World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

[WeWantMore]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

I would argue that the fight for spots in Europe holds a great deal of significance. While difficult, it's possible for lesser teams to make run at the Champions League. Liverpool haven't been particularly close to winning an English title in years, but won the CL in 2005 and were finalists in 2007. I've never gotten a good feel for just how significant the Europa League is, but it is certainly not insignificant. 2004 CL Champions Porto seemed joyous to win the Europa League last season.

I think Stoke, Birmingham and Fulham are quite enjoying it this year.

 

[DBenz]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

Sorry to jump in late here, but I think I agree with Bob in the recent argument, and it just doesn't seem like WWM and Dubbie are understanding what his argument is. It's not about spending lots of money. Clearly clubs have been doing that for generations. What makes Chelsea and Man City different is that they are not run as businesses at all. They are spending money directly from the owners pockets without even pretending that it is coming from or will come from any revenue generated from ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, and other traditional revenue sources for football clubs. This is profoundly different from a club like Man U or Arsenal that spends lots of money but is run as a business in which these expenses come from club revenue and there is a balance sheet that does actually add up over time. Chelsea and Man City are operated at an enormous loss that would be completely unsustainable were it not for sugar-daddy owners financing the losses. This type of set-up is actually new in the past ten years and does represent a large distortion of the financial playing field. I think that's where most peoples' beef lies.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

Sorry to jump in late here, but I think I agree with Bob in the recent argument, and it just doesn't seem like WWM and Dubbie are understanding what his argument is. It's not about spending lots of money. Clearly clubs have been doing that for generations. What makes Chelsea and Man City different is that they are not run as businesses at all. They are spending money directly from the owners pockets without even pretending that it is coming from or will come from any revenue generated from ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, and other traditional revenue sources for football clubs. This is profoundly different from a club like Man U or Arsenal that spends lots of money but is run as a business in which these expenses come from club revenue and there is a balance sheet that does actually add up over time. Chelsea and Man City are operated at an enormous loss that would be completely unsustainable were it not for sugar-daddy owners financing the losses. This type of set-up is actually new in the past ten years and does represent a large distortion of the financial playing field. I think that's where most peoples' beef lies.

I don't know, I'd argue that's exactly how businesses are run. Sometimes you have to take losses to make even bigger gains. City had to do about 10 years worth of spending in around 2. Now that they're coming close to establishing themselves, that spending will continue to decline.

Anyways, I concede your point about the money coming from a different place. But to me, that's sort of irrelevant. Are you saying that only teams that have had success ought to be allowed to have success in the future? Say you were put in charge of City in 2008. What exactly would you have done differently?

 

[Patman]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

Sorry to jump in late here, but I think I agree with Bob in the recent argument, and it just doesn't seem like WWM and Dubbie are understanding what his argument is. It's not about spending lots of money. Clearly clubs have been doing that for generations. What makes Chelsea and Man City different is that they are not run as businesses at all. They are spending money directly from the owners pockets without even pretending that it is coming from or will come from any revenue generated from ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, and other traditional revenue sources for football clubs. This is profoundly different from a club like Man U or Arsenal that spends lots of money but is run as a business in which these expenses come from club revenue and there is a balance sheet that does actually add up over time. Chelsea and Man City are operated at an enormous loss that would be completely unsustainable were it not for sugar-daddy owners financing the losses. This type of set-up is actually new in the past ten years and does represent a large distortion of the financial playing field. I think that's where most peoples' beef lies.

Welcome to the world of sports... back in the bad old days my understanding was it wasn't if you lost money on a sports team but how much. Its a sign of power and prestige that so many can relate to that won't be seen on the Fortune 500 ledger.

 

[DBenz]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

I don't know, I'd argue that's exactly how businesses are run. Sometimes you have to take losses to make even bigger gains. City had to do about 10 years worth of spending in around 2. Now that they're coming close to establishing themselves, that spending will continue to decline.

Anyways, I concede your point about the money coming from a different place. But to me, that's sort of irrelevant. Are you saying that only teams that have had success ought to be allowed to have success in the future? Say you were put in charge of City in 2008. What exactly would you have done differently?

I wouldn't have done anything differently at all. City have someone willing to supply an essentially endless stream of money that they can use to improve the team and facilities. I actually think they've done a really good job putting together a phenomenal team. I don't blame them for it a bit. I do, however, think that their ability to do this is profoundly different from every other team bar Chelsea, and that their money is artificially inflating transfer fees and player wages throughout the system. They're an awesome team and a joy to watch, but I do think that Bob has a point about them being different from an Arsenal or a Man U.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

I could be wrong, but hasn't United been running in the red since Glazer took over?

 

[MountieBoyOz]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

I could be wrong, but hasn't United been running in the red since Glazer took over?

They have been. I'm surprised some billionaire hasn't come along with a deal to buy out Glazer. Man United is a heck of a play toy to have.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

MLS Front Office gets it's wish: Red Bulls beat FC Dallas 2-0 and will play LA in the next round.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

They have been. I'm surprised some billionaire hasn't come along with a deal to buy out Glazer. Man United is a heck of a play toy to have.

Didn't Glazer dump a bunch of debt onto United right after he got them. I bet he wants someone to buy them and pay his debt for him.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

Didn't Glazer dump a bunch of debt onto United right after he got them. I bet he wants someone to buy them and pay his debt for him.

Yah, I think he actually incurrred a bunch of debt in buying ManU, and dumped that debt onto the club. That's why there were so many supporters up in arms, some even forming another Manchester football club to get away from the Glazers. Since ManU has won some silverware under the Glazers, the volume of protesting has dropped dramatically. If ManU wasn't such a cash cow, it'd be in really severe financial straits from the debt that was foisted on the club. I don't blame supporters for complaining when the Glazers did that.

 

[Priceless]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

Grant Wahl just reported that the WPS dissolved magicJack, the franchise that employed Wambach, Solo and many of the other members of the Women's National Team. No clue yet if they all become free agents or there will be a draft among the remaining teams. Without mJ the WPS is down to five teams, so expansion would be welcome.

 

[jmh]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

City had to do about 10 years worth of spending in around 2.

I think this attitude bothers a lot of people. There's no reason they had to spend all that money, because there's no reason a club has to go from being "pretty good" to "we have all the best players" overnight, except for owner vanity.

MLS Front Office gets it's wish: Red Bulls beat FC Dallas 2-0 and will play LA in the next round.

Do people really think MLS wants a NY-LA rivalry? Personally, as a Red Bulls fan... who gives a crap? DC and New England and Philly are all perfectly cromulent rivals.

Nice SI story on Levante, who are currently in first place in La Liga for the first time ever, after almost going out of business just a few years ago.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

I think this attitude bothers a lot of people. There's no reason they had to spend all that money, because there's no reason a club has to go from being "pretty good" to "we have all the best players" overnight, except for owner vanity.

But City weren't "pretty good" before the takeover. They were owned by a war criminal, and were in pretty serious danger of relegation at times in the season before.

As for "having" to do that, I guess not, but isn't that the point of sports, or anything really, to be the absolute best?

 

[MountieBoyOz]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

I think this attitude bothers a lot of people. There's no reason they had to spend all that money, because there's no reason a club has to go from being "pretty good" to "we have all the best players" overnight, except for owner vanity. Do people really think MLS wants a NY-LA rivalry? Personally, as a Red Bulls fan... who gives a crap? DC and New England and Philly are all perfectly cromulent rivals.

I hope LA kills them. I hate RB, but Henry is pretty low on the list. I hate that they've not acknowledged NY's soccer past with the Cosmos. When they were the Metros, they'd bust out the throwbacks. However, they don't care anymore. The Cosmos were awesome. I'm hoping that they get the next expansion team because I'd support them. Plus, they signed that thug Marquez.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

But City weren't "pretty good" before the takeover. They were owned by a war criminal, and were in pretty serious danger of relegation at times in the season before.

As for "having" to do that, I guess not, but isn't that the point of sports, or anything really, to be the absolute best?

Sure they were pretty good. Better than all but a relative handful of the very best teams in England. Most teams in England or elsewhere would have gladly traded their roster, finances, bright shiny new stadium they didn't pay for, etc. with City.

 

[Jimjamesak]

I hope LA kills them. I hate RB, but Henry is pretty low on the list. I hate that they've not acknowledged NY's soccer past with the Cosmos. When they were the Metros, they'd bust out the throwbacks. However, they don't care anymore. The Cosmos were awesome. I'm hoping that they get the next expansion team because I'd support them. Plus, they signed that thug Marquez.

I hope RB wins, means Seattle would have potential home game.

They can't acknowledge the past, they don't own the rights and to use them for a game would undoubtedly cost a pantload. Plus it's becoming apparent that the Cosmos "owners" will not be the NY2 owners.

 

[collegehcky2]

I hope LA kills them. I hate RB, but Henry is pretty low on the list. I hate that they've not acknowledged NY's soccer past with the Cosmos. When they were the Metros, they'd bust out the throwbacks. However, they don't care anymore. The Cosmos were awesome. I'm hoping that they get the next expansion team because I'd support them. Plus, they signed that thug Marquez.

So the Red Bull corporation buys the team and you're upset that they won't acknowledge the Cosmos? I think it look more like money grubbing if RBNY tried to do Cosmos stuff. Making money off of another brand that the foreign owners had no part of. Additionally, the Cosmos corporation right now isn't exactly making themselves look good by waiting for the league to do the leg work to find someone to build a stadium.

 

[jmh]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

They can't acknowledge the past, they don't own the rights and to use them for a game would undoubtedly cost a pantload. Plus it's becoming apparent that the Cosmos "owners" will not be the NY2 owners.

This. The current owners of the Cosmos name and trademarks are just a bunch of money grubbers who don't have any more appreciation for the Cosmos legacy than RBNY do.

 

[collegehcky2]

This. The current owners of the Cosmos name and trademarks are just a bunch of money grubbers who don't have any more appreciation for the Cosmos legacy than RBNY do.

The MLS is sick of dealing with them. Everytime they speak of expansion the MLS says they have a few interested parties in the NY area. Most of them probably want the Cosmos name from a marketing stand point, but the current group is likely going to hold any potential owner up.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: World Soccer XXI: Don't Tread on the Red, White, and Blue

Sure they were pretty good. Better than all but a relative handful of the very best teams in England. Most teams in England or elsewhere would have gladly traded their roster, finances, bright shiny new stadium they didn't pay for, etc. with City.

Did you even read my post? They decidedly weren't better than a "handful of the very best teams in England", they were relegation contenders, owned by a war criminal.

But yeah Bob, I bet teams were lining up to be in that position.