Search results

I don't view meritocracy only as propagation of wealth, that's too simplistic of my argument. And you made good points with tennis. Ultimately, no argument is perfect. Fair enough. It's probably more of a difference in how we see the world. Two things: 1) as stated, I do like and generally...

No, I am saying a lot of what they did was immoral and enabled by local benefactors too, even if you consider it 'smart'. Hence, they're no better than the plastic oil clubs that Barca and United and Liverpool fans like to claim are morally worse than them. 'Smart' doesn't mean 'moral'. Man...

Real Madrid 'earned' it through Franco's nonsense in the 50s? That corruption still benefits them now in Europe through an affinity and belief that dates back to those 5 European cups. I already told you about Man United getting a leg up from Davies and Gibson, and floating on the stock...

If anything your priorities are deeply fucked up - you care far more about the fact that Newcastle's owners want to deprive Barca of trophies in a game of football than you do the fact those same owners are taking political prisoners and executing gay people.

Yeah, originally based on a leg up (in the case of United, Liverpool, moreso than Barca). And now because of that and the glory hunters and hence revenue streams it attracts, it creates a compounding effect - winning stuff leads to more money, which leads to winning stuff, which leads to more...

Ultimately, it's a food chain that you've been at the top of for so long, the apex predator. You and other clubs like United and Liverpool just don't like that there's a new evolution and a new apex predator. You can still feed on 99.9 percent of animals, but there's two or three who can devour...

If you say so. I consider the individual TV deal immoral or at least morally grey, in a sporting capacity. If you don't then there's something wrong with you. Other stuff like attracting glory hunters and fleecing the working classes for tickets and subscriptions is morally grey too. But I do...

Also, you continue to evade points and trying to make new arguments not related to what I said. It's extremely disingenuous. You know the individual TV deals is a perfect point that you cannot argue against, hence you constantly ignoring it and trying to deflect to other aspects.

But it's based on unchangeable history (nepotism in effect), immoral earnings (fleecing supporters, like all clubs do), attracting glory hunters (very shallow) and keeping others down (individual TV deals). You act like it's purely innocent, like Bale earning more because he's better at acting...

Also, nobody forced Barca or Man United to be laughably run in recent years, and waste fortunes on players who didn't work out. You have had more than enough resources to be a sufficient club but fucked it up, hence being in the dire financial predicament you and United now find yourselves in...

maybe I should just stop posting in here. You're all guys I get on with and generally agree with, but your tribalism as Barca fans blinds you hugely on this debate and makes you extremely biased. Same as every other club (including the 'sports washing' clubs' fans in the other direction).

You didn't address my middle paragraphs, and continue to evade the individual TV deals points. Why is it okay for Barca to have much more money than 99.9 percent of clubs, largely based on history and immorally fleecing supporters, but it's not okay for a few clubs to have more than them? It's...

So let me get this straight. It's ok for Barca to have more money than 99.9 percent of clubs, and rule over them, and have individual deals to keep them down. That's fine. But it's not ok for two or three clubs to have infinitely more resources than Barca? Because those two to three clubs are...

Never said they were plucky underdogs that is a straw man and I nor anyone else has said that. or that I like them or think what they're doing is correct. I also think the World Cup should not have been in Qatar for many reasons. My point is that every elite clubs is immoral and only cares...

Anyway, I think almost everything I have said is correct, and would get upvoted relentlessly on Bluemoon, for example. But obviously on Barcaforum or rawk or redcafe or bayernzone it will go down about as well as Harvey Weinstein attending a women's rights group. That's the tribalism aspect of...

Anyway, it probably sounds like I am trying to wind you lot up and digging at Barca. That isn't my intention - I want Barca to win stuff and prefer them as a club to PSG easily. I am just saying there are no good guys at the elite level of football. All these clubs are cunts. Look at...

Also, Christian Bale getting paid more than a lesser actor is a poor analogy. Christian Bale is an individual, who is paid based on how good he is at acting or how much of a star he is, on his own merits. The traditional clubs is more akin to nepotism i.e. an actor with famous parents or...

My overall point is that - at some stage, and it was on a smaller scale - every club has had outside investment. Not on the grand scale of now, but my point is that Man United, Liverpool etc only became 'historical clubs' because at one point they were pumped full of outside money. That money...

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.

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...