BlueMoonz1977
Well-Known Member
Is this the same Javier Tebas, the one who supports Real Madrid and tax avoidance and much more...……………….
https://ronaldo.com/football-news/javier-tebas-an-in-depth-look-at-la-ligas-corrupt-president/
- Status
Is this the same Javier Tebas, the one who supports Real Madrid and tax avoidance and much more...……………….
https://ronaldo.com/football-news/javier-tebas-an-in-depth-look-at-la-ligas-corrupt-president/
Ah apparently he was a shit footballer and merely a cult hero amongst city fans, would never be considered in a team of the decade. I was trying to allow for their biased perspectives.
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 51,377
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Harris himself has pretty much advocated the silence=guilt line.
Wexford Blue
Well-Known Member
He has a nice soft question for Mo Farah there, when he could be asking him about any one of the many recent 'controversies'. Guess the cutting edge journalism applies only to City. What a guy...
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
More or less. And he has a go at Tebas, so can’t be all bad!!
bluwes
Well-Known Member
People still use fax machines ??
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 51,377
David De Gea likes this.
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Some of the articles appearing in the media in the wake of City's historic achievements this season have been more concerned with the problems facing football in England than we have given them credit for. I think we are justified in asking why these problems become such a matter for concern when City rewrite the record books rather than United, and when Liverpool get 97 points to win nout, but even the notorious Jonathan Wilson article did point out that "It's not just City; it's not just England". Everywhere trophies are won by the same small club of clubs and, in fact, England was really the only one of the major five leagues to see a genuinely thrilling title race this season. The problem is the enormous gulf in wealth and income between the elite and the rest. We point out that United and Chelsea are still massively in debt and Liverpool are reluctant to see any discussion of their debts so we have little idea of the real picture. But below the elite the problem is getting much worse and we have seen that Bolton is the latest club whose existence is threatened. Football needs investment desperately, as City have shown, but it needs a whole raft of measures to deal with the paradox of more money than ever coming into the game but most clubs getting poorer and poorer. The answer is most certainly NOT a European super league nor is it punishing City for "financial irregularities" or simply for its "oil money" as the stupid brigade from other team's fans seem to want.
What really irritates me about the media's discussions of these problems though is that they never attempt to analyse the role of the football authorities and clubs - UEFA, the FA, Manchester United and the other major leagues and clubs - in causing these problems. In the 1980s top flight clubs began the process of concentrating finance in their own hands and increasing revenue, ostensibly to compete better with the super rich owners of the top European clubs, through keeping the gate receipts and allowing shirt sponsorship, then through the formation of the PL and the TV deals with Sky. But it was only when UEFA, and the FA abdicated their role as governing bodies and became commercial rivals of the clubs through the exploitation of sponsorship and the development of the European Cup into the champions league that the real damage was done. The stratification of English football accelerated - the premier league was the only place to be and at the top of the PL was a small group of increasingly rich clubs which won all the trophies and competed with the small group of increasingly rich European clubs.
UEFA and the PL, though, had made English clubs especially attractive to investors; Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool to those who wished to cream of part of the large revenues success in the 80s and 90s had brought but also from oligarchs looking for glory as in the case of Chelsea and more so to "sleeping" (half dead?) giants like City where investment could really change things. Such new money for some "new" clubs really threatened the community of interest between the football authorities and the clubs which were used to winning all the prizes - they had got rich together. And so to FFP which actually encourages the cartel to increase debt levels, bans investment in clubs unless the investor is actually an asset stripper and makes no effort to deal with any of the real problems facing football in Europe. Only the PL has been an exception, with City, Chelsea and Leicester having kept the establishment out since 2013, but this at a time when the plight of most clubs has deteriorated alarmingly. It is a sign of the times that we celebrate, rather than condemn, the championship play off as "the richest game in football". Soon even - or especially - the CL will be concerned only with history (post 1990s of course). Football will be all about the protection of the establishment, the rest is financial irregularity.
What really irritates me about the media's discussions of these problems though is that they never attempt to analyse the role of the football authorities and clubs - UEFA, the FA, Manchester United and the other major leagues and clubs - in causing these problems. In the 1980s top flight clubs began the process of concentrating finance in their own hands and increasing revenue, ostensibly to compete better with the super rich owners of the top European clubs, through keeping the gate receipts and allowing shirt sponsorship, then through the formation of the PL and the TV deals with Sky. But it was only when UEFA, and the FA abdicated their role as governing bodies and became commercial rivals of the clubs through the exploitation of sponsorship and the development of the European Cup into the champions league that the real damage was done. The stratification of English football accelerated - the premier league was the only place to be and at the top of the PL was a small group of increasingly rich clubs which won all the trophies and competed with the small group of increasingly rich European clubs.
UEFA and the PL, though, had made English clubs especially attractive to investors; Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool to those who wished to cream of part of the large revenues success in the 80s and 90s had brought but also from oligarchs looking for glory as in the case of Chelsea and more so to "sleeping" (half dead?) giants like City where investment could really change things. Such new money for some "new" clubs really threatened the community of interest between the football authorities and the clubs which were used to winning all the prizes - they had got rich together. And so to FFP which actually encourages the cartel to increase debt levels, bans investment in clubs unless the investor is actually an asset stripper and makes no effort to deal with any of the real problems facing football in Europe. Only the PL has been an exception, with City, Chelsea and Leicester having kept the establishment out since 2013, but this at a time when the plight of most clubs has deteriorated alarmingly. It is a sign of the times that we celebrate, rather than condemn, the championship play off as "the richest game in football". Soon even - or especially - the CL will be concerned only with history (post 1990s of course). Football will be all about the protection of the establishment, the rest is financial irregularity.
- Status