Deni_Rossonero;2568022 said:
I'm glad for City, but
i'm sad for football, businessmen will ruin football, it's seems as the days of loyalty and love for the game are slowly ending. {^1}
3 years from now, Gerrard, Villa, Messi will play for Portsmouth, Fabregas, Kaka and Rooney for Napoli, Torres, Ronaldinho and Sneijder for HSV as those will be the best clubs in the world. {^2}
The downfall of football? Will the greatest game become a chessboard for a couple of rich kids showing of who has more money to spend?
Don't get me wrong i'm actually happy for City, i'm happy they got such a good player, and i'm happy for the fans as they will probably have a really good team 2-3 years down the line, but what will this (not city but the whole trend) do to football,
i'm not sure if i'll be able to enjoy football watching Coventry and Getafe play a CL final just because some sheik bought their club {^3}, i'm not sure it will have the same weight as a Bayern - Juve final, or Real - Manchester, or Valencia - Marsellie even.
Especially if they start prising away players from their clubs with money, with no loyalty there will be no football. {^1, ^2}
1) Why do footballers play football? To make their life earnings in a short roughly-10-year career? Or just for the love of entertaining people? Capitalism seems to be such a popular concept, and made the US such a "great" nation; but now that the "negative" notions of capitalism become blatant, it's bad when businesses and business people try to maximize their return on investment?
2) a) I understand the use of 'exaggeration for effect' here. But I don't think that scenario is at all likely. If business people with deep pockets are buying smaller clubs and try to get a few big names, then people with deeper pockets could buy the biggest clubs and retain those big names.
b) Many claim that Chelsea bought their success. But they were already competing for the Champions League spots when Roman walked in and bought the club. His money certainly did accelerate their development, but two titles and a very consistent Champions League record didn't magically happen. But a few years before that, Real Madrid "pioneered" the modern-day megabucks spending in the early 00s when they assembled a dream team. And it paid instant dividends, as they won their 3rd Champions League title in 5 years. But then they went overboard with the concept, and it backfired quite badly -- hence we now use "Galáctico" as a negative term.
c) People with all that cash are not idiots. They realize that buying a club can't appear to be a solely business acquisition; sports is an emotion-filled arena, which affects -- and thus can be affected by -- millions of ardent followers of the sport. They won't just splash the cash madly, and then run off if it doesn't work out or gets "boring". Thaksin "ran off" coz of the extremely serious judicial process going on against him. Don't count on too many other owners to behave likewise.
d) Give the players some credit. Yes, it's true that exorbitant sums of money is a huge attraction to many human beings -- and like I mention in 1), footballers' playing careers are a lot shorter than the span of your typical desk job. However, that doesn't mean they will not make decisions for reasons over and above monetary gains. A new and exciting project could be interesting, for sure, tut the appeal of becoming a club legend is enticing too. Very few players have been able to attain that sort of status at two clubs. I doubt club-hoppers could win a place in supporters' hearts. Plus, there's the entire "effects on real life" angle to look at too: I mean, moving to a new house, a new city, a new language, doesn't exactly do one's family any good -- see the various examples in recent times (Sheva, Titi, etc.)
3) a) Why not? Clubs have to build their history some time. Real Madrid had a golden period in the 50s; Ajax and then Bayern in the 70s; Liverpool in the 80s; Milan had a mini one in the early 90s, sort of along with Barcelona; Real Madrid had another mini domination in late 90s and early 00s. Why can't other clubs have their golden periods starting now?
b) Getting to the Champions League final would mean that the club would have finished in top 3 (starting 2009) in the "big" leagues, or been champions in the "second tier" leagues. Then they would have had to negotiate the cream of Europe over several rounds through the course of the season. So, the less-fancied finalist would have to be labelled at minimum a "two-season wonder" -- meaning "fluking it" to the final is unlikely. If anyone back in 2004 mentioned that Zenit would win the UEFA Cup in 2008 in spectacular attacking fashion, and then go on to outclass Man Yoo in the Super Cup, not many people would have even thought of agreeing. But Zenit have created just such an attractive attacking unit by splashing the cash provided to them by sponsors Gazprom. Anyway, the main point is that teams contesting a final are there on merit. And I don't think the final could disappoint in terms of the level or quality of football. I don't see a problem there.
Zakov;2568043 said:
The thing is football has always been a business, the difference between nowadays and the times before, is that now we have a massive media coverage(tabloids, websites, newspapers) that are giving out these stories to the public.
In the days of yesteryears, we didn't have that sort of knowledge given to us, now that we're aware of it, its considered a big thing.
But your point that loyalty will not exist anymore in the future is not true, you can't say all players are money-hunting bastards.
I remember Ravanelli wanting to play for Derby back in 01-02 even if he was paid almost nothing. Also, look at Maldini, Alex and Totti, I'm sure they've been offered more money but decided to stay with the clubs they started with.
Business has always existed in any sports, with the constant development of technology in regards to entertainment and sports, the popular sports are always going to make more money and gain more coverage. We've always had rich people owning sport teams. Its been like that and I don't think theres a problem with it.
gotta agree with most of that ...
on the more general Man City developments:
Congrats to the fans! all the benefits of having a billionaire owner that were promised last year might just become reality from here on in ... for the sake of the monotony of the top 4 being broken, I hope your campaign doesn't fizzle out too early like last season's ...
Arnau mentioned that Robinho is perfect for the fast-paced, by-pass-the-midfield counterattacking style of play in the Prem ... and I have to agree with him ...
you've signed a couple of rebels (Robinhood and Little Komp) who've left their former clubs in less than amicable fashion ... however, their quality cannot be denied ... if the egos and tempers and tantrums can be kept in check, then it looks like the squad could actually have a shot of crashing through that top 4 glass ceiling ... well, a better shot than last year, anyway ... and, it seems, a better shot than Spurs too ...
EDIT: looking forward to seeing who these new gloryhunter fans will be ...