From: Sven Mischkies on
Benny <Benny(a)> wrote:

> > From : 10 most hated football teams
> > From : hsv83(a)
> > 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.
> 2007-2008. Milan �19.60 million
> 2007-2008. Juventus �60.30 million
> 2008-2009. Milan �50 million
> 2008-2009. Juventus �26.90 million
> 2009-2010. Milan �17.20 million
> 2009-2010. Juventus �47.00 million

What about the 20 years before the relegation? And not just money spent,
but profit/loss in the transfermarket?

I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it
does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
Douglas Adams
From: FF on
Sven Mischkies wrote:
> > 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.
> My take on this:
> It depends if you can pay them back or not. If you can - no problem. If
> you can't then you cheated your competitors out of signing better payers
> and better achievements, and therefore deserve to go down, like Pompey,
> Leeds, Fiorentina, ... ManU and LFC are different cases, as their debt
> is not the result of overspending, but the result of abuse by their
> respective owners.
> Receiving money from a football unrelated source like Chelski, Milan,
> VW, Bayer, Hopp is something else - it is unfair towards your
> competitors because this money is not something you earned or deserved
> and destroys the natural competition between clubs.

I sense I will stir a lot of feelings around here but here's my own
take on all this:

Basically it doesn't matter.
As long as the clubs don't go bankrupt, it's their business how they
do their business.
OK, when a club does go broke, then indeed it's cheating. But I don't
know of any recent big-name case.
As long as they find people and institutions willing to give or lend
them money, everything is fine.

There's no big difference between having a sugardaddy and earning your
money from football-related income. You can see the latter as having a
few million sugardaddies contributing to you (such as: people who pay
to come to the stadium to watch your games, buy t-shirts or watch your
team on TV thus making it worth for companies to pay you for
commercials). Basically there's no big difference between one
sugardaddy or a million of them. There is however a difference if you
have reasons to suspect the sugardaddy's money comes from fraudulent
sources, or if his goals are dubious. Like in the case of a certain
russian millionaire; so yes, Chelski does to some extent cheat on the
other clubs. Which, to come back to our initial debate, is also true
of Milan of 80 - 90 and afterwards, since I personally have strong
doubts about Berlusconi and the way he made his money. BTW, this is
also one of the main reasons I don't like Milan at all, I can't think
of a more despicable public figure in western Europe (at least of
comparable importance).

Finally, IMHO it's no big deal even if the city of Madrid or the state
of Great Britain (as a hypothetical example) bails you out. It's like
having a sugardaddy, except that it's the city / state. There is a
caveat here though, if they are doing it against the wish of their
constituents then it's cheating. But I doubt that is usually the case,
I assume most people of Madrid agreed with their mayors or whoever
bailed Real out (if that's indeed what happened, I don't know the
specifics), and if the UK ever bailed ManU or another big club out, it
would likely be in accordance with public feeling about it else they
wouldn't do it.

Anyway, to simply equate debt with cheating, as many people here or
elsewhere do, is pure feudalism as I said.
Which is not to say I like team who buy success, especially if their
spending far outweigh their competitors; like Burlesco's Milan and
Real of all times I guess. But I won't go as far as equating debt with
fraud in the general case.
From: Benny on
> From : 10 most hated football teams
> From : anthu_001(a)

>> It is normal to run 10-12km in a game, I don't believe that the greeks
>> ran 15-18km.
> But that's exactly what happened. Some Greeks posted ~15k.

I remember you making these remarks after Euro 2004. I'm not sure but I
don't dismiss your cliams out of hand, I thought the Korean were doped
up in 2006 given their insane workrate and given the number of high
profile Dutch players that failed drug tests e.g. Davids, Stam, Frank de

Rss feed :
From: Benny on
> Subject : 10 most hated football teams
> From : hsv83(a)

> And we already established that Milan were at the forefront of this
> development towards the overspending megaclubs. And going back from that
> out of necessity - nah, that is not admirable.

We didn't establish anything of the sort. I'd like to hear how you think
Milan's World record signing of Lentini in 1992 was responsible for
Barca paying big money for Romario in 1993 or for the �6 million PSV
paid for Ronaldo in 1996. Transfer fees skyrocketed in the 1980s due to
the lifting of the foreign player ban in Serie A in the 1980s and also
because of the explosion of SATELLITE TELEVISION in the 1990s. As the
richest and most successful club of course Milan were in a position to
spend more than other clubs. Blaming Milan is as ridiculous as blaming
Forest for breaking the million pound barrier in 1979 or Maradona for
setting consecutive records in 1982 when he joined Barca for �3 million
and Napoli 2 years later for �5 million.

Rss feed :
From: Benny on
> Subject : 10 most hated football teams
> From : hsv83(a)

> What about the 20 years before the relegation? And not just money spent,
> but profit/loss in the transfermarket?

20 years? You're not asking for much are you? I've got data going back
10 years and you'll have to wait until I import everything into Access,
which won't be for a while.

Rss feed :