Oil Rich Clubs

EdenHazard

Very quiet transfer window from the likes of Anzhi, Malaga and PSG.

Anzhi sold one of their marquee signings there and I have a feeling the Anzhi project might not exactly come to pass when it's all said and done.

Malaga would want to stop wasting money on has beens and invest in real transfers, seriously players moved to freakin Manchester so they would easily move to sunny Malaga, repuation counts for nothing!

kryogen

Anzhi, even with the money, is going to find it difficult to reach the level they want to imo.

Quiet transfer window all round really, normal in January though, last couple of seasons have been unusual is all.

EdenHazard

Yeah man but even the rumours have died down now, Tardelli, Dzudzack(spelling?) were duds, although I think they made a profit on the Dzudzack or however it's spelt Hungarian guy. I've seen them linked with Seedorf thats it.

Revolution9

Maybe all the madness is being saved for deadline day like last time...

gnfnrhead

I think most teams have copped on to the fact that any business done in January is usually bad value for money. These clubs may have lots of money, but they will probably have to pay at least twice someone's value (for a big name) to get them now and I dont think any of them are willing to do that when they can wait a few months and get whoever it is for a more reasonable price.

I expect them to be very busy come summer time.

shangri la

Financial fair play rules may play a part. Top players are cup tied. January prices are seemingly higher. Most of these uber rich clubs are realising their ambition for the season and dont need to panic buy. Clubs are unwilling to sell their top players as there is not much time to find suitable replacements.

Caveman1

It's going to be interesting to see how many players leave Spain now with the new tax being so high, I can see a lot of transfers being done in the summer

Seaneh

What's the new tax like in comparison with Italy, England and Germany?

The Internet

http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/worldfootball/europe/10251-malaga-hit-with-transfer-ban-over-osasuna-debt

There seems to be something not quite right with the Malaga owners

Oilbian Rovers

AnCapaillMor

Caveman1 wrote: »

It's going to be interesting to see how many players leave Spain now with the new tax being so high, I can see a lot of transfers being done in the summer

Isn't there something about sport stars getting exemptions? basically they pay minimal. something like we were doing with artists a while back.

Orando Broom

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Isn't there something about sport stars getting exemptions? basically they pay minimal. something like we were doing with artists a while back.

If Real Madrid player have to pay exhorbitant (fair) taxes, I'll eat a hat of your choosing.

Spain has 40% unemployment, 70% under 25, I think. Cristiano Ronaldo is being paid in excess of €200k per week, sanctioned essentially by the government.

I know we give out about Ireland but we look like bloody Norway compared to that!

Redzer7

Seen on Sky Sports Malaga declared interest in Carlos Tevez, would be a big push forward if they did actually sign him.

Drumpot

City have pretty much bought anybody worth buying, so theres no much left for anybody else . .

The oil rich clubs are a disaster for football, distorting the marketprice of players and creating legacies for clubs out of pure financial muscle as opposed to building up a club the right way . .

People can say its just a bitter attitude to have but this is an irrelevant point and doesnt disprove the fact that its bad for the game to have billionaires using football clubs as their playthings and more importantly for the likes of the Arabs to use propaganda to hide the atrocities that go on in their own countries, where human rights are for the privelaged, not the majority.

The likes of City or Chelsea fans wont mind too much once they can buy success, but if things turn sour these clubs could end up being destroyed ala Ireland Inc that put all its faith in a housing bubble.

As a United fan I will only ever consider the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, spurs etc as real top clubs, worthy of the names they have built in football. They have built success with a mixture of youth development, money (limited in comparison to billionaires), creating a great club culture and with top class coaches. Any idiot can buy the likes of success's that Chelsea and City have had which diminishes the accomplishment.

Like cheating in Football manager and giving yourself unlimited funds, wheres the fun or achievement in that ? City fans are already getting bored when you see their stadium emtying with minutes to go in a game they are drawing, deep down their fans know that the success they are prob going to have is a bit of a con.

Redzer7

Drumpot wrote: »

City have pretty much bought anybody worth buying, so theres no much left for anybody else . .

The oil rich clubs are a disaster for football, distorting the marketprice of players and creating legacies for clubs out of pure financial muscle as opposed to building up a club the right way . .

People can say its just a bitter attitude to have but this is an irrelevant point and doesnt disprove the fact that its bad for the game to have billionaires using football clubs as their playthings and more importantly for the likes of the Arabs to use propaganda to hide the atrocities that go on in their own countries, where human rights are for the privelaged, not the majority.

The likes of City or Chelsea fans wont mind too much once they can buy success, but if things turn sour these clubs could end up being destroyed ala Ireland Inc that put all its faith in a housing bubble.

As a United fan I will only ever consider the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, spurs etc as real top clubs, worthy of the names they have built in football. They have built success with a mixture of youth development, money (limited in comparison to billionaires), creating a great club culture and with top class coaches. Any idiot can buy the likes of success's that Chelsea and City have had which diminishes the accomplishment.

Like cheating in Football manager and giving yourself unlimited funds, wheres the fun or achievement in that ? City fans are already getting bored when you see their stadium emtying with minutes to go in a game they are drawing, deep down their fans know that the success they are prob going to have is a bit of a con.

I must put my hand up and say I have done this once or twice :P.

gustavo

Drumpot wrote: »

deep down their fans know that the success they are prob going to have is a bit of a con.

I doubt they care tbh

Orando Broom

Drumpot wrote: »

City have pretty much bought anybody worth buying, so theres no much left for anybody else . .

The oil rich clubs are a disaster for football, distorting the marketprice of players and creating legacies for clubs out of pure financial muscle as opposed to building up a club the right way . .

No more than asset stripping Americans or Bored Russian billionaires.

Football globally has become a game of who has the bigger billionaire. But it almost always was about the guys with money.you had Milan's great 80's 7 90's team patroned by Berlusconi, Juventus by the Agnelli's on the back of factory workers labour. Real Madrid had General Franco for patronage, the won five European Cups in a row. If that happened today there would be blue bloody murder.

Even in the Soviet states the great teams were built not necessarily by billionaires but somewhat worse; the state. Teams like Red Star Belgrade Legia Warsaw, Spartak and Torpedo, all state sponsored teams who rifled other good teams for players. Sure half the bloody Euro 88 Russian squad were Ukranian*!

The fact is that soccer is probably the biggest (maybe second after cricket) spectator sport on the planet and that will always attract money men looking to exploit it.

*May not be half but there were a lot.

losthorizon

Orando Broom wrote: »

Even in the Soviet states the great teams were built not necessarily by billionaires but somewhat worse; the state. Teams like Red Star Belgrade Legia Warsaw, Spartak and Torpedo, all state sponsored teams who rifled other good teams for players. Sure half the bloody Euro 88 Russian squad were Ukranian*!

The fact is that soccer is probably the biggest (maybe second after cricket) spectator sport on the planet and that will always attract money men looking to exploit it.

*May not be half but there were a lot.

The Euro 88 squad wasn't Russian it was Soviet so it came from all 15 Soviet States. Ukraine has a population of about 70 million by itself anyway and Dynamo Kiev was one of the best club sides in that country and Europe at the time so it comes as no surprise.

Sgt Pepper 64

Drumpot wrote: »

City have pretty much bought anybody worth buying, so theres no much left for anybody else . .

The oil rich clubs are a disaster for football, distorting the marketprice of players and creating legacies for clubs out of pure financial muscle as opposed to building up a club the right way . .

People can say its just a bitter attitude to have but this is an irrelevant point and doesnt disprove the fact that its bad for the game to have billionaires using football clubs as their playthings and more importantly for the likes of the Arabs to use propaganda to hide the atrocities that go on in their own countries, where human rights are for the privelaged, not the majority.

The likes of City or Chelsea fans wont mind too much once they can buy success, but if things turn sour these clubs could end up being destroyed ala Ireland Inc that put all its faith in a housing bubble.

As a United fan I will only ever consider the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, spurs etc as real top clubs, worthy of the names they have built in football. They have built success with a mixture of youth development, money (limited in comparison to billionaires), creating a great club culture and with top class coaches. Any idiot can buy the likes of success's that Chelsea and City have had which diminishes the accomplishment.

Like cheating in Football manager and giving yourself unlimited funds, wheres the fun or achievement in that ? City fans are already getting bored when you see their stadium emtying with minutes to go in a game they are drawing, deep down their fans know that the success they are prob going to have is a bit of a con.

Probably the most clueless, bitter and mis-informed post I have EVER read.
Your stunning lack of completely non-biased and non factual knowledge extends the full spectrum of football and not just the popular MANCHESTER, ENGLAND club you claim to support.
I've often wondered if repeated blows to the head, do in fact, affect intelligence, and now I know, so thank you

eugeneious

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Probably the most clueless, bitter and mis-informed post I have EVER read.
Your stunning lack of completely non-biased and non factual knowledge extends the full spectrum of football and not just the popular MANCHESTER, ENGLAND club you claim to support.
I've often wondered if repeated blows to the head, do in fact, affect intelligence, and now I know, so thank you

Maybe you should put forward your own argument for disagreeing with his post then...

dreamers75

eugeneious wrote: »

Maybe you should put forward your own argument for disagreeing with his post then...

kinda looking forward to that myself.

cson

Its very frustrating from an Arsenal point of view. We put ourselves into huge debt to fund the Emirates, the point of which was to allow us to compete in the transfer market. It's disheartening to see the whole point behind the scheme wiped out with one fell swoop of an Arab/Russian oil barons pen.

We haven't really recovered from investing the capital to build the Emirates; the money was put down during the season of the invincibles and severely curtailed our transfer activity such that we are essentially now a selling club. There are other reasons why we haven't had much success since then but that sticks out as a big one imo. We nearly have the stadium paid for now but will it allow us compete in the transfer market? Will it fuck.

So forgive me for being a touch bitter at Chelsea and City for rendering our attempt at sustainability irrelevant. As strange as it may sound coming for a Gunner, I have more respect for the way Spurs have placed themselves up there through some clever transfer dealings.

shadowcomplex

Drumpot wrote: »

City have pretty much bought anybody worth buying

No they havent, Cavani, Hamsik,Gotze, Sneijder,Martinez,M'Vila,Hulk,Gaiten,Subotnic,Hazard,Vpersie,Eriksson

cson

You've saved Mancini the hassle of any scouting this summer right there with that list. :P

Nalz

gustavo wrote: »

I doubt they care tbh

I genuinely think a few of them would tbh.

Orando Broom

losthorizon wrote: »

The Euro 88 squad wasn't Russian it was Soviet so it came from all 15 Soviet States. Ukraine has a population of about 70 million by itself anyway and Dynamo Kiev was one of the best club sides in that country and Europe at the time so it comes as no surprise.

Apologies I should have said Soviet team. It was still, politically controlled by Russians, based in Moscow and that was the point I was trying to make that soccer teams were always the tools of money men and politicians.

Look at Charlie Haughey. He asked to 'throw in the ball' at the world cup quarter final in Italy.

ArmaniJeanss

Orando Broom wrote: »

Apologies I should have said Soviet team. It was still, politically controlled by Russians, based in Moscow and that was the point I was trying to make that soccer teams were always the tools of money men and politicians.

Your point about the overall influence of big money and political power in football is fine, but you've picked the single worst example possible with the whole Dynamo Kiev / USSR Federation thing.

Despite an economy which flowed through Moscow, and all the power also centralised in Kremlin Square, they were unable to prevent a committed and organised club from a sattelite country becoming the dominant force for the guts of two decades, with the cossetted Moscow clubs barely able to get a look in.

Orando Broom

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Your point about the overall influence of big money and political power in football is fine, but you've picked the single worst example possible with the whole Dynamo Kiev / USSR Federation thing.

Despite an economy which flowed through Moscow, and all the power also centralised in Kremlin Square, they were unable to prevent a committed and organised club from a sattelite country becoming the dominant force for the guts of two decades, with the cossetted Moscow clubs barely able to get a look in.

Where did I mention Dynamo Kiev? I was talking about in general that powerful people controlling football was not a new concept. I showed a variety of examples of clubs under patronage of political leaders or businessmen or both. I was tryign to show that the Oil baron are just the newest phase of football oligarchy. it has existed for decades. sixty years ago Real 'bought' Di Stefano off Barcelona and went on to win five European Cups. Imagine the furore if Real Madrid were given Leo Messi's registration documents.

It was Lost Horizon who mentioned Dynamo Kiev. I just used the example of the Soviet Union national team politically under Russian influence and yet many of its great players were Ukrainans. I think Oleg Blokhin is still 'Russia's' top goal scorer. A further example Kanchelsksis despite bieng Ukranian played his international career with the Soviets*/CIS/Russia.

*I'm open to correction as to whether he ever played for the Soviet Union or did he debut for the CIS.

ArmaniJeanss

Orando Broom wrote: »

Where did I mention Dynamo Kiev? I was talking about in general that powerful people controlling football was not a new concept. I showed a variety of examples of clubs under patronage of political leaders or businessmen or both. I was tryign to show that the Oil baron are just the newest phase of football oligarchy. it has existed for decades. sixty years ago Real 'bought' Di Stefano off Barcelona and went on to win five European Cups. Imagine the furore if Real Madrid were given Leo Messi's registration documents.

It was Lost Horizon who mentioned Dynamo Kiev. I just used the example of the Soviet Union national team politically under Russian influence and yet many of its great players were Ukrainans. I think Oleg Blokhin is still 'Russia's' top goal scorer. A further example Kanchelsksis despite bieng Ukranian played his international career with the Soviets*/CIS/Russia.

*I'm open to correction as to whether he ever played for the Soviet Union or did he debut for the CIS.

I'm honestly not sure what the point is, it still seems that your example is a reverse example.
The USSR was politically and financially controlled by Moscow yet a lot of the best player and teams were from a different province, which surely indicates that the money and power wasn't actually that influential at all. Which is against the idea of this thread which is that money is the key to winning.

You seemed surprised that there were good players in the USSR other than from Russia. Or surprised that the likes of Kanchelskis would have played for the USSR... but they'd have had no choice, it was the only international option for them as Ukraine didn't exist at the time as a country, and obviously neither did Russia.

Orando Broom

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm honestly not sure what the point is, it still seems that your example is a reverse example.
The USSR was politically and financially controlled by Moscow yet a lot of the best player and teams were from a different province, which surely indicates that the money and power wasn't actually that influential at all. Which is against the idea of this thread which is that money is the key to winning.

You seemed surprised that there were good players in the USSR other than from Russia. Or surprised that the likes of Kanchelskis would have played for the USSR... but they'd have had no choice, it was the only international option for them as Ukraine didn't exist at the time as a country, and obviously neither did Russia.

Ok I'll distill it down for you but don't come back with the faux confusion. Either read the post or jsut drop it. It's two posts that you have delibrately misrepresented what I've said (where did I express surprise in my post?).

- Drumpot complained about Oil billionaires

- I countered his arguments with stating that big business/politics controlled football in a similar vein for the best part of sixty years (read the story of Kiev's FK Start versus a German select XI team as an example of the mesh of politics and football).

- I used the examples of Real Madrid, With Franco, AC Milan with Berlusconi and even the Agnellis' with Juve of where the power and influence of big business/politics influenced what happened at clubs.

- Following on from that point I stated that what was going on with the Arab ownership was still not as bad as State sponsorship, Real Madrid again and then the teams like Torpedo and Spartak, Red Star in Yogoslavia and Legia Warsaw in Poland. I never mentioned success or failure, not once. I merely stated that they were under the control of the State, which I asserted was a worse situation than being owned by a private individual.

- Extending the point further I cited how even at national level political influence crossed into football. The Soviet Union was the example where players from different countries played for a centralised team controlled by Russians. (All Soviet games were played in Moscow).

That my friend is the point, it is a series of examples showing that the current favoured ownership/control model of football may seem bad it is not as nefarious as others (examples provided above).

If you can't grasp those concepts without changing the goalposts or reading what you want to read into what I write then the debate is finished. twice you've side tracked the argument with things that simply were enver said. I note there was no apology on either point, but whatever.

ArmaniJeanss

Orando Broom wrote: »

Ok I'll distill it down for you but don't come back with the faux confusion. Either read the post or jsut drop it. It's two posts that you have delibrately misrepresented what I've said (where did I express surprise in my post?).


If you can't grasp those concepts without changing the goalposts or reading what you want to read into what I write then the debate is finished. twice you've side tracked the argument with things that simply were enver said. I note there was no apology on either point, but whatever.

Just because someone doesn't get your point doesnt mean they are deliberately misinterpreting it. So get off the high horse on looking for an apology.

Having read your last post I actually think the confusion is coming from this
bit (everything else is fine and I'd agree with).

Orando Broom wrote: »

- Extending the point further I cited how even at national level political influence crossed into football. The Soviet Union was the example where players from different countries played for a centralised team controlled by Russians. (All Soviet games were played in Moscow).

I wouldn't regard the structures that pertained in the USSR at the time as being 'different countries', it was one country, one government, one football assocation, one league. So I think the example you've given is wrong as the underlying premise is, imo, wrong.

DoctorGonzo08

Drumpot wrote: »

City have pretty much bought anybody worth buying, so theres no much left for anybody else . .

The oil rich clubs are a disaster for football, distorting the marketprice of players and creating legacies for clubs out of pure financial muscle as opposed to building up a club the right way . .

People can say its just a bitter attitude to have but this is an irrelevant point and doesnt disprove the fact that its bad for the game to have billionaires using football clubs as their playthings and more importantly for the likes of the Arabs to use propaganda to hide the atrocities that go on in their own countries, where human rights are for the privelaged, not the majority.

The likes of City or Chelsea fans wont mind too much once they can buy success, but if things turn sour these clubs could end up being destroyed ala Ireland Inc that put all its faith in a housing bubble.

As a United fan I will only ever consider the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, spurs etc as real top clubs, worthy of the names they have built in football. They have built success with a mixture of youth development, money (limited in comparison to billionaires), creating a great club culture and with top class coaches. Any idiot can buy the likes of success's that Chelsea and City have had which diminishes the accomplishment.

Like cheating in Football manager and giving yourself unlimited funds, wheres the fun or achievement in that ? City fans are already getting bored when you see their stadium emtying with minutes to go in a game they are drawing, deep down their fans know that the success they are prob going to have is a bit of a con.

:eek: What in the name of God is this rant about? And worse still there are people thanking it???

Do you really believe outside of the City squad there is nobody worth buying? Are you insane? THere is really no point to even begin to list players that are worth buying, as I could not possibly list them all.

The point that oil rich clubs are distorting the marketplace is very true, and is the question posed in this thread I believe. And yes, I think it is going to affect football negatively in that regards.

I don't think your opinion is bitter, I think it is uninformed, illogical, and fanatical.

What or where has the attack on Arabs come from? What propoganda? What atrocities? What on earth are you on about. I hope you know this can quite easily be taken as a very racist remark as the point you are making is very unclear.

City fans don't really care about the funds, or where they have come from. Obviously I can't speak for all of them. But it is very enjoyable to see your team winning. Although we have only won the FA Cup thus far so I would hardly say it has bought us success yet. I am also aware, that should the investment be withdrawn, City would face relegation and possible liquidation. So there is a huge downside for our club that the make come as a result of the possible success it might buy. Again, this is another valid point of the oil rich clubs affecting negatively.

I'm not even going to justify that comment about Ireland Inc.

As for your consideration of waht a big club is, that is completely up to you, as it is only for your consideration. If that was an attempt to persuade others, it's moronic. These big clubs have been built up on money full stop. Be it as a result of success on the field or foreign investment is irrelevant. It may give you the right to climb up on a high horse, but that's about it. These big clubs are the richest clubs also. THey have the financial clout that is doing all the same negative things that the oil rich clubs are doing. The problem is that the oil clubs are now raising that financial bar and they do not command the same clout as they used to. That is the problem big club fans have, but it is easier to use the 'success' argiument because it doesn't make you seem like half the hypocrit you are.

In closing, your arguments that oil rich clubs distort the marketplace, and the negative affect that such investment in clubs being withdrawn could very well cripple the club are very valid arguments. And I agree with them.

As for your big club, if I have got this wrong, tell me how you see competition to form the 'right' way. Unfortunatley for most clubs, winning trophies back in the 60s is an impossible goal. If they are not allowed to compete financially, please tell me how they gain the 'right' to become big clubs.

Mr. Presentable

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

:eek: What in the name of God is this rant about? And worse still there are people thanking it???

As for your big club, if I have got this wrong, tell me how you see competition to form the 'right' way. Unfortunatley for most clubs, winning trophies back in the 60s is an impossible goal. If they are not allowed to compete financially, please tell me how they gain the 'right' to become big clubs.

Good post. The post you refer is but a thinly veiled cheap shot, from someone who is used to "their" club getting it all their own way for too long, at the clubs which threaten their ivory tower most.

It always boiled down to money, and so long as it is honestly acquired, why should it matter where it came from unless out of begrudgery?

Orando Broom

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Good post. The post you refer is but a thinly veiled cheap shot, from someone who is used to "their" club getting it all their own way for too long, at the clubs which threaten their ivory tower most.

It always boiled down to money, and so long as it is honestly acquired, why should it matter where it came from unless out of begrudgery?

Can you seriously show me one club with 'honestly acquired' money?

What club does yer man support?

Madworld

This is the funniest thread I have ever seen. People giving out about Billionares putting money into football.

90% of people on here are barstoolers who support a Top 6 side in England or Celtic. Why did you start supporting these clubs? Because they had more money than Derby County did or Torquay United did.

Ye are the ultimate hypocrites. :rolleyes:

EdenHazard

Exactly. At one stage these clubs were backed by relatively richer backers than other clubs hence they got to get the best players thus in a position to build a legacy

Warper

Lot of hypocrites around- after all Man Utd, Liverpool etc. were on the stock exchange ffs. The highest bidder owns these clubs - Americans. Whats even more braindead is the guys that turn up to OT wearing those yellow and green scarves - ah you actually paid in - great protest. I'm delighted there are now wealthier clubs around, maybe now the likes of Utd/Arsenal can experience getting their players swiped rather than them doing it to everyone else.

cson

Warper wrote: »

Lot of hypocrites around- after all Man Utd, Liverpool etc. were on the stock exchange ffs. The highest bidder owns these clubs - Americans. Whats even more braindead is the guys that turn up to OT wearing those yellow and green scarves - ah you actually paid in - great protest. I'm delighted there are now wealthier clubs around, maybe now the likes of Utd/Arsenal can experience getting their players swiped rather than them doing it to everyone else.

Lol coming from a Barca fan.

I suppose when its a Government backing you then its fine. :rolleyes:

Liam O

Warper wrote: »

Lot of hypocrites around- after all Man Utd, Liverpool etc. were on the stock exchange ffs. The highest bidder owns these clubs - Americans. Whats even more braindead is the guys that turn up to OT wearing those yellow and green scarves - ah you actually paid in - great protest. I'm delighted there are now wealthier clubs around, maybe now the likes of Utd/Arsenal can experience getting their players swiped rather than them doing it to everyone else.

you 'support' a club that said they'd never have a shirt sponsor and ended up selling it to the highest bidder. I suppose selling your soul has a price...

Madworld wrote: »

This is the funniest thread I have ever seen. People giving out about Billionares putting money into football.

90% of people on here are barstoolers who support a Top 6 side in England or Celtic. Why did you start supporting these clubs? Because they had more money than Derby County did or Torquay United did.

Ye are the ultimate hypocrites. :rolleyes:

why did people claim to support them only when they were successful or is this just another stupid generalisation intended to stir up shít in the soccer forum? I go to games that my 'local' team plays but because they're not in the LOI and I don't pay in does that not count?

cson

Madworld wrote: »

This is the funniest thread I have ever seen. People giving out about Billionares putting money into football.

90% of people on here are barstoolers who support a Top 6 side in England or Celtic. Why did you start supporting these clubs? Because they had more money than Derby County did or Torquay United did.

Ye are the ultimate hypocrites. :rolleyes:

90%?

Jesus the facts from the pulling-it-out-of-your-arse Institute are in full flow.

I thought this place had minimum requirements to get access :rolleyes:

gimmick

Bit of a bump here, but what the fúck has happened Malaga? They were cash rich, but are now facing automatic relegation from La Liga if they don't settle debts by the end of July?

Did their Arab owner just pull the plug with no warning or what??

Jax Teller

Dunno what the story is but the first comment on this was great

http://www.espnstar.com/football/primera-liga/news/detail/item828515/Malaga-allay-unpaid-wages-fears/

everdead.ie

gimmick wrote: »

Bit of a bump here, but what the fúck has happened Malaga? They were cash rich, but are now facing automatic relegation from La Liga if they don't settle debts by the end of July?

Did their Arab owner just pull the plug with no warning or what??

As far as I am aware they have never really had money they spent big last summer but pretty much all clubs are saying they are still owed there money and the players have been paid sparodically.

GavRedKing

With UCL revenue coming in this should them this season but with the UEFA F.F.P. coming in they could easily be the first casualities of the new rules if they keep this practice up.

Glico Man

gimmick wrote: »

Bit of a bump here, but what the fúck has happened Malaga? They were cash rich, but are now facing automatic relegation from La Liga if they don't settle debts by the end of July?

Did their Arab owner just pull the plug with no warning or what??

They've not paid taxes, transfer fees or wages in line with deadlines they've been given. AFAIK, it was Hamburg who first brought up the issue to UEFA regarding being owned money for Mathjisen.