Soccer thread 09/10 (contains spoilers)

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:11 pm

GB_Simo wrote:
fsquid wrote:I don't know why it would surprise you that Laws would do that. The red card impaired the team a great deal and you should expect this reaction from Laws.
I think Dave's point is that, based on past experience, you should expect Laws to throw a plate of chicken wings at Jeffers and fracture his cheekbone. He who is without sin and all that business.

MY point is that Laws threw the plate because he didn't think he was giving his best effort. So it shouldn't surprise you that he would fine the s*** out of some guy headbutting another player.

GB_Simo · Post by **GB_Simo** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:47 am

It surprises me that a manager saw an incident like that in the first place, and thank Heavens the one that did was qualified enough to comment on unacceptable conduct, and the quality of the blow Jeffers landed...

When Laws and his Scunny (beat that, forum filter...) sides came to Fortress Vic they looked well-organised and disciplined, and he came across in the media - and in the dugout, from what I saw of him - as someone who wouldn't tolerate anything else. His teams were also, irritatingly, in the habit of playing us off the pitch both home and away.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:11 am

I like Mr. Laws, hope he is around a while. Hopefully someone will buy our club too!

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:17 am

By the way, the Times in the UK named John Harkes the #39 best player in Sheffield Wednesday history.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:13 pm

fsquid wrote:By the way, the Times in the UK named John Harkes the #39 best player in Sheffield Wednesday history.

Do you agree? Disagree? Should he be higher? Lower? I imagine I could guess what he would say.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:29 pm

Zeppo wrote:
fsquid wrote:By the way, the Times in the UK named John Harkes the #39 best player in Sheffield Wednesday history.
Do you agree? Disagree? Should he be higher? Lower? I imagine I could guess what he would say.

Wednesday has a 100 year history, so I really can't say. He ranked one ahead of Lee Bullen who was an old serviceable lad who captain the team that won promotion to the Championship in that "Wonderful Day in Cardiff" (sorry Simo).

Here is what the times wrote:

39. John Harkes

1990-1993, 118 appearances, 11 goals

Born to Scottish parents on the edge of New York City, the United States international was a popular member of Wednesday's thrilling team of the early 1990s. Arriving at Hillsborough on the back of a disappointing World Cup campaign - "he thinks he's Maradona, this lad," I remember one gruff Sheffielder saying to me as we watched the mulleted youngster in Italia 90 - Harkes quickly settled in English football. In one of his very first games for the club, he lashed a 30-yard drive past then-England goalkeeper Peter Shilton to set the Owls on their way to a League Cup victory against Derby County, and he ended the season as the first American to play - and win - in a major final at Wembley. Always hovering around the fringes of the first team, Harkes nevertheless featured in two more cup finals for Wednesday and continued to put in hardworking, loose-limbed midfield performances for the club until his one-time idol Trevor Francis (who Harkes grew up watching play for Detroit Express) sold him on to Derby in 1993. He now works as a commentator on American television.

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:37 pm

fsquid wrote:
Zeppo wrote:
fsquid wrote:By the way, the Times in the UK named John Harkes the #39 best player in Sheffield Wednesday history.
Do you agree? Disagree? Should he be higher? Lower? I imagine I could guess what he would say.
Wednesday has a 100 year history, so I really can't say. He ranked one ahead of Lee Bullen who was an old serviceable lad who captain the team that won promotion to the Championship in that "Wonderful Day in Cardiff" (sorry Simo).

Here is what the times wrote:

39. John Harkes

1990-1993, 118 appearances, 11 goals

Born to Scottish parents on the edge of New York City, the United States international was a popular member of Wednesday's thrilling team of the early 1990s. Arriving at Hillsborough on the back of a disappointing World Cup campaign - "he thinks he's Maradona, this lad," I remember one gruff Sheffielder saying to me as we watched the mulleted youngster in Italia 90 - Harkes quickly settled in English football. In one of his very first games for the club, he lashed a 30-yard drive past then-England goalkeeper Peter Shilton to set the Owls on their way to a League Cup victory against Derby County, and he ended the season as the first American to play - and win - in a major final at Wembley. Always hovering around the fringes of the first team, Harkes nevertheless featured in two more cup finals for Wednesday and continued to put in hardworking, loose-limbed midfield performances for the club until his one-time idol Trevor Francis (who Harkes grew up watching play for Detroit Express) sold him on to Derby in 1993. He now works as a commentator on American television.

I'm presuming he was below Carlton Palmer (aka F**king Hell, Carlton, after that documentary on Graeme Taylor), quite possibly one of the worst players I have ever seen at Premiership level.

GB_Simo · Post by **GB_Simo** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:09 pm

fsquid wrote:He ranked one ahead of Lee Bullen who was an old serviceable lad who captain the team that won promotion to the Championship in that "Wonderful Day in Cardiff" (sorry Simo).

Quite alright. It was Bullen's little flick that inadvertently created our equaliser, Eifion Williams steaming in all alone at the back post for 1-1 and the single most joyous moment of my life. I like Bullen.

Dave, possibly? I know you've sat through some dross, but possibly?

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:09 am

Carlton Palmer came in at #8. I certainly wouldn't have put him above Kevin Pressman and Des Walker. However, he was a great tandem with John Sheridan in our run in the early 90s. I do still remember watching Palmer during my only visit to Hillsborough. Dude's legs were probably no bigger than my pen.

Simo, no one dislikes Bullen. He had a great attitude and could (and did) play every position on the pitch. But, he was not a good footballer!

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:11 am

Also, Frank Simek to go out on loan since he still hasn't gotten his sharpness back after his injury.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:35 am

Arjen Robben signs with Bayern.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:44 am

fsquid wrote:Arjen Robben signs with Bayern.

I guess they need him more than MU.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:48 am

My first thought that with Robben to Bayern, that opens up Ribery to ManU. Probably too late in the window though.

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:32 am

Naples39 wrote:My first thought that with Robben to Bayern, that opens up Ribery to ManU. Probably too late in the window though.

Oh, if only they had the money...still, that French retard thinks it's alright to fund a club by banging a huge debt on the balance sheet which costs £80m per year to service without repaying the principal.

Hmm, £80m...now what does that remind you of ?

As for Bayern, well it's a good job City are the ones ruining football, rather than those who thought Gomez was worth 35m of anything other than Zimabawean dollars.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:51 am

Gomez will be worth it in the end. Guy is 24 and is already looking better than Podolski. I still can't listen to any English person complain about transfer prices when the asking price on Marcus Bent was higher than Luca Toni 2 years ago.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:55 am

Naples39 wrote:My first thought that with Robben to Bayern, that opens up Ribery to ManU. Probably too late in the window though.

He'll probably end up playing for 'Real' next year.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:55 am

This story may have forever destroyed the entire concept of irony.

Abramovich, who has spent approximately £700m on transforming the Blues into one of football's big hitters over the last six years, has been named by UEFA president Michel Platini as one of the key agitators behind his proposal to limit football clubs' spending power.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... pe&cc=5901

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:39 am

RobVarak wrote:This story may have forever destroyed the entire concept of irony.

Abramovich, who has spent approximately £700m on transforming the Blues into one of football's big hitters over the last six years, has been named by UEFA president Michel Platini as one of the key agitators behind his proposal to limit football clubs' spending power.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... pe&cc=5901

See Rob - you sit at the feet of the master for long enough, and some of his wisdom will come to reside within you

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:15 pm

I heard though that Chelsea was already a decent club before the spending spree began.

Did Abramovich start out spending as much as Man City did?

So no talk about the CL draws? I was hoping to catch FC Sevilla game next month but no home games when I'm there, either in La Liga or CL.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:09 pm

wco81 wrote:I heard though that Chelsea was already a decent club before the spending spree began.

Did Abramovich start out spending as much as Man City did?

So no talk about the CL draws? I was hoping to catch FC Sevilla game next month but no home games when I'm there, either in La Liga or CL.

Abramovich did that same thing the Man City owners are doing. This isn't at you WCO...the problem is that the big clubs feel threatened because their monopoly for the CL spots are now being threatened. I don't know if there's a racial issue but who knows anymore.

Man City is doing it a bit quicker than Chelsea, I think. Heck didn't they spend crazy-ass sums for Sevchencko and Ballack.

At the heart of the issue, is if big money can come in and buy success than it shows that the Real Madrids, Barcelona's, Inter and AC, Man U, Chelsea and the others aren't good because of their tradition but the money has made their tradition. Personally what's going on at Man City isn't that it's a one off situation but it's an epidemic in football shared with Milan, Madrid, Chelsea and some others. If Real is only good because they spend over 100 million pounds, then why can't Man City?

The claim that Man City is destroying football is laughable. Funny how few are saying, oh look at Real and how they bought 100 million pounds and more in talent this year. Maybe that number is nearer to 200 million pounds.

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:04 pm

Including Lescott, City's net spending this year is around 99m. Real Madrid's is double that.

Of the clubs mentioned, you could argue that only Real Madrid and Barcelona are 'pure', in that they are technically owned by all the members (or socios, as they are known). Of course, the 'sugar daddy' element comes in through the election of the President, who is usually the guy who promises the biggest signings. The fortunes that Madrid have spent this summer is not generated by revenue, but by loans raised by the new President, Florentino Perez. The last time he was there, Real won no trophies and ended up with a €500m debt which was only extinguished by an illegal (if not corrupt) property sale.

Inter and AC Milan are both financed by extremely wealthy men...an oil baron in Inter's case (Massimo Morati) and a crook whose who has used his Presidency of Italy to pass laws giving himself immunity from a number of corruption charges and pass taxation laws benefitting all football clubs in Italy, a law described by the Chairman of the Italian equivalent of the SEC as a 'scandal'....yes, it's that greasy alleged paedophile, Silvio Berlusconi (that's the latest charge, btw, not just my personal animus).

Man U - hmm, what's that £700m loan on your balance sheet ? That'll be how the Glasers bought you, with an £80m interest alone chaerge per annum. Mmm, that's healthy.

Chelsea - History and tradition my arse...1 title in the mid 50s, briefly fashionable in the late 60s and early 70s with a Cup and ECWC win, then bugger all under Mad Ken Bates. One suger daddy (Matthew Harding) pumped money in then was killed in a copter crash in 96, then in comes a Russian 'oligarch' (translation - thieving bastard and money launderer) who as a result of not being stupid enough to challenge Putin, (unlike certain others, eh Michael Khordokovsky ?) was allowed to get his wealth out of Russia and pump it into Chelsea.

Hmm, now what's this I've found....a digest of Chelsea's financial statements. Now according to the Russian yokel ('a true football man', according to that French f**k who's name I will no longer type), he supports a measure to ensure clubs break even within 3 years. So let's have a look at Chelsea's pre-tax operating position, shall we ?

2007/08 - LOSS 71m (on a turnover of only 191m...mm, super)
2006/07 - LOSS 68m
2005/06 - LOSS 78m
2004/05 - LOSS 132m
2003/04 - LOSS 75m

Bear in mind that Chelsea were getting CL TV money, prize money etc in every one of these seasons. Their wage bill as a % of turnover in 2007/08 was 84%.

If Chelsea break even in the next three years, I'll show my arse in Harrods.

Is it racist, you ask ? Yes - the French F**k hates the English, and he hates us with a passion that can only be topped by one thing..the hate I have for him.

But if he takes on the boys from Abu Dhabi, he'd better enjoy appearing in court, coz this one will run and run.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:19 pm

I agree Real's spending is ridiculous but they're more likely to generate incremental revenues over last year than City, no?

The players Real bought are going to move jerseys and if they get farther in the CL this year, the extra games at home should bring more money.

Probably higher ratings throughout the whole season too.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:11 am

wco81 wrote:I agree Real's spending is ridiculous but they're more likely to generate incremental revenues over last year than City, no?

The players Real bought are going to move jerseys and if they get farther in the CL this year, the extra games at home should bring more money.

Probably higher ratings throughout the whole season too.

I could possibly be putting my ignorance on display, but wouldn't City have a better chance at incremental revenue simply by making the CL?

So worst-case scenario with the Big 4 in the EPL, what happens if they miss out on CL money?

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:25 am

Question 1 - if Real make so much money from shirts, how did they end up with a €500m debt last time Perez was in charge, and how is it that they could only pay it off by inducing the Madrid council to buy their training pitch for 4 times what it was worth, and only then do the council find out that they can't build the scheduled high-density housing because it is under the flightpath of Madrid airport ?

Question 2 - If incremental revenues are so vast, why is it that any candidate for President has to file a €65m bond to secure his/her place on the ballot, and effectively promise to bring loads of money into the club ?

Here's the answer to the FF's problem....once per year, our Arabian overlords purchase 1 (one) blade of grass from the club for £100m.

That appears in the club's accounts as Income +100m, Expenditure +0.

Job done, now get back to taking bungs and exploring Blatter's colon with your tongue, you Gallic gonk (not you, Dave).

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:18 am

Bayern turns a profit. Nothing to show from it lately though.