|
DickEmery posted:Almost makes one feel sorry for them. 340 million over 5 years would've made some team. 3 ronaldos, 2 joleon lescots and a reasonable keeper from a former soviet balkan nation. And you would still have change left to fill in the midfield with SPL/Championship players.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2010 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Vando posted:Spurs are having their pick of Pompey players because Pompey still owe them money I still don't get how you can sell spurs all your good players and still owe them money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Man City? Man City want 4th. They are floating there levelish with liverpool. Liverpool goes up by 6 points if pompey folds. I can see them paying 20m a piece for those 3.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:P sure Arsenal already meets the requirements. So does Stoke
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 09:27
|
|
|
I would think that getting banners on TV might be more effective than a boycott purely because with a team like united there are more than enough plastics to fill the gaps.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 03:18
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Not defending him, I think he's a poo poo (as is pretty much anyone with that amount of money). But there are worse shits out there that you haven't spent near as much time getting angry about as Abramovic. He is also complicit in the absolute bullshit currently going on in Russia like killing off any reporter with the temerity to say something Putin doesn't like. Oligarchs who don't support Putin end up like Khordorkovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky In terms of sheer moral bankruptcy I would put most of the Oligarchs ahead of Shinawatra.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
Stoke is pretty nice as long as you don't leave the HAnley high street, or set up camp in a rural pub. It is a bit dire around the stadium though which is why it probably has such a bad rep.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Why don't West Ham fans start supporting Colchester? why don't Man United fans start supporting Bolton? Sure I support Stoke, but at least I don't support Vale.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1258847/P-Diddy-lining-shock-bid-Crystal-Palace.html Looking forward to P Diddy accidentally signing Matt Bellamy instead of Craig Bellamy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 12:08
|
|
|
Last time I checked Stoke were making a profit as well and all our debt is owned by a diehard fan/owner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 08:13
|
|
|
So which underwriter are Goldman and Sachs working with to make money off by liverpool collapsing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
Jose posted:Being better than any English keeper isn't an amazing achievement though. I mean, even Ireland have a far better keeper than us. So do australia <3 Schwarzer
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
partipo posted:i don't pay much attention to management but that's just loving twisted. nobody who supports one club should be allowed to buy a different club. Not everyone can be owned by a lifelong fan with a internet betting empire 
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
Posting my advance support for Stoke's EUFA Champions League bid in 2011/12 thanks to sound rules put in place by Mr Platini.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
^^^ Our revenue doesn't need to improve because we are currently turning a profit.MoPZiG posted:Won't the new spending rules just entrench the superclubs further? Unless Stoke have an untapped gold mine of overseas fans and sponsoships how can they be expected to grow and maintain success without a significant bit of financial investment and/or risk. Where we stand currently is turning a small profit, with a small (15m) ammount of interest free debt owed to the owner Peter Coates (as JB says he has a stake in BET365 which is pretty much a family company run by his daughter iirc). Coates has repeatedly said the money is there to buy players if we need to but obviously we aren't currently looking like we need to. Since this new rule looks at profit and loss primarily, clubs like City and Chelsea where the owner sunsidises the club to a large degree will fail to qualify if they don't start making changes to the way they work. Stoke would qualify under these rules purely because the club is trying to stay at a level that won't make them do a pompey/sunderland/leeds.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:La liga already broke off from the rest of the Spanish leagues for this upcoming season. Why would Barca and Real agree to a new deal where the money the currently get is given to other teams in the league? It is basically killing the leagues competitiveness outside the top 2 but why do they care?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Suqit posted:While I agree its a bad thing for the league as a whole to have separate deals for each team, the league is extremely competitive outside the top 2, and also within the top two. But maybe that is what you meant? I was kinda getting at the idea that in the EPL a sky 4 team can get a scare from a midtable side, and isn't usually comfortable away to the better midtable sides. How often would Barca/Real be realistically worried about not getting the 3 points away to somebody like Real Sociodad? The current TV deal system allows EPL sides that aren't behemoths to buy a good enough level of player to not be completely awful (usually). I guess a fan of a team that has no realistic chance of winning anything has a different viewpoint though. I can understand the lopsided TV deals allowing your team to buy talent that makes for entertaining games makes you more interested in the current system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:It's not much different to me. In the EPL this last season, you had 3 people fighting for 4th, but it didn't matter who got 1st/2nd/3rd (to me). With Real Madrid, and Barça, sure, they're going to come 1/2, but because you know that, losing a single game is a HORRIBLE result, because you absolutely have to come in 1st or you've failed. Then there's also the competition for the 3rd CL spot. So either league, you're focuse on who's first, and who's in the last CL spot. I was hinting at games like Stoke, Bolton or Fulham away for the top 4. There is a pretty good chance you will only get a point and a reasonable but not large chance you will drop 3. the 20 point margin in La Liga suggests that there isn't ever games like that for Barca and Real and I would think the biggest reason is the TV deals causing the smaller teams to be unable to buy qualityu players or hold onto them when they turn good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:Actually if they really hate Liverpool they'd find out all of that stuff was true, sit on it, let him buy the club, and then release the information. Best possible outcome for the neutral who loves a little insanity is that and investor comes and buys Pool from RBS so no profit for the yanks, which then turns into a massive court case from the rangers collapse, meanwhile the guy who bought the club turns out to have less financial backing than Al Fahim.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 10:43
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:The only other thing he could have meant is that buying masses of players didn't help them win titles, which is simply ridiculous. Although I'll grant you that Liverpool hasn't won the EPL in many years. You really are that stupid. Leveraged buyouts by yank cunts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Stim posted:I actually do a lot of research into this as part of my degree. I really can't think of a city in the UK which has failed in their large scale regeneration schemes which mix new housing with retail and leisure. Sometimes there's a few bumps but it always delivers in the long run. There's really no reason at all why City's project would fail. It's really clutching at straws to think that it might. Kelvin Grove QUT surrounds and Sanctuary Cove are 2 that have happened recently in Brisbane that I can recall. Build nice flats and business space, then nobody moves in because its close to a council estate and the crime rates are massive. Trying to gentrify a shithole is a huge gamble.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:poo poo, was Sanctuary Cove not a success? I spent some time there when I visited Australia because my ex-girlfriend's parents were having a ridiculous mansion built there. Are they now bitterly regretting? If they like golf and it is a holiday home then its probably not a bad buy. If it was an investment or a place to live full time it was an atrocious buy. The people who rent shop space are on heavily reduced rental due to the abject lack of customers on any day not conducive to golf. Basically rich old guy with hot young bimbo goes and plays golf with the boys while bimbo goes around the shops buying stupid trinkets. The people there refer to it as cemetery cove because its already dead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 14:30
|
|
|
Flayer posted:Obviously I meant I don't agree with the managers whining about how 50% is too much. Yaya Toure and his Arab paymaster can gently caress off if they don't like it. Or just live somewhere without such ludicrous tax laws. I am all for socialised healthcare and national insurance to ensure everybody gets a certain minimum standard and we don't end up with what goes on in the US, but expecting some insane wealth redistribution system because somebody earns more than you is crazy. Even if they are dodging some tax you are lucky they are paying more than VAT, rates and their MOT discs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:50% top end marginal is historically incredibly low, and our income tax (like America's) is only this low thanks to Thatcher/Reagan in the 80's. If you really want to scare away everybody who can possibly afford to leave then go for it I guess? All that will happen is even more tax burden will be forced onto those unable to afford the ways of avoiding the taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 08:20
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:This is such a monumentally retarded (albeit common) argument that I am stunned, STUNNED I SAY No, the higher the taxes go for the people who currently aren't totally avoiding them, the more likely they are to behave the same way the very rich currently do. if you could save 2000 quid a year by paying and accountant instead of HMRC then you would, because 2 grand is a lot of money to throw away. The super rich were a lost cause a long time ago, trying to drop the brackets to pick up lower strata or increasing the current levels is just going to screw over the middle classes. It probably sounds great to a maybe 20k a year earning student to go have a class war and redistribute mummy and daddy's superanuation to some students at your college but as soon as you want to actually have a nice bank account of your own you will feel differently. Taxation is a system to ensure there is good education, healthcare, roads ect for people who can't afford to provide their own. Taxing the gently caress out of people to offset government mismanagement so that the levels are met is idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 08:45
|
|
|
Do you want to be taxed for 90% of your earnings?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 09:31
|
|
|
Yeah I understand how marginal tax rates work Outre. If the teams are really making that sort of money from football then shouldn't a fair whack be going to the people that punters are paying to watch?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 10:09
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:exactly What if you are say going to see Chelsea play against AC Milan but don't want to sit in the
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
The ticket priority should go: People with season tickets to their clubs > Members of the club's supporters group > general admitance. There shouldn't really be a higher cost for the general admitance but UEFA need to kill football somehow so its better off there. Do we even know what percentage of the tickets are being given to the clubs to sell?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
I only like kebabs that have been hurled 40 meters through the air.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 15:11
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:People who cant afford Stamford Bridge tickets can go to Hell! ...or Fulham For the purpose of your post hell is West Ham?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Given that even West Ham happily charge £50 a time for decent games and still fill their stadium, I doubt Arsenal are close to hitting the limit yet. You will still fill a stadium but it won't be full of people who genuinely give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
TomSellek posted:Why do F1 drivers get paid so much? Dangerous and very highly skilled.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Biggy_ posted:QPR must have some galactico signings lined up Either that or corporate boxes filled with shoes.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
c0burn posted:A bunch of glory hunters calling us disgraceful is pretty priceless. You are disgraceful for trying to even frame it like that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
c0burn posted:Not really. Do you pay for Sky/ESPN? Among my tv packages (I have a few to be able to ensure I do actually get to watch stoke play) I have the Australian FoxSports package which is the Australian branch of Newcorp's pay-tv system. I really don't see what that has to do with anything though. I called you disgraceful because the people who really care about this are the other 16 teams in the EPL who never win anything. That a American Chelsea fan or a Manc from London also feels this way is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
ydaetskcoR posted:Now I want to know who that awfully performing, high wage paying English club is. Either Newcastle or Villa in that time period.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2011 11:16
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's money paid to football clubs for showing their matches on TV. You'll note that some clubs get many more live matches than others. Merit payments are prize money for final finishing place in the league. 22 million between first and last isn't too bad. I am sure some of the bottom tier Spanish and Italian sides would kill for 30m a year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Besides, my point isn't about the unfairness of Sky money distribution, it's about the irony of a Manchester United fan - a club that has broken the British transfer record four times since the Premier league era began - getting upset because the club next door has deeper pockets and they don't want to (or, more accurately, can't) play 'spend all the money' anymore. Because they don't have all the money. The issue I think ninpo has is that United, while they did splooge around cash like a drunken sailor in a 2 for 1 dockyard whorehouse, it at least came from footballing revenue. Have they had somebody like Jack Walker come in and say 'Here is all the money, splooge it and win my child'?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What's the difference? I don't think there really is one, I was just trying to get across ninpo's ideas as I understand them. I do think if there were less jack walkers and roman abramovichs then football wages and transfer fees probably wouldn't have ballooned as far as they had.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2011 23:01
|
|