||
|
Influ
Germany780 Posts
On February 04 2014 02:47 Kleinmuuhg wrote: most of all chelsea is just poorly managed. any german club with half the funds would be equally as good or better. too much short term thinking As long as it's not Schalke, Hertha BSC (maybe not in the recent 2 years), Hamburg, Bremen or Cologne for example. There are clubs in Germany who have been managed piss poor for years here as well. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On February 04 2014 03:13 city42 wrote: Who said anything about two seasons? That's the short-term thinking he's talking about. If you allowed Wolfsburg to take a £350m loss (half the number of Chelsea) in the transfer market over the decade starting in 2004, as well as the wages, they would certainly be a continental power by now. To illustrate this, look at the other clubs that have taken at least a £350m transfer loss over that period: Real Madrid, Man City, Barcelona, PSG. It's not terribly difficult to be successful with that kind of money. Just saying, big clubs yeah ALWAYS lose money in transfer window. Why? Because they are big clubs, they don't buy youngsters (Bale) and sell for £100million because the big clubs are the ones buying those players....Take out the huge sums of money and it's still the same. Leeds buy Ferdinand for like £5million sell him for £30million, why because they weren't a big enough club to deny that money. Like show me where Real sold a player they bought for 10million and sold for 30-40 lol. Or sold a youth academy product for profit. Barca sold Cesc cheap, bought him back for 30+. Chelsea exchange Matic bought him back for £20million. Just standard things that happen in big clubs. Would we be able to do that without Roman, no Chelsea couldn't, but Real/Barca can and have. Italian giants used to, Yanited always have and even Liverpool used to spend pretty decent money. | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
| ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On February 04 2014 03:27 Pandemona wrote: Just saying, big clubs yeah ALWAYS lose money in transfer window. Why? Because they are big clubs, they don't buy youngsters (Bale) and sell for £100million because the big clubs are the ones buying those players....Take out the huge sums of money and it's still the same. Leeds buy Ferdinand for like £5million sell him for £30million, why because they weren't a big enough club to deny that money. Like show me where Real sold a player they bought for 10million and sold for 30-40 lol. Or sold a youth academy product for profit. Barca sold Cesc cheap, bought him back for 30+. Chelsea exchange Matic bought him back for £20million. Just standard things that happen in big clubs. No, I totally agree. My point was that big clubs like Chelsea don't necessarily succeed because they are well-run, but rather because they can throw money at their problems, and obviously Madrid, City, etc. do this as well. If you take a random club in a top division and pump that much money into them, they will probably win trophies. One year of spending took Malaga to the CL! | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On February 04 2014 03:18 Influ wrote: As long as it's not Schalke, Hertha BSC (maybe not in the recent 2 years), Hamburg, Bremen or Cologne for example. There are clubs in Germany who have been managed piss poor for years here as well. Strange list, really. Schalke and Hamburg are underachieving with the money they got, sure. But it's not like they are totally incompetent. Schalke is always in the running for a CL place and Hamburg never got demoted all these years. Cologne has never been a good team, like ever. Above-average attendance does not automatically make you a good team. Ditto with Hertha. And Bremen does not belong into this list at all. They were brilliant a few years ago and their management is actually one of the distinctly 'long term planers' in the sport. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
