Achraf Hakimi

[DonAK]

Please post your sources or evidence of this. Smells like bs to me but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

He's a bullshitter so don't bother.

Don't know why some PSG fans are afraid of acknowledging they are funded by Qatar and would be irrelevant without it. Not saying they were history-less before Qatar takeover, but pretty obvious they and Man City are state funded football clubs that would be mid-table clubs without that investment.

Pretty sad they still cannot win a Champions League title after all that investment. Particularly PSG.

 

[KingLeo10]

So much misinformation regarding PSG.Let me fix this.

First off, Qatar stopped funding PSG 5 years ago. Uefa doesn't let them fund us. it's also forbidden in France. however, EPL club owners can fund their teams with getting shares or loans. Second off, Real is still getting state funding from Spanish Goverment. Selling internet rights for 500 m to Providence, getting 405 m loan from Providence in return for trivial future sponsorhip revenue.it's not hard to understand Spanish Goverment is behind Providence.


we got highest CL revenue this year. (last year August CL revenue will be reflected in this year's budget as well) we got around 120 m revenue increase thanks to Accor, Nike and Rwanda deals. Though we lost 150 m due to Covid this year, this didn't affect us much because of revenue increases.

Wijnaldum 9.5 m net
Donnarumma 8+2
Hakimi 8 m with 67 m with bonuses.

we got rid of 20 m wage with offloading Silva and Cavani. Neymar, Di Maria and Draxler's wages got reduced. around 15 m. we have icardi, Gueye, Sarabia, Rafinha to sell and decrease the wage bill more and sign 2-3 more top players.

So much misinformation and lies that you deserve this

 

[Newcomer]

He's a bullshitter so don't bother.

Don't know why some PSG fans are afraid of acknowledging they are funded by Qatar and would be irrelevant without it. Not saying they were history-less before Qatar takeover, but pretty obvious they and Man City are state funded football clubs that would be mid-table clubs without that investment.

Pretty sad they still cannot win a Champions League title after all that investment. Particularly PSG.

Why particularly PSG ?

Out of the two, City are the ones being bankrolled for a longer time.

Out of the two, City are the ones spending more by a certain margin.

Out of the two, City don't have to deal with league unattractiveness. Makes it harder to hire players and coaches.

Speaking of coaches, after Ancellotti went to Real, PSG were stuck with Blanc, Emery. Guardiola won't go in L1. Mourinho said he wouldn't coach in L1 either.

Only thing PSG have easier is qualifying for CL but even there City are ruling PL.

 

[DonAK]

Why particularly PSG ?

Out of the two, City are the ones being bankrolled for a longer time.

Out of the two, City are the ones spending more by a certain margin.

Out of the two, City don't have to deal with league unattractiveness. Makes it harder to hire players and coaches.

Speaking of coaches, after Ancellotti went to Real, PSG were stuck with Blanc, Emery. Guardiola won't go in L1. Mourinho said he wouldn't coach in L1 either.

Only thing PSG have easier is qualifying for CL but even there City are ruling PL.

I did mention Man City.

Are you asking for the reason I pointed out PSG specifically? Because the topic of discussion was a guy that says he's a fan of PSG, Chelsea, Borussia Dortmund, RB Leipzig and god knows how many more teams, was bullshitting about PSG.

 

[Newcomer]

While we are all off topic on this thread, i'm going to share what i think about Neymar transfer to PSG now that we have a new perspective of Bar?a wage bill.

We all know players and agents within a club know what is going on and who is paid what. Hence why a good wage structure is necessary.

I'm suspecting Neymar and his father/agent to have known some raw numbers about the deal Messi would get. He wanted the jackpot too and had kept his options open by keeping a "low" release clause. Previous year, he had rejected PSG approach and stick to Bar?a but that summer he wanted to get PAID.

Remember before his transfer, there was a meeting between his father and Bar?a president ? It was said that Bar?a told him they couldn't raise his salary.

Ofc Messi and Neymar can't be compared for what they brought to Barca but i think knowing the kind of wages Messi camp was negotiating with Bar?a, he wanted his sweet money deal too.

From CR7, we know how great players can develop a great sadness when not get paid as they wish.


Back on topic, Romano and Di Marzio said Hakimi done for 60 + 10 bonus (8 easy and 2 not easy). Wage 10 millions with bonus (8 + 2). Medical next week. Possibly announced with Donnarumma or even before (no Euros).

 

[Barcilliant]

He's a bullshitter so don't bother.

Don't know why some PSG fans are afraid of acknowledging they are funded by Qatar and would be irrelevant without it. Not saying they were history-less before Qatar takeover, but pretty obvious they and Man City are state funded football clubs that would be mid-table clubs without that investment.

Pretty sad they still cannot win a Champions League title after all that investment. Particularly PSG.

Haha. True.

 

[Nazario1985]

He's a bullshitter so don't bother.

Don't know why some PSG fans are afraid of acknowledging they are funded by Qatar and would be irrelevant without it..

Superiority complex maybe

Anyway the deal is expected to be 60M+10M bonuses

Pretty good deal for inter who spent 45M on him.

I still think he is too young to go to PSG.

 

[Luftstalag14]

City is different from PSG (and better than PSG in my opinion) because City's owner, the CFG, at least appears to be truly interested in developing a football empire around the world whereas the owner of PSG, I don't know what their goal is/ what they were getting at by acquiring PSG.

Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea to boost his visibility in the west and use it as an insurance policy should he ever fall out of favor with Putin. The Glazers, Kroenke, John Henry and many other billionaires bought clubs to make profits. What is the goal of the QSI?

 

[Newcomer]

City is different from PSG (and better than PSG in my opinion) because City's owner, the CFG, at least appears to be truly interested in developing a football empire around the world whereas the owner of PSG, I don't know what their goal is/ what they were getting at by acquiring PSG.

Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea to boost his visibility in the west and use it as an insurance policy should he ever fall out of favor with Putin. The Glazers, Kroenke, John Henry and many other billionaires bought clubs to make profits. What is the goal of the QSI?

A part from spending big, PSG have not done anything possibly disrupting football.

Chelsea in the other hand have manufactured a loan army. Some players have spent all their years on loan with no hope of ever making the team. Hoarding countless players to make revenues. Hence why they were punished by FIFA who are presiding over the whole football world.
If every club were doing a loan army, it would be very troublesome.

City are buying clubs left and right, creating a franchise and allowing to exchange some players within the group (Lampard and some lower lvl players). While it is fine, i'm not too sure we would like to see every top club with another franchise club in every other league. What so we do when Vallecano and Leeds and Roma become some Vallecano Saint Germain, Leeds Saint Germain and Roma Saint Germain ?

 

[Newcomer]

What is the goal of the QSI?

QSI just want to run a successful club of football. They don't have some grand ambition. The goal is to associate Qatar with football and gain advantageous image and relationships.

 

[Luftstalag14]

A part from spending big, PSG have not done anything possibly disrupting football.

Chelsea in the other hand have manufactured a loan army. Some players have spent all their years on loan with no hope of ever making the team. Hoarding countless players to make revenues. Hence why they were punished by FIFA who are presiding over the whole football world.
If every club were doing a loan army, it would be very troublesome.

City are buying clubs left and right, creating a franchise and allowing to exchange some players within the group (Lampard and some lower lvl players). While it is fine, i'm not too sure we would like to see every top club with another franchise club in every other league. What so we do when Vallecano and Leeds and Roma become some Vallecano Saint Germain, Leeds Saint Germain and Roma Saint Germain ?

I honestly don't know what Chelsea is trying to do with the loan army. I am not quite sure if they did it just to make money.

The CFG is not just about City, most players from their satellite clubs scattering around the world probably will never be good enough to play for City one day. Regarding franchising, it is typically done to raise brand awareness, making profit is secondary. I don't have a problem with franchising in general, a club owned by a private owner A is not that different from a club owned by a private owner B. Speaking of Rayo Vallecano, they actually tried to get their feet wet in franchising when they created a club called Rayo Oklahoma City in the US 2nd division soccer several years ago. The club foiled only after one season because Rayo Vallecano didn't have the money to support it. We (Barca) wanted to dabble into women's soccer in the US too by having a women's only club there but never came to fruition.

 

[Newcomer]

I honestly don't know what Chelsea is trying to do with the loan army. I am not quite sure if they did it just to make money.

The CFG is not just about City, most players from their satellite clubs scattering around the world probably will never be good enough to play for City one day. Regarding franchising, it is typically done to raise brand awareness, making profit is secondary. I don't have a problem with franchising in general, a club owned by a private owner A is not that different from a club owned by a private owner B. Speaking of Rayo Vallecano, they actually tried to get their feet wet in franchising when they created a club called Rayo Oklahoma City in the US 2nd division soccer several years ago. The club foiled only after one season because Rayo Vallecano didn't have the money to support it. We (Barca) wanted to dabble into women's soccer in the US too by having a women's only club there but never came to fruition.

What i'm asking you is what do you think about all top clubs (let's say ESL clubs) getting franchise clubs all over the place ? I don't think it is fun for football world.

City don't have franchise club only out of Europe. They have in Spain, in France. Could be a way to attract some young talents (especially in a french club) and secure them into the City Football Group and if they are good enough, they could join the main club of the group, Manchester City. We already see this with Red Bull. They have clubs around the world but Salzburg players have joined Leipzig repeteadly even if not automatically.
When one or two clubs are doing it, it is *fine*. When everyone do it, it will be a problem.

Chelsea loan army is simple = if some work out, they keep it and the rest are making money for the club. The principle of the loan army is wrong in itself. They are hoarding players.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...n-loan-in-2020-21-and-how-theyve-been-faring/

Chelsea have 32 players out of loan (can field 3 teams lol), but people here are telling they have "class", "nous" while they are just an oil club with some suspicious activity like this one.

 

[Luftstalag14]

What i'm asking you is what do you think about all top clubs (let's say ESL clubs) getting franchise clubs all over the place ? I don't think it is fun for football world.

City don't have franchise club only out of Europe. They have in Spain, in France. Could be a way to attract some young talents (especially in a french club) and secure them into the City Football Group and if they are good enough, they could join the main club of the group, Manchester City. We already see this with Red Bull. They have clubs around the world but Salzburg players have joined Leipzig repeteadly even if not automatically.
When one or two clubs are doing it, it is *fine*. When everyone do it, it will be a problem.

Chelsea loan army is simple = if some work out, they keep it and the rest are making money for the club. The principle of the loan army is wrong in itself. They are hoarding players.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...n-loan-in-2020-21-and-how-theyve-been-faring/

Chelsea have 32 players out of loan (can field 3 teams lol), but people here are telling they have "class", "nous" while they are just an oil club with some suspicious activity like this one.

I don’t know how I feel about it, honestly. If top clubs start owning other clubs in other leagues and countries, I suppose the primary goal is to potentially train and unearth players for the parent club’s first team and the secondary goal is to make money. I can’t really fault them if they do so, it is essentially like having a different and second cantera for the club. By the way I don’t think this is the goal of the CFG here.

As to Chelsea, look, I don’t like them but I don’t know if you can blame them for “hoarding players”. If those players don’t like it or think they don’t have a future in Chelsea’s first team they can choose not to renew their contracts, or they didn’t have to sign with Chelsea in the first place. There must be something for the players, they get paid handsomely either by Chelsea or the loaning club, they have the minutes they want.

 

[Newcomer]

I don?t know how I feel about it, honestly. If top clubs start owning other clubs in other leagues and countries, I suppose the primary goal is to potentially train and unearth players for the parent club?s first team and the secondary goal is to make money. I can?t really fault them if they do so, it is essentially like having a different and second cantera for the club. By the way I don?t think this is the goal of the CFG here.

As to Chelsea, look, I don?t like them but I don?t know if you can blame them for ?hoarding players?. If those players don?t like it or think they don?t have a future in Chelsea?s first team they can choose not to renew their contracts, or they didn?t have to sign with Chelsea in the first place. There must be something for the players, they get paid handsomely either by Chelsea or the loaning club, they have the minutes they want.

I'm not saying Chelsea loan army players are mistreated or anything.

I'm asking what will happen if all big clubs (let's say the 15 original clubs planned for ESL) start to maintain a 25 players squad + 32 loan army players. What happens to the smaller clubs ? This is why i'm calling it hoarding.

 

[Luftstalag14]

I'm not saying Chelsea loan army players are mistreated or anything.

I'm asking what will happen if all big clubs (let's say the 15 original clubs planned for ESL) start to maintain a 25 players squad + 32 loan army players. What happens to the smaller clubs ? This is why i'm calling it hoarding.

So you are saying the smaller clubs would have been deprived of those players in the loan army by the big clubs, players that could have played for the smaller clubs instead? Interesting take, I have never given a thought about it before. I don’t know, maybe not good for football indeed.