The most sickening CL semi-finalists ever?

[Siorac]

Ac Milan had several league titles and European trophies before Berlusconi.
They are not viewed in the same way as PSG, city and Chelsea partly for that reason.

Secondly, as mentioned these clubs have been funded by entire countries.

Thirdly you may wanna recheck how Roman made his money.

Okay, so previous success excludes you from plastic status, even if your later success is down to being the plaything of a wealthy businessman. So, essentially, the complaint seems to be that these upstarts have the nerve usurp the places of the old aristocracy.

As I said, the whole "they are funded by nation states" arguments rings hollow because Roman Abramovich and Chelsea - who also had a league title and a couple of Cup Winners' Cup before him, by the way - are also treated as plastic and the enemies of football and whatnot.

Yes, Abramovich acquired his wealth in a dodgy way. So did Berlusconi. So did a lot of other billionaires. Was John Henry Davies an upstanding, moral businessman always? I don't know.

 

[JPRouve]

With good reason. Plenty of clubs have benefited from rich benefactors over the years. None of them have ever out-spent all the other clubs in the league to such a huge extent, in such a short space of time. The jump in transfer spending triggered by his involvement was completely unprecedented.

I have had that conversation in the past and I'm still baffled by people making that point. The jump was directly linked to the jump in TV rights. The 2007/2008 Skypsort/Setanta deal was 700m superior to the previous one which represents a 167% increase, iirc the jump in spendings happened in 2006/2007 after the deal was announced. You then see similar jumps after every single new signed TV deals.

 

[LoneStar]

It was bound to happen sooner than later. And it's only going to get worse from here. These oil clubs are becoming very successful, which will likely attract more of such similar investments into other clubs.

It'll realistically eliminate chances of any club which is not funded well, to win anything. If a player is offered a chance to play for big money for a big name manager and a very good chance of winning trophies, they would choose that option.

FIFA has shown that it will do nothing about this. Only a matter of time before such clubs pop up in all the major leagues and take over.

 

[Siorac]

I think Chelsea are a bit of a special case in that their private owner has also funnelled (most of) the wealth of a nation into his football club.

Every billionaire businessman does exactly that. Again, Silvio Berlusconi had extensive connections within Italy's political elite which played a massive part in his success.

These threads always go the same way: people are railing against the 'new money' who dare to challenge the 'old money'. Instead of realising that the problem is the excessive amount of money and the widening wealth gap in football. Something that yes, the old money contributes to just as much as the new money. In fact, they're holding UEFA to ransom with the threat of a super league to squeeze out even more money from the system, and exclude even more clubs from even thinking about competing with them.

I'm all for outlawing nation states owning football clubs - just do something about the rest of it, too.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

This is my last post of the day as a newbie, so don't be surprised if I don't respond. You might want to look at the amount of money pouring in from TV revenue and the spending of Barcelona and Real Madrid if you want to assign blame for player transfer and wage inflation. Roman hit the league at the right time to be able to increase Chelsea's level of players. I think there are far bigger reasons for player transfer and wage inflation, Roman just makes a nice little target that just so happens to be a team that is in the same league and dominated for an extended period. Maybe we can climb back to the top?

Even though Real Madrid inflated player prices before Roman came in to the league, there is an overwhelming amount of Man Utd fans that are saying they want them to win the CL this year, I wonder why that is?

The spending spree in Roman's first season was unprecedented, vast and absolutely changed the league forever. Roman makes a nice little target because he's a billionaire gangster who bought a football club and changed football through his largesse. You shouldn't feel sorry for him.

 

[Crustanoid]

Yep same. I don't mind PSG winning it tbh even though I dislike them for the same reasons as City. It wouldn't be rubbed in our faces as much, wouldn't potentially be part of 4 trophies too.

Also I dislike anyone potentially getting closer to our 3 European Cups so I wouldn't want Chelsea to get a 2nd either. Plus they've had a piss easy Quarter and that Madrid side is very beatable.

I agree with your reasoning.

However, I don’t think anyone would ever equate Chelsea’s 2 to our 3 in parallel, because of how they acquired them. That is, if they won, 2 of our trophies are worth more and more credible than two of theirs.

Additionally, if City get a quadruple it’s also so much more hollow and anyone with any sense outside of their five fans, will not rate it anywhere near our treble because the context is completely different.

It’s basically like monopoly, where one player just helps themselves to the bank continuously, wins, then prances around like a total prick and everyone else laughs at them or giant tumble weeds fly past.

 

[antk]

Manchester United's own foundation, as all pseudo-respectable centuries-old english football club, is built on the crude exploitation of overworked, underpaid factory workers in the late 1800's, early 1900's by the rich. Many players of those clubs were actually dying before their 30s while the owners were lobbying and conspiring to crush all efforts of unionising.

I have no sympathy for Qatar, any slave-ridden conservative regime, or for the record any of their facilitators in western countries (hi Sarkozy). I'd also easily agree that crimes, offenses, human right abuses committed in the present have more cultural significance than events from 150 years ago. However, it would be great if people didn't invent arbitrary moral frontiers to pretend their support of their favorite emanation of oppression is inherently rightful.

That's without even taking into account that the implication of such threads often is a weird classist, meritocratic worldview, where the people and organisations dominating the sport and society somehow deserve to be here, as if they didn't cheat and bully on their way to the top.

 

[JPRouve]

The spending spree in Roman's first season was unprecedented, vast and absolutely changed the league forever. Roman makes a nice little target because he's a billionaire gangster who bought a football club and changed football through his largesse. You shouldn't feel sorry for him.

Not really, Milan and Inter spent 150m respectively in 1999 and 2000. In the early 90s Milan beat the world records twice in the same summer.

 

[Siorac]

With good reason. Plenty of clubs have benefited from rich benefactors over the years. None of them have ever out-spent all the other clubs in the league to such a huge extent, in such a short space of time. The jump in transfer spending triggered by his involvement was completely unprecedented.

Was it though?

United broke the British transfer record TWICE in the summer of 2001. And then once more in 2002.

According to transfermarkt, United paid €42m for Verón in 2001. The next highest transfer that summer was Robbie Keane to Leeds United. For €16m. Except actually I'm lying because obviously the next highest transfer fee paid that summer was that of Van Nistelrooy, €28.5m.

So, fast forward to 2002. United had finished third despite all that spending because of an incredibly leaky defence. So the club dropped €46m on Rio Ferdinand. Next highest transfer fee that summer? El Hadji Diouf (hahh) and Nicolas Anelka, to Liverpool and Manchester City, respectively, for €15m.

This idea that Chelsea somehow broke the transfer market is a nice comfortable narrative that doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Especially in a European context, considering the money that Spanish and Italian clubs spent on players in the late 90s/early 00s. It's the increasing revenue from TV deals, the expansion of the Champions League, and the increasingly aggressive monetisation and commercialisation of the game that broke spending, and sent everything into a spiral that is still ongoing.

 

[Siorac]

Not really, Milan and Inter spent 150m respectively in 1999 and 2000. In the early 90s Milan beat the world records twice in the same summer.

And none of the players Chelsea bought in that first summer cost anywhere near as much as Verón (for United) or Rio Ferdinand. Let alone something like the fee paid for Zidane by Madrid.

 

[JPRouve]

Was it though?

United broke the British transfer record TWICE in the summer of 2001. And then once more in 2002.

According to transfermarkt, United paid €42m for Verón in 2001. The next highest transfer that summer was Robbie Keane to Leeds United. For €16m. Except actually I'm lying because obviously the next highest transfer fee paid that summer was that of Van Nistelrooy, €28.5m.

So, fast forward to 2002. United had finished third despite all that spending because of an incredibly leaky defence. So the club dropped €46m on Rio Ferdinand. Next highest transfer fee that summer? El Hadji Diouf (hahh) and Nicolas Anelka, to Liverpool and Manchester City, respectively, for €15m.

This idea that Chelsea somehow broke the transfer market is a nice comfortable narrative that doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Especially in a European context, considering the money that Spanish and Italian clubs spent on players in the late 90s/early 00s. It's the increasing revenue from TV deals, the expansion of the Champions League, and the increasingly aggressive monetisation and commercialisation of the game that broke spending, and sent everything into a spiral that is still ongoing.

If people want to talk about football being "destroyed", we can talk about its commercialization and the increasing gap between leagues TV rights. A club like Ajax will never be a powerhouse again, they still produce quality players at a high clip but they can't compete with other leagues top teams when it comes to wages.

 

[JPRouve]

And none of the players Chelsea bought in that first summer cost anywhere near as much as Verón (for United) or Rio Ferdinand. Let alone something like the fee paid for Zidane by Madrid.

The funny thing is that Inter and Lazio paid far more for Crespo than Chelsea did for Crespo or Drogba.

 

[OleBoiii]

This idea that Chelsea somehow broke the transfer market is a nice comfortable narrative that doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Chelsea spent over 300 million in 2 seasons. I don't think any other club up until that point had spent nearly as much, even adjusted for inflation. And they continued to spent a lot for several seasons after this as well. United was in a transitional period and spent more than normal, but even then Chelsea spent about 3 times as much.

Especially in a European context, considering the money that Spanish and Italian clubs spent on players in the late 90s/early 00s.

These teams were already big clubs in their respective countries, though? Mostly through merit? That makes it a bit different, imo.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Not really, Milan and Inter spent 150m respectively in 1999 and 2000. In the early 90s Milan beat the world records twice in the same summer.

In the English league specifically. The phrase used by the poster was "broke the league".

 

[Nickosaur]

In order of preference:

Real Madrid > > > PSG > > > > > > > Chelsea > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > City

 

[JJ12]

I probably want Real or Chelsea to win it.

I can’t stand either.

 

[JPRouve]

In the English league specifically. The phrase used by the poster was "broke the league".

It didn't change a thing for the PL. The increase of spending in the league matched the increase in the TV rights money.

 

[He'sRaldo]

@UnitedSofa

We're discussing different things. Perhaps "sugar daddies" was a poor choice of words from my part, but the idea was to lump the likes of City, PSG and Chelsea in a very different group than the likes of United, Bayern and Liverpool.

Money matters in football, just like it matters in most other parts of life. I'm not a fan of this but it's an inescapable fact for the time being. But there is a pretty big difference between being largely self-made and going from zero to hero overnight based solely on money suddenly getting pumped into a random club. I don't think sports should be that way.

There will always be powerhouses that inevitably draw in bigger talent and thus creates a cycle of remaining at the top and earning more and more money. But as long as those powerhouses are created from initial success, then at least there is an element of fairness involved. And it's not like powerhouses are guaranteed to remain that way forever or that new powerhouses can't be built from the ground up. But it takes time, obviously.

Seeing reasonings like this in this thread contrasted with the reaction to Dortmund who try to grow organically and don't want to sell their best players, is ironic to say the least.

 

[Siorac]

Chelsea spent over 300 million in 2 seasons. I don't think any other club up until that point had spent nearly as much, even adjusted for inflation. And they continued to spent a lot for several seasons after this as well. United was in a transitional period and spent more than normal, but even then Chelsea spent about 3 times as much.



These teams were already big clubs in their respective countries, though? Mostly through merit? That makes it a bit different, imo.

No, it doesn't make it a bit different. And this is exactly what I'm saying. You can't say that Chelsea spending twice as much as anyone else breaks the league but United doing so doesn't because... because reasons? Because United were more successful in the 1960s than Chelsea? Vodafone or Nike deciding to spend a lot of money on a football club because it furthers their goals = merit, apparently. A random billionaire deciding to spend a lot of money on a football club because it furthers his goals = breaks the game, plastic club. It makes no sense.

Fans of the biggest clubs in football are all laissez-faire capitalists right up until the moment some private investment happens to land at their rivals. Then that particular, specific thing MUST be regulated.

 

[Siorac]

Seeing reasonings like this in this thread contrasted with the reaction to Dortmund who try to grow organically and don't want to sell their best players, is ironic to say the least.

Yeah, that's another of my pet peeve. It basically all comes down to "those smaller clubs should know their place". Their place being happily supplying players to the biggest clubs at convenient prices, and never even attempting to compete.

 

[OleBoiii]

No, it doesn't make it a bit different. And this is exactly what I'm saying. You can't say that Chelsea spending twice as much as anyone else breaks the league but United doing so doesn't because... because reasons? Because United were more successful in the 1960s than Chelsea? Vodafone or Nike deciding to spend a lot of money on a football club because it furthers their goals = merit, apparently. A random billionaire deciding to spend a lot of money on a football club because it furthers his goals = breaks the game, plastic club. It makes no sense.

Why did the big brands choose United, Liverpool and Arsenal? Pure dumb luck? Or is it maybe a combination of merit and entertainment value?

Fans of the biggest clubs in football are all laissez-faire capitalists right up until the moment some private investment happens to land at their rivals. Then that particular, specific thing MUST be regulated.

I'm actually a social democrat. And I'd love a stricter spending/salary ceiling, even if it was to affect my club negatively(provided it's the same rules for all other teams, obviously).

 

[JPRouve]

Why did the big brands choose United, Liverpool and Arsenal? Pure dumb luck? Or is it maybe a combination of merit and entertainment value?

Luck is never a solid argument but there are reasons that aren't as sexy as people may want to believe. The first thing is only clubs from big cities get real money from sponsors because these clubs will by default have more eyes on them regardless of there current results or merit which explains why a tire fire of a franchise like the Knicks are marketable. Then there two things, timing and having competent people in your marketing department, timing is key because if your success timeline matches the moment where a company are after a new "billboard" then you can get big bucks, if the timing is wrong you may get very little.

 

[Kentonio]

Chelsea spent over 300 million in 2 seasons. I don't think any other club up until that point had spent nearly as much, even adjusted for inflation. And they continued to spent a lot for several seasons after this as well. United was in a transitional period and spent more than normal, but even then Chelsea spent about 3 times as much.

Ok, and lets consider the context. Abramovich bought Chelsea in July 2003. Were Chelsea a 'no-mark' club at that point as people like to claim?

2002-2003: 4th place finish, qualified for CL
2001-2002: 6th place finish, qualified for EC
2000-2001: 6th place finish, qualified for EC
1999-2000: 5th place finish, reached the QF of the CL and qualified for EC.
1998-1999: 3th place finish, qualified for CL

The year before we'd just won the EUFA Cup Winners Cup, 2 FA Cups between 1996-2000 and an EFL.

So what happened after Abramovich poured in his millions?

2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 Manchester United
2007–08 Manchester United
2008–09 Manchester United
2009–10 Chelsea
2010–11 Manchester United
2011–12 Manchester City
2012–13 Manchester United

So in the 10 years after Roman apparently 'broke football' Chelsea won exactly 3 PL titles to United's 5. More than anything, that should answer once and for all the question of how far ahead of the pack United were in terms of resources.

When Chelsea were bought they weren't a nothing club, they were a club in a similar kind of position to Spurs today (although a lot more financially unstable, and a lot better at actually winning things). Back then like today the likelihood of a team in that position seriously competing against the biggest teams was just not realistic without a massive financial push. Even with that push United still dominated the domestic league for another decade.

 

[adexkola]

Seeing reasonings like this in this thread contrasted with the reaction to Dortmund who try to grow organically and don't want to sell their best players, is ironic to say the least.

Very ironic.

 

[Dancfc]

Ok, and lets consider the context. Abramovich bought Chelsea in July 2003. Were Chelsea a 'no-mark' club at that point as people like to claim?

2002-2003: 4th place finish, qualified for CL
2001-2002: 6th place finish, qualified for EC
2000-2001: 6th place finish, qualified for EC
1999-2000: 5th place finish, reached the QF of the CL and qualified for EC.
1998-1999: 3th place finish, qualified for CL

The year before we'd just won the EUFA Cup Winners Cup, 2 FA Cups between 1996-2000 and an EFL.

So what happened after Abramovich poured in his millions?

2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 Manchester United
2007–08 Manchester United
2008–09 Manchester United
2009–10 Chelsea
2010–11 Manchester United
2011–12 Manchester City
2012–13 Manchester United

So in the 10 years after Roman apparently 'broke football' Chelsea won exactly 3 PL titles to United's 5. More than anything, that should answer once and for all the question of how far ahead of the pack United were in terms of resources.

When Chelsea were bought they weren't a nothing club, they were a club in a similar kind of position to Spurs today (although a lot more financially unstable, and a lot better at actually winning things). Back then like today the likelihood of a team in that position seriously competing against the biggest teams was just not realistic without a massive financial push. Even with that push United still dominated the domestic league for another decade.

Not to mention in the pre Roman Zola years we won more than all the current teams all bar us and City in the same time frame upto the present day (although Liverpool's two being the big two offset's that in fairness but still).

 

[Synco]

Yeah, that's another of my pet peeve. It basically all comes down to "those smaller clubs should know their place". Their place being happily supplying players to the biggest clubs at convenient prices, and never even attempting to compete.

For which they are then disdained and denigrated as well (feeder club, nothing club, farmer league). Couldn't make it up

 

[Cast5]

Seeing reasonings like this in this thread contrasted with the reaction to Dortmund who try to grow organically and don't want to sell their best players, is ironic to say the least.

You think some United fans don’t like Dortmund because they don’t want to sell their best players?

 

[Dave Smith]

Yeah, that's another of my pet peeve. It basically all comes down to "those smaller clubs should know their place". Their place being happily supplying players to the biggest clubs at convenient prices, and never even attempting to compete.

Indeed. The same people who are complaining are probably the same people who thought FFP was a good idea as it essentially allowed the top clubs to create a cartel system.

I said it earlier but some of the comments on here are just plain embarrassing and up there with the worst of RAWK. I wouldn't mind but Utd have still been able to operate at the top of the market more or less despite the inflow of cash and when SAF was still here he was able to keep on top of things owing to his genius, so it can be done. The problem at Utd however is having that dip sh*t Woody in charge of recruitment and the club being more focused on 'growing revenue' and ensuring dividend payments to the Glazer's than team building; although the revenue growth is needed admittedly.

Furthermore, the Dippers on here piping up also seem to forget that the Pools money the Moores put in during their halcyon days which was essentially equivalent to a Bersco or Abramovich at Milan and Chelsea. However, I will give them some pass on that as being able to do joined up thinking isn't a strength of theirs.

 

[11101]

Ac Milan had several league titles and European trophies before Berlusconi.
They are not viewed in the same way as PSG, city and Chelsea partly for that reason.

Secondly, as mentioned these clubs have been funded by entire countries.

Thirdly you may wanna recheck how Roman made his money.

Situations like Milan go back to the past era of the clubs dominating the local landscape almost like the church in some respects. Berlusconi is born and raised in Milan along with his whole family, and funded the club he grew up with. Same as Juventus, Real, and most of the other examples of old money clubs. If not local businessmen, then local councils.

Big difference in that and some despot flying half way around the world and landing their plane in a random city in an attempt to whitewash their regime.

 

[Dave Smith]

Situations like Milan go back to the past era of the clubs dominating the local landscape almost like the church in some respects. Berlusconi is born and raised in Milan along with his whole family, and funded the club he grew up with. Same as Juventus, Real, and most of the other examples of old money clubs. If not local businessmen, then local councils.

Big difference in that and some despot flying half way around the world and landing their plane in a random city in an attempt to whitewash their regime.

Any better example of a despot being in control of a side than Franco at Madrid?

 

[OleBoiii]

Were Chelsea a 'no-mark' club at that point as people like to claim?

I don't think most people who know a little bit about English football claimed that you were a small club. But do you disagree with the notion that had it not been for the massive spending that came with Roman, then you'd probably not have a single major title(PL or CL) to your name up until now(not talking about pre PL era, obviously)?

So in the 10 years after Roman apparently 'broke football' Chelsea won exactly 3 PL titles to United's 5.

I certainly never claimed that Chelsea broke football. You may have kick-started a new "trend", though. And while I don't expect any sympathy as a United supporter, I'm pretty sure that Arsenal and Liverpool also would have won more had it not been for you guys and City. So from the perspective of some fans, you certainly broke football for them.

 

[giorno]

Any better example of a despot being in control of a side than Franco at Madrid?

Franco was never in control of real madrid. He used real madrid for PR for Spain, not unlike what Qatar/Abu Dhabi are doing with psg/city, and the club allowed him to do it, but that's where it stops

 

[OleBoiii]

Luck is never a solid argument but there are reasons that aren't as sexy as people may want to believe. The first thing is only clubs from big cities get real money from sponsors because these clubs will by default have more eyes on them regardless of there current results or merit which explains why a tire fire of a franchise like the Knicks are marketable. Then there two things, timing and having competent people in your marketing department, timing is key because if your success timeline matches the moment where a company are after a new "billboard" then you can get big bucks, if the timing is wrong you may get very little.

It mostly came down to being successful at the right time, imo. At least in England.

And when we say "timing", we're talking about a period that spans at least 10-15 years. Liverpool were not very successful in the 90's and early 2000's, but the large fan base they built in the 70's and 80's still made them attractive for many big brands.

 

[Trophy Room]

It’s City’s year quite unfortunately. I think they’ll get the quad.

 

[FatTails]

I find it mind-boggling that so many people think this is about money. “Oh but United spent money too”.

Money has almost nothing to do with this, in and of itself. It’s the source and nature of the money. Yes, United have spent a big portion of their revenue, but that is in no way comparable to City and PSG.

City and PSG, by comparison, have been propped up by money coming from outside of football and it is particularly coming from tyrannical regimes, at least one of which is directly implicated in funding extremist groups, and all that money is made from one of the worst industries that is hurtling life on this planet towards its collapse.

But somehow we are supposed to say that is ok because:

• United also spend money.
• “Oh just enjoy the game”
• CAS said it’s ok
• If it wasn’t for dirty money, the European elite will continue to win everything.

The last point has some merit, but Qatar and UAE are not the solution. Things like wage ceilings, transfer constraints, rules against the hoarding of talent, smart distribution of TV deals, and such measures, are how you make it more possible for the upcoming teams to challenge the incumbents rather than injecting dirty money into the game and being ok with sports washing.

 

[JPRouve]

It mostly came down to being successful at the right time, imo. At least in England.

And when we say "timing", we're talking about a period that spans at least 10-15 years. Liverpool were not very successful in the 90's and early 2000's, but the large fan base they built in the 70's and 80's still made them attractive for many big brands.

Being successful isn't enough and has never been. It really doesn't just come down to being successful but a range of things that I have mentioned. Also I don't follow your second sentence United and Liverpool were at the top of marketability in the 80s, globally, your point about the 90s and 2000s isn't one and is in fact a massive issue and the main issue in modern football. Basically the model is the one of first served but in a system where resources are limited and won't go to the most deserving but to the first to get it, forever.
United, Liverpool and Arsenal are examples of that they started their aggressive marketization in the late 70s-early-80s and from that point never had to actually share the top spots because they are globally recognizable and companies have no point looking for new "billboards", United and Liverpool give them exactly what they want which is exposure. The same applies to Barcelona, Real Madrid, Milan or Bayern, no one can contest their spots no matter how good they will be as long as these clubs are visible which today in the case of football means CL spots and global TV deals.

And your opinion is wrong because United were one of the wealthiest and most marketable clubs in the 70s and 80s, now have a look at United's UEFA coefficient during that period of time, it's frightening, United weren't successful at all and their historic records weren't exceptional either with 1 CL and 7 PL, many clubs on the continent that are now laughed at had far better records at the time, Ajax, Feyenoord or Benfica for example had been more successful.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I was working late yesterday and really had no desire to watch the CL anyway - so when I checked the Caf around midnight and saw this thread riding high...I thought Liverpool had pulled a grand comeback.

So, feck you @OleBoiii for scaring the shit out of me.

Therein lies your answer too, though - no, it obviously isn't the most sickening scenario.

Well, not for a United fan anyway.

As for...who?

Don't really care.

But I see no reason why I should want another CL for Madrid (they have more than enough of 'em). Nor do I see any reason why I should want Chelsea to win another one (they're fine with the one, utterly shabby one they've got). And City - well, everything they do is tainted and so forth, but still. Also, out of pettiness, I don't want Pep to win the CL with City.

So - PSG it is. Tainted and a bit pointless (like City), and even less relevant in the grand scheme of things. The only real downside to them winning it would be the insufferable Poch fan club gloating - but hey, this is clearly a lesser evil scenario if there ever was one.

PSG > Real Madrid = Chelsea > City

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Ideal scenario, for me: PSG win the CL but feck up the domestic league in style (thus reducing the gloat factor from the Poch fan club).

ETA PSG win the CL in the most shabby/scrappy fashion imaginable. Thus further reducing the gloat factor.

 

[JPRouve]

Ideal scenario, for me: PSG win the CL but feck up the domestic league in style (thus reducing the gloat factor from the Poch fan club).

So your football life revolves around Pochettino and his fans?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

So your football life revolves around Pochettino and his fans?

Heh, no - I wouldn't say that.

But I do find his fans extremely annoying. And this is - after all - a specific scenario involving only four teams.

And: I still want PSG to win it.

And: It's not about Poch - it's exclusively about his fans.

And: If anything (in terms of being obsessed), my true obsession is - and has always been - Liverpool. The fact that they're (thank feck) out of the competition means a lot more to me than anything else.