Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    04 Dec '06 19:22
    What are your views about this Dubai bid?

    Sheik al-Maktoum (on whose behalf the capital group has been investing) has a fortune rated quite some notches higher than Roman Abramovich's.
  2. 04 Dec '06 19:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    What are your views about this Dubai bid?

    Sheik al-Maktoum (on whose behalf the capital group has been investing) has a fortune rated quite some notches higher than Roman Abramovich's.
    "Sheikh Mohammed, ... is the world's fifth richest man, with an estimated personal wealth of $10 billion." BBC News Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6205386.stm

    Throwing money around to bring in world class players might give liverpool a chance in the prem but they need a man who can keep players happy and use them effectively. I don't think Benitez is the man. He has a decent sqaud and has already blown the prem
  3. 04 Dec '06 19:54
    Originally posted by therealchessfanatic
    "Sheikh Mohammed, ... is the world's fifth richest man, with an estimated personal wealth of $10 billion." BBC News Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6205386.stm

    Throwing money around to bring in world class players might give liverpool a chance in the prem but they need a man who can keep players happy and use ...[text shortened]... vely. I don't think Benitez is the man. He has a decent sqaud and has already blown the prem
    Throwing money around buying World Class players isn't his style. I hope (if it all goes through) he continues with his policy of buying youngish talent (Agger, Sissoko) and proven quality (Alonso, Bellamy) but swaps his stop-gap buys (Pennant, Zenden) for the odd top notch individual (Buffon would be nice!)
  4. 04 Dec '06 20:00
    Originally posted by Angry Boy
    Throwing money around buying World Class players isn't his style.
    I agree benitez has made good transfers but i think things might change if he's given unlimited funds(i'm not sure if he will be)
  5. 04 Dec '06 20:15
    Originally posted by therealchessfanatic

    Throwing money around to bring in world class players might give liverpool a chance in the prem but they need a man who can keep players happy and use them effectively. I don't think Benitez is the man. He has a decent sqaud and has already blown the prem
    I think it's more a case of Rafa trying to make do with what he has. LFC haven't got the financial clout to get a squad capable of challenging for the title. I don't think the squad was good enough this year, that's why there was all this debate about Stevie G being played on the right. Rafa played him there as Alonso and Momo are highly rated in the middle, and leaving one of those out to replace with an average player such as pennant on the right to accommodate Stevie in the middle isn't a good idea in Rafa's opinion.

    I don't think Rafa has any problems keeping players happy and dealing with dissent.

    As for the investment - it's a sign of the times that we can't do without it and wish to challenge for the title. I hope we don't get a stadium named after the investors business interests though
  6. 04 Dec '06 22:27
    I think in about 3seasons, nearly all the Premiership football teams will have been taken over and maybe make it more interesting for more teams to get a chance at the title instead of the usual contenders. Should be good for the game I think.
  7. Standard member ASROMA
    Forza Azzurri!!!!!!!
    05 Dec '06 11:27
    It's bad for the sport in my opinion.

    Chelsea has destroyed football and the careers of some players.

    I hope Blatter gets his way to limit the amount of foreigners and eventually introduce some sort of quota system involving players promoted from the clubs youth academy.

    The last thing we need is some billionaire who throw money around and get another circus act like Chelsea.

    Horrible for the game.

    Forza Roma.

    We have a strict wage bill and a great youth system.

    Totti, De Rossi, Aquilani, Curci are all from the youth set up.

    If we win the Serie ahead of Inter, it will be great for football as a whole.
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    05 Dec '06 15:42
    Originally posted by ASROMA
    It's bad for the sport in my opinion.

    Chelsea has destroyed football and the careers of some players.

    I hope Blatter gets his way to limit the amount of foreigners and eventually introduce some sort of quota system involving players promoted from the clubs youth academy.

    The last thing we need is some billionaire who throw money around and get anothe ...[text shortened]... youth set up.

    If we win the Serie ahead of Inter, it will be great for football as a whole.
    This is ridiculous.

    Chelsea has been great for neutrals. There's a new great team in Europe and this bid for Liverpool (even if he doesn't inject half the cash that Roman does) can only help level things upwards at the top, instead of leveling things through a decrease in general quality.

    If you want to see more competition with lower quality football watch the Championship.
  9. 05 Dec '06 16:25
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Chelsea has been great for neutrals. There's a new great team in Europe and this bid for Liverpool (even if he doesn't inject half the cash that Roman does) can only help level things upwards at the top, instead of leveling things through a decrease in general quality.
    On the other hand, putting more money in the game does not make the players better. It has no effect on the quality of the game. Putting lots of money in a few teams does concentrate that quality in a few clubs, but then I don't see how having good players in Chelsea (or Liverpool, or whoever) reserves is good for the spectator.

    "Chelsea has been great for neutrals" would be more convincing if most neutrals didn't want them to lose.
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    05 Dec '06 16:35
    Originally posted by mtthw
    On the other hand, putting more money in the game does not make the players better. It has no effect on the quality of the game. Putting lots of money in a few teams does concentrate that quality in a few clubs, but then I don't see how having good players in Chelsea (or Liverpool, or whoever) reserves is good for the spectator.

    "Chelsea has been great for neutrals" would be more convincing if most neutrals didn't want them to lose.
    They're not much of neutrals if they want them to lose, are they?

    Money in the game obviously affects the value of young players and the returns on training. It might not be directly through investment by the big clubs, but it can be great for smaller clubs who invest in training and scouting .

    It's great for my team (Porto) which buys young talents to develop them and project them in the European stage. We don't have the money to compete as favourites in the Champions League but we're capable of putting up some good shows by regularly selling our talents for high prices. Chelsea gave us 50M € for Carvalho and Paulo Ferreira alone.
  11. 05 Dec '06 17:02
    Originally posted by Palynka
    They're not much of neutrals if they want them to lose, are they?

    Money in the game obviously affects the value of young players and the returns on training. It might not be directly through investment by the big clubs, but it can be great for smaller clubs who invest in training and scouting .

    It's great for my team (Porto) which buys young talents to ...[text shortened]... ng our talents for high prices. Chelsea gave us 50M € for Carvalho and Paulo Ferreira alone.
    They were neutral before though.

    Personally, I still don't mind Chelsea winning the championship, because at least they aren't Manchester United. It's going to take more than a few million roubles to get over that particular prejudice

    Anyway, if it wasn't for the concentration of money in the big clubs, perhaps Porto would be able to keep those young talents. Wouldn't you prefer that?
  12. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    05 Dec '06 17:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by mtthw
    Anyway, if it wasn't for the concentration of money in the big clubs, perhaps Porto would be able to keep those young talents. Wouldn't you prefer that?
    No, it's how we are able to keep such a high level of performances in Europe.

    Sounds paradoxical, but we wouldn't be able to have such great young players nowadays like:

    Quaresma (just two seasons in Porto and he already has done all this stuff):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkROzo46VsM

    Anderson:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mnMKLiFEbY

    Luis 'Lucho' Gonzalez, from the Argentinian national team...

    And others... It's a shame that Anderson is injured, he's a fabulous player not just full of tricks but a true team player. Quaresma is capable of everything when he's on but still lacks consistency. And the thing is that he's constantly coming up with new stuff, he's much more inventive than C.Ronaldo but lacks the physical aspect and a little more consistency.

    That's how Porto works. We buy them young, we develop them and use them in the CL and we then sell them before their wages explode.
  13. 05 Dec '06 17:40
    As an advisor of Nixon’s once said, if something is inevitable, then it is definitely going to happen.
    That Liverpool would need outside investment in order to compete has been inevitable for some time, and that has become crystal clear this season, when the dreadful truth finally dawned on most fans that we will not be competing for the title any time soon; and that on this occasion it is probably not the fault of the manager.

    The period of due diligence that Liverpool are about to enter with Dubai International Capital is not surprising, but it does not mean that Liverpool are suddenly going to become a rich man’s toy. Some Chelsea fans have been gloating at the deal, using it as a retrospective justification for their own club’s actions. If this deal goes ahead it will be a commercial deal. It will not be like Abramovich’s Chelsea who do not realistically expect to make a profit, and it is doubtful whether Chelsea will ever have a viable turnover to keep up their current success without his backing.

    When you look at clubs around Europe, most of them are effectively run at a loss, and the top clubs at a serious loss; barring the occasional sale of a top player that nets a temporary profit. The difference is whether the club is run recklessly, like Leeds, and sometimes Madrid, or managed properly, like Liverpool. It comes down to theoretical and actual income streams, and this roughly equates to the club's fanbase.

    Liverpool are currently locked in a cycle where they are performing far below their potential revenue from the game. They are hampered by physical constraints due to a stadium that only caters for 45,000 thousand, when demand is closer to 60,000. They are also hampered in the transfer market where their budget struggles to match valuations, not just of once in a generation players like Rooney, but even relatively sure bets such as David Trezeguet or Frank Ribery. Liverpool are not only missing out on A list players, they are also missing out on B list players, and for a number of years have effectively been living (reasonably successfully it has to be said in fairness) on youth players, unknowns and C list players.

    The problem arises at title winning level. By the time one playing problem has been solved in the team, one or two players have aged or been injured elsewhere, and a new gap has opened. This has left us consistently fielding a third/fourth placed team for nearly a decade now, with a squad good enough to win cups, but nowhere near the powerhouse it needs to be to win a league. It is now accident that out third/fourth place position consistently equates with our finances as a club, since our earning paths diverged from Man United following their full floatation in 1998.

    In short, Liverpool are now seriously and obviously struggling to justify their glorious history, and their past performances in the game. Investment, or a takeover by an outside bidder is not intended to make the club the plaything of a sugar daddy; it is to give the club a more stable platform for competing. It is the reason the beloved Moores family were first invited onto the Board. If this deal goes ahead you will not see Liverpool spending 60-80million a year like Chelsea. You will see them spending maybe 40m a year, largely justified by a larger stadium, and a greater stream of income from the club’s vast fanbase. And in the club's accounts you will see that Liverpool on paper, like Man U could theoretically generate an income stream to justify this. It is unlikely the Chelsea fanbase could generate a similar income stream to underwrite their current ambitions; and they are actively engaged in buying history at the moment to compensate for this lack.

    But of course, as I said, in practice all football clubs are run at a loss. The question in football is whether you are a stable club that occasionally needs funding top-ups, or whether you are extending far beyond your natural reach, and one day have to curb your ambitions. In this respect football clubs are like governments, not corporations. They are not expected to make a profit; but they should be run properly and at a loss that will not endanger their long term futures.

    Finally, it is a reflection of market forces and corporate Britain. Britain is no longer a land of independently rich entrepreneurs. With globalisation, that action has moved elsewhere, and sport has inevitably followed. Italy and Spain are exceptions as their industry has stayed family-held to a much greater degree. The Fiat and Agnelli families are witness to that. Whatever deal Liverpool eventually does strike, it will be with all of this in mind.
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    05 Dec '06 18:05
    Originally posted by sally cinnamon
    As an advisor of Nixon’s once said, if something is inevitable, then it is definitely going to happen.
    That Liverpool would need outside investment in order to compete has been inevitable for some time, and that has become crystal clear this season, when the dreadful truth finally dawned on most fans that we will not be competing for the title any ti ...[text shortened]... to that. Whatever deal Liverpool eventually does strike, it will be with all of this in mind.
    Good post.
  15. Standard member ASROMA
    Forza Azzurri!!!!!!!
    05 Dec '06 23:14
    Originally posted by Palynka
    This is ridiculous.

    Chelsea has been great for neutrals. There's a new great team in Europe and this bid for Liverpool (even if he doesn't inject half the cash that Roman does) can only help level things upwards at the top, instead of leveling things through a decrease in general quality.

    If you want to see more competition with lower quality football watch the Championship.
    I disagree because you have players like Wright-Phillips etc shining the bench.

    There's no end to what Roman could do.

    Shevchenko is having a bad season, they can just go buy Torres at the end of it.

    It's to the detriment of the sport in my opinion.

    And it's also not good for the neutral because Chelsea has walked the last two seasons and I'd be surprised if they didn't win it again.

    They have far more depth than United, and as United begin to tire, they will lose the top spot.

    A one horse race is hardly good for the neutrals.

    Soccer isn't about the sport anymore.

    It's becoming too commercial for my liking.

    This new craze about eccentric billionaires playing 'Championship Manager' in real life makes me sick to the stomach.

    I'd love to see Porto (or Ajax or any other 'small' team) win the Champions League 20000 times in a row than see Chelsea win it, because if they do, it proves only one thing: Money can buy you just about any frikkin thing you want.

    As far as the quality is concerned though, I tempted to say Chelsea doesn't play the best football in the Premiership anyways (ironic since I just said they walked the last two season's I know). In my opinion, Arsenal plays better football and would be a great team if they didn't try to walk the ball into the net. Chelsea manage to grind out results.

    Think about this as well.

    Cudicini, Wright Phillips, Obi Mikel, Geremi, Diarra and Kalou would all be regulars at smaller clubs in the premiership.

    Yet now you see them very infrequently.

    That's 6 players

    If Liverpool did the same thing, then 12 good players that would otherwise be first team regulars at smaller clubs will now play small parts of the season.

    So the quality at Chelsea might be better but at other clubs who could and would've utilised those players (Wright Phillips is a classic example for Man City) the quality is worse.

    For every player that a rich chairman buys and sacks to the bench, some team’s quality suffers.

    I suppose you could say that money filters down to youth academies eventually though.

    But I still don't like the idea.

    And another thing... If I want more competition with HIGHER quality football, I watch Serie A