10 most hated football teams
in [World Football]
|
From: higgs on 2 Mar 2010 07:05 On Mar 2, 9:49 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:45 pm, higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > No, as is usual with you, you've missed the point completely. This is > what Benny had writtern, which you quote but fail to see (or refuse to > see and are off on another strawman adventure?): > > "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."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Given that we were talking about the Milan team of the 80s/90s (and how they were the prototype for the big teams today -vigorous activity on the transfer market and a rich benefactor/debt to finance the spending, top players from all over the Europe and beyond), I'd suggest you're the one on the strawman tack. Milan today may be out of debt, but they got where they are by dint of the model outlined above. I don't see why Chelski or someone else can't/wont end up in a similar situation. Large successful clubs generate a momentum, that is, players want to come. They get paid handsomely, they enjoy success; the club can finance a network of scouts beyond their immediate geographical vicinity. It doesn't happen overnight. You don't just wake up one day and decide to become a large successful debt-free club. You have to invest heavily to begin with. To do that, you either get someone to finance your expansion, or you borrow to achieve it. It's a nice fanatasy scenario to become large and successful by developing your own players and spending very little. The only club I can think of who've come close has been Ajax, who certainly DID grow the majority of their own players (mid 90s), but they couldn't keep them because they couldn't match the riches offered to Kluivert,Overmaaars etc who moved on. Had they had a rich sugar daddy, they may well have been into the last 16 of the Champions League today, rather than dipping out of the Europa Cup in the 3rd phase.,
From: Abubakr on 2 Mar 2010 07:14 On Mar 2, 10:47 pm, Sven Mischkies <hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net> wrote: > On Mar 2, 10:44 am, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 8:13 pm, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote: > > > > higgs <kenhig...(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. > > > So it is not admirable that they are a solvent, financially self > > sufficient club? > > Is normality admirable? > Is it admirable when it was only achieved by force of law? > Is it admirable when it was only achieved after cementing the status > of the club by excessive spending? But, that's the whole point, it is no longer 'normal' for a big club to be wholly self sufficient and thrifty with regards to transfer market spending so it should be admirable that some of those clubs have mended their ways. > > And the law has nothing to do with it. Just take a look at Inter, > > they've outspent and still almost outspend every other club ever since > > Moratti took over. It is just that Milan and Juve decided to change > > the way they did the business side of things. > > Ok, I am not sure about the law, scratch that if you want. ;) > > I think Juve has always been more cautious with money than both Milano > clubs, but of course I could be a victim of the Bianconeri Propaganda > Machine. Yes that's pure Biaconeri propaganda. In the 90's they were spending like crazy but like Milan reverted to a more financially stable business plan early in the noughties.
From: Bruce D. Scott on 2 Mar 2010 07:40 anders t (anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com) wrote: : If I had had evidence I'd have provided it already to UEFA and the Greek : police. Of course I have no evidence. It wasn't possible to prove back : then, as I said. But it was established back then that the Greeks ran up to : 50% more during the games than the opponents. That's only possible by using : stamina enhancing drugs. And EPO is the best there is. Sorry, but all that is is a typical Usenet-debater logical leap. False Premise. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: REDDEVIL6 on 2 Mar 2010 14:37 I don't know about anyone else but personally I don't "hate" any other team
From: FF on 2 Mar 2010 14:47
REDDEV...(a)nospam.net wrote: > I don't know about anyone else but personally I don't "hate" any other > team Not even Italy ??? ;-) PS. I really can't understand these folks who talk about debts as if they were stolen money. People, in case you haven't noticed, the middle ages are over for quite some time. |