Texaggie7nine said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

You want to blame something for City's dominance? Don't blame oil. Blame Real Madrid. Their insane luck in the CL has forced City's hand.

---

Disagree. What happened this past off-season is moot. They're not in a position to even dream of keeping up with RM if it weren't for oil money.

---

Oh so you're just an elitist who only wants old money teams to ever dominate?

---

This is true of pretty much every Liverpool fan I've ever met. They like being the historical big dogs and don't mind having an extremely well-paid international all-star team that can smoke old guard clubs like Rangers FC in CL, but if anyone challenges their space (Chelsea, Man City, etc) they go crazy.

Gig 'Em

Lol, yeah everyone is just a jealous hater. If you don't get why state-run clubs are concerning to fans at this point, I don't know what to tell you.

Chelski fans showed everyone just how effective the sportswashing really is. Turns out Roman is one of Putin's right hand men and they were still crying and waving his flag.

Some were. Others realized he needed to go.

jeffk said:

---

Lol, yeah everyone is just a jealous hater. If you don't get why state-run clubs are concerning to fans at this point, I don't know what to tell you.

---

It's just a new phase of the sport, like the NIL. What do you expect, these clubs are all global commodities now.

The big transition period in football happened in the 90s when the big clubs realized the potential value of their global brands and could justify large transfer fees and leverage. The creation of the Premier League (backed by Liverpool and United) which was less tethered to the FA didn't help.

I'm not sure what y'all want to see at this point. We aren't going back to the 70/80s when English teams were made up of a bunch of English guys (many local) and the occasional Scot. These are all international all star teams backed by either global capitalists who made billions elsewhere and use leverage or commodity-driven states/oligarchs.

It's inevitable that the highest bidder will get these assets, I'm not sure what your alternative is.

jeffk said:

---

Some were. Others realized he needed to go.

---

I'd say the majority were quite literally singing his praises.

Again, conflating clubs being owned by state-run entities with big corporations or "oil money" or investment groups is just obtuse. It's not the inevitable progression of capitalism or something that can't be avoided. Leagues just need to recognize the danger and deny govt entities ownership bids. A group headed by a Saudi regime, an Emerati prince, heck the King of England should have their bid rejected.

Do these state-run clubs generate income? Absolutely! That's not the point. It's that they don't operate under the same financial constraints as other traditionally funded clubs. Surely you can understand how if the US govt ran Brighton that might be a striking departure from the traditional model of management? Need a new striker? Let's include that as a line item in the yearly national budget omnibus bill!

jeffk said:

---

Again, conflating clubs being owned by state-run entities with big corporations or "oil money" or investment groups is just obtuse. It's not the inevitable progression of capitalism or something that can't be avoided. Leagues just need to recognize the danger and deny govt entities ownership bids. A group headed by a Saudi regime, an Emerati prince, heck the King of England should have their bid rejected.

Do these state-run clubs generate income? Absolutely! That's not the point. It's that they don't operate under the same financial constraints as other traditionally funded clubs. Surely you can understand how if the US govt ran Brighton that might be a striking departure from the traditional model of management? Need a new striker? Let's include that as a line item in the yearly national budget omnibus bill!

---

This is the same line of thinking that was present on the Liverpool boards back in 2005 when they were complaining about Chelsea and Roman Abramovich. They thought it was the end of the sport, and even after beating Chelski in the Champions League semifinals (thanks to some incompetent refs at Anfield), Liverpool fans still believed that the only way they could compete was in a 2 match Champions League format, not over the course of a 38 match season.

But you know what? Liverpool can and has competed, because even clubs with unlimited money make incredible stupid transfer decisions and waste a ton of money. They often have chemistry problems and managerial problems. [Citation: Chelsea, 2005-2022]

The fact of the matter is that you are trying to draw this line in a new football world between a state-run club and Liverpool whereas I see the line as between Liverpool and Rangers.

Back in the 90s Rangers could legitimately compete with England's best clubs. After knocking out defending English champions Leeds in 1993 they joined a final 8 in the Champions League of Marseilles, Brugge, CSKA Moscow, PSV, Goteborg, Porto, and Milan.

No English, Spanish, or German clubs in the final 8. It's unthinkable today, and I'm telling you that the big change that's happened in football isn't the gap between Liverpool and a state-backed club, it's between Liverpool (and a handful of other big clubs) and the clubs from small countries above.

I think there is a line. I gave up on bundesliga after Bayern swallowed up every top player of the biggest competition 3 years running. Just didn't feel competitive.

UEFA recently implemented a limit on number of people a team can loan out because Chelsea was buying every young talent and then loaning them out. So to react you now have these Club families where teams are owned by the same people to get around this issue.

People didn't suddenly find out Abrahmovich was close to Putin. That was known way back when he bought the team. Just people didn't care in 2003. And since he was a nice guy who in general shepherded the club well and did a lot of charity, no one really asked the question if he was still close to Putin when Putin became more problematic until Putin became too problematic.

texagbeliever said:

---

I think there is a line. I gave up on bundesliga after Bayern swallowed up every top player of the biggest competition 3 years running. Just didn't feel competitive.

UEFA recently implemented a limit on number of people a team can loan out because Chelsea was buying every young talent and then loaning them out. So to react you now have these Club families where teams are owned by the same people to get around this issue.

---

This was the evolution in baseball. The Houston Buffaloes were founded in 1888 but were purchased by the St Louis Cardinals in 1921 and became the first "farm" team in baseball. Then it was replicated by every other big club.

Serotonin said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Lol, yeah everyone is just a jealous hater. If you don't get why state-run clubs are concerning to fans at this point, I don't know what to tell you.

---

It's just a new phase of the sport, like the NIL. What do you expect, these clubs are all global commodities now.

The big transition period in football happened in the 90s when the big clubs realized the potential value of their global brands and could justify large transfer fees and leverage. The creation of the Premier League (backed by Liverpool and United) which was less tethered to the FA didn't help.

I'm not sure what y'all want to see at this point. We aren't going back to the 70/80s when English teams were made up of a bunch of English guys (many local) and the occasional Scot. These are all international all star teams backed by either global capitalists who made billions elsewhere and use leverage or commodity-driven states/oligarchs.

It's inevitable that the highest bidder will get these assets, I'm not sure what your alternative is.

---

You're not sure what the alternative is? The alternative is...not selling to the highest bidder without any sort of test as to who that bidder is.

Do you think the EPL would agree to sell a club to...Harvey Weinstein? Ghislaine Maxwell? Just because they happened to be the highest bidder? If prospective owners can be tested for any reason (and they can) then testing them because they also happen to be a sovereign nation is completely acceptable too. And doable.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or what but the notion that we're hamstrung by the laws of capitalism, which apparently say you have to sell something to the highest bidder (it doesn't...at least not in any practical way that is actually being used somewhere), is absurd. And it's disingenuous at best to suggest that the alternative is to set the EPL back 50 years.

As an aside, believe me when I say that, as a United fan, the irony is absolutely not lost on me that City, of all clubs, is the one that has evolved into state funded franchise with global branding.

No idea who supports City here so this is not meant as an attack on any City fan/person. Just pointing out that it is exceedingly ironic.

Dre_00 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Lol, yeah everyone is just a jealous hater. If you don't get why state-run clubs are concerning to fans at this point, I don't know what to tell you.

---

It's just a new phase of the sport, like the NIL. What do you expect, these clubs are all global commodities now.

The big transition period in football happened in the 90s when the big clubs realized the potential value of their global brands and could justify large transfer fees and leverage. The creation of the Premier League (backed by Liverpool and United) which was less tethered to the FA didn't help.

I'm not sure what y'all want to see at this point. We aren't going back to the 70/80s when English teams were made up of a bunch of English guys (many local) and the occasional Scot. These are all international all star teams backed by either global capitalists who made billions elsewhere and use leverage or commodity-driven states/oligarchs.

It's inevitable that the highest bidder will get these assets, I'm not sure what your alternative is.

---

You're not sure what the alternative is? The alternative is...not selling to the highest bidder without any sort of test as to who that bidder is.

Do you think the EPL would agree to sell a club to...Harvey Weinstein? Ghislaine Maxwell? Just because they happened to be the highest bidder? If prospective owners can be tested for any reason (and they can) then testing them because they also happen to be a sovereign nation is completely acceptable too. And doable.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or what but the notion that we're hamstrung by the laws of capitalism, which apparently say you have to sell something to the highest bidder (it doesn't...at least not in any practical way that is actually being used somewhere), is absurd. And it's disingenuous at best to suggest that the alternative is to set the EPL back 50 years.

---

You follow this much more closely than I do, so maybe there is actual support for this amongst owners. But typically asset owners do not want rules and regulations that restrict potentially buyers of those assets.

My question for you is why did the English government and owners allowed the clubs to become for-profit in the 80s? Same reason, which is unlocking a ton of value for the existing owners.

Personally, I think it would be extremely difficult to ban because all sorts of legal fictions can be created to evade bans.

Again, it's not a binary decision and comparing the present day to decisions that were made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or even 2000s, is non-sensical.

"Owners want to add value to their teams/league" and "Restrictions on ownership should exist" can both be true.

Hell, even the NFL, by far the most valuable league with the most valuable teams in the world, has restrictions on ownership that don't allow publicly traded companies to own teams (to name one). But yeah, sure...the EPL can't impose any restrictions on ownership.

Dre_00 said:

---

Again, it's not a binary decision and comparing the present day to decisions that were made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or even 2000s, is non-sensical.

"Owners want to add value to their teams/league" and "Restrictions on ownership should exist" can both be true.

Hell, even the NFL, by far the most valuable league with the most valuable teams in the world, has restrictions on ownership that don't allow publicly traded companies to own teams (to name one). But yeah, sure...the EPL can't impose any restrictions on ownership.

---

I think decisions made in the past are very relevant to today because you can see the arc and direction of how this is playing out.

Restricting publicly traded companies is very simple from a legal perspective and makes sense for the NFL. A private ownership model is much easier to tightly control from the league's perspective and you don't have to deal with an evolving board of directors of a public team.

Ultimately we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see the transaction as being between the state-backed entity, the existing club owner, and that club's fans. If they are all in favor of it then I'm very much against the government stepping in to prevent it.

This means more money for the club (so the fans are better off), and players get paid more money (so they are better off). This gives many smaller and medium-sized clubs a chance to compete. Maybe Rangers will be bought in a similar fashion and be able to compete with Liverpool one day. I do not have a problem with that.

Serotonin said:

---

Ultimately we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see the transaction as being between the state-backed entity, the existing club owner, and that club's fans. If they are all in favor of it then I'm very much against the government stepping in to prevent it.

This means more money for the club (so the fans are better off), and players get paid more money (so they are better off). This gives many smaller and medium-sized clubs a chance to compete. Maybe Rangers will be bought in a similar fashion and be able to compete with Liverpool one day. I do not have a problem with that.

---

This really is about tradeoffs. More money and more talent is coming to UK and specifically to these clubs because of it. If the US gov bought a team, would it really be that bad for English football? Hell no, it means more dedicated money is going to be pumped in. They should hope more governments get into it.

Newcastle is the latest town to be blessed.

Think about Wrexham in comparison to other similar clubs that are stuck in the National League. They get to watch Wrexham have an insane injection of money and followers, get international TV coverage, ect. Should they be angry or hope that it becomes a trend and other famous wealthy foreigners decide they want to do the same?

Lol. I'm done - sorry!

Well that seemed unnecessary. True...but...still...

Right? Kinda understand why Carl went crazy. People think it was the gopher but I'm thinking it was the hat.

Dre_00 said:

---

Right? Kinda understand why Carl went crazy. People think it was the gopher but I'm thinking it was the hat.

---

Exactly! The hat was too tight, restricting blood flow to what little grey matter Carl possessed. The gopher just became his obsession thanks to Judge Smells. In an alternate universe, Carl and the gopher would have been friends. No Varmit Cong there.

Dammit, another thread derail!!

To keep it relevant, when was the last time Barca missed the knockout stage in UCL?

Um. Like not since last year, Mister Focused-On-The-Chanpions-League.

deadbq03 said:

---

Um. Like not since last year, Mister Focused-On-The-Chanpions-League.

---

Hey, just trying to reel it back in!

So, besides Napoli, RM, City and Bayern, who's a dark horse for this year's title?

Napoli's the dark horse. City, RM and Bayern are all favorites. Don't think Brugge can sustain their play beyond the group stage.

Brugge is getting the attention, and rightly so, but the story for me this year is the Portuguese teams. It's possible that all three could make it to knockouts which would really be something.

What are your thoughts on CBS/Paramount's studio show with Thierry, Carra and Micah? I don't usually watch it because I'm usually streaming UCL games hours later but it just seems like a weird mix. It sort of seems like they're trying to recreate TBS NBA coverage with Shaq and Barkley but Henry doesn't really need/want to suffer being silly.

ChipFTAC01 said:

---

What are your thoughts on CBS/Paramount's studio show with Thierry, Carra and Micah? I don't usually watch it because I'm usually streaming UCL games hours later but it just seems like a weird mix. It sort of seems like they're trying to recreate TBS NBA coverage with Shaq and Barkley but Henry doesn't really need/want to suffer being silly.

---

It sounds like they're having fun, but I rarely get their jokes that have them laughing hysterically.

I love it personally but agree 100% that Thierry is the odd man out. He not only doesn't contribute much to the fun, he's not even that good of an analyst, so doesn't really bring anything to the show.

The other three crack me up.

If they swapped him out for Deuce, I wonder how that would work. Or is Clint too low energy?

I agree. I love the banter between Jamie and Micah. And whoever's next to them does need to be more serious, but Henry isn't the right fit.

Even though I often disagreed with him, I miss Roberto. He was a good counter to those two but could also have some fun with them too at times.