By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
         

** Betting is CLOSED - all winnings have been paid out by TalonMan **

 

Premier League winner?

Liverpool 2 $200.22 22.22%
 
Manchester City 7 $3,356.75 77.78%
 
 
Totals: 9 $3,556.97  
Game closed: 05/11/2019
mZuzek said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Still, it's incredibly ironic that people complain about "non-traditional" teams winning things and competing for the best players, but also complain about a competition thats purpose is to make it nigh impossible for anybody new to ever compete with an "elite" group of clubs. It's kind of contradictory.

Plus I'd definitely rather have teams like Man City and Chelsea make the Premier League interesting, than for it to be like the Bundesliga where there's not really much point watching it because you know Bayern will just win in the end anyway.

The issue isn't with non-traditional teams winning things, it's with these teams rising to the top by spending a fuckton of money they never earned on the pitch. No one has beef with Leicester winning the Premier League, because they did so on merit.

Chelsea and Manchester City only are what they are because of their billionaire owners throwing money at the club. You can't deny that. Out of these two, Chelsea at least has a bit more tradition, which is why most were rooting for them today, but they definitely wouldn't have gotten there without russian money.

So, it's not incredibly ironic at all. People don't like Chelsea and Manchester City (and PSG) for the same reason they didn't like the Super League - because they don't like it when money rules the game.

Which is what you'd have without the likes of City, Chelsea and PSG regardless. If that's what people think then they should hate Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real etc. just as much. Anything less is a double standard. Money is money, it doesn't matter where or who it comes from. I also have to ask how many neutral fans hate increased competition? Because to me it seems most of the hate is from fans of "traditional" teams upset that their teams can't easily dominate anymore and actually have some competition.

Not to mention it has a positive effect on the game as a whole. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the most competitive top European league (thanks to Chelsea and City breaking up the Utd (and a bit of Arsenal dominance) is also by far the most popular. Plus in France revenues across the league are up (or at least they were pre-covid) because people want to see the stars that PSG have brought to the league. And while that's a negative too since they're the only team with money making the league less competitive, they've only managed to win 4 league titles in a row which is less than Bayern/Juve's recent 9 in a row and even less than Lyon's 7 in the decade prior to the PSG takeover too so it hasn't negatively affected the competitiveness of the league (yet). Plus, without PSG buying Neymar, Barcelona wouldn't have bought Coutinho. Without that happening would Liverpool still have bought van Dijk and without him would they have won the Premier League for the first time ever?

As far as I'm concerned it's much better for money to be spread out over as many wealthy teams as possible so that the sport is more competitive and exciting, rather than concentrated in the hands of the few and boring.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
mZuzek said:

The issue isn't with non-traditional teams winning things, it's with these teams rising to the top by spending a fuckton of money they never earned on the pitch. No one has beef with Leicester winning the Premier League, because they did so on merit.

Chelsea and Manchester City only are what they are because of their billionaire owners throwing money at the club. You can't deny that. Out of these two, Chelsea at least has a bit more tradition, which is why most were rooting for them today, but they definitely wouldn't have gotten there without russian money.

So, it's not incredibly ironic at all. People don't like Chelsea and Manchester City (and PSG) for the same reason they didn't like the Super League - because they don't like it when money rules the game.

Which is what you'd have without the likes of City, Chelsea and PSG regardless. If that's what people think then they should hate Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real etc. just as much. Anything less is a double standard. Money is money, it doesn't matter where or who it comes from.

Of course it matters where it comes from. Those other teams are famous and rich because they've been damn good at winning football games for a very long time. They became the top teams in their league through football played on the pitch, through good managers and projects. Maybe not quite the same for all of them, I don't know their inner workings, maybe there can be corruption involved with some of them, but whatever it is sure is a lot more subtle than "arab billionaire buys team that won the second division 7 times".

The part where you imply that Liverpool would suck if PSG didn't have oil money is just... reaching. Dude.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!

mZuzek said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Which is what you'd have without the likes of City, Chelsea and PSG regardless. If that's what people think then they should hate Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real etc. just as much. Anything less is a double standard. Money is money, it doesn't matter where or who it comes from.

Of course it matters where it comes from. Those other teams are famous and rich because they've been damn good at winning football games for a very long time. They became the top teams in their league through football played on the pitch, through good managers and projects. Maybe not quite the same for all of them, I don't know their inner workings, maybe there can be corruption involved with some of them, but whatever it is sure is a lot more subtle than "arab billionaire buys team that won the second division 7 times".

The part where you imply that Liverpool would suck if PSG didn't have oil money is just... reaching. Dude.

I don't see any reason that success generations ago should give them a divine right to have all the wealth and win everything these days. I also think capitalism > feudalism, same concept really.

No, the part where you implied Chelsea and City's title wins weren't on "merit" was "reaching". Money doesn't win trophies, they absolutely are earnt. If that wasn't the case then Utd with the vast amount they've spent since Fergie left would have won a few league titles by now, but they haven't...

Also, I didn't imply that Liverpool would suck. No idea where you read that. I said that PSG injecting money into the game was a contributing factor to their success, which is hard to deny (and also further proof that money alone doesn't win things, they also received a nice windfall when selling Torres to Chelsea but wasted the money that time, with Coutinho they spent it wisely and have profited from it). It also wasn't originally my idea... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX2v5LS-XVw (Tifo is a good channel for football stuff, I'd recommend it)

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 30 May 2021

Never thought he'd have to go like this.


Emotional standing ovation for Leo Messi - YouTube


Leo Messi’s says goodbye to FC Barcelona (full farewell speech) - YouTube

Didn't get to stay because of La Liga rules, and doesn't get a sendoff at Camp Nou because of Covid.

Last edited by Hiku - on 08 August 2021

Yep, crazy to see the way in which he's leaving Barcelona. Never thought it'd be like that.

A pretty exciting time though. Gotta wonder where he'll end up (seems PSG are the favourites at the moment) and how he'll do playing for somebody other than Barca.



Around the Network

I'm not that in the know - if he lowered his wage demands would he be able to stay at Barca? Also, didn't he try to worm his way out last season?



drbunnig said:

I'm not that in the know - if he lowered his wage demands would he be able to stay at Barca? Also, didn't he try to worm his way out last season?

Yeah, he wanted out last season. Last season the president was an absolute cunt who financially ruined the club and fucked multiple people over though, so not quite the same. Now he's been replaced and the guy that was president early on during Messi's career is back at the helm trying to turn things around.

He'd need to basically play as a volunteer in order to get around the financial fair play rules. They're WAY over budget and IIRC they haven't even been able to register the players they've gotten on free transfers, Aguero, Depay etc. yet. They'd need to sell multiple big earning players in order to agree a new contract with Messi, even with him having already agreed to a 50% wage cut.

La Liga is super strict with their FFP stuff, and I believe Barca's allowed budget went from around €650m last year, to around €340m this year. That's an awful lot they need to cut down by!

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 09 August 2021

drbunnig said:

I'm not that in the know - if he lowered his wage demands would he be able to stay at Barca? Also, didn't he try to worm his way out last season?

To add to what Ka-Pi said, Messi had already agreed to take a 50% paycut. (The exact amount is not confirmed I believe) And when Laporta (the new president) told him the bad news a few days ago, Messi offfered to take an even lower wage, but Laporta told him that it would not make a difference.
The one solution he found was to pawn the club to a private equity group, but that would affect them negatively for the next 50 years, and would put the club at an even bigger risk than it is in now.

The previous president and board put Barcelona in a billion Euro debt. They sold Luis Suarez against his own and Messi's will, which are some of the reasons why Messi wished to leave last year, before Laporta took over to fix things. But because Messi's contract wasn't renewed last year, he'd have to come on as a new signing this year. And La Liga's fair play financial rules made that essentially impossible.

Last edited by Hiku - on 09 August 2021

Hiku said:
drbunnig said:

I'm not that in the know - if he lowered his wage demands would he be able to stay at Barca? Also, didn't he try to worm his way out last season?


The one solution he found was to pawn the club to a private equity group, but that would affect them negatively for the next 50 years, and would put the club at an even bigger risk than it is in now.

That's not his solution, that's something that came from La Liga. They're planning to sell a stake in the league to the private equity group. All the clubs will get a couple hundred million each now, but 10% of all La Liga and Segunda Liga revenue will go to that equity group for 50 years. Barcelona (and Real Madrid) are very much against it.



Ka-pi96 said:
Hiku said:


The one solution he found was to pawn the club to a private equity group, but that would affect them negatively for the next 50 years, and would put the club at an even bigger risk than it is in now.

That's not his solution, that's something that came from La Liga. They're planning to sell a stake in the league to the private equity group. All the clubs will get a couple hundred million each now, but 10% of all La Liga and Segunda Liga revenue will go to that equity group for 50 years. Barcelona (and Real Madrid) are very much against it.

Yeah. But Laporta was talking about that as something they could do to keep Messi.

- We would have had to pawn the club, which would affect us for the next 50 years when it comes to TV rights. I needed to make a decision, he says.

- We can not expose the club to an even greater risk.

Barça om Messi: "Skulle påverka oss i 50 år" (msn.com)