11/12 Football Thread

[king mob]

One of many things Thatcher killed. As much as I want to dance on her grave, I'm enjoying her living death of Altzheimers. No joke, she's the closest I've ever got to believing in the supernatural concept of evil.

Indeed and although Allardyce has a vague point, he's missed out just exactly what Thatcher did to ruin the game in this country and that goes back to her giving Rupert Murdoch a license to broadcast and breaking up the ITV franchises.

She hated the game and she hated it's working class, socialist roots so she took the first good opportunity she had to hand it to the one person who should never had got their hands on the game which was Murdoch.


Yes, the stadia now are wonderful and you don't have piss lapping at your ankles anymore, but they've become soulless in the English top flight as the atmosphere that sold the English league to the world has been replaced by tourists and gloryhunters who only follow a team because they're 'big'. Ordinary fans are priced out of the top flight and transfer fees don't reflect the real world where our public services are being slashed but hey, still pay your Sky subscription to keep millionaires in the manner they've got used to.

All because of Thatcher giving Murdoch more power than he should ever have got.

When she dies, I'm going back home for the biggest party Scotland's ever seen.

[Aubergine~!]

Man Utd pushed up the ante which forced other clubs to spend in order to catch up, and when Chelsea came along they then pushed up the ante even further.

So they pushed up the ante by spending money they earned from selling a player to Inter? Wouldn't it then be Inter who upped the ante?

I understand the idea of blaming Man Utd alone for all the financial bollocks that happened afterwards is attractive, but it's wrong. If you want to keep pushing that idea regardless of the facts, that's your business.

Do you see, this isn't about standing by your multinational company against another multinational company, it's about how the game was corrupted by free market economics.

I personally don't think the old status quo was sustainable for a host of reasons, but this isn't about either of those to me. It's about the previous bit.

And in the seasons you miss out what did they spend?

Are you allergic to checking any of these figures on your own? Seriously, these are the last figures I'm pulling up for you, if you want any other info find it yourself.

93/94 - 2.85m
95/96 - 2.9m

You're wrong. Get over it.

The problem is that the debt has to be repaid as it's not like Arsenal who have sensible debt with their stadium, this was debt put on the club.

I was referring to the 90s.

No it's not if you can swan out and buy top players, and also strip other clubs pushing you of their top players.

11 men vs. 11 men is a fair game.

To keep up with them, and no, not every club has spent the same as them and you're ignoring how transfer fees have become wildly over inflated as the free market rules a game that used to be something for all, not just the wealthier in society.

Ah, so breaking the transfer records United set was only keeping up with them then? And do we then blame Arsenal (and Blackburn) for all spending those seasons after they won the league?

And your inflation point is bollocks. Other clubs were spending about as much at the time, which nicely takes inflation out of the question. Look up the bloody facts before making comments, please.

[FalconX2000]

I'm sorry, but you can't break the British transfer record that many times and not say you've spent big. Man U spend big, all big teams spend big.

?? I didn't claim Man United didn't spend big. I said they didn't have a near unlimited pool of funds back in the early 90s the way Chelsea and Manchester City do now.

And my primary point was that money was but one of many factors that led to United's dominance. They've had that big fanbase for a long time.

And in the seasons you miss out what did they spend?

The only season Aubergine missed out from the 90s was the 98/99 season, which he specifically indicated.

The problem is that the debt has to be repaid as it's not like Arsenal who have sensible debt with their stadium, this was debt put on the club.

We're not swimming in debt because of buying players. We're in debt because the Glazers bought us with money they didn't have, then foisted the debt they accumulated onto us.

No it's not if you can swan out and buy top players, and also strip other clubs pushing you of their top players.

Nobody forces the clubs to sell. The closest that occurs is when the player is convinced he wants to move.

To keep up with them, and no, not every club has spent the same as them and you're ignoring how transfer fees have become wildly over inflated as the free market rules a game that used to be something for all, not just the wealthier in society.

If you're talking about social and economic class issues, then I really don't have much to say about that. I'm not particularly familiar with how Liverpool and Manchester United built up their brands prior to the 90s, and I do know that transfer fees have become ridiculous at least since the 2000s and Manchester United undoubtedly was one of the clubs whose use of financial muscle that led to that.

When you say that we somehow bought the title in the 90s, that's what I'll dispute.

[mcgaffer]

QPR have completed the signings of Kieron Dyer and Jay Bothroyd on free transfers.

[king mob]

So they pushed up the ante by spending money they earned from selling a player to Inter? Wouldn't it then be Inter who upped the ante?

I understand the idea of blaming Man Utd alone for all the financial bollocks that happened afterwards is attractive, but it's wrong. If you want to keep pushing that idea regardless of the facts, that's your business.

No, I'm not just blaming Man Utd, but they set the standard and they exploited the SKY money and potential before any other club!

This is the fucking point. They were trying to close down competition by forcing them to play their hand financially and in some cases this hurt clubs.

I personally don't think the old status quo was sustainable for a host of reasons, but this isn't about either of those to me. It's about the previous bit.

I'll explain what the game was like then. It was a dirty, often nasty time going to see live games as stadia were filthy, and even top grounds were frankly nasty. One thing the Sky money helped was a speeding up of renovating and building stadia, however that programme was underway after the Bradford fire and Heysel. The game was changing and the game was returning to a level of popularity not seen since the late 70's/early 80's because it was cleaning itself up. Live games on ITV were drawing huge ratings, and it should be pointed out much of the format of Sky was ripped off wholesale from ITV's coverage.

Sky's offer were taken because Alan Sugar pushed chairmen away from the ITV bid. Alan Sugar was the main retailer for dishes at the time.

What Sky did was to take the game out of communities and make clubs businesses foremost with the consequence that ordinary supporters have become priced out of grounds while the new fan moved in and we saw the rise of the corporate jolly. It's easy to support a club if you've chosen the more successful ones and don't really care about it's roots, but what Sky did was to sell football as a lifestyle choice, while stripping it of it's working class, socialist roots.

Who knows how different things would have been had ITV won, but it certainly wouldn't have commercialised the game as much as Sky did.

Are you allergic to checking any of these figures on your own? Seriously, these are the last figures I'm pulling up for you, if you want any other info find it yourself.

93/94 - 2.85m
95/96 - 2.9m

You're wrong. Get over it.

So the British transfer records can just be dismissed because the books are balanced?

11 men vs. 11 men is a fair game.

Only if the players are of equal quality. You see, that's the joy of the FA Cup watching lesser players try to get one over clubs like Man Utd or Liverpool. As said, if you can buy anyone it doesn't make things fair.

Ah, so breaking the transfer records United set was only keeping up with them then? And do we then blame Arsenal (and Blackburn) for all spending those seasons after they won the league?

Oh fucks sake son, yes, it's all part of the same problem. Stop fighting for your side and ignoring the bigger issue.

Honestly, what is it with Man Utd fans...

And your inflation point is bollocks. Other clubs were spending about as much at the time, which nicely takes inflation out of the question. Look up the bloody facts before making comments, please.

I give up trying to explain how clubs like Man Utd inflated transfer fees...

[mcgaffer]

Real Madrid manager Jose Mourinho is poised to usurp Corinthians in the battle to land Manchester City striker Carlos Tevez. Brazilian club Corinthians have made a £37m offer for the Argentine.

Chelsea are hopeful that West Ham's desire to trim their wage bill will mean a proposal to take Hammers skipper Scott Parker on loan for the season will be successful.

Blackburn are on the brink of signing River Plate striker Mariano Pavone.

Chelsea manager Andre Villas-Boas is set to gazump Arsenal in the race for Bolton defender Gary Cahill - on the advice of Blues captain John Terry.

Tottenham have given the biggest indication yet that they are prepared to sell Luka Modric by making a £12.3m offer for Real Madrid midfielder Esteban Granero.

Liverpool are ready to sign Lyon defender Aly Cissokho in a £10m deal after Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger said his club were out of the running.

Chelsea will make a £15m bid for Roma midfielder Daniele De Rossi to replace the injured Michael Essien, who will be sidelined for the first six months of the season.

Newcastle manager Alan Pardew wants to splash out £2m on Crystal Palace's highly rated right-back Nathan Clyne.

Everton have Birmingham defender Scott Dann in their sights after the 24-year-old's £12m move to Stoke collapsed earlier this summer.

Aston Villa are ready to join the chase for Wigan's £15m-rated striker Hugo Rodallega.

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has claimed that Manchester City's lucrative sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways, which is owned by the Abu Dhabi government and has close links with City owner Sheikh Mansour, is a test of the credibility of Uefa's financial fair play rules.

Liverpool have been told they will have to repay £8.2m of European funding if they do not go ahead with plans to build a 60,000-capacity stadium at Stanley Park.

Former Manchester United and Aston Villa goalkeeper Mark Bosnich has admitted that he regrets turning down the chance to move to Celtic - not long after Martin O'Neill became manager, which was in 2000. The Australian revealed that he opted instead to try to prove his worth at Old Trafford after falling out of favour with United manager Sir Alex Ferguson.

German football club Werder Bremen have banned their players from getting tattoos because of the risk of infection.

Chelsea, who will go on a tour of Malaysia, Thailand and Hong Kong later this month, will travel 19,091 miles during their pre-season preparations - the most of any Premier League club. By contrast, top-flight new boys Swansea will travel only 19 miles - playing away friendlies against Neath and Port Talbot.

[king mob]

?? I didn't claim Man United didn't spend big. I said they didn't have a near unlimited pool of funds back in the early 90s the way Chelsea and Manchester City do now.

No, but they helped push the ante up. trying to paint them as somehow innocent of funding their way to titles ignores the entire of the game since 1992.

And my primary point was that money was but one of many factors that led to United's dominance. They've had that big fanbase for a long time.

They've had a big fanbase, but they exploited the worldwide demand for the English game more than even Liverpool. To use an example, it'd be unthinkable 25 years ago for two foreign nationals to invest their time and energy in arguing the case for Man Utd, or for our leading clubs to become tourist attractions.

If you're talking about social and economic class issues, then I really don't have much to say about that. I'm not particularly familiar with how Liverpool and Manchester United built up their brands prior to the 90s, and I do know that transfer fees have become ridiculous at least since the 2000s and Manchester United undoubtedly was one of the clubs whose use of financial muscle that led to that.

For one, the term 'brand' in relation to a football club would have earned people a slap at one point.

Transfer fees were out of control from the mid-90's and Man Utd took advantage of their buying power to cream players off other top English clubs to ensure their team was improved and their competitors were damaged.

Rangers did exactly the same thing in Scotland in the late 90's when the Sky money started coming into the SPL. Same thing happens in Spain and Italy.

This is why we need serious financial fair play, and we need to reign back clubs like Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City. Won't ever seriously happen as the genie is out the box.

[king mob]

QPR have completed the signings of Kieron Dyer and Jay Bothroyd on free transfers.

How the fuck Dyer got a year long contract is beyond me.

[Aubergine~!]

No, I'm not just blaming Man Utd, but they set the standard and they exploited the SKY money and potential before any other club!

The numbers do not support that view. Well, the transfer numbers at least.

They were certainly amongst the forerunners, but it wasn't them alone.

This is the fucking point. They were trying to close down competition by forcing them to play their hand financially and in some cases this hurt clubs.

So Fergie buying Andy Cole was all part of a grand conspiracy to make Leeds Utd go bankrupt now? Do I have to point out that that's insane, and that most of the blame for that goes on the idiots who were running Leeds?

Worthy cause, mind you.

Who knows how different things would have been had ITV won, but it certainly wouldn't have commercialised the game as much as Sky did.

Possible, but I do think the forces of globalisation would've lead to the current state of things eventually. Sky accelerated the process, but it would've gotten here eventually.

So the British transfer records can just be dismissed because the books are balanced?

No, however you are clearly mistaken on the subject of United's 90s transfer funds.

Did Utd spend big in the 90s? Yes, obviously. Did they spend significantly more than their competitors/rivals? A cursory look at transfer histories will tell you no.

Only if the players are of equal quality. You see, that's the joy of the FA Cup watching lesser players try to get one over clubs like Man Utd or Liverpool. As said, if you can buy anyone it doesn't make things fair.

11 men vs. 11 men is a fair game.

Oh fucks sake son, yes, it's all part of the same problem. Stop fighting for your side and ignoring the bigger issue.

So you admit it wasn't just Man Utd then?

Honestly, what is it with Man Utd fans...

I can't speak for millions of people, but the thing about me is that I actually look at numbers before saying things.

I give up trying to explain how clubs like Man Utd inflated transfer fees...

They clearly helped. What I am against is your misconception that it was all Utd.

Your bringing up inflation, for instance, shows complete ignorance of what the numbers actually were, as other clubs were clearly spending at around the same level throughout the 90s. It was an argument that could be applied to the initial image I posted, but we'd moved far past that by the point you brought it up again.

I'm not quite sure why I've wasted time arguing this with someone clearly prepared to make ridiculous claims with near complete ignorance of what was actually spent, but there you go.

[FalconX2000]

No, but they helped push the ante up. trying to paint them as somehow innocent of funding their way to titles ignores the entire of the game since 1992.

Nobody here is claiming that access to funds didn't play a part (and a smaller part than you initially thought). However, you sound like you're trying to paint Manchester United as being dominant simply because they were richer and spent more. That, as you might say over there, is bollocks.

They've had a big fanbase, but they exploited the worldwide demand for the English game more than even Liverpool. To use an example, it'd be unthinkable 25 years ago for two foreign nationals to invest their time and energy in arguing the case for Man Utd, or for our leading clubs to become tourist attractions.

I don't see this in itself as bad. If you have the funds to promote the club, go ahead and do it. The club being a tourist attraction is a good thing. Excessive money creates problems, fame isn't one of them.

For one, the term 'brand' in relation to a football club would have earned people a slap at one point.

Sounds like you feel like doing some slapping even now.

Transfer fees were out of control from the mid-90's and Man Utd took advantage of their buying power to cream players off other top English clubs to ensure their team was improved and their competitors were damaged.

Rangers did exactly the same thing in Scotland in the late 90's when the Sky money started coming into the SPL. Same thing happens in Spain and Italy.

This is why we need serious financial fair play, and we need to reign back clubs like Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City. Won't ever seriously happen as the genie is out the box.

*Shrugs*

The big problems I see are exhorbitant ticket prices, ridiculous wages/transfer fees and people who don't know crap about football making football decisions because they had the money to buy a club. Maybe an NBA-like or MLS-like system would work better.

You really should remember that nobody forces clubs to sell players (unless ridonkulous 'release clause' prices are put in contracts, which the club that signs it agrees to anyway). Rich clubs can offer better training facilities, staff and wages thanks to their financial clout, which helps them attract talent. Viewing that as looking to 'keep the little clubs down' has no logical grounding. You can't focus on keeping your rivals weak in football. You have too many rivals and not enough player space.

[mcgaffer]

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger is prepared to lose Samir Nasri on a free transfer next summer rather than sell him now.

"I'm willing to keep him for another year, even if it means we risk losing him for nothing in a year's time," said Wenger, whose side are in Malaysia.

"I think the board agrees with me as it is a technical decision."

He added: "Our goal is to win the championship and we need good players to do that."

[mcgaffer]

Liverpool have agreed a fee with Aston Villa for the transfer of England winger Stewart Downing.

Downing, 26, will now discuss personal terms and undergo a medical.

[mcgaffer]

Wales could face a nightmare World Cup qualifying draw because the Faroe Islands seem to have overtaken them.

The 30 July draw in Rio de Janeiro will be based on Fifa's rankings system, calculated by a complex formula.

Wales are tied with the Faroes on 273 points - with one of those teams set to join the likes of Andorra in pot six.

And the Faroe Islands are lobbying Fifa to include decimal points in their calculations - something which would see them leapfrog Wales into pot five.

[Aubergine~!]

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger is prepared to lose Samir Nasri on a free transfer next summer rather than sell him now.

"I'm willing to keep him for another year, even if it means we risk losing him for nothing in a year's time," said Wenger, whose side are in Malaysia.

"I think the board agrees with me as it is a technical decision."

He added: "Our goal is to win the championship and we need good players to do that."

Not surprised by this. Losing both Fabregas and Nasri in the same window means Arsenal miss out on the CL next season IMO.

Liverpool have agreed a fee with Aston Villa for the transfer of England winger Stewart Downing.

Downing, 26, will now discuss personal terms and undergo a medical.

Downing's 26? Kinell, thought he was around 22.

Think he'll be a decent signing for Liverpool, as they've needed width for some time now, but 20m for a player that isn't really that good is just daft.

[FalconX2000]

Not surprised by this. Losing both Fabregas and Nasri in the same window means Arsenal miss out on the CL next season IMO.



Downing's 26? Kinell, thought he was around 22.

Think he'll be a decent signing for Liverpool, as they've needed width for some time now, but 20m for a player that isn't really that good is just daft.

So we got Adton Villa's star winger Ashley Young for 17 million and Liverpool picked up second best for 20 million after that? Really wierd.

Will Aston Villa have anyone dangerous to put on the wings in the upcoming season?