I’m aware of how debt works…and yes mortgages are awful but we all literally have no choice unless but to get one which ties us into essentially a lifetime of debt.
There already a small club, with a massive owner.
My response was to specific points such as LBO being immoral. Its like saying making a profit above 5% is immoral or paying anyone an annual wage over $50k is immoral.
What are you talking about?
At the old “it’s hypocrisy because they do other stuff too” routine, yeah it does. Because investing in Disney and Facebook is really comparable to what we’re talking about here isn’t it.I figured it would end there..
What hypocrisy is this? Who is working with these unsavoury organisations? Am I?
Not you ... but organizations you may have purchased from (oil & gas, household appliances) or are important to the stability of your nation (inflation, military, trade) may have done so, indirectly benefitting you. You can't have separate moral standards for different things.
Which perfectly encapsulates the point I made in previous post - its not really unsavory businesses that bother the average big club fan, its the fact that they can outspend them by a huge margin and for a sustained period that does. Thats not a principled stance to take.
I'm genuinely a Real Madrid fan (since 1998). Joined this forum since I'm also a huge Ronaldo fan-boy. Why would I be embarrassed about being a City/Pool fan, considering the last 5 years? And the fact that there are other City/Pool fans on this forum?
You see the irony here right? Your alternatives are based on what is good for United (historically successful, rich club). You obviously are not seeing what is good for Newcastle who's only alternative is to have a wealthy benefactor. There are many, many more Newcastles than Uniteds, all of whom deserve a chance to build something meaningful but can't because big clubs (especially those in big cities) keep taking their players.
haha
I get the point and that’s why the sensible thing to do would have been a wage cap which stops the richest clubs just blowing everyone out the water on salaries (and stops a lot of players/agents manoeuvring for transfers). You can’t reset time and somehow get all clubs to a level playing field though but what you can do is create a set of rules and enforce them, otherwise what’s the point?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Riola stated he was after 750K a week for Haaland when they were hawking themselves to prospective clubs around Europe. That didn't include agents fees, signing fees, image rights etc etc. It's the biggest ever deal in world football.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I despise City but unfortunately they sell well and mostly spend their money wisely.
Might be down to them not being on £100,000 per week contracts. Plus, it's easier to part with £5-15m than £25m+ or whatever United has set for Henderson.
Bore off mate
It's messed up isn't it.
You can be certain that it's totally legit, and not some dodgy deal to appear to legitimise income.
Are you accusing Southampton, Leeds, Gladbach, Sporting and Leverkusen of cooking their books to appear to have spent more on these players?
We wouldn't be allowed to sell our youth players, without some outcry.
Of course not, all of these deals are without any question at all.
Are you serious? This is a total strawman. There is no logical connection whatsoever between that stance and the arguments against allowing an unsavory regime to turn a Premier League club into a sportswashing operation, whatever you think about the latter. To make the connection you call for would not be principled, it would just be stupid.
I can't say I've heard of this Lavia guy, but I can say £12m-£15m for Bazunu is a bargain for Southampton. He'll be the best keeper in the league sooner rather than later.
In fairness, I am aware of his rep and he’s already an international. I’m not sure he has played for City yet though.
To be fair to them (both clubs) - Southampton did something similar with Livramento last summer and it was a huge success.
Yes city at least not dumb enough to waste money for players such as Lukaku,Morata like Chelsea did.That's why they are in top of the table but chelsea United struggle to catch them.
Livramento is a good comparison, but it was a third of the price at £5m, and he was a Chelsea player since he was a kid, Lavia (had to look him up) has only been at City two years - also Livramento is English, which usually means bigger transfer fees.
And it was 5m precisely because he had zero professional games to his name, but we also let them pay a little less because they agreed to a buyback clause. Guehi was a seasoned pro when we sold him compared to Livramento and this Lavia kid and he only went for about 6m more than Lavia. This kid must have been tearing it up at youth level for Southampton to spend that much on him.
Yeah, you've bought where you are but you do it the right way. You're the best run club in the world which is irritating.
He did, was voted Player of the Season in the U23 aged 17.
The only difference being Livramento only had a year left on his contract while Lavia had two.
How is asking for the equal treatment of all trade and investment between UK and any unsavoury regime, a strawman argument? Do you even understand what a strawman argument is?
he's going to be class, I'm quite annoyed we've bought Phillips for £45m when this lad could well be better in 2 years time, hopefully we've a decent buyback clause.
Because it's perfectly reasonable and logical to think the Premier League should, as a part of their approval procedures for prospective owners, apply a certain minimum standard for reputational risk and moral probity, without at the same time thinking that all trade and investment between the UK and unsavoury regimes should be banned. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever why thinking the former ought to imply also thinking the latter. Buying a football club is not like buying real estate, stocks or oil. This is why there are procedures for approving new owners.
Yes … this is called hypocrisy or perhaps two-facedness … when it suits you, a regime (generally brown skinned and with a system of governance different to yours) is an ally/investor but when it doesn’t suit you, they’re disgusting and should be a pariah.
