2017 Summer Transfers and Rumors Part VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
Are you saying that Man City and PSG (if they sign Neymar) aren't taking it to new levels?

Are you saying United didn't take it to a new level for Pogba last summer?
Or Real earlier with Bale?

Were both players comparable to Neymar?

If anything, PSG has rarely (if ever) overpaid for players. Real and United have a habit of doing so. Barca has done this quite a few times as well. Now, you could say they overpay for Neymar. I'd say he's well worth 3 Moratas or 2 Pogbas.

There is quite a difference between spending your own money and spending someone else´s.
Don't want to get too political on this board but...
It's always someone else's money. When Chevrolet closes some places in Detroit and spends huge money on a sponsorship kit with United, it clearly is someone else's money.
When Real Madrid was offered a training center by the government of Spain, wouldn't you say it's the spanish people's money?
When barca's sponsor is Dubai's governement's own flying company, would you say it isn't Dubai's money?

I could go on and on and on.
 
Last edited:

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
You are comparing the money of a privately owned publicly traded company to a state owned company in a dictatorship? I think it is a silly way for GM to spend their money, but that is a different question.

As for RM I agree. Absolutely ridiculous and one of the reasons why I could never cheer for RM.

As for Barcelona it is different if they are paying market price for that sponsorship. This is specifically mentioned in the FFP as City clearly has tried to inflate sponsorship agreements through companies linked to their owners.

Not saying this is completely black or white, but it isn´t completely grey either. I don´t like it when football clubs become the toys for anyone. Even if it is a proper fan as was the case with for example Blackburn or Wigan.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
Are you saying United didn't take it to a new level for Pogba last summer?
Or Real earlier with Bale?

Were both players comparable to Neymar?

If anything, PSG has rarely (if ever) overpaid for players. Real and United have a habit of doing so. Barca has done this quite a few times as well. Now, you could say they overpay for Neymar. I'd say he's well worth 3 Moratas or 2 Pogbas.


Don't want to get too political on this board but...
It's always someone else's money. When Chevrolet closes some places in Detroit and spends huge money on a sponsorship kit with United, it clearly is someone else's money.
When Real Madrid was offered a training center by the government of Spain, wouldn't you say it's the spanish people's money?
When barca's sponsor is Dubai's governement's own flying company, would you say it isn't Dubai's money?

I could go on and on and on.

I don't understand why it's difficult to see the difference between a marginal increase in the record, paid for by club operation money, and more than doubling the record with money an owner dumps in from outside football operations.

I'm not on some crusade to stop PSG or City, I don't really care, but you should at least recognize the difference.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
You are comparing the money of a privately owned publicly traded company to a state owned company in a dictatorship? I think it is a silly way for GM to spend their money, but that is a different question.

Not saying this is completely black or white, but it isn´t completely grey either. I don´t like it when football clubs become the toys for anyone. Even if it is a proper fan as was the case with for example Blackburn or Wigan.

It is ALWAYS a toy.
GM spending money on United is toying. Think the money wouldn't better spent on the actual workers?

I don't understand why it's difficult to see the difference between a marginal increase in the record, paid for by club operation money, and more than doubling the record with money an owner dumps in from outside football operations.

I'm not on some crusade to stop PSG or City, I don't really care, but you should at least recognize the difference.
Marginal?
Take a look at United's money and where it comes from :
1/ sponsors who choose to invest money in a football club rather than their own workers.
2/ kits and sales around the world, made through child labor without a decent salary, sold crazy prices because it has United on it.
3/ TV money which is funded by TV viewers who spend crazy money on TV subscriptions and thus don't spend their money elsewhere.
4/ Stadium revenues, made of huge fees paid by rich "fans" because that's the only "fans" that can afford it.

Outside football operations you said? Except for stadiums revenue, everything is outside football operations.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
Marginal?
Take a look at United's money and where it comes from :
1/ sponsors who choose to invest money in a football club rather than their own workers.
2/ kits and sales around the world, made through child labor without a decent salary, sold crazy prices because it has United on it.
3/ TV money which is funded by TV viewers who spend crazy money on TV subscriptions and thus don't spend their money elsewhere.
4/ Stadium revenues, made of huge fees paid by rich "fans" because that's the only "fans" that can afford it.

Outside football operations you said? Except for stadiums revenue, everything is outside football operations.

If you consider sponsorship deals, kit sales, and tv money as not football operations income, then I really don't know what to say.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
Yes I know you don't have much to say. Because there's really nothing to say. Sponsors give money instead of giving it to their own employees and workers. Very much football operations indeed.
Kit sales is made through labor child. I guess that's very much football operations.
As for TV deals, it's money made out of TV ads and susbscriptions.
 

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
I have read Karl Marx etc but what are talking about?

Why do you think GM sponsors Utd?
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,020
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
Are you saying United didn't take it to a new level for Pogba last summer?
Or Real earlier with Bale?

Were both players comparable to Neymar?

If anything, PSG has rarely (if ever) overpaid for players. Real and United have a habit of doing so. Barca has done this quite a few times as well. Now, you could say they overpay for Neymar. I'd say he's well worth 3 Moratas or 2 Pogbas.


Don't want to get too political on this board but...
It's always someone else's money. When Chevrolet closes some places in Detroit and spends huge money on a sponsorship kit with United, it clearly is someone else's money.
When Real Madrid was offered a training center by the government of Spain, wouldn't you say it's the spanish people's money?
When barca's sponsor is Dubai's governement's own flying company, would you say it isn't Dubai's money?

I could go on and on and on.

I think that was the city of Madrid. They transfered part of their old training ground to the city for development. More here: https://www.ft.com/content/750e14a2-3f94-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a
 
Last edited:

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
Yes I know you don't have much to say. Because there's really nothing to say. Sponsors give money instead of giving it to their own employees and workers. Very much football operations indeed.
Kit sales is made through labor child. I guess that's very much football operations.
As for TV deals, it's money made out of TV ads and susbscriptions.

And 200 million would be better spent feeding hungry kids in Africa instead of buying a football player.

See look, I can say ridiculous things too.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
I think that was the city of Madrid. They transfered part of their old training round to the city for development. More here: https://www.ft.com/content/750e14a2-3f94-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a
Doesn't change the point.

And 200 million would be better spent feeding hungry kids in Africa instead of buying a football player.

See look, I can say ridiculous things too.
Is Qatar responsible for the hunger in Africa?
Is GM responsible for poor salaries to its employees?

If you can't see the difference, more power to you. You live in a happy world.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
I have read Karl Marx etc but what are talking about?

Either you're beyond stupid or you don't want to see the obvious.
You're not worried to buy Nike or Adidas kits made by child labor in Asia, but you're outraged that Qatar spends money on Neymar.

Hypocrisy or stupidity. Can't say.
 

Scandale du Jour

JordanStaal#1Fan
Mar 11, 2002
62,001
28,718
Asbestos, Qc
www.angelfire.com
It is ALWAYS a toy.
GM spending money on United is toying. Think the money wouldn't better spent on the actual workers?


Marginal?
Take a look at United's money and where it comes from :
1/ sponsors who choose to invest money in a football club rather than their own workers.
2/ kits and sales around the world, made through child labor without a decent salary, sold crazy prices because it has United on it.
3/ TV money which is funded by TV viewers who spend crazy money on TV subscriptions and thus don't spend their money elsewhere.
4/ Stadium revenues, made of huge fees paid by rich "fans" because that's the only "fans" that can afford it.

Outside football operations you said? Except for stadiums revenue, everything is outside football operations.

I don't want to be an ass but... welcome to capitalism and pro sports.

United, which I hate with a passion, have a brand people want to be associate with and they use it to make money via sponsorships, licensing and TV contracts.

I understand being pissed at child labour (and trust me I am too) or a big corporation spending insane amount on money on sponsoring a football club when it lays off workers (which is ironically a schrewd business move as GM's brand is weak in Europe and the EPL American TV contract helps them have their brand on TV in their own market while expanding its reach all over the world).

City and PSG had no brand power or very little before being bought by dictators. If you don't see the difference, I cannot help you. Qataris are ready to pay 220 for Neymar yet people get their passport confiscated when they go work in Qatar. People are also dying building a football stadium for a World Cup that makes absolutely no sense. PSG's owner are a cancer to World football.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
I mean, Qatar is at least responsible for the poor and slaves in Qatar, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not really sure why you're coming at me about Qatar since I've said literally nothing about them.

My point had nothing to do with whether the owner is a good guy who cares for his employees or whether he made his money off child sex trafficking, that's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

It was about the difference between clubs spending money they earn via sponsorships, kit deals, ticketing, competition winnings, and TV rights vs spending money an owner made in another business (whatever it is)

I even said I'm not upset about it, I don't care. I hope PSG gets Neymar becuase I think more top teams is better. But you're being disingenuous if you can't see the difference in source of the money (re it's relevance to football) and why some people might not want to support that.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
I don't want to be an ass but... welcome to capitalism and pro sports.

United, which I hate with a passion, have a brand people want to be associate with and they use it to make money via sponsorships, licensing and TV contracts.

I understand being pissed at child labour (and trust me I am too) or a big corporation spending insane amount on money on sponsoring a football club when it lays off workers (which is ironically a schrewd business move as GM's brand is weak in Europe and the EPL American TV contract helps them have their brand on TV in their own market while expanding its reach all over the world).

City and PSG had no brand power or very little before being bought by dictators. If you don't see the difference, I cannot help you. Qataris are ready to pay 220 for Neymar yet people get their passport confiscated when they go work in Qatar. People are also dying building a football stadium for a World Cup that makes absolutely no sense. PSG's owner are a cancer to World football.

If you don't think child labor is a cancer to world football, then I can't help you :dunno:
Selecting which is worse between Qatar's actions or world capitalism is quite weird. :dunno:
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
I mean, Qatar is at least responsible for the poor and slaves in Qatar, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not really sure why you're coming at me about Qatar since I've said literally nothing about them.

My point had nothing to do with whether the owner is a good guy who cares for his employees or whether he made his money off child sex trafficking, that's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

It was about the difference between clubs spending money they earn via sponsorships, kit deals, ticketing, competition winnings, and TV rights vs spending money an owner made in another business (whatever it is)

I even said I'm not upset about it, I don't care. I hope PSG gets Neymar becuase I think more top teams is better. But you're being disingenuous if you can't see the difference in source of the money (re it's relevance to football) and why some people might not want to support that.

Sure, people would support child labor I guess then :dunno:
Since they buy all these kits without second thoughts.

Again, that prism from occidentals that say their lack of ethics is still better than others' lack of ethics is quite something.
As for your first point I answered it already. Everything in today's pro football is linked to capitalism.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
:facepalm: it has nothing to do with ethics. You're the only one pushing the "everyone is bad" angle, probably becuase you don't have a substantive argument about the actual topic.
 

Scandale du Jour

JordanStaal#1Fan
Mar 11, 2002
62,001
28,718
Asbestos, Qc
www.angelfire.com
If you don't think child labor is a cancer to world football, then I can't help you :dunno:
Selecting which is worse between Qatar's actions or world capitalism is quite weird. :dunno:

Child labor is a cancer to society period. That's the part I was agreeing with.

However, branding, licensing and TV contracts are normal part of business, any entertainment business.

There are levels of bad and Qataris confiscating passports and having no security standards in their construction industry is near the top, just like child labour is. Sponsorship and TV contracts? That's is just business. Yes part of it can be morally grey (laying off workers when spending billions on putting your logo on a soccer shirt), I agree, but still not comparable to child labour or thousands of workers dying to build stadiums that will never be used again after the WC. Lumping them together is just you doing mental gymnastics to support a French club.

I mean, I feel like we want too far already, but if you were to argue that the Qataris are just a consequence of how capitalism evolved, I would have a hard time disagreeing. However, I fear we won't be able to have this discussion here.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
Why does it matter if a rich owner comes in and spends their own money. They bought the club, they own it, their money is the clubs money's if they choose it.

Without that, it would be extremely difficult for the have-nots to join the haves.
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
Wow this has devolved.

That said, someone trying with a straight face to equate a company paying for sponsorships to a dictator spending the blood money of their people is a new one.

I'm fine with whomever spending whatever. There's no going back, but let's get a bit of a grip on reality with the two instances.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
Wow this has devolved.

That said, someone trying with a straight face to equate a company paying for sponsorships to a dictator spending the blood money of their people is a new one.

I'm fine with whomever spending whatever. There's no going back, but let's get a bit of a grip on reality with the two instances.

I wasn't even making the dictator blood money point.

My point was simply that there is a difference between spending sponsorship money and spending outside owner money. It wasn't that one is bad and one is good, it's that they're different and it shouldn't be shocking that some people want to support one and not the other.
 

HoseEmDown

Registered User
Mar 25, 2012
17,452
3,681
Sure, people would support child labor I guess then :dunno:
Since they buy all these kits without second thoughts.

Again, that prism from occidentals that say their lack of ethics is still better than others' lack of ethics is quite something.
As for your first point I answered it already. Everything in today's pro football is linked to capitalism.

I only read the transfer thread for rumors, since I'm in America we don't get good info and this is a good place for it. So I don't comment just read what others say. But I remember reading something you wrote, maybe in a transfer thread or other football one, in which you said your son has like 10 jerseys from a bunch of different teams. It seems very hypocritical to complain about child labor in regards to kit making and the sales that come from them when you are one of the worst offenders of that. You are the exact person they are targeting because you keep buying them, so you must not care about child labor that much.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
:facepalm: it has nothing to do with ethics. You're the only one pushing the "everyone is bad" angle, probably becuase you don't have a substantive argument about the actual topic.

Really? I'm the one pushing that angle? Please read the thread. We're treated with the usual "Qatar's money is bad" rethorics without every looking at our own doings, which certainly aren't any better.
Yet, YOU have zero argument against that because frankly, there isn't any.

Child labor is a cancer to society period. That's the part I was agreeing with.

However, branding, licensing and TV contracts are normal part of business, any entertainment business.

There are levels of bad and Qataris confiscating passports and having no security standards in their construction industry is near the top, just like child labour is. Sponsorship and TV contracts? That's is just business. Yes part of it can be morally grey (laying off workers when spending billions on putting your logo on a soccer shirt), I agree, but still not comparable to child labour or thousands of workers dying to build stadiums that will never be used again after the WC. Lumping them together is just you doing mental gymnastics to support a French club.

I mean, I feel like we want too far already, but if you were to argue that the Qataris are just a consequence of how capitalism evolved, I would have a hard time disagreeing. However, I fear we won't be able to have this discussion here.

No, it isn't the discussion. If you feel like I'm defending PSG, use City, it's the same argument.
Money at this level is usually dirty. Whether it comes from a country like Qatar or through the worst levels of capitalism, it's dirty.
Trying to make a scale is really strange to me.

I wasn't even making the dictator blood money point.

My point was simply that there is a difference between spending sponsorship money and spending outside owner money. It wasn't that one is bad and one is good, it's that they're different and it shouldn't be shocking that some people want to support one and not the other.

Pardon me then to not support firing employees in order to spend more money on United's deal or using children in Asia with a 1$/week salary to make sure United can buy Pogba.
I'm sure there's a completely huge difference that people feel like they should support one over the other. :facepalm:
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
I only read the transfer thread for rumors, since I'm in America we don't get good info and this is a good place for it. So I don't comment just read what others say. But I remember reading something you wrote, maybe in a transfer thread or other football one, in which you said your son has like 10 jerseys from a bunch of different teams. It seems very hypocritical to complain about child labor in regards to kit making and the sales that come from them when you are one of the worst offenders of that. You are the exact person they are targeting because you keep buying them, so you must not care about child labor that much.

Good point.
I am absolutely no stranger to this capitalism hypocrisy. My son has jerseys. I watch games between this millionaires running after a ball being paid insane money while people keep on dying in the streets of these very countries.
I'm absolutely guilty. But the thing is, I never denied to be, contrary to some people here.
And I certainly don't think I'm doing any better than Qatar or anything. I'm just as guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->