Qatar FC

serghei said:

Sour grapes or not oil state governments should not be allowed to compete vs privately owned or fan owned clubs. It creates an unfair playing field.

Click to expand...

Other than the moral aspect, I fully disagree. I think @delancey made the same point (despite being a Barca fan himself). Why shouldn't sates be allowed to own clubs? Because they can spend more money?

Also, as I said and you ignored, wouldn't clubs like Brentford, Newcastle, Ipswich, Leganes and Betis said it 'creates an unfair playing field' that it is a closed shop where 'elite historical' clubs can remain at the top indefinitely because they have the most fans and biggest revenue streams? How else do you propose a club catches up other than being taken over by a state? Admittedly then that makes those clubs go the total other way where they have so much cash it is unreal, but still.

To me, Barca fans on here whinging about PSG just sound like the three red cartel clubs in England crying about Newcastle and Man City. Obviously the human rights aspect of state-owned clubs is appalling (though the red clubs are American owned and full of dirty money too) but it just screams sour grapes.

Moaning about unfair playing fields when you spent more on Coutinho and Griezmann than most clubs can spend in 10 years is ridiculous.

Trying to make out Barca, Man United and Liverpool are the good guys of football against the evil Man City and PSG is hilarious. EVERY elite football club is an immoral cunt of a club - including Barca. That's laughable.

And again, wouldn't the rest of La Liga say that Real Madrid and Barcelona's individual TV deals 'create an unfair playing field'?

I do like Barca, but loads of you on here have a very one-eyed, biased way of looking at Barca and at other clubs.

serghei said:

PSG are very strong. One of the strongest teams since 2015 Barca and 2017 Madrid. For me personally the strongest since then. They'd beat treble winners City probably.

Click to expand...

I think 2019/20 Liverpool deserves a mention too, even though they didnt win cl because of Oblak they were super super dominant

Because bad management is a football performance metric. If football is simply pleasure spending, there's no such thing as bad management consequences.

And also, moaning about states when you have been sponsored by Qatar in the past. You take money from them when it suits you. Don't act like Barca and their board wouldn't love the Qatar money.

serghei said:

Because bad management is a football performance metric. If football is simply pleasure spending, there's no such thing as bad management consequences.

Click to expand...

Doesn't negate the rest of my points.

If anything, the greedy dominance and entitlement of clubs like United, Barca, Real Madrid, Liverpool, and their desperation to turn football into much more of a business/much more financially lucrative than it was previously (satellite TV, expansion of CL, creation of PL, rise of the internet etc) laid the foundations which then attracted 'oil money' (and that is a racist phrase, by the way) 15 years later.

It's essentially clubs like Man United's fault that there's oil money in football. Because they're the ones who turned the game into a big celebrity business that made the Middle East take notice. You could say it would have been inveitable anyway int his day and age, but they helped it along a lot.

That's completely irrelevant. Sponsorship vs ownership is completely different.

serghei said:

That's completely irrelevant. Sponsorship vs ownership is completely different.

Click to expand...

Not really. It proves that Barca will do business with Qatar when it suits them. So crying about them is hilarious.

It's on a smaller scale, yes, but still proves you're willing to get into bed with them at some level. If Barca were serious about their hate for PSG they'd refuse any sponsorship deals with Qatar. They'd also never go on Middle Eastern tours.

Ultimately, football (especially at the elite level) is all corrupt. Trying to paint PSG as evil and Barcelona as the saintly bastions of morality is fucking ridiculous. Barca would steal the last Euro out of your pocket mate, and so would every football club. Barca have zero morals, just like all top football clubs.

I do like Barca as a club, and the guys on this forum, but the sour grapes about 'oil money' on here is something that has been noticed by me for the last year. I am sure Leganes feel sour grapes about yours and Real's individual TV rights.

You are completely missing the point. Why do you think NBA has salary cap in place btw. It's very simple. Because they want to make sure you don't have a PSG like element, that can have unlimited spending.

Barca can spend much more than Leganes because they generate much more from football than Leganes. The money Barca puts in football is the money Barca makes from football. Completely different situations again.

Barca makes more from TV rights than Leganes for largely the same reason Christian Bale got paid more to appear in Batman trilogy than some secondary actor. Makes sense to me.

If Barcelona is Christian Bale, and Leganes is Roman Soldier #4 (uncredited), then PSG is the casting couch.

Are we comparing clubs that built a brand over decades some literally 100 years

100 years of winning, losing, joy and heart ache, to eventually rise to the top and gain the ability to raise revenues through sponsorship and other commercial activities.

To a club that is effectively own by a state and all the resources that go with that.

France is struggling to sell there TV deal, do we think it will affect PSG?.

What would happen to the likes of man utd, If the EPL brand failed and they could no longer generate what they do from the EPL TV deal.

But if a airline comes to sponsor them they should say no?..

Football should be opened new investors, that's the only way you break the cycle of the same team winning, a better way would be a salary cap, but eufa is eufa is that regard.

But there is a massive difference between let's say what the blue group of Chelsea are doing, which are just natural investors, whether we like how they are doing about it or not.

And being own by a literally country and having unlimited resources, PSG sponsorship deals with Qatar was massively over valued for example and nothing was ever done about it.

Apples and oranges.

serghei said:

You are completely missing the point. Why do you think NBA has salary cap in place btw. It's very simple. Because they want to make sure you don't have a PSG like element, that can have unlimited spending.

Barca can spend much more than Leganes because they generate much more from football than Leganes. The money Barca puts in football is the money Barca makes from football. Completely different situations again.

Barca makes more from TV rights than Leganes for largely the same reason Christian Bale got paid more to appear in Batman trilogy than some secondary actor. Makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

So does that mean Leganes should just accept that they'll be second to Barca forever then? That's essentially what you want, eh. The big 6 or 7 history clubs to rule forever. Pathetic.

Barca can spend much more than leganes because of history and the individual TV deals. For someone talking about fairness earlier on, you continually ignore this point.

I haven't missed the point, I just totally disagree.

jamrock said:

Are we comparing clubs that built a brand over decades some literally 100 years

100 years of winning, losing, joy and heart ache, to eventually rise to the top and gain the ability to raise revenues through sponsorship and other commercial activities.

To a club that is effectively own by a state and all the resources that go with that.

France is struggling to sell there TV deal, do we think it will affect PSG?.

What would happen to the likes of man utd, If the EPL brand failed and they could no longer generate what they do from the EPL TV deal.

But if a airline comes to sponsor them they should say no?..

Football should be opened new investors, that's the only way you break the cycle of the same team winning, a better way would be a salary cap, but eufa is eufa is that regard.

But there is a massive difference between let's say what the blue group of Chelsea are doing, which are just natural investors, whether we like how they are doing about it or not.

And being own by a literally country and having unlimited resources, PSG sponsorship deals with Qatar was massively over valued for example and nothing was ever done about it.

Apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

In the 1930s, Arsenal were a nothing club who were spared relegation wrongly, but were given outside money for Herbert Chapman's team. Before 1958 Man City were the bigger club than Man United. Liverpool only got where they are due to outside investment from Littlewoods in the 60s and 70s. Barca hadn't won the European Cup before 1992 and only became a really massive club post Cruyff.

The point is that the 'history clubs' with prestige you mention all got a leg up at some point from outside investment.

The problem is modern football fans have no clue about the history of the game and think football started in 1992.

Leganes should be owned by China.

Maradona37 said:

In the 1930s, Arsenal were a nothing club who were spared relegation wrongly, but were given outside money for Herbert Chapman's team. Before 1958 Man City were the bigger club than Man United. Liverpool only got where they are due to outside investment from Littlewoods in the 60s and 70s. Barca hadn't won the European Cup before 1992 and only became a really massive club post Cruyff.

The point is that the 'history clubs' with prestige you mention all got a leg up at some point from outside investment.

The problem is modern football fans have no clue about the history of the game and think football started in 1992.

Click to expand...

Point?

Because I don't think you thought that one through at all.

Having read me literally saying nothing is wrong with investor's coming into a club and gave Chelsea as an example.

you're debating for the sake of it, without a larger point to make.

PSG owned by county
Others invested in by individuals and companies.

I mean I like Barca lads, I really do.

But I think a lot of you wear Barca (and 'historical club') glasses in these debates. Sure, investment from states is immoral. But trying to position Man United, Liverpool and Barcelona as morally better clubs than PSG or Man City is laughable bollocks.