10 most hated football teams
in [World Football]
|
From: Jim Goloboy on 1 Mar 2010 22:20 On Mar 1, 2:14 pm, anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote: > Of course I have no evidence. Just wanted to make sure that one stayed in the archive :)
From: higgs on 2 Mar 2010 02:34 On Mar 2, 11:13 am, Benny <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote: > > Subject : 10 most hated football teams > > From : MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> > > > In other words, Milan were trend-setting in the move to a few mega clubs > > around Europe wanting everything their way. They were the first, as far > > as I can tell, to put an excessive emphasis on winning the European > > Cup/CL ahead of their own league, > > You can make that argument now but not back then, after all they won > four league titles in five years under Capello. > > > among the first to do squad rotation and among the first to stock > their bench with international players. > > True. > > > If you like the current state of European football, you should be very > > grateful to Milan and their influence. > > If teams followed Milan's methods TODAY they would get their books in > order, as Milan have (now a club with no debts) and would spend wisely > in the market and have a core of players born in that country. Another > aspect of the Milan side teams have followed is in not ditching ageing > players, look at Manchester United for example. > Milan have no debts because of Berlusconi, just as Chelski have no debts because of Abramovich. Most clubs don't have a wealthy benefactor, which is why they borrow. To compete at the highest level, you need tens of millions, if not more, which is why so many clubs are currently wallowing in debt. Had Milan not had Berlusconi, they'd either not have enjoyed the success they did, or else they'd be heavily in debt. > > I find the whole process a bit revolting and nostalgically look back > on the 70s and 80s, when small > > clubs that regularly had to sell players could win many of the European > > leagues - hell even Spain had a sea-change in the early 80s with > > Athletic and Real Sociedad winning titles, and Italy had Verona and ROma > > winning first titles in a long while, while England had Villa (Ipswich > > in contention) and Everton win titles out of nowhere. > > Criticising Milan is ridiculous. They club was on it's knees when > Berlusconi took over. Juve had been having their way in Italy for years. > Berlusconi restored Milan to what he thought was their rightful place > among Europe's elite. Given Gullit aside the team was cheaply built, had > a backbone of players from the youth team and played fabulous, state of > the art football that had an impact in Italy and beyond and that is why > Sacchi, who has only won one league title, and his team are held in > higher regard than almost any other club side in history, bar > Di Stefano's Real Madrid. It's under only Capello that Milan started to > stockpile talent and spend heavily and that policy failed. Criticising > Milan would be like criticising Barcelona now. The models are the same > only Barca are some 300 million in debt and that's due to heavy > spending, something Milan haven't done in almost a decade. > Can we just cut out the recurring fantasy that Milan assembled their team of the 80s/90s on the cheap? Breaking the world record for transfers 3 times in 5 years between 87-92 tells me that they spent more than anyone. And how can you describe them as having largely been populated by players who started off in the youth team when Milan were so active on the transfer market? You speak of that Milan team and everyone will mention Gullit, Van B & Rijkaard, none of whom were even from the same country.
From: Abubakr on 2 Mar 2010 02:55 On Mar 2, 6:34 pm, higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:13 am, Benny <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Subject : 10 most hated football teams > > > From : MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> > > > > In other words, Milan were trend-setting in the move to a few mega clubs > > > around Europe wanting everything their way. They were the first, as far > > > as I can tell, to put an excessive emphasis on winning the European > > > Cup/CL ahead of their own league, > > > You can make that argument now but not back then, after all they won > > four league titles in five years under Capello. > > > > among the first to do squad rotation and among the first to stock > > their bench with international players. > > > True. > > > > If you like the current state of European football, you should be very > > > grateful to Milan and their influence. > > > If teams followed Milan's methods TODAY they would get their books in > > order, as Milan have (now a club with no debts) and would spend wisely > > in the market and have a core of players born in that country. Another > > aspect of the Milan side teams have followed is in not ditching ageing > > players, look at Manchester United for example. > > Milan have no debts because of Berlusconi, just as Chelski have no > debts because of Abramovich. > Most clubs don't have a wealthy benefactor, which is why they borrow. > To compete at the highest level, you need tens of millions, if not > more, which is why so many clubs are currently wallowing in debt. > Had Milan not had Berlusconi, they'd either not have enjoyed the > success they did, or else they'd be heavily in debt. You miss the point. Berlusconi has changed his ways in this decade, he doesn't fork out from his own pockets anymore. Milan is now self sufficient. OTOH, Chelsea owe Abramovic hundreds of millions, just as Man Utd and others owe their investors hundreds of millions.
From: higgs on 2 Mar 2010 03:45 On Mar 2, 6:55 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 6:34 pm, higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 11:13 am, Benny <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote: > > > > > Subject : 10 most hated football teams > > > > From : MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> > > > > > In other words, Milan were trend-setting in the move to a few mega clubs > > > > around Europe wanting everything their way. They were the first, as far > > > > as I can tell, to put an excessive emphasis on winning the European > > > > Cup/CL ahead of their own league, > > > > You can make that argument now but not back then, after all they won > > > four league titles in five years under Capello. > > > > > among the first to do squad rotation and among the first to stock > > > their bench with international players. > > > > True. > > > > > If you like the current state of European football, you should be very > > > > grateful to Milan and their influence. > > > > If teams followed Milan's methods TODAY they would get their books in > > > order, as Milan have (now a club with no debts) and would spend wisely > > > in the market and have a core of players born in that country. Another > > > aspect of the Milan side teams have followed is in not ditching ageing > > > players, look at Manchester United for example. > > > Milan have no debts because of Berlusconi, just as Chelski have no > > debts because of Abramovich. > > Most clubs don't have a wealthy benefactor, which is why they borrow. > > To compete at the highest level, you need tens of millions, if not > > more, which is why so many clubs are currently wallowing in debt. > > Had Milan not had Berlusconi, they'd either not have enjoyed the > > success they did, or else they'd be heavily in debt. > > You miss the point. Berlusconi has changed his ways in this decade, he > doesn't fork out from his own pockets anymore. Milan is now self > sufficient. OTOH, Chelsea owe Abramovic hundreds of millions, just as > Man Utd and others owe their investors hundreds of millions.- I'd suggest that you're the one missing the point. The Milan team of the 80s/90s were, according to Benny, a role model for how modern clubs should operate and how to end up debt free. Milan got to where they are today by having a wealthy benefactor, not by any magic formula. That they now are, 20 years down the track, largely self-sufficient is admirable. Give Chelski 20 years and who's to say they wont be either. Who's to say ManU wont be debt free in 20 years time either.
From: Sven Mischkies on 2 Mar 2010 04:13
higgs <kenhiggs8(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > That they now are, 20 years down the track, largely self-sufficient is > admirable. Give Chelski 20 years and who's to say they wont be either. > Who's to say ManU wont be debt free in 20 years time either. It is not admirable. it is the reason why they don't win any titles anymore. They scaled back their expenditure only because hte law required it. Ciao, SM -- http://www.gourockviews.co.uk I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams |