Joined
·
8,506 Posts
A question for the fans of teams in Serie A and Liga and other European leagues.Would you welcome a billionare in your club if your answer is yes.Or no say why you like them or not
Foregin billionares in Europes top clubs.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Joined
·
1,454 Posts
I'm not a fan of a La Liga or Serie A club, but I think the way football is structured, if it's a choice between a billionaire or unprecidented borrowing, most fans would prefer the first option. In the long term, I think something needs to be done to make the game more competitive and linked less to the amount you have to spend, but since that's not happening any time soon, a billionaire is the best option for fans of any clubs who are trying to bridge the gap to the top clubs.
Joined
·
3,422 Posts
I feel if the man knows football why not as he will bring any club stability. The problems start when they want success in a season etc. We need for chairman like Randy Lerner who are realistic and are football fans.
I think to reinvogorate world football, there needs to be a curb on how much clubs can spend
I think to reinvogorate world football, there needs to be a curb on how much clubs can spend
Joined
·
14,528 Posts
Well the billionaires target EPL clubs only. I mean clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona are IMPOSSIBLE to acquire. Then you have Milan who are untouchable, though there is a possiblity that it could be bought, I really doubt Berlu would sell it.
La Liga and Serie A aren't money makers like EPL. In La Liga or Serie A only the big clubs make those huge profits. I mean Villareal and Seville make their money from selling players and making excellent purchases. Nothing got to do with them having huge money to spend around.
La Liga and Serie A aren't money makers like EPL. In La Liga or Serie A only the big clubs make those huge profits. I mean Villareal and Seville make their money from selling players and making excellent purchases. Nothing got to do with them having huge money to spend around.
Joined
·
5,398 Posts
First, in continental Europe a big deal of clubs are not privately owned and as such can't be bought (if I'm not mistaken in Germany private owner can have only 49% of the club, the other 51% procent are "owned" by club members, this membership is open for public and attained by annual membership fee). In Spain Barcelona, Athletic, Osasuna and Real Madrid are not (and CAN'T BE) privately owned either.
Second, in an English system, which allows full private ownership, I don't get what's the problem with foreign private owners. Money doesn't have nationality, and I don't see why this would upset anyone. What I personally find "unfair" is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of clubs, which should in my humble opinion remain/be "owned" by fans (as it is in large deal of continental clubs). But when Englishmen accept the idea that "their" club is not "their" but can be bought by some bozo with a sole purpose of personally making money with this transaction, it's stupid to oppose that a foreigner shouldn't buy it also.
What I find more unnatural then Arab/American owners, are the clubs which field mostly foreigners. If I would be a fan of an English club, I would rather prefer the club to promote as many local boys as possible, to keep the connection with the environment club exists in (not necessarily the nation, but the city or at least the region), than worry about a foreign owner. And don't say it can't be done in England, in the last game against the Atletico Barcelona had 7 starters who came from our youth academy. But what you get is this: Arsenal has more players born in Abidjan than in London. And: which club gives the most players for the Spanish NT, judging from the last selection? It's not Barcelona, Villarreal or Valencia, who manage three each, it's not Real (because its players are crap, btw), it's Liverpool with 5 players.
Second, in an English system, which allows full private ownership, I don't get what's the problem with foreign private owners. Money doesn't have nationality, and I don't see why this would upset anyone. What I personally find "unfair" is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of clubs, which should in my humble opinion remain/be "owned" by fans (as it is in large deal of continental clubs). But when Englishmen accept the idea that "their" club is not "their" but can be bought by some bozo with a sole purpose of personally making money with this transaction, it's stupid to oppose that a foreigner shouldn't buy it also.
What I find more unnatural then Arab/American owners, are the clubs which field mostly foreigners. If I would be a fan of an English club, I would rather prefer the club to promote as many local boys as possible, to keep the connection with the environment club exists in (not necessarily the nation, but the city or at least the region), than worry about a foreign owner. And don't say it can't be done in England, in the last game against the Atletico Barcelona had 7 starters who came from our youth academy. But what you get is this: Arsenal has more players born in Abidjan than in London. And: which club gives the most players for the Spanish NT, judging from the last selection? It's not Barcelona, Villarreal or Valencia, who manage three each, it's not Real (because its players are crap, btw), it's Liverpool with 5 players.
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
a rich sugar uncle spending lots of money can be the start of a long term reign or the start of a deep deep fall. It all depends... If the club is financially depending on the one persons money, the club faces delay of execution but will collapse the moment the rich investor is no longer there, ran out of money or loses interest. Look at what happened with Gretna for example, they totally depended on one persons money and as soon as this person decided to stop spending, the club totally collapsed. This fate is inevittable for any club whose survival depend on one person spending money in the club ; the sole exceptions being
a) if the club, during his spending periods, becomes so interesting and brandable that other parties become interested and would take over the financial duties as soon as the rich investor withdraws
b) if we talk about a team of rich investors rather than 1 guy. In this case the club is not depending on the goodwill of one person, so if one of the rich investors withdraws the club can still rely on the money of the other ones involved.
Foreign or local investor does not bother me, I am not thinking in terms of races of nationalities. I would, as a fan, want the investor to have a sincere interest in the club and not just see it as an investment. But as long as that sincere interest is there, then I would not mind if the rich investor lives around the corner of the stadium or lives somewhere far away in Siberia or Uruguay... But I would not like my club to become dependant on one single persons budget, because that is a guaranteed disaster. A team of foreign investors is a different thing, but depending on one person is never a healthy situation.
Other than that, to make football more competitive we need to introduce salary caps. That way rich clubs lose their transfer market monopoly as they cannot offer more expensive contracts than smaller clubs from other leagues. At that front, Europe should take an example in the MLS soccer league of North America (USA and Canada). They have salary caps, and this has helped the MLS to remain competitive and avoid one or two clubs to dominate the league. If you see that they have had a lot of different teams winning trophies in a relatively short period of time, the salary cap clearly seems to have worked to avoid one team from becoming dominant. I think setting a maximum salary should happen in Europe as well, after all the salaries paid now are beyond absurd. To make a living by practising your hobby is already a privilege, to make millions a weak is simply ridiculous. So when it comes to this aspect of professional football, maybe Europe does have something to learn from the US of A (as long as we dont also adopt their franchise structure and such)
a) if the club, during his spending periods, becomes so interesting and brandable that other parties become interested and would take over the financial duties as soon as the rich investor withdraws
b) if we talk about a team of rich investors rather than 1 guy. In this case the club is not depending on the goodwill of one person, so if one of the rich investors withdraws the club can still rely on the money of the other ones involved.
Foreign or local investor does not bother me, I am not thinking in terms of races of nationalities. I would, as a fan, want the investor to have a sincere interest in the club and not just see it as an investment. But as long as that sincere interest is there, then I would not mind if the rich investor lives around the corner of the stadium or lives somewhere far away in Siberia or Uruguay... But I would not like my club to become dependant on one single persons budget, because that is a guaranteed disaster. A team of foreign investors is a different thing, but depending on one person is never a healthy situation.
Other than that, to make football more competitive we need to introduce salary caps. That way rich clubs lose their transfer market monopoly as they cannot offer more expensive contracts than smaller clubs from other leagues. At that front, Europe should take an example in the MLS soccer league of North America (USA and Canada). They have salary caps, and this has helped the MLS to remain competitive and avoid one or two clubs to dominate the league. If you see that they have had a lot of different teams winning trophies in a relatively short period of time, the salary cap clearly seems to have worked to avoid one team from becoming dominant. I think setting a maximum salary should happen in Europe as well, after all the salaries paid now are beyond absurd. To make a living by practising your hobby is already a privilege, to make millions a weak is simply ridiculous. So when it comes to this aspect of professional football, maybe Europe does have something to learn from the US of A (as long as we dont also adopt their franchise structure and such)
Joined
·
5,398 Posts
Yeah, right. We should follow the MLS example. Yeah, right. That's the way to go.
I just wonder, why do they really have salary cup. Maybe ALSO to prevent the rich owners to pay more money to the players, which are making them rich, in the first instance.
And I always dislike the comments about players earning to much money. Again, I dislike more all the leeches which are making billions from the game by not kicking the ball in the lifetime (from owners, agents and all the other bloodsuckers), which salaries are never questioned. Players get high salaries, because everybody else gets even more money from the game. Think about FIFA, having a budget higher than majority of states on this planet.
I just wonder, why do they really have salary cup. Maybe ALSO to prevent the rich owners to pay more money to the players, which are making them rich, in the first instance.
And I always dislike the comments about players earning to much money. Again, I dislike more all the leeches which are making billions from the game by not kicking the ball in the lifetime (from owners, agents and all the other bloodsuckers), which salaries are never questioned. Players get high salaries, because everybody else gets even more money from the game. Think about FIFA, having a budget higher than majority of states on this planet.
Joined
·
1,454 Posts
The thing is that when they're bought by genuinely mega-rich people like Abramovich or the Abu Dhabi group, it is obviously not for the purpose of making money. If you have $1trillion to invest, there are far easier ways of making a profit than buying a football club. In fact, I couldn't think of a less profitable business for an investor.
I think there are several possible reasons for a mega-rich person to buy a football club. The first is simple: they might actually just be football fans. The second is to raise their profile as a business, and opening up other business opportunities (inviting potential investors to a party on a yaught now become inviting them to come to your football club and watch a game). And the third is what a lot of business people do. Once they've basically done all they can do in a particular field, they want a new challenge, that's not necessarily specifically business related. Bill Gates has his charity work, Richard Branson has his balloons, and Roman Abramovich has his football club. And I think this is the one most likely to be true, with the other factors merely being beneficial perks of owning a football club.
Joined
·
125 Posts
I do the think also that salary cup for player is the very bad idea.
Explain : the people do the say "is scandal for player of do the earn 10 million euro in year just for play the football!! For exwample policeman is do the earn of 30.000 euro BUT he do the risk life of him!!!!"
Is stupid populist say because:
1) the policeman is not risk the many life -----> 90% of work = control people on street and do the report for show boss he is not eat the donut. I do the see of it!!
2) the football player is do the give very pure emotion for the million of fans = can compare with the Picasso emotion! Is same emotion!! Most pure emotion, like cocaine but free + pure! BUT the picasso is the very rich, yes? is no problem for you yes? Soooooo is no problem for the Kakà and Messi is also rich (+ must not pay tax o nemotion i think!)
BUT i do the hope of Abramovich and the arab man become Lehman brothers:cecco:
Explain : the people do the say "is scandal for player of do the earn 10 million euro in year just for play the football!! For exwample policeman is do the earn of 30.000 euro BUT he do the risk life of him!!!!"
Is stupid populist say because:
1) the policeman is not risk the many life -----> 90% of work = control people on street and do the report for show boss he is not eat the donut. I do the see of it!!
2) the football player is do the give very pure emotion for the million of fans = can compare with the Picasso emotion! Is same emotion!! Most pure emotion, like cocaine but free + pure! BUT the picasso is the very rich, yes? is no problem for you yes? Soooooo is no problem for the Kakà and Messi is also rich (+ must not pay tax o nemotion i think!)
BUT i do the hope of Abramovich and the arab man become Lehman brothers:cecco:
Well i think in the States the salary cap in some sports should be higher than it is in Europe so whats the point in that ? And football is underrated in the money-making scheme. Its ridiculous that football players who are playing the most popular game in the whole wide world are still not the top earners in sports. So in case of salaries there is a long way for them to rise.
Agree on the fact that football club will not make you rich cause other clubs probably wont take out the profits but will reinvest them. So taking out the profit will make your club simply uncompetitive comparing to other clubs. The rule here is that all you earn, is usually put back into the club. But for big corporations owning a football club is a good way to market oneself.
Agree on the fact that football club will not make you rich cause other clubs probably wont take out the profits but will reinvest them. So taking out the profit will make your club simply uncompetitive comparing to other clubs. The rule here is that all you earn, is usually put back into the club. But for big corporations owning a football club is a good way to market oneself.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Join the discussion
