I was beaten by Azrael in the Draft and so it logically follows that he knows more about football than I do, especially since he did not resort to cheating (of which I am guilty, as has been demonstrated)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LSK, Zed <--> T.O. <--> ATL <--> ATX
Posts: 3,817
oh come on, Dan, fantasy football is fun! why else do you play a Man City save in FM every year?
but even more pertinently: EVERY team buys their way to success ... some clubs spend that money over several decades to get to the top, and spend some more to stay there ... and other teams don't have decades to waste, and spend the same money over a much shorter period of time ... same diff, IMO ...
oh come on, Dan, fantasy football is fun! why else do you play a Man City save in FM every year?
but even more pertinently: EVERY team buys their way to success ... some clubs spend that money over several decades to get to the top, and spend some more to stay there ... and other teams don't have decades to waste, and spend the same money over a much shorter period of time ... same diff, IMO ...
Yeah, money rules football, The only thing that makes the difference is that theres 2 kind of rich clubs, the ones that improve the club over the years and the ones whose got 70 Million € in one day and in the next one they spend everything on players. But in the end using money in a good/bad way doesnt matter, the rich will always have their teams on the top of their leagues/european competitions.
oh come on, Dan, fantasy football is fun! why else do you play a Man City save in FM every year?
Completely different. That isn't real money
Quote:
but even more pertinently: EVERY team buys their way to success ... some clubs spend that money over several decades to get to the top, and spend some more to stay there ... and other teams don't have decades to waste, and spend the same money over a much shorter period of time ... same diff, IMO ...
I was beaten by Azrael in the Draft and so it logically follows that he knows more about football than I do, especially since he did not resort to cheating (of which I am guilty, as has been demonstrated)
I was beaten by Azrael in the Draft and so it logically follows that he knows more about football than I do, especially since he did not resort to cheating (of which I am guilty, as has been demonstrated)
I was beaten by Azrael in the Draft and so it logically follows that he knows more about football than I do, especially since he did not resort to cheating (of which I am guilty, as has been demonstrated)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LSK, Zed <--> T.O. <--> ATL <--> ATX
Posts: 3,817
dude, they both have to be 'no', or they both have to be 'yes' ... otherwise, hypocrisy reigns ...
look, I'd rather not see the transfer market 'broken' by crazy deals ... but even if we look at fiscal responsibility, instant dividends is a cornerstone of investing ... bankrolling youth production is one thing, rapidly building a global brand is another ... in order to break the stranglehold of the traditional powerhouses, without fluking upon and, more importantly, retaining a generation of supremely gifted youth products, a club has to go the moneybags route ...
I have conflicting opinions, one is emotional, one is logical. As a robot, you don't understand this. The way Chelsea spent was very fun for me, and was essential for our success, but it was bad for the long-term of the sport, and I can appreciate that and would therefor not support Chelsea doing it again.
I actually like when some minnow surfaces with a fat cat that wants to buy the world. It makes the team and that league more exciting. Sure, after a while it gets annoying because it seems in only a few years they get to a level that other teams takes decades, but the football world isn't fair anyway. So it's hard to fault them for doing so.
Even then, there aren't nearly enough owners willing to splash cash at players to get them to rise at a higher level, so in a way there's a level of balance still.
Hate to sound Americanized, but the only way to fix that problem would be to have some sort of ceiling and salary cap, but that just wouldn't work in reality.
Az doesn't deny his hypocricy. If you could steal $4 billion dollars from the government and people of Zambia without getting caught, you would do it, but you don't think it's a good thing for someone to do.
And the salary cap can't work in soccer because of the cross border stuff. If one league instituted a salary cap, players would migrate to leagues where they could get paid better. You could try to have FIFA do it, but it's hard to imagine how this would be legal; in the NFL and NBA the players associations accepted a salary cap as part of the collective bargaining process, it wasn't just implemented.
In a way the sugar daddy clubs aren't bad for the sport. Rich investors put money into the sport , giving large sums to other clubs for their players, and then the receiving clubs can reinvest that into the club and youth development. If a rich businessman believes a soccer club is a good investment, the money brought in is good for the sport.
And who is to say man city (for example) is bad for league enjoyment. It pisses off the other rival clubs because of threat but theoretically it adds another strong club to the mix for stronger competition.
Linear Mode
