Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Talisman, Sep 10, 2017.
Just patently false.
Sure. And I love how you live it to comment about it.
I'm confident that I have more experience with EU regulations and their legal/business implications than you do considering I spent my summer at a law firm in Germany working under them.
I love how your posts necessarily are condescending about everything. Remarkable how your posts reveal you to be an expert in everything.
That's so funny. YOU say you're an expert because of a single summer and accuse me of claiming to be.
I've lived under EU rules. Forever. I can live the consequences (good and bad) in my everyday life.
I sure wouldn't dare to tell you how the US policies impact your daily life. You have to be quite an idiot to tell someone you know better than someone living there because you spent a summer in Germany.
I know I'd never call myself an expert on US laws because of a summer in a US law firm. But that doesn't save you from trying.
You're still so funny. Expert in pretty much everything, but accusing others. Fun, fun, fun.
Alright dude. Sure, you're right. There you go.
There was one time I was at lunch break at my past job when I was studying in university. In the break-room was a television where they had on the local news and a wife of an oil tycoon came over the screen. After the story, one of the woman there, who had to be like 43 years old shouted a remark similarly to "she is married into oil"; in a negative manner. I proceeded to ask her what if she found oil and she said she would party hard not really getting at what I was trying to prove. Figuring out later that she was quite poor and that her daughter won a car for her only transportation, I had little sympathy for her. Because I know her remark about being married into oil had to be jealousy or envy based upon her answer. I came to this conclusion because if this hypocritical poor person found oil on her land, she would be cheering for joy so much she would be the happiest person on the planet at that moment.
The wealthy in a free market aren't really thieves nor are they the bad guy as majority of the people make them out to be. In a free market, anybody can make money regardless of who you are and where you came from. Of course it's harder coming from an inner city, but not impossible. Some of the people on "Shark Tank" (Google if you don't know the show) were homeless or dirt poor before making their millions. One person I know owns multiple Ferrari's and a house on a golf course while dropping out of high-school. Another one didn't finish college, started his own forensic business, and just bought a private jet as a tax write off. Another one didn't know English when he came to America and now owns his own successful machine shop where he got contracts from the likes of NASA and the US Army.
What I mean by this is you have the freedom to make any amount of money you want by two aspects; a business mind and good decisions. A lot of poor people tend to remain poor because they make bad decisions with life situations or with money. Lower middle class tends to be the ones who spend the most money in the lottery, but there are countless number of stories of people going broke after winning. That's because they make poor decisions.
If you have a problem with bankers or owners Evilo, why don't you just become one since in a free market you can do what you will. Don't be discouraged as you seem to be and make emotional responses because they're not logical.
This thread is a hilarious, hilarious, hilarious mess.
The guy who says the EU is socialist because a "union" - even of different states - is a socialist concept assures us that upward mobility is in fact a thing and poor people deserve it. I can rest easily now.
Not sure why being responsible for your own actions and making good financial decisions shouldn't be rewarded more than the opposite. It is a very simple concept, IMHO
Baseball is a good example of it here in the USA. There are moneyball teams and there are also teams that win with scouting, guile, and a bit of luck.
You and I don't deserve ****. You earn your goals. Just like you're probably doing in your life right now.
Right now my only goal is to forget about most of the posts in this thread.
When the Independent People's Republic of Scotland is finally a reality and everyone is a millionaire because of all our oil I'm going to bump this thread purely to laugh at seph, and the memory of DM's "Scotland doesn't need a separate legal system" Corbyn who will either be dead or a head in a jar.
If we're talking about purely salary cap, what will probably happen is create a huge gap between the superstar players and the complimentary players, mainly defenders and defensive players. Superstars like Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo will continue to make astronomic salaries.
if you want to impose a cap on transfers money spent, then also the big clubs will have more power to attract top players.
FFP is a good compromise, only if applied correctly and seriously.
FFP is doomed. The first idea was pretty good, but it's flawed when sponsors can be completely out of whack and answer to different interests (Etihad, Qatar airways, VW, Azerbaijan, Chevrolet, etc...).
It favors big teams and prevents new teams from emerging. Rich teams will get richer, poor teams will get poorer.
As I've said for a dozen years here, there are only two ways of going out of this mess that is today's european football :
1/ Have a semi-closed super european league with the biggest 20 european teams and a relegation system with a playoff system for 3 teams leaving and entering that super league.
2/ Get back to knockout stage competitions and only champions. Less revenue for 3rd or 4th ranked teams, more for small countries teams, possibility for cinderella runs, more european trophies that mean something, etc...
And they say I'm unrealistic.
I mean, don't hold your breath on that.
I suppose if in some alternate universe everyone there becomes a millionaire, you'll have a better understanding of inflation.
This could be an interesting idea. Instead of doing Europa and CL you could have every league under UEFA have their teams be given a coefficient and ranked to start, then have as many tiers as needed to fit in every professional club with promotion and relegation. Then run cups like in every domestic league where teams get added in different rounds (some cups for the lower tiered leagues, etc.).
Now, this would increase some travel, and then the TV and league sponsorship money would be a bit of a mess but it'd certainly be entertaining. Of course it would never happen but I'd find it really interesting.
Or, alternatively, have the super league separate from the domestic leagues with a cup, and the top 2 teams in each of the domestic leagues go into a playoff system (say similar to the current CL qualifiers) to join the super league with the bottom 4 being relegated.
This wouldn't be awful either.
The most oil heavy regions on the planet are also some of the poorest due to Communism and Totalitarian regimes.
But once you leave your oil rich fields of Independent People's Republic of Scotland and Rangers FC, and come beyond the borders into the world known as common sense. It will awaken you to understand that no government programme, bail out, union, or just next door neighbor is going to help you what you want in your life. You got to work for your own self good since 99.9% of the world doesn't care about you.
In the end though, you can laugh at me once you struck oil just to realise you hit your own septic tank.
Political science 101, it's not that hard to understand DM.
And was the article you posted supposed to support this elementary fact? Because it obviously didn't.
This thread is like when DrudgeReport links to a UK newspaper on a euro-centric story. Comment sections is fantastic.
Still nothing in those articles to say that oil or "communism" make those countries poor. They just say that oil wealth protects existing dictatorships from coups (from new dictatorships) because the people are happy with oil welfare. Cause and effect is hard to understand, I know.
You're right it is a cause-and-effect innuendo, but totally different how the cause ends up as an effect. In political science, you learn that countries who have natural resources tend to not rely on citizens help to grow the economy. In this case, they tend to fall into dictatorships since the dictatorship coalition doesn't need the wealth for economy growth. Instead they drill, package the oil, and sell it to other nations for profit for the government, while there is no need for supply and demand free market citizen lead system. Thus these countries remain poor, agricultural, and tribal. A lot of countries in the Middle East, are still very tribal in culture like Pakistan for instance.
Separate names with a comma.