Plastic Fantastic.
The most sickening CL semi-finalists ever?
- Thread starter OleBoiii
- Start date
This and this.
Like what? How do you think italian teams were financed in the Serie A's glory days of the late 70s- early 2000s? How do you think the likes of PSG(Borelli/Canal Plus) or Marseille(Bernard Tapie) did it in the late 80s-early 90s? Historically football is built around patronage at all levels of the game, only a few clubs have been highly commercialized from an early day and for the vast majority of the time, only a few clubs actually had access to lucrative sponsors because the game wasn't as globalized as it is today.
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.
Surely you see the difference between private individuals using personal wealth to fund a football club and nation states doing the same?
None of these are good point. First "traditional" clubs have been caught cheating, Barcelona and Real Madrid more than once in the last decade, so it's a bit rich to point the finger at others or act as if the FFP is the only rule that should be respected. And secondly what makes you believe that you can judge whether someone loves football or not? Or act as if the likes of Berlusconi only bankrolled football club due to their love for football, it was also a PR move that gave him a support that propelled him to high level politics.
They're accused of enabling the flow of funds to those groups through tolerance and are suspected of financing those groups. Whilst there is no 'proof' of the latter, please excuse my cynicism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40246734
Regardless. That Qatar are, like all nations, involved in the murky world of geopolitics, it's exactly the reason that they shouldn't be allowed to launder their image through western cultural institutions. No matter how you slice and dice it they have considerable blood on their hands. At the best they tolerate terrorist groups that kill people on our streets.
Last edited:
I get why United fans might feel like this
But I don't get why they don't understand that to most neutrals, even more so if they support lower league clubs, they simply don't differentiate between rich powerful clubs on the basis of how they 'earn' their money
If anyone thinks many neutrals see a difference between United under SAF dominating and splashing the cash and City under Pep splashing the cash, they are deluded. No doubt United fans may argue why those neutrals should feel differently, but the fact is, they don't and they won't
It's similar to when United fans talk about transfer fees and say something along the lines of 'yes we spent a lot on players but the money city spends is insane.' As if quantum somehow changes principle.
The champions league has been expanded in size so that the big clubs in each country have a close to guaranteed spot in the CL each season, which in turn gives them close to guaranteed big income, which in turn helps them keep their spots at the top of football. To think that neutrals differentiate between these powerful, bullying, dominating clubs on the basis of how much money their respective owner does or doesn't put in is laughable.
I think I prefer PSG to win it really. I've had enough of Real and definitely don't wanna see City of Chelsea lifting it...
I don’t think you can speak for many neutrals really, I know plenty of neutrals that don’t like the way clubs like City and PSG have been invested in.
Hope Real wins it.
Clearly not always: if a sufficient amount of time goes by, sugar daddy-funded clubs can become legitimate members of the traditional elite. See AC Milan, whose 'proper club' credentials were confirmed in this very thread.
I do see the difference but the vast majority of people who call clubs 'plastic' don't seem to. Chelsea, funded by a private individual using personal wealth, are derided just as much as PSG are.
Once again, if you believe that nation states are buying football success because of a love of the sport, that's your right as a human being to believe what you want, but you're emperically wrong.
It's a strategic, deliberate attempt to mainpulate the geoplitical landscape in their favour.
I also agree that it's objecitonable that Madrid and Barca cheated the system and got away with it. I don't like that. I don't like that City and PSG do it. Saying that criminals have gotten away with crimes in the past as a reason to not enforce today's laws is pretty stupid imo.
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.
This couldn't be further from the truth. I've talked to a lot of football fans over the years and they definitely differentiate between United and City(for instance). And that's true whether they support Hull, Roma or Liverpool. And beyond my anecdotal evidence, all you have to do is spent some time on the football subreddits and then you'll quite often see people complain quite specifically about clubs like PSG and City. Of course posters there hate on United and Liverpool, but that is not for the same reasons they hate on City and PSG.
I tend to agree that neutrals don't - which is infuriating - because United were not the biggest spenders under SAF, despite the historic/media narrative. He was outspent in the 90's, outspent in the 00's and outspent for his final title.
Liverpool are out, that’s always a bonus. City and PSG will eventually win CL soon so just accept it, I’d rather concentrate on United being good enough to stop them rather than hating on them. I for one am looking for to City v PSG.
Should I make a difference when the people having an issue don't? Chelsea are casually added to that list and every club that they don't support has something wrong.
Clear difference.
I don't think you can speak for all neutrals. Infact I don't think neutral is the right term.
Most casual football viewers who know little, or care less, about where clubs have come from won't care. That's more accurate.
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.
To be wrong I would have to make such a claim, in fact you keep attributing me things that I haven't said or believe. PSG and City got sanctioned like a multitude of other clubs for similar infractions, you may not agree with the sanctions but that's your problem because the same people who made those moronic rules, created those moronic sanctions.
Now if you want to know what I actually think, I have no issue with sugar daddies, I also have no issue with the idea of creating a system where sugar daddies aren't allowed and needed. But I have an issue with people pretending that sugar daddies are a new thing when it's the traditional model and I have an issue with the ECA and big clubs doing everything to create and maintain a cartel.
Edit: Also I should add that QTA didn't purchase PSG the reasons you mentioned. They bought it for finance reasons, their goal is to diversify and in this particualr case the target was Accor and long story short, that's why Sarkozy and Bazin were key actors in the sale of the club, two board members of AccorHotels.
Last edited:
Believe it or not most people don’t care the way you do.
Chelsea were more or less the dawn of a new era. They exploded in a very aggressive fashion, which is why they're as derided as they are. That said, even Chelsea's spend has it's limits and it's largely on the whim of what Roman feels like. There's something particularly sinister and anti-sport about the nation-state based clubs.
First of all most people do differentiate. Everyone knows how the clubs are being financed or how much money has been spent, etc. Of course this is not going to be brought up in every game or by every pundit, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t differentiate.
And while Pep’s spending is the highest in England and among the highest or even the highest in Europe, United under SAF were outspent several times even in England, let alone in Europe.
Having said that, despite all this of course people have preferences. Even “neutral” people on this forum don’t want city to win because they love Abu Dhabi but because they like Pep.
Me for example, even if PSG played Arsenal - a “proper club” and not as strong a rival historically as Liverpool from United’s point of view” - I would want PSG to win. Because I don’t like Arsenal. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t differentiate between the two.
And yet people act like Roman has broken the league. It is strange that I really only see Man Utd and Arsenal act like somehow they are disadvantaged now. Man Utd is not disadvantaged. The club has major resources. It is just not currently run to go after titles. It is run to make profit for the Glazers.
Liverpool despise Chelsea for how they have gone about things too.
I am aboard the PSG train, else it is Real.
Same here. feck Madrid and a 14th CL for them. Obviously rather them than Chelsea or City.
Would this be the same Arsenal who's early Wenger success was also down to a "sugar daddy"? And that's before we get into the fact their biggest sliding doors moment was a promotion they "achieved" when they didn't even finish in the promotion places.
I get why City fans might feel like this. I imagine it helps you sleep at night and compensate for the fact that your club is now the absolute antithesis of everything you once identified with.
Most neutral fans do indeed differentiate between "sugar daddy" and reputation laundering clubs and the other dominant clubs. It is laughable that you think they don't. Example: observe how Bayern Munich are despised compared to the manner in which RBL are hated.
If you think people don't see the difference between reputation laundering oppressive regimes turning moderately successful teams (in some cases not even moderately successful) into dominant forces then I'm afraid it is you who are deluded. You're right: quantum doesn't change the principle and it is the principle that is the issue.
We may very well be owned by uber capitalist pigs, we are certainly an example of the ugliness of football commercialisation and we are undoubtedly protectionist of our position and exploitative of that power: but we are not PSG or City or Chelsea and football fans do absolutely see a difference. Witness the support for Real in this thread and it's not because there's a big love of Franco's bastards on this forum.
I must admit, I spent a day on their forum just reading before a match with us and never went back. It was a strange place.
Obviously all proper football fans would plump for Real over the other 3, regardless of how disgusting a club Real is.
And if not them then I'd rather Chelsea over the other two.
And if not them then I'd rather Chelsea over the other two.
Yea but people who care about football care.
Whatever they may have done in terms of being a “sugar daddy” it doesn’t even come close to Roman’s insane spending.
But I actually couldn’t care less nowadays about Arsenal apart from that I still don’t want them to win a big trophy.
At least someone else shares my passion for disliking Arsenal.
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.
Because he did.
He took over a team on the brink of relegation and stacked it with players that were on level with top clubs. That costs serious money to do all at one time. I don't see what he did as anything different than super wealthy owners do in the NFL, NBA, or other major sports. I think it is becoming more rare for a single owner to invest so much in a team. Now it is groups of owners. Football was starting to generate a lot of money through TV rights and he hit it at the right time. I like that he is about winning titles and not the bottom line.
Chelsea and Dippers have had issue ever since their board tried to hint heavily that it was the Headhunters that were the cause of Heysel. One of the many times the Dippers have tried to shirk the blame and/or play the victim card.
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?