Hahaha. . .give us a go!
Hahaha. . .give us a go!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-Llorente.html
And the summer spending spree to buy next seasons title has begun
Dzeko hasn't worked out, ohhh lets spend 30m on the next big name striker at the moment!
Last edited by Marc Overmars; 19-04-2012 at 07:36 AM.
Shocker, City might as well buy the title now and we can save ourselves a whole season tbh. Im sure the fa would love 400 Mill in their accounts.Originally Posted by Ach
I reckon we could buy Caroll off Liverpool with that kind of money.
Dzeko hasn't worked out, ohhh lets spend 30m on the next big name striker at the moment!
So they'll have how many strikers on £200K a week? Unless Redknapp can convince Levy to plunge the spuds into a drowning pool of debt, city will have Adebayor back on the books too. How much do they make a week in revenue? Sounds like they'll be spending it all on about 5 players. Joke club. This isn't about jealously as the gypsies like to claim. This is about making a mockery of the sport we love. Every time city does anything in the market they wreck it for all the other clubs. This is why mediocre players like Bendtner feel justified in making the demands they do, after all they only want a quarter of what that waster Adebayor is on. And the biggest joke, it could well turn out financial fair play (my arse) ends up shitting on the clubs that operate a real business model while giving the citys and barcelonas a free ride.
There should be a 50% tax on all transfers (and wages over a certain amount) with the money going back into a pool that is distributed with a bias towards the smaller clubs. At least citys pathetic behaviour would then benefit football to some degree. They wouldn't miss the money but a small club in the lower leagues would benefit massively with just a few quid. And crappy teams like Portsmouth (or anyone else Redknapp has managed) wouldn't benefit because their dodgy dealing would negate any payback. Barcelona and Madrid should have to pay 90% tax on their rigged TV deals. Teams like that aren't competing, they are outside the sport buying their way through what ought to be be sporting competition.
Für eure Sicherheit
For a Libertarian your proposals sound very interventionist. Why should we criticise City for buying players? If there's a willing buyer and a willing seller, why should anyone turn their noses up at a mutually beneficially exchange?
You're also advocating direct redistribution towards the smaller clubs, but you on previous occasions have criticised confiscatory taxation by governments because it penalises talented people and gives free money to so called "feckless", less able individuals, therefore apparently destroying the incentive to better oneself.
If City want to pay big money to players, why should an outside agency stop them from doing so? Surely if you're a believer in the free market, you wouldn't want to interfere in their dealings. If City are overpaying for players, that's their problem, and it will hurt their profits until they realise they need to change direction.
This is why I don't get the criticisms aimed at City by people who are believers in the free market and seem to agree with our "self sustainable" model which involves charging sky-high ticket prices to fleece the fans to benefit the shareholders. It's like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Yeah, you see football is not government. There's a difference. Football has a regulatory body that claims it wants to see clubs operate within the sort of practical boundaries that any other business (bar monopolies) operate within. City's model is so clearly in contravention of this alleged regime it makes your eyes water. Chances are they are still paying the massively inflated wage bills of players that have long since departed, just to get them off the roster so they can sign more mercenaries. And you can turn your argument around. You don't mind city being "free market fundamentalists" within a regulated sporting environment but you do approve of a levy on private affairs by an interventionist state? Slightly odd point of view, corporations (imaginary persons) should get a pass but natural people need to be nailed to the floor.
Für eure Sicherheit
BTW, it's plain we agree on many aspects of social justice. I hate abusers as much as the next socially aware individual. But human life, rights, actual existence should not be subject to corporate rules and regulations. We are better than that, we are above the animals, we are not creatures to be farmed. Or at least we shouldn't be. If natural people agree to make contracts then that's different. The agreed (mutual consent and mutual benefit) requirement of a contract (btw, this is what makes all statute unlawful by its very nature) is usually fine in a business sense. Both parties agree and that's that. No liberty has been infringed. But there are provisos. If the result of this hypothetical contract causes harm to unrelated third parties then there's a case to be answered. This is where we (probably) fundamentally agree in terms of the way some individuals and business operate. And this is why City are at fault. Their actions clearly have a harmful effect within football as a whole. Given the body they have entered into contract with demand City's behaviour should not occur and is not permitted, why do they turn a blind eye or fall for frivolous tricks like self-sponsorship? City are in breach and it is the other clubs paying the cost of this breach. It should be stopped. Plus they are gypsies and should be killed.
Für eure Sicherheit
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote