Martin Samuel: The plot to shackle City & Chelsea

[jrb]

Put it this way.

It probably isn't lost on them, but the the blind leading the blind springs to mind.

The more the cartel try and stich City up, the more Abu Dhabi, ADUG, Mansour, Khaldoon, etc, will respond.

The thing is, United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs aren't just taking on a football club, they are taking on a (very wealthy) nation.

OMG, that is a scary thought!

Can somebody email this post to the *Usual suspects*, just in case they haven't yet realized what they've started. Hopefully they will see sense and back down. If not......

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I think that what we're seeing here is a turning point for football occasioned by a massive culture clash. On the one hand the American shareholders of so-called "big clubs": on the other the "new" money of the Gulf and ex-Soviet Union. The Americans see sport as easy profits. In the USA what we see as regulation to keep sport competitive is actually to protect the investment and profitability of the owners' investment. The price of the "franchise" is fixed (and they do change hands), wages are capped and so on. Ticket prices are not controlled Kroenke has gone out of his way to say that he expects Arsenal to provide him with profits every year and Henry now says he only took over Liverpool because he received assurances that regulations limiting the investment he would be expected to make would be brought in sharpish. Investment must be left to car companies, investment banks, (Arab) airlines - but not Etihad, to provide profits which weren't to go into cheap tickets or player's wages. To prevent competition forcing them to do any of these things, and guaranteeing profits, especially from the CL - from a UEFA acting contrary to European law in all the negotiations - the Arabs and Slavs had to be nobbled. Good old Uncle Sam, determined to ruin football.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

I think that what we're seeing here is a turning point for football occasioned by a massive culture clash. On the one hand the American shareholders of so-called "big clubs": on the other the "new" money of the Gulf and ex-Soviet Union. The Americans see sport as easy profits. In the USA what we see as regulation to keep sport competitive is actually to protect the investment and profitability of the owners' investment. The price of the "franchise" is fixed (and they do change hands), wages are capped and so on. Ticket prices are not controlled Kroenke has gone out of his way to say that he expects Arsenal to provide him with profits every year and Henry now says he only took over Liverpool because he received assurances that regulations limiting the investment he would be expected to make would be brought in sharpish. Investment must be left to car companies, investment banks, (Arab) airlines - but not Etihad, to provide profits which weren't to go into cheap tickets or player's wages. To prevent competition forcing them to do any of these things, and guaranteeing profits, especially from the CL - from a UEFA acting contrary to European law in all the negotiations - the Arabs and Slavs had to be nobbled. Good old Uncle Sam, determined to ruin football.

well done that man

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I think that what we're seeing here is a turning point for football occasioned by a massive culture clash. On the one hand the American shareholders of so-called "big clubs": on the other the "new" money of the Gulf and ex-Soviet Union. The Americans see sport as easy profits. In the USA what we see as regulation to keep sport competitive is actually to protect the investment and profitability of the owners' investment. The price of the "franchise" is fixed (and they do change hands), wages are capped and so on. Ticket prices are not controlled Kroenke has gone out of his way to say that he expects Arsenal to provide him with profits every year and Henry now says he only took over Liverpool because he received assurances that regulations limiting the investment he would be expected to make would be brought in sharpish. Investment must be left to car companies, investment banks, (Arab) airlines - but not Etihad, to provide profits which weren't to go into cheap tickets or player's wages. To prevent competition forcing them to do any of these things, and guaranteeing profits, especially from the CL - from a UEFA acting contrary to European law in all the negotiations - the Arabs and Slavs had to be nobbled. Good old Uncle Sam, determined to ruin football.

Anti American in tone, but a fair assessment, I think. I've been trying to tell every red dipper I know that the Yanks are only in it for a money stream. Kroenke at Arse and a very worried Lerner at Villa, plus the obvious and very welcome parasites at the Rags, all amount to a certain American attitude to the Premier League.
Only a fucking Frenchman could come up with a scheme that punishes investors and encourages asset strippers.
FFP... Pffftt.

 

[somapop]

Apologies if this has already been posted (raft of comments on Martin Samuel's piece...quite amusing it is too):

First of all, thanks. Having written about financial fair play for years and been told variously that I’m obsessed, it’s a dry subject and nobody’s interested, it was slightly gratifying to press the word count button on the replies to the column and see the figure 41,438.
Gratifying and daunting because I’ve then got to read them all and then decide which ones to answer. Apologies if you’re not included here, but if you print each one of 40,000 plus words and reply in kind, well you know. We’ve all got jobs to go to. I’ve done my best. You’re not absent because we didn’t agree. As you will see, I’ve tried to include many of the dissenting arguments.
Strap yourselves in folks. We’re going to be here a while. Martin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ny-club-chance-success.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[TCIB]

Apologies if this has already been posted (raft of comments on Martin Samuel's piece...quite amusing it is too):

First of all, thanks. Having written about financial fair play for years and been told variously that I’m obsessed, it’s a dry subject and nobody’s interested, it was slightly gratifying to press the word count button on the replies to the column and see the figure 41,438.
Gratifying and daunting because I’ve then got to read them all and then decide which ones to answer. Apologies if you’re not included here, but if you print each one of 40,000 plus words and reply in kind, well you know. We’ve all got jobs to go to. I’ve done my best. You’re not absent because we didn’t agree. As you will see, I’ve tried to include many of the dissenting arguments.
Strap yourselves in folks. We’re going to be here a while. Martin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ny-club-chance-success.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

This is relevent to my interests.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I think that what we're seeing here is a turning point for football occasioned by a massive culture clash. On the one hand the American shareholders of so-called "big clubs": on the other the "new" money of the Gulf and ex-Soviet Union. The Americans see sport as easy profits. In the USA what we see as regulation to keep sport competitive is actually to protect the investment and profitability of the owners' investment. The price of the "franchise" is fixed (and they do change hands), wages are capped and so on. Ticket prices are not controlled Kroenke has gone out of his way to say that he expects Arsenal to provide him with profits every year and Henry now says he only took over Liverpool because he received assurances that regulations limiting the investment he would be expected to make would be brought in sharpish. Investment must be left to car companies, investment banks, (Arab) airlines - but not Etihad, to provide profits which weren't to go into cheap tickets or player's wages. To prevent competition forcing them to do any of these things, and guaranteeing profits, especially from the CL - from a UEFA acting contrary to European law in all the negotiations - the Arabs and Slavs had to be nobbled. Good old Uncle Sam, determined to ruin football.

Anti American in tone, but a fair assessment, I think. I've been trying to tell every red dipper I know that the Yanks are only in it for a money stream. Kroenke at Arse and a very worried Lerner at Villa, plus the obvious and very welcome parasites at the Rags, all amount to a certain American attitude to the Premier League.
Only a fucking Frenchman could come up with a scheme that punishes investors and encourages asset strippers.
FFP... Pffftt.

It's actually not meant to be anti-American. I know many Americans who watch, and love, American football (as distinct from soccer!), but they watch college football! Pro-football is popular and gets good crowds, but the think ticket prices are too high and pro "franchises" up and off sometimes. There is none of the loyalty English teams have - and the Sheikh is determined to make City a global brand with an unmistakably Mancunian heartbeat, which is something the American owners don't seem to grasp for all their lip service. I do believe Lerner at Villa is ver different from the others. He has invested in Villa and only syopped and drew in his horns when the recession hit him hard. Villa apparently don't support FFPR at all.

 

[LoveCity]

Apologies if this has already been posted (raft of comments on Martin Samuel's piece...quite amusing it is too):

First of all, thanks. Having written about financial fair play for years and been told variously that I’m obsessed, it’s a dry subject and nobody’s interested, it was slightly gratifying to press the word count button on the replies to the column and see the figure 41,438.
Gratifying and daunting because I’ve then got to read them all and then decide which ones to answer. Apologies if you’re not included here, but if you print each one of 40,000 plus words and reply in kind, well you know. We’ve all got jobs to go to. I’ve done my best. You’re not absent because we didn’t agree. As you will see, I’ve tried to include many of the dissenting arguments.
Strap yourselves in folks. We’re going to be here a while. Martin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ny-club-chance-success.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

This is absolutely brilliant and all Blues should click and read it.

 

[somapop]

Apologies if this has already been posted (raft of comments on Martin Samuel's piece...quite amusing it is too):

First of all, thanks. Having written about financial fair play for years and been told variously that I’m obsessed, it’s a dry subject and nobody’s interested, it was slightly gratifying to press the word count button on the replies to the column and see the figure 41,438.
Gratifying and daunting because I’ve then got to read them all and then decide which ones to answer. Apologies if you’re not included here, but if you print each one of 40,000 plus words and reply in kind, well you know. We’ve all got jobs to go to. I’ve done my best. You’re not absent because we didn’t agree. As you will see, I’ve tried to include many of the dissenting arguments.
Strap yourselves in folks. We’re going to be here a while. Martin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ny-club-chance-success.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

This is absolutely brilliant and all Blues should click and read it.

Fantastic responses from Samuels. Just a shame the Daily Heil get's all those click counts...mind you, there's a guarantee of some actress in her skivvies on a beach/in a shower/car park on the right hand side of the page...it's the dodgy uncle of tabloid newspaperwrongs.

 

[blink922]

What's the difference between financial and chemical doping, Martin? Czerwonadupa, Wembley.

Well, one is a process for cheating by the consumption of performance-enhancing drugs, which is illegal, the other is a catchphrase made up by idiots to explain the process of investing in a business to enable it to grow. Glad to be of assistance.

Absolutely hilarious (and true), well done Martin.