Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:

Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5

(Mahrez 7)
(Silva 17, 44 & 58)
(Foden 32)

The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.

Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.

These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.

There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.

RM

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:44:36 p.m. UTC-5, Real Mardin wrote:
> Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
>
>
> Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
>
> (Mahrez 7)
> (Silva 17, 44 & 58)
> (Foden 32)
>
>
> The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
>
> Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
>
> These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
>
> There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.
>
> RM

Yeah, I am sorta watching this in the background as I make dinner. Already 3-0 in the first 30 minutes and you cant see Lisboa making this interesting. Though I predict Salzburg to upset Bayern tomorrow.

Like it or not, a Super league of some sort will happen in our lifetime.

On 2022-02-15 15:44, Real Mardin wrote:
> Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
>
>
> Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
>
> (Mahrez 7)
> (Silva 17, 44 & 58)
> (Foden 32)
>
>
> The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
>
> Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
>
> These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
>
> There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.

I would not get quite so carried away just yet. Score was lop-sided but
the bounces went City's way in that game. And they are probably the
best side in the world right now.
In spite of that they lost two games in the group stage - to Leipzig and
PSG. (though it is true they already had the group won when they played
Leipzig and lost - but that fact was thanks to Bruges who took points
off PSG and Leipzig.)

You are always going to get the odd game with a lop sided score every
now and then (like some of Barca's losses in recent years).
>
> RM

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 4:35:55 AM UTC, MH wrote:
> On 2022-02-15 15:44, Real Mardin wrote:
> > Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
> >
> >
> > Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
> >
> > (Mahrez 7)
> > (Silva 17, 44 & 58)
> > (Foden 32)
> >
> >
> > The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
> >
> > Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
> >
> > These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
> >
> > There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.
> I would not get quite so carried away just yet. Score was lop-sided but
> the bounces went City's way in that game. And they are probably the
> best side in the world right now.
> In spite of that they lost two games in the group stage - to Leipzig and
> PSG. (though it is true they already had the group won when they played
> Leipzig and lost - but that fact was thanks to Bruges who took points
> off PSG and Leipzig.)
>
> You are always going to get the odd game with a lop sided score every
> now and then (like some of Barca's losses in recent years).
> >
> > RM

Champions League results from this season:

Manchester City 6 - RB Leipzig 3

PSG 4 - Club Brugge 1

Porto 1 - Liverpool 5

Borussia Dortmund 5 - Besiktas 0

Shakhtar Donetsk 0 - Real Madrid 5

Bayern Munich 5 - Benfica 2

Benfica 0 - Bayern Munich 4

Bayern Munich 5 - Dynamo Kyiv 0

Chelsea 4 - Malmo 0

It's not the odd result, it might be a reflection of the failings of the wider football World as much as the shortcomings of the Champions League itself but there is too much disparity in these results to be good for the game..

It's not just the fact that the big teams from England / Germany / Spain win these games by such large margins, it's that we've come to expect them to.. Something needs to change and I'm not entirely sure the forthcoming change to a "Swiss" system has all the answers.

RM

On 2022-02-15, Binder Dundat <dundat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:44:36 p.m. UTC-5, Real Mardin wrote:
>> Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
>> Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
>>{...}
>> The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the
>> Champions League has become. {...}
>
> Yeah, I am sorta watching this in the background as I make dinner.
> Already 3-0 in the first 30 minutes and you cant see Lisboa making
> this interesting.

We've been down like that to both Bochum and Gladbach this season...

> Though I predict Salzburg to upset Bayern tomorrow.

Maybe, likely not...

> Like it or not, a Super league of some sort will happen in our
> lifetime.

Maybe, likely not... There's still enough powerful opposition.

--
ciao, Bruce

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:16:11 AM UTC-5, Real Mardin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 4:35:55 AM UTC, MH wrote:
> > On 2022-02-15 15:44, Real Mardin wrote:
> > > Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
> > >
> > > (Mahrez 7)
> > > (Silva 17, 44 & 58)
> > > (Foden 32)
> > >
> > >
> > > The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
> > >
> > > Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
> > >
> > > These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
> > >
> > > There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.
> > I would not get quite so carried away just yet. Score was lop-sided but
> > the bounces went City's way in that game. And they are probably the
> > best side in the world right now.
> > In spite of that they lost two games in the group stage - to Leipzig and
> > PSG. (though it is true they already had the group won when they played
> > Leipzig and lost - but that fact was thanks to Bruges who took points
> > off PSG and Leipzig.)
> >
> > You are always going to get the odd game with a lop sided score every
> > now and then (like some of Barca's losses in recent years).
> > >
> > > RM
> Champions League results from this season:
>
> Manchester City 6 - RB Leipzig 3
>
> PSG 4 - Club Brugge 1
>
> Porto 1 - Liverpool 5
>
> Borussia Dortmund 5 - Besiktas 0
>
> Shakhtar Donetsk 0 - Real Madrid 5
>
> Bayern Munich 5 - Benfica 2
>
> Benfica 0 - Bayern Munich 4
>
> Bayern Munich 5 - Dynamo Kyiv 0
>
> Chelsea 4 - Malmo 0
>
>
> It's not the odd result, it might be a reflection of the failings of the wider football World as much as the shortcomings of the Champions League itself but there is too much disparity in these results to be good for the game.

There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.

Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top level. Only one of those clubs has won the CL.

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
..
> There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, shrewd
> transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall within that
> broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
>
> Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top level.
> Only one of those clubs has won the CL.

That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.

The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The Glazers
are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately

Also, the main reason why a SuperLeague won't be forming is the one we've seen: it already exists in form of the EPL. The English teams
have seen (or learned the hard way) they have nothing to gain from such an idea, and without them there's nothing 'Super' about such a
league.

Ciao,
Werner

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> .
> > There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, shrewd
> > transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall within that
> > broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
> >
> > Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top level.
> > Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
> That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
> foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
> in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
> vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
> of achieving such a level as they have.

I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently) dependent on such funds.

>
> The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The Glazers
> are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
> as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
> improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately

The widening gap doesn't bother me so much as long as, again, it's through legitimate means. No club has a divine right to be a contender for the CL title, not even former giants like Benfica or Red Star Belgrade. That's too idealistic a view. There is no moral obligation towards sporting egalitarianism. All sports are defined by legends and greats and dynasties and haves and have nots.

And there's a reason UEFA has always had multiple European competitions - so even the smaller clubs have a shot at a European title (but then again, you might have a Sheriff Tiraspol complain that they can never win the EL because they can't financially compete with a Sevilla).

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > .
> > > There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
> > > shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
> > > within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
> > >
> > > Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
> > > level.
> > > Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
> >
> > That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
> > foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
> > in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
> > vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
> > of achieving such a level as they have.
>
> I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently) dependent
> on such funds.

No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?
Were Abramovich to sell tomorrow, surely he'd recoup most of his money? Chelsea's revenue and market value have burgeoned in step with the investments..

> > The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The Glazers
> > are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
> > as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
> > improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately
>
> The widening gap doesn't bother me so much as long as, again, it's through legitimate means.

Easy to say when just the league you play in gives you such an enormous headstart.

(BTW something I found funny: Rapid ultràs wished Bayern good luck on Twitter against despicable Salzburg, from proper club
to proper club, garnished with hashtags like #ohneqatargehtsa (you don't need Qatar). Too bad they used a Bayern player
photo with the Qatar Airways logo quite prominently visible on the sleeve.)

> No club has a divine right to be a contender for the CL title, not even former giants like Benfica or Red Star Belgrade. That's too idealistic a view. There is no moral obligation towards sporting egalitarianism. All
> sports are defined by legends and greats and dynasties and haves and have nots.

And that's exactly what the Chelseas and PSGs of this world would argue.
> And there's a reason UEFA has always had multiple European competitions - so even the smaller clubs have a shot at a European title (but then again, you might have a Sheriff Tiraspol complain that they can never
> win the EL because they can't financially compete with a Sevilla).

That's why they invented the Conference League, to share some of the breadcrumbs.
Sheriff actually won today! But of course they're also quite the morally questionable club.

Ciao,
Werner

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:44:36 PM UTC-8, Real Mardin wrote:
> The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
>
> Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.

And, justified or otherwise, this is why some of the people on some of these top-flight teams want rid of the other teams entirely.

Mike

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > .
> > > > There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
> > > > shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
> > > > within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
> > > >
> > > > Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
> > > > level.
> > > > Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
> > >
> > > That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
> > > foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
> > > in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
> > > vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
> > > of achieving such a level as they have.
> >
> > I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently) dependent
> > on such funds.
> No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
> I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?

I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.

Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?

> Were Abramovich to sell tomorrow, surely he'd recoup most of his money? Chelsea's revenue and market value have burgeoned in step with the investments.
> > > The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The Glazers
> > > are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
> > > as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
> > > improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately
> >
> > The widening gap doesn't bother me so much as long as, again, it's through legitimate means.
> Easy to say when just the league you play in gives you such an enormous headstart.
>
> (BTW something I found funny: Rapid ultràs wished Bayern good luck on Twitter against despicable Salzburg, from proper club
> to proper club, garnished with hashtags like #ohneqatargehtsa (you don't need Qatar). Too bad they used a Bayern player
> photo with the Qatar Airways logo quite prominently visible on the sleeve..)
> > No club has a divine right to be a contender for the CL title, not even former giants like Benfica or Red Star Belgrade. That's too idealistic a view. There is no moral obligation towards sporting egalitarianism. All
> > sports are defined by legends and greats and dynasties and haves and have nots.
> And that's exactly what the Chelseas and PSGs of this world would argue.

Well, they are a different kind of example, as we have been discussing.

But if a Liverpool or Bayern said that, they would be making a legitimate point.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > .
> > > > > There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
> > > > > shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
> > > > > within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
> > > > > level.
> > > > > Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
> > > >
> > > > That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
> > > > foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
> > > > in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
> > > > vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
> > > > of achieving such a level as they have.
> > >
> > > I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
> > > dependent on such funds.
> >
> > No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
> > I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?
> >
> I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
>
> Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
> the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?

Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?

Ciao,
Werner

Werner Pichler wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their
> > club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone
> > like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their
> > wanton spending in the transfer market and on wages, under this new
> > kind of ownership?
>
> Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than
> expected?

You might not all get the answer you want though! ;-)

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 3:26:43 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > .
> > > > > > There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
> > > > > > shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
> > > > > > within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
> > > > > > level.
> > > > > > Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
> > > > >
> > > > > That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
> > > > > foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
> > > > > in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
> > > > > vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
> > > > > of achieving such a level as they have.
> > > >
> > > > I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
> > > > dependent on such funds.
> > >
> > > No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
> > > I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?
> > >
> > I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
> >
> > Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
> > the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
> Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?

Well, this article came out this morning before Roman stepped aside, but here's an alternate scenario.

It could be a disaster for Chelsea he he was/is sanctioned.

https://www.fotmob.com/embed/news/6909200/chelsea-could-go-out-of-business-if-roman-abramovich-faces

Werner Pichler <wpichler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>> There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or
>>>>>> even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this
>>>>>> case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
>>>>>> shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial
>>>>>> revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your
>>>>>> examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
>>>>>> within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U,
>>>>>> Barcelona, and Juventus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and
>>>>>> oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football
>>>>>> sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>> Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
>>>>>
>>>>> That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been
>>>>> at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
>>>>> foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything
>>>>> you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
>>>>> in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a
>>>>> non-football source to get the thing going and have been
>>>>> vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are
>>>>> doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
>>>>> of achieving such a level as they have.
>>>>
>>>> I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use
>>>> non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become
>>>> self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
>>>> dependent on such funds.
>>>
>>> No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all
>>> get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when
>>> you win the Champions League.
>>> I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into
>>> their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea
>>> non-self-sufficient?
>>>
>> I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their
>> financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
>>
>> Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club
>> to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG).
>> Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
>> the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
>
> Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
>

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/03/02/statement-from-roman-abramovich

Ciao,
Werner

Werner Pichler wrote:

> Werner Pichler <wpichler@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than
> > expected?
> >
>
>
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/03/02/statement-from-roman-abramovich

Great. We might just get an Arab consortium to take over who are even
richer than Roman Abramovich... won't that please everybody?!!!

Be careful what you wish for! ;-)

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:13:43 p.m. UTC-5, Blueshirt wrote:
> Werner Pichler wrote:
> > Werner Pichler <wpic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than
> > > expected?
> > >
> >
> >
> https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/03/02/statement-from-roman-abramovich
> Great. We might just get an Arab consortium to take over who are even
> richer than Roman Abramovich... won't that please everybody?!!!
>
> Be careful what you wish for! ;-)

I hear it is a Tibetan consortium headed by the Dali Lama.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:28:04 PM UTC+1, Werner Pichler wrote:
> Werner Pichler <wpic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>> There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or
> >>>>>> even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this
> >>>>>> case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
> >>>>>> shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial
> >>>>>> revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your
> >>>>>> examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
> >>>>>> within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U,
> >>>>>> Barcelona, and Juventus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and
> >>>>>> oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football
> >>>>>> sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
> >>>>>> level.
> >>>>>> Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been
> >>>>> at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
> >>>>> foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything
> >>>>> you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
> >>>>> in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a
> >>>>> non-football source to get the thing going and have been
> >>>>> vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are
> >>>>> doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
> >>>>> of achieving such a level as they have.
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use
> >>>> non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become
> >>>> self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
> >>>> dependent on such funds.
> >>>
> >>> No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all
> >>> get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when
> >>> you win the Champions League.
> >>> I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into
> >>> their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea
> >>> non-self-sufficient?
> >>>
> >> I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their
> >> financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
> >>
> >> Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club
> >> to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG).
> >> Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
> >> the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
> >
> > Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
> >
> https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/03/02/statement-from-roman-abramovich

Too late

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1501850999086063618

Ciao,
Werner