Blimey, being a Valencia fan sounds like a barrel of laughs.

Thanks CS

one of the reasons that burnley will receive twice as much TV money as bayern munich this year is that low barriers to entry has led to a very competitive (and therefore compelling) league.

i would also suggest that more has been spent on things like stadium renovations and academy facilities than would have been possible if foriegn fellas with more money than they know what to do with hadn't come over here spunking all their cash on us, and the large number of struggling clubs that have been saved and revitalised by new owners is evidence to me that the gigantic edifice that is english football (832000 professional football clubs on last count, one for each block of flats) is held up in part because most owners are prepared to lose money to support their club.

the downside is that you might get bought by morons (venkys) or nutters (vinny tan). these two situations suck for the supporters. but as someone earlier said, its not like idiocy or mismanagement is somehow eliminated by the german model.

here's another, more personal reason - the man utd GHWs got glazered. you cant know how much pleasure this gives me.

Not sure how most owners are willing to lose money to support clubs when in fact most owners shove the debts for running the club onto the club books.

And I think you got the reasons why the foreign fellas like to spend money on training facilities and grounds backwards - because it guarantees them access to sky's billions, without it the foreign fellas would be nowhere to be seen IMO.

List of English clubs in administration over last 20 years....



More financial problems now than there ever was.

without the foreign fellas man utd wins 11 of the last 14 PLs and 10 of the last 14 FA cups and the sky billions dont exist to the same extent because english football is too boring for any human being to watch

--

i mustve missed all the instances of owners taking over and raping a club of assets which have been carefully built over the course of many years, its always the other way round where a struggling club receives a big injection of much needed cash.

only example of the former which springs to mind is man utd which, heheheh

Did Mike Ashley not hive off shirt sales/merchandise from NUFC to sports direct for peanuts?

Gillette and Hicks not **** Liverpool over?

on the big list - lower leagues are bloated and cant the teams support themselves. this is known. fortunately, rather than simply disappearing and putting a sad on all those port vale fans' faces, an



stepped in and gave the club a



rinse and repeat for most of those examples.

yea ashley is a crap owner relatively speaking but then again he did save toon from massive spiralling debts when he stepped in and gave the club a



and is now taking money out to pay back the (interest free) loans he made to the club.

mike ashley is a ****ty owner because he refuses to lose money like the rest of them.

Lol they all do the same one way or another barring an exceptional few.

Giving you £100 today then taking £300 from you tomorrow isn't an injection of cash, it's a hustle.

Yeah, my bad. I didn't know that the all the owners of English football clubs were a bunch of selfless saints. My bad thinking they were fat, greedy, rich ****s.

much like the rich and fat 19th century industrialists of t'north that paved the way for the existence of professional football, they ARE greedy and rich and all those other terrible terrible things but they also (most of them) are prepared to lose money to support their football team.

no, its probably not because they are selfless saints. its more likely a status symbol. who cares.

.

Oh, and don't get me wrong. There is fat, greedy, rich twattery going on in German football, too. United getting Glazered is not too far off from Stuttgart getting Meyer-Vorfelder'd, or Dortmund getting Niebaum'd. The only difference is that it's possible to give these people the boot, because they don't own the damn club. United are **** outta luck with their owners.

They make so much tv money because of the english language, they let TV dictate the kick off times (spain also, but the TV Model in spain sucks anyway) and because tickets are so expansive that everyone has to watch on TV

Is this a serious post?

The difficulty in Chelsea selling 6 top players and replacing them for half the cost while maintaining the current status quo of ~perennially challenging for all major honours is very obviously implicitly more difficult than for a mid-table PL club to do likewise.

I mean, come one, you're smarter than that terrible analogy.

But yes, if Abramovich sold 6 top players and replaced them at half the cost and Chelsea's ambitions and likelihood of success didn't change in any discernible way, it'd be a great summer for the club, obviously.

You're hilariously overstating a lot of things here. First of all, come the start of the season when they've completed their signings, their relegation equity will hardly have shifted.

Neither will their equity of making a cup run, lol, look at some finalists/semi-finalists of both cups in recent years, plenty of bottom-feeder PL sides, Championship sides and even League One sides. Really worth spending an extra £50m to finish 9th rather than 12th and gain like 1% cup equity

You're vastly overrating what is needed in terms of both quality and depth to put ~48 points on the board to finish very comfortably in upper mid-table.

And to make Europe via the league has never been more difficult than it currently is with the shape all of last seasons top 7 are in. Anyway, it's not long ago you were lol'ing at the value of Europa League and labelling it a waste of time for PL clubs etc etc, now it's a crisis that Southampton go from maybe a 12/1 shot to a 15/1 shot to qualify for it via the league?

They will very likely have a weakened team, nobody is arguing that point. The argument is that the drop-off won't really have any discernible impact on their likely prospects.

Chambers --> Clyne (already at club, rotated last season)
Lovren ----> Vlaar
Shaw ----> Bertrand
Schneiderlin -----> Wanyama (already at club, huge player for them, injured last season)
Lallana ----> Tadic (already signed)
Lambert ----> Pelle (already signed)

is nowhere near enough of a drop-off to turn a side from 8th place to battling relegation. £20m has been spent on Tadic and Pelle. Vlaar and Bertrand would maybe cost ~£15m.

They're reportedly looking to upgrade to Forster at GK, very strange for a club that's "asset-stripping" to upgrade a position where their current player is plenty good enough for what they're looking to achieve don't you think?

And again, as you never answered last time, why shouldn't owners benefit financially from THEIR BUSINESS performing well? Do you expect all football owners to be nothing more than philanthropists and run clubs at breakeven or a loss for the good of others at their own expense? Do you have a problem with the owners of Apple pocketing profits achieved from their business doing well? You think they should be plumbing all profits into market research and product development?





One of the most illogical posts i've ever read. I guess we'd all better not comment on anything to do with clubs other than our own because we aren't fans of club "x" so don't know "how it feels".

Are Liverpool having a good summer? I can't really say if them replacing Suarez with Rickie Lambert/Markovic is good for them or not because i'm not a Liverpool fan.

Are you a Valencia fan? If not, you shouldn't really comment as only they know how it feels.

Most football owners lose money for the simple reason for it's really fun to own a club so some rich people are willing to pay for it (and the status that follows). The ones that are willing to pay the most for the privilege are the ones the end up in charge.

Ashley/Glazers/Henry/Kroenke/Southampton lady are the exceptions.

A lot of restaurant/bar owners lose money too (and some don't care because it's fun for them to own them), doesn't mean we should chastise those who seek to profit from owning a restaurant or bar.

No, I am not. You can probably deduce this from the comment. Or perhaps you simply lack the tools to do so.

I had successfully deduced as much from your comment as my tools are quite sharp. I was subtly trying to dissuade you from upsetting kevin by commenting on subjects he will feel you simply cannot understand as a result of you indeed not being a Valencia fan.

So selling off their best players means that Southampton is having a "dream summer"? What exactly would a nightmare summer be?

Signing all the best players in the world obviously.

Indeed, I failed to deduce the meaning. I like tapas though.

leeds utd 01/02.

make CL semi final, keep all important players despite heavy interest from other clubs and spend a further 30m to further bolter the team.

seems good right?

ok in short:

if abra instead of getting cesc/diego costa/filipe went out to sell hazard/oscar/matic (to make money for a new huge villa) and chelsea's odds to win the title would have dropped from like 6/1 to 9/1(instead of shortening considerably)
= dream summer for chelsea FC

makes sense

Langerdang pwning itt