Football 18/19

[jyoung]

33 minutes ago, thetime said:

Can they substain it if the owners ever pull out? Same question being asked at Chelsea and majority of clubs around the land. 

Yes.

Chelsea are the most central London club in one of, if not the most affluent area in the country (Kings Road). If reports are to believed, Roman recently turned town a 2 billion pound offer from James Ratcliffe, Britain's wealthiest man.

Make of that what you will.

Edited September 3, 2018 by jyoung

[thetime]

7 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Yes.

Chelsea are the most central London club in one of, if not the most affluent area in the country (Kings Road). If reports are to believed, Roman recently turned town a 2 billion pound offer from James Ratcliffe, Britain's wealthiest man.

Make of that what you will.

There’s a big difference having wealthy owners and owners putting money into it. There’s been many owners when have had lots of cash, but used the football clubs as a business to make money without putting vast amounts in.

lots complain about the glazers, but united still make a lot more money with them in power than before they took over. Even taking into consideration what they take out of united on a yearly basis. 

[jyoung]

12 minutes ago, thetime said:

There’s a big difference having wealthy owners and owners putting money into it. There’s been many owners when have had lots of cash, but used the football clubs as a business to make money without putting vast amounts in.

lots complain about the glazers, but united still make a lot more money with them in power than before they took over. Even taking into consideration what they take out of united on a yearly basis. 

Very true! Luckily for us, I believe Roman is here for the long run and will eventually pass the club down to his son. 

[thetime]

3 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Very true! Luckily for us, I believe Roman is here for the long run and will eventually pass the club down to his son. 

Was thinking about this earlier, do owners spend many years at clubs nowadays? I can’t think of a single owner at a top level club that’s say done 20+ years. 

Seems to be more get in, spend and make money or lose money and then hand it over. 

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

To say your self funded when your owners have pumped in over a billion quid is a bit far fetched isn’t it? 

You may be self funded due to tv money and sponsorship, that’s only come about due to the billion quid put in. You certainly can not say that about our lovely glazer family, to bring a owner from the 1930’s is a bit far fetched aswel. 

That being said and which I agree with easty, City is a wonderful model and how to get that part of the city redeveloped. The training ground complex is out of this world and awesome for the city on Manchester. 

Can they substain it if the owners ever pull out? Same question being asked at Chelsea and majority of clubs around the land. 

As ive said  before on here nothing wrong with owners pumping in vast amounts of cash, fans need to dream don’t they. 

Im just waiting until city get embarrassed in Europe again and easty goes missing for 6 months. 

 

Why is it far fetched? City were the bigger attraction in Manchester then. If not for City's help at that point and the fact they were bank rolled by an investor, they would have gone bump. The same arguments people are having now in regards to City, could have been chucked at United back then. Why was it ok for united to do it, but not City?

Yes the owners have bank rolled the club, but they now make money. It was a very good investment by the owners and City are now worth more than they have invested.

City now operate in a sustainable and intelligent way. We refused to make Sanchez the 3rd highest player in the league, we got Mahrez for a fair price after refusing to pay Leicesters ridiculous demands and we would not pay stupid money for Fred

Edited September 3, 2018 by eastynh

[thetime]

21 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Why is it far fetched? City were the bigger attraction in Manchester then. If not for City's help at that point and the fact they were bank rolled by an investor, they would have gone bump. The same arguments people are having now in regards to City, could have been chucked at United back then. Why was it ok for united to do it, but not City?

 

Bank rolled is a bit of an exaggeration I would of thought,  it was impossible to bankroll teams in those days due to salary caps and the war. Most of the time utd were in the 2nd division or had to go on the beg to re build old Trafford being bombed. 

So explain how was it even slightly comparable, the only club you can compare city to is Chelsea or lesser extent Blackburn. 

Like ive said nowt wrong in what city have achieved or the way they have done it. You do come across very arrogant and forgot where you were 15 years ago, which is unlike city fans generally may I add. 

 

[pink_triangle]

The gap is so big now that throwing huge money like Chelsea and City have is the only way to break in. What will happen after those owners leave is anyone's guess, it is possible for billionaires to either mess things up or have selfish motives.

[eastynh]

2 hours ago, thetime said:

Bank rolled is a bit of an exaggeration I would of thought,  it was impossible to bankroll teams in those days due to salary caps and the war. Most of the time utd were in the 2nd division or had to go on the beg to re build old Trafford being bombed. 

So explain how was it even slightly comparable, the only club you can compare city to is Chelsea or lesser extent Blackburn. 

Like ive said nowt wrong in what city have achieved or the way they have done it. You do come across very arrogant and forgot where you were 15 years ago, which is unlike city fans generally may I add. 

 

I have grew up in Newton Heath and have to take shit off rags all  my life. Now the shoes on the other foot, rags don't like it. 

I know exactly where we were 15 years ago as I lived right through it all. I remember the banner the rags had up about us in their shit hole of a stadium and all the abuse we had to take.

Now if rags and Scousers think I come across as arrogant then I don't particularly give a fuck. Rags can give it out but can't take and the least said about Liverpool fans, the better.

You will also find my attitude is exactly the same as most City fans.

[thetime]

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I have grew up in Newton Heath and have to take shit off rags all  my life. Now the shoes on the other foot, rags don't like it. 

I know exactly where we were 15 years ago as I lived right through it all. I remember the banner the rags had up about us in their shit hole of a stadium and all the abuse we had to take.

Now if rags and Scousers think I come across as arrogant then I don't particularly give a fuck. Rags can give it out but can't take and the least said about Liverpool fans, the better.

You will also find my attitude is exactly the same as most City fans.

To be fair going by united and liverpool fans on here, they dont go into hiding after a bad result. ?

[mjsell]

8 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Doesn't look like the Spurs ground is going to be ready any time soon. They're moving all their Champions League home games to Wembley.

Wouldn't be surprised if it slips into 2019.

I've got electrician mates that have quite their jobs to go work on the stadium because they are offering outrageous money and unlimited overtime. They are standing to make 3/4s of their salary in 2 months. 

Apparently they tested the fire alarms and half the stadium flooded the other day....

[pink_triangle]

I don't get all the fuss about this throw in coach. In a game of small margins, it seems a sensible idea.

[Comfy Bean]

Firhill for thrills on Saturday. Ball hits the back of the net but linesman reckons it didn`t cross the line.

You`d think the Morton players reaction might have given him a clue.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Comfy Bean

[LJS]

Meanwhile, Scotland women qualify for world cup for the first time.

They seem quite happy...

 

[LJS]

21 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Firhill for thrills on Saturday. Ball hits the back of the net but linesman reckons it didn`t cross the line.

You`d think the Morton players reaction might have given him a clue.

Apparently, Partick paid the "goal" "scorer" his goal bonus...which he then donated to charity.

Ain't that luvverly.

[pink_triangle]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Meanwhile, Scotland women qualify for world cup for the first time.

They seem quite happy...

 

Wales got within one game of qualifying as well and I think may get a play off. I hate to say it but I think the English womans team raising the profile has benefited the rest of us.

[jyoung]

Anyone got the foggiest about this Nations League, then?

[Gucci Piggy]

53 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Anyone got the foggiest about this Nations League, then?

Spent ages trying to explain this to my dad last night before then realising I don't even have a clue.

Basically, 4 divisions with 4 groups in each. Play each team in your group home and away. Groups are finished by November. Nations League standings are then used to determine your seeding for the Euro qualifying groups which are drawn in December.

Then the normal Euro qualifiers take place next year.

Once the Euro qualifiers are done, instead of the play offs being competed by the best runners up in those groups (or whatever it used to be), the best 4 teams from each Europe Nations League division who aren't already qualified go into a 16 team play off for the remaining Euro places. If, say, the top division only has 3 teams who aren't already qualified, the 5th best team in division two will qualify instead.

The thing I read then didn't really make sense on the next part. It said those 16 teams go into 4 groups and the winner of each group qualifies, but also said something about there being a semi final and final. I think maybe instead of it being normal groups it might just be 4 sets of semi finals/finals?

 

On top of that, next June the 4 winners of the division one groups have a semi final and final to determine the overall champions of the Nations League.

[jyoung]

@Gucci Piggy Still none the wiser but thanks anyway!

Sounds like an attempt to rid friendlies and make international football more interesting / marketable. 

[Hugh Jass]

Just now, jyoung said:

Sounds like an attempt to rid friendlies and make international football more interesting / marketable. 

Bingo!

It acts as a safety net in case the bigger/more marketable teams fail to qualify for the Euros.

[jyoung]

8 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Bingo!

It acts as a safety net in case the bigger/more marketable teams fail to qualify for the Euros.

10 years too late for some...

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Bingo!

It acts as a safety net in case the bigger/more marketable teams fail to qualify for the Euros.

Spot on. Plus the World Cup eg Holland / Italy.

From Scotland`s point of view. For the Euro`s, there will be 10 Groups with the top 2 going straight in instead of 2nd place being in a play off. If...we win our Nations League mini  group and finish outwith the top 2 then we can use the nations league route to try again to get to the finals. If we finish 1st or 2nd then you just forget about the winning the nations league group.... I think. 

In summary shouldn`t make a difference to England but you get some glamour games and for Scotland it increases the chances of getting to a major finals. I`m going to our game against Belgium on Friday so another bonus for the smaller nations is that we get a more realistic chance of playing some "glamour" friendlies. We also have Portugal in October.

[Hugh Jass]

A bizarre offset to this, and probably their tenuous way of justifying it, is that one of the bottom group is guaranteed a qualifying place. So you'll see one of Estonia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Andorra, etc in the next tournament.

[jyoung]

21 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

A bizarre offset to this, and probably their tenuous way of justifying it, is that one of the bottom group is guaranteed a qualifying place. So you'll see one of Estonia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Andorra, etc in the next tournament.

Hope it's Estonia. Studied there whilst at University and bloody love the place. Proper rubbish football but better than San Marino.

[Comfy Bean]

Hazard worth the admission money. Rare to see an opposition player applauded off when we’ve been gubbed.

[Wooderson]

Duckenfield to face criminal charges. “Always the victims” from two-bit opposing fans will ring even more hollow in future.