Chelsea agree fee for Porto's Hulk

GavRedKing

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I dont see why we should be penalised just for being considerably richer than other clubs.

Thats life, we live in a free democratic world.

Do we all sit at home and say unfair it is we havent got bentleys and yachts?

We should break away from the poor clubs - that'll teach um!

We follow a sport that even a club like stoke buys a player with enough money to feed a third world country - how stupid is that?!

UEFA just want to bring the richer clubs closer together an dmake the premium competition open to mroe countries and smaller teams.

Granted a team like APOEL arent going to compete every year as they are really the exception to the rule of smaller teams going far in the UCL and they are in no way goign to compete with the biggest clubs due to revenues but its a small start.

I think its UEFA just making a lot of noise without backing it up.

greendom

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I dont see why we should be penalised just for being considerably richer than other clubs.

Thats life, we live in a free democratic world.

Do we all sit at home and say unfair it is we havent got bentleys and yachts?

We should break away from the poor clubs - that'll teach um!

We follow a sport that even a club like stoke buys a player with enough money to feed a third world country - how stupid is that?!

UEFA's worry is the inflationary climate the sugar daddies are creating will force clubs to spend more than they can afford just to keep up.

Also by making clubs reliant on the actual revenue they raise by their own means, rather than living on a billionaire's wealth, would result in a club not going out of business if the sugar daddy had a change of heart or dropped dead or lost all his wealth.

Sgt Pepper 64

Samich wrote: »

It's like the eurozone crisis, can't spend more than you get in or you'll get penalised

Sorry, I can no longer converse with the likes of you as it is charged at double rates plus expenses plus add on fees

2ndcoming

Well let's say some mad dictator multi billionaire from Afgakbakistan decided he wants to win the World Cup, so he sets up a league in his country, owns all the teams, and starts buying the world's best young players and pays them hugely on the condition they declare themselves for their new home in the international game.

8 years later they win the World Cup, would that be right?

Equium

. Sorry, double post.

GavRedKing

2ndcoming wrote: »

Well let's say some mad dictator multi billionaire from Afgakbakistan decided he wants to win the World Cup, so he sets up a league in his country, owns all the teams, and starts buying the world's best young players and pays them hugely on the condition they declare themselves for their new home in the international game.

8 years later they win the World Cup, would that be right?

The day that ANY of that happens I'll eat my hat, through my arse.

Equium

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Well first off you get a warning, second, it looks at accounts from certain years, third, we can prove we are comlying because we are showing a downward trend, 4th we havent spent anything we havent earnt on the hazard and hulk transfers when they actually happen

Do YOU actually know what the FPP rules are?
I suggest you google, theres lots of articles on Chelsea and city

I know exactly what FFP is. I also doubt that the downward trend in losses is not not likely to turn into a profit within the timeframe specified by the rules, especially given that such a massive outlay is required to overhaul the squad (and I don't just mean this summer). If rumours are to be believed, close to the entire CL prize money is being spent on rebuilding the squad, so the current level of annual losses will be similar next year. Counting on winning the CL every year is not ideal when budgeting.

Anyway, this is a thread on Hulk's signing rather than FFP. On topic, I think that he's a good signing, but not at that price.

PhlegmyMoses

greendom wrote: »

UEFA's worry is the inflationary climate the sugar daddies are creating will force clubs to spend more than they can afford just to keep up.

Also by making clubs reliant on the actual revenue they raise by their own means, rather than living on a billionaire's wealth, would result in a club not going out of business if the sugar daddy had a change of heart or dropped dead or lost all his wealth.

This is the crux of it. There has to be something in place to keep these owners in check, for the sake of these clubs, not their competition. If FFP has teeth, there will be plenty of clubs over the next 20 years who will be very glad that it was brought in.

Equium

2ndcoming wrote: »

Well let's say some mad dictator multi billionaire from Afgakbakistan decided he wants to win the World Cup, so he sets up a league in his country, owns all the teams, and starts buying the world's best young players and pays them hugely on the condition they declare themselves for their new home in the international game.

8 years later they win the World Cup, would that be right?

Completely different. FIFA's elligibility rules, and a lack of recognition of the country in the first place wouldn't allow for it.

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I dont see why we should be penalised just for being considerably richer than other clubs.

Thats life, we live in a free democratic world.

Do we all sit at home and say unfair it is we havent got bentleys and yachts?

We should break away from the poor clubs - that'll teach um!

We follow a sport that even a club like stoke buys a player with enough money to feed a third world country - how stupid is that?!

How about Manchester United and Liverpool abolish the co-op TV deal and go out on their own? Goodbye to a ****load of revenue for all of the clubs in the league, including your beloved Chelsea. No chance of complying with FFP rules. The reason they don't do that is because it is bad for the game and ultimately the clubs themselves because competition will die on its arse.

2ndcoming

gavredking wrote: »

The day that ANY of that happens I'll eat my hat, through my arse.

I'm not saying it will happen I'm saying if it did, would it be right? It's a hypothetical question.

If someone told me in 1997 that by 2012 Chelsea would have won 3 league titles and a European Cup, and the league had been won that year by the world's most expensive team, Manchester City, let's just say my arse would now be sore and I wouldn't have a hat anymore.

Sgt Pepper 64

SSN##Breaking news##

Chelsea to launch staggering £60 million bid for the FFP rules

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has launched an astonishing £60m bid to buy UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations.
The Blues billionaire - whose wish is reportedly to see the Champions League winners go undefeated for the season - is desperate to splash out on UEFA's regulations after being informed that FFP makes it impossible for a team to record a loss.
"Money is no object for Abramovich as far as FFP is concerned and he is prepared to test UEFA boss Michel Platini's resolve with a mega-money offer," revealed our Chelsea insider, Stamford The Lion. "The Russian oligarch was alerted when he heard that the regulations had caused problems for his team and some of Europe's biggest sides, not to mention its excellent record on penalties."
Chelsea will face stiff competition from Man City, however, who have been monitoring FFP's progress and may exploit a loophole to get sponsors on board to pay for the move.

GavRedKing

2ndcoming wrote: »

I'm not saying it will happen I'm saying if it did, would it be right? It's a hypothetical question.

If someone told me in 1997 that by 2012 Chelsea would have won 3 league titles and a European Cup, and the league had been won that year by the world's most expensive team, Manchester City, let's just say my arse would now be sore and I wouldn't have a hat anymore.

Your example just cant and wont happen, its impossible, thats the problem.

However, any club can win trophies, so back in '97 there was a much better chance of City or Chelsea pushing the top clubs in the next 15 years then there was for a situation like the one you posted.

:pac:

LuckyLloyd

2ndcoming wrote: »

I'm not saying it will happen I'm saying if it did, would it be right? It's a hypothetical question.

If someone told me in 1997 that by 2012 Chelsea would have won 3 league titles and a European Cup, and the league had been won that year by the world's most expensive team, Manchester City, let's just say my arse would now be sore and I wouldn't have a hat anymore.

niallo27

How exactly does one go about eating their hat through their arse.

Moneymaker

Some amount of drool in this thread.

Panthro

Will ye please stop talking about eating yer hats through yer holes!:pac:
Lets focus on the real issues here..
The Ram, the Hazard and the Hulk - its like the Avengers Chelsea style!

GavRedKing

niallo27 wrote: »

How exactly does one go about eating their hat through their arse.

When this happens I'll gladly demonstrate. :pac: vvv

2ndcoming wrote: »

Well let's say some mad dictator multi billionaire from Afgakbakistan decided he wants to win the World Cup, so he sets up a league in his country, owns all the teams, and starts buying the world's best young players and pays them hugely on the condition they declare themselves for their new home in the international game.

8 years later they win the World Cup, would that be right?

latenia

gavredking wrote: »

The day that ANY of that happens I'll eat my hat, through my arse.

Have you looked at England's cricket team lately? They reached no.1 in the world rankings with the majority of their team (and most of their best players) from overseas. Look out for the amount of 'ringers' you'll see in the Olympics this summer too. What about that famous Croatian Eduardo da Silva?

maximoose

niallo27 wrote: »

How exactly does one go about eating their hat through their arse.

See South Park S06E08 for a full tutorial

GavRedKing

latenia wrote: »

Have you looked at England's cricket team lately? They reached no.1 in the world rankings with the majority of their team (and most of their best players) from overseas.

Not soccer, fwiw the " Irish " cricket team aint much better.

Look out for the amount of 'ringers' you'll see in the Olympics this summer too.

Again, no interest, has nothing to do with Soccer

What about that famous Croatian Eduardo da Silva?

He moved to Croatia as a teenager and declared himself for the national team.

Croatia although a decent team are no threat to the best teams in the world thanks to a Brazilian that wont start the Euro's.

His case does happen but not to often.

/ Awaits post about Deco, Santos etc etc

Sgt Pepper 64

ahem - jack charlton and irish grannies!

2ndcoming

gavredking wrote: »

Your example just cant and wont happen, its impossible, thats the problem.

However, any club can win trophies, so back in '97 there was a much better chance of City or Chelsea pushing the top clubs in the next 15 years then there was for a situation like the one you posted.

:pac:

5 years previous to that Chelsea had to sell their stadium and grounds to their fans to avoid bankruptcy, and Man City at the time were in the 2nd division about to be relegated to the 3rd, so it's fair to say it would have been pretty f***ing implausible.

There's no reason it technically couldn't happen anyway, any uncapped player can declare for a country once they've lived there 5 years. If you're buying a league's worth of talented 18 year olds on the condition they can't declare for their home country and must declare for yours when eligible there wouldn't be anything against any FIFA rules currently in existence.

Regardless of that, it's a hypothetical question, if it happened, would it be right? Can't or Won't don't come into it.

cournioni

GEM_13 wrote: »

No offence now but Utd have bought plenty of leagues themselves.Dignity would not be one of MUFC'S strong points to be fair.

At least United earned their own money.

2ndcoming

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'd imagine if you ate your hat through your arse it would be pretty sore, no?

Sgt Pepper 64

cournioni wrote: »

At least United earned their own money.

ah the old chestnut

Why does every chelsea transfer thread become either a

Old money vs New money

or

Its so unfair?

get over it people, the Hulk is coming and its going to be exciting either way and thats what helps keep the EPL going and revenue coming in!
For everyone!

2ndcoming

gavredking wrote: »

He moved to Croatia as a teenager and declared himself for the national team.

....

GavRedKing

2ndcoming wrote: »

5 years previous to that Chelsea had to sell their stadium and grounds to their fans to avoid bankruptcy, and Man City at the time were in the 2nd division about to be relegated to the 3rd, so it's fair to say it would have been pretty f***ing implausible.

There's no reason it technically couldn't happen anyway, any uncapped player can declare for a country once they've lived there 5 years. If you're buying a league's worth of talented 18 year olds on the condition they can't declare for their home country and must declare for yours when eligible there wouldn't be anything against any FIFA rules currently in existence.

Regardless of that, it's a hypothetical question, if it happened, would it be right? Can't or Won't don't come into it.

Well if you can convince the best talented youngsters on the planet, who will more then likely go onto play for their own country, to defect and play for someone else then what would be wrong with it?

In reality it doesnt happen, if your good enough to play for your countries national team it usually results in you playing for them.

Take Messi as an example, had the opportunity to play for Spain but stuck with his country of birth.

GavRedKing

2ndcoming wrote: »

....

Not as soona s he got off the plane but eventually

Reekwind

Chelsea are going to record a £100m+ loss for 2012. At least: it was £70m in 2011. That will be taken into account for the years monitored by FFP

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I dont see why we should be penalised just for being considerably richer than other clubs

But you're not richer. Your owner is

FFP doesn't penalise clubs like Utd or Real or Munich; that is, major clubs with revenue drawn from their massive fan bases. It is supposed to stop billionaires picking up European trophies like they were designer handbags and horribly distorting the competition in the process. But hey, if you want to form a superleague with City, PSG and Malaga then go ahead

GavRedKing

Reekwind wrote: »

if you want to form a superleague with City, PSG and Malaga then go ahead

Can we?

Yeeeeees.

2ndcoming

gavredking wrote: »

Well if you can convince the best talented youngsters on the planet, who will more then likely go onto play for their own country, to defect and play for someone else then what would be wrong with it?
QUOTE]

In my opinion there would be a lot wrong with it, but I'd say Eden Hazard would call himself a proud Afgakbakistani if you put enough wedge on the table, and there's a whole breed of footballers coming thru now who you could say the same for.

That was like pulling teeth, it's basically what Chelsea and City do extrapolated to the international stage, so I didn't think you'd be in a hurry to condemn it.

greendom

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

ah the old chestnut

Why does every chelsea transfer thread become either a

Old money vs New money

or

Its so unfair?

get over it people, the Hulk is coming and its going to be exciting either way and thats what helps keep the EPL going and revenue coming in!
For everyone!

It's Chelsea fans who are going to have to learn to put up with a bit of jealousy from other fans. You need to get over our sly attacks. Small price to pay for all the bounties coming your way.

Sgt Pepper 64

Reekwind wrote: »

Chelsea are going to record a £100m+ loss for 2012. At least: it was £70m in 2011. That will be taken into account for the years monitored by FFP

But you're not richer. Your owner is

FFP doesn't penalise clubs like Utd or Real or Munich; that is, major clubs with revenue drawn from their massive fan bases. It is supposed to stop billionaires picking up European trophies like they were designer handbags and horribly distorting the competition in the process. But hey, if you want to form a superleague with City, PSG and Malaga then go ahead

potato - potato

Look at this way, would you like a league where only one club - Utd have a chance of winning it every year? Only Utd fans would and even some of them would soon feel empty.

Now we have 3 clubs.

Only Liverpool can compete with the global brand of Utd, and yet somehow, that isnt seen as unfair?
Kids in India support Utd without any real attachment to them at all, is that right?

So what you are saying is that ONLY clubs with MASSIVE fan bases are fair enough to win the league?

What a boring unequal view of things

oh and learn to see a joke when you see one!

Samich

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

potato - potato

Look at this way, would you like a league where only one club - Utd have a chance of winning it every year? Only Utd fans would and even some of them would soon feel empty.

Now we have 3 clubs.

Only Liverpool can compete with the global brand of Utd, and yet somehow, that isnt seen as unfair?
Kids in India support Utd without any real attachment to them at all, is that right?

So what you are saying is that ONLY clubs with MASSIVE fan bases are fair enough to win the league?

What a boring unequal view of things

oh and learn to see a joke when you see one!

Nah I'd be pretty sure the league would be more exciting if Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Liverpool had a chance of a top 3 finish every year.

Anyways, Ye had the 2nd best manager in the world when ye won ye'r league titles and ye don't have a manager now so I don't think City will be worrying about ye yet Or Utd for that matter.

MUSEIST

Well this thread has gone wildly off topic, any mods around.

So Hulk then, better than kalou

Sgt Pepper 64

Samich wrote: »

Nah I'd be pretty sure the league would be more exciting if Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Liverpool had a chance of a top 3 finish every year.

Anyways, Ye had the 2nd best manager in the world when ye won ye'r league titles and ye don't have a manager now so I don't think City will be worrying about ye yet Or Utd for that matter.

nice try - but i think they will - you cannot ignore an attack of

hazard, mata, torres and hulk

its a statement of intent

bullpost

You're right. I suspect Utd are too busy worrying about Utd and I'm not too sure about City

Samich wrote: »

Anyways, Ye had the 2nd best manager in the world when ye won ye'r league titles and ye don't have a manager now so I don't think City will be worrying about ye yet Or Utd for that matter.

Hank Scorpio

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

nice try - but i think they will - you cannot ignore an attack of

hazard, mata, torres and hulk

its a statement of intent

Mata is a poor mans Silva, Hulk is overrated, Hazard hasn't played a single EPL game and Torres, well ya know .. :pac:

PhlegmyMoses

It is incredibly short-sighted, though. If you can guarantee your owners billions will be there for the foreseeable future, then it is fine. But how can you guarantee that? Sure Abramovich seems to have sticking power but what about the next guy who buys up a club and gets pissed off when he can't win anything. Look at it like this, the more clubs who get bought up by massive owners, the harder it becomes to win trophies. Do we trust these men to stick around and keep pumping money in when the competition makes it so hard to win trophies? There would be many casualties. The FFP rules will hopefully help UEFA and FIFA to rail against that and keep clubs afloat if that were to happen.

Samich

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

nice try - but i think they will - you cannot ignore an attack of

hazard, mata, torres and hulk

its a statement of intent

Torres has yet to prove himself at Chelsea. Mata wasn't sensational this season. Best Chelsea had but a poor mans David Silva. Hulk has a powerful shot but we'll see about him. Will prob do alright for ye but won't be the reason for ye winning or losing a league, and Hazard seems like a good buy, but he'd want to be for 16 million a season

2ndcoming

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Now we have 3 clubs.

6th last season though, yeah? You're gonna have to improve pretty drastically on that regardless of who ye buy before you start considering yourselves title contenders.

Samich

2ndcoming wrote: »

6th last season though, yeah? You're gonna have to improve pretty drastically on that regardless of who ye buy before you start considering yourselves title contenders.

Let's not forget Matteo had a worse points average than AVB :pac:

Sgt Pepper 64

2ndcoming wrote: »

6th last season though, yeah? You're gonna have to improve pretty drastically on that regardless of who ye buy before you start considering yourselves title contenders.

errr- thats why we have spent so much - i feel deja vu!

bullpost

Who's forgetting. It nearly ruined my FA and CL victory celebrations

Samich wrote: »

Let's not forget Matteo had a worse points average than AVB :pac:

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Samich wrote: »

Nah I'd be pretty sure the league would be more exciting if Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Liverpool had a chance of a top 3 finish every year.

I hope you're not one of the people that complains about La Liga.. That's a shocking attitude to have.

Sgt Pepper 64

bullpost wrote: »

Who's forgetting. It nearly ruined my FA and CL victory celebrations

Brilliant!

smallerthanyou

bullpost wrote: »

Who's forgetting. It nearly ruined my FA and CL victory celebrations

Couldn't stop thinking about it. D'ya think AVB would come back if we asked him nicely?

cournioni

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

ah the old chestnut

Why does every chelsea transfer thread become either a

Old money vs New money

or

Its so unfair?

I have no problem with Chelsea spending silly money on players, that is their prerogative.

However, I do take exception to people lumping United in there with City, Chelsea, PSG, Malaga, Anzhi Makhachkalalalalalala etc. United earned their money through the club.

greendom

cournioni wrote: »

I have no problem with Chelsea spending silly money on players, that is their prerogative.

However, I do take exception to people lumping United in there with City, Chelsea, PSG, Malaga, Anzhi Makhachkalalalalalala etc. United earned their money through the club.

in fact United's boat is going in the opposite direction completely; their owners are taking money out of the club.