- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kompany says it
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:55 am to StraightCashHomey21
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:55 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
If its meant to keep 2-5 teams in control of each major league and not allow anyone else to just explode with sums of money, why was it voted in by a majority of clubs?
Surely if it was such a raw deal meant to keep Norwhich from ever becoming a power, they wouldn't have voted for it, right?
I want to see a detailed breakdown of who voted for it and who didn't.
0
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:56 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
1 billion pounds since 2008 on transfer fees alone
is fricking absurd
It's not your money. Why do you get to decide what is or isn't absurd?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:58 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It's not your money. Why do you get to decide what is or isn't absurd?
Its not the clubs money either
The club doesn't turn a profit
It might this next year bc they are limited on how much cash they can spend on players.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:59 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Its not the clubs money either
Thats fricking rich
Go back and re-read my apple orchard/orange orchard example to hear how completely absurd you sound.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:00 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Thats fricking rich
Go back and re-read my apple orchard/orange orchard example to hear how completely absurd you sound.
you are reaching for straws as usual
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:01 am to StraightCashHomey21
That's not a counter argument.
I'm going to take that as you have no response.
I'm going to take that as you have no response.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:03 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
That's not a counter argument.
I'm going to take that as you have no response.
Your whole stance and the way your present it is comical
no one can have a rational debate with you on this.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:03 am to StraightCashHomey21
Explain to me why my hypo is a bad example. I'm all ears.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:07 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It's not your money. Why do you get to decide what is or isn't absurd?
But it does indirectly affect other club's money...
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:10 am to TFTC
quote:
But it does indirectly affect other club's money...
So what? That's the free market at work. Don't expect me to cry for Liverpool because they have to spend more money to make top 4 now.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:11 am to Draconian Sanctions
Without reading through most of the thread, aren't you a PSG fan, as well? Maybe you just love big money clubs. Doesn't change the fact that they're a massive threat to football in general.
When you have a few clubs who are throwing every bit of cash possible at players, the price of players are inflated across the board. Sure, big players like United and Real Madrid can match and beat those prices because of their prestige, but mid-table clubs suddenly have no leverage to keep players when one good season makes players worth a retarded sum. So you have new money spending stupid cash to get on par and old money competing to stay with them, and this destroys the market for anyone who isn't old money or doesn't have the pleasure of being purchased by an oil baron.
This is absolutely dreadful for football, and it's not a free market issue. It's not some injection of socialism to protect the old money. It's protecting football. It's protecting clubs from being bought out, bled dry until success isn't possible, and then thrown aside to die.
When you have a few clubs who are throwing every bit of cash possible at players, the price of players are inflated across the board. Sure, big players like United and Real Madrid can match and beat those prices because of their prestige, but mid-table clubs suddenly have no leverage to keep players when one good season makes players worth a retarded sum. So you have new money spending stupid cash to get on par and old money competing to stay with them, and this destroys the market for anyone who isn't old money or doesn't have the pleasure of being purchased by an oil baron.
This is absolutely dreadful for football, and it's not a free market issue. It's not some injection of socialism to protect the old money. It's protecting football. It's protecting clubs from being bought out, bled dry until success isn't possible, and then thrown aside to die.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:11 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Explain to me why my hypo is a bad example. I'm all ears.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:15 am to Dijkstra
quote:
Without reading through most of the thread, aren't you a PSG fan, as well?
FFP should, if they had an owner, be a boon for Newcastle. But I don't believe on restricting investment just for the sake of restricting investment and protecting the old guard from threats to their position.
quote:
And it's not a free market issue
Wrong. That's exactly what it is.
quote:
It's not some injection of socialism to protect the old money.
Wrong. That's exactly what it is.
quote:
It's protecting clubs from being bought out, bled dry until success isn't possible, and then thrown aside to die.
How many clubs have gone under in the last 20 years? Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers all still exist and now ironically are prevented from ever getting back to their former glory because of these rules!
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:15 am to Draconian Sanctions
I'm not asking you to cry, it is what it is... We didn't have to play ball, but we've chosen to... I'm just glad we now have owners, with a savvy business sense, to keep us somewhat relevant still.. Though the room for error has narrowed greatly, as we've seen this season...
But likewise, I'm not going to cry for any multi-billionaire who wants to buy a football club... Find another hobby
But likewise, I'm not going to cry for any multi-billionaire who wants to buy a football club... Find another hobby
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:31 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
So what? That's the free market at work.
So you're all for parity, because that's what you claim FFP brings. But you're also for monopolies? Thats why we have antitrust laws. Do you think monopolies are a good thing?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:34 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
So you're all for parity, because that's what you claim FFP brings. But you're also for monopolies? Thats why we have antitrust laws. Do you think monopolies are a good thing?
who said that I was for parity or monopolies?Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:37 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
who said that I was for parity or monopolies?
You've always said you were for parity. To shake up the established status quo. How entertaining the championship is, etc.
I don't truly think you're in favor of monopolies, but the point of antitrust is to prevent a corporation from exercising too much control over everyone else's money. The example was given how rich clubs have single handedly destroyed the market price of players for clubs everywhere and you said you didn't care about that.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:45 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
You've always said you were for parity. To shake up the established status quo. How entertaining the championship is, etc.
I'm for owners being allowed to invest their money the way they see fit. Whether that brings parity or not is incidental.
quote:
I don't truly think you're in favor of monopolies, but the point of antitrust is to prevent a corporation from exercising too much control over everyone else's money. The example was given how rich clubs have single handedly destroyed the market price of players for clubs everywhere and you said you didn't care about that.
A) You're the one who keeps saying that clubs are more than just corporations
B) They haven't destroyed the market price. Every club should be free to spend as much or as little as they want on players. That's each individual club's decision to make. That's the opposite of monopoly. The NFL is a monopoly.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 10:46 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:48 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Your whole stance and the way your present it is comical
Still waiting
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:50 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I'm for owners being allowed to invest their money the way they see fit. Whether that brings parity or not is incidental.
Haha I know for a fact you've brought up parity many times. I'm obviously not going through your previous posts to prove it so I'll give you that one.
quote:
A) You're the one who keeps saying that clubs are more than just corporations
....in the context of managing a club to the detriment of itself. Context is your friend.
quote:
B) They haven't destroyed the market price. Every club should be free to spend as much or as little as they want on players. That's each individual club's decision to make. That's the opposite of monopoly. The NFL is a monopoly.
They have, but we're not going to change each others' minds. And you're right it is the individual club's decision, but my point is, that decision effects how other clubs spend their money. Because of their transfer policy they dictate how much every other club has to spend for the same type of player.
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News