Ledley
5 years ago
Good move if it improve competition in the rest of the league.
☰
{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}
Ledley
5 years ago
Good move if it improve competition in the rest of the league.
Marcus2011
5 years ago
Waste of money. He will be shut down like Monaco’s owner.
Eden17Hazard17
5 years ago
Did he give up trying to buy us?
Emobot7
5 years ago
@Eden17 Think he did for good reason. Abramovich doesn't seem ready to sell. Beside, considering the guys is a Man United fan, it would have been really weird.
_Pelle_
5 years ago
I'm not against this but why aren't hearing any cries about "sugar daddy"... or is it because he is english?
Marcus2011
5 years ago
Yes, exactly because of that and apparently his revenue streams are transparent.
Emobot7
5 years ago
@Pelle Cause I never cried "sugar daddy" about PSG? I'm sorry about the other user who got that negative mindset about PSG though. I know there is a lot of them.
_Pelle_
5 years ago
Edited
I know PSG got a sugar daddy, and that those ”oil-money” is at times suspicious. But transparency is a word that only exists in a utopia.
People cry about sugar daddy when it fits the narrative... when looking at it from the point of view of the sport they cry that the inflation increases dramatically when a russian or arab sugar daddy spends money. But they are quiet when sugar daddys-banks-investment Co of their ”own kin” does the same thing.
In my opinion you either accept ALL sugar daddys or no sugar daddys at all... no matter their origin.
The biggest leagues in europe try to become a globalized product... and with that you get international investors.
If we talk about the origin of each sugar daddys money and how clean it is... then we could start judging. But then we are moving outside the sphere of football.
I know PSG got a sugar daddy, and that those ”oil-money” is at times suspicious. But transparency is a word that only exists in a utopia.
People cry about sugar daddy when it fits the narrative... when looking at it from the point of view of the sport they cry that the inflation increases dramatically when a russian or arab sugar daddy spends money. But they are quiet when sugar daddys-banks-investment Co of their ”own kin” does the same thing.
In my opinion you either accept ALL sugar daddys or no sugar daddys at all... no matter their origin.
The biggest leagues in europe try to become a globalized product... and with that you get international investors.
If we talk about the origin of each sugar daddys moneyand how clean it is... then we could start judging. But then we are moving outside the sphere of football.
tuan_jinn
5 years ago
Good point Pelle. I agree
Although, having a sugar daddy is different from having a sugar daddy that bought a ferrari when the baby sneeze.
You know what I meant ;)
Marcus2011
5 years ago
I think France has a stronger influence on UEFA than England. But USA has a even stronger influence, so probably that’s why Russian sugar daddies aren’t allow to sugar daddying anymore as much and Arabic sugar daddy’s are allowed more but old established clubs complaining to uefa have collectively stronger voice.
tiki_taka
5 years ago
Well my personal opinion on this matter is that Qatar and Emirates use football as an advertisement of financial health and buisness ability.
They splash money rather than getting a smooth investment.
Roman investment is for economical purpose, it pushed him in the buisness map in UK but he ended up capitalizing.
While Qatar do not matter capitalizing on PSG as long as they got given white card to buy French hotels, airports and houses of wine... even their presidential seats are full of politics and corrupted show buisness people...
Marseille got an owner, Rennes got an owner, Francois Pinot the husband of Salma Hayek is in top 10 richest men in France, Montpellier got an owner, Monaco got one. Doesn’t mean they go mad on management...
PSG are hated in France for half jealousy half their cockiness which is more related to Paris Citizens caracter rather than Nasser El khelaifi who looks humble and respectful.
Like Tuan said there is little difference between an owner and a sugar daddy...
I don’t hate PSG, I do not criticize what they are trying to build or achieve in term of ambitions, I just don’t buy the victim card played by staff and fans...
When Tuchel for instance was blaming half of the league for being harsh in tackles, instead of blaming direction for lack of squad depth. If Neymar at 5-0 tries to humiliate me, I would send him to hospital...
I don’t buy Lyon President constant attacks on PSG, and I don’t buy eather PSG communication defense...
Has to be some equilibrium in the vision.
_Pelle_
5 years ago
A huge problem is the taxes put on french football clubs. They prevent harshly the clubs to spend and invest. PSG can afford with sugar daddy to pay those taxes.
French clubs get very little help when you compare to for example EPL and la liga teams.
Ledley
5 years ago
Edited
Owner 1: One Country.
Owner2: One Person.
... 'Sugar Daddy's' and Oil are not the problem, it is the level of competition we are dealing with.
Owner 1: One Country.
Owner2: One Person.
Sugar Daddy's can't compete with Qatar ($357.338 Billion GDP.) Oil is not the problem is the level of competition we are dealing with.
_Pelle_
5 years ago
Edited
If the country was very poor or small like San marino, Lesotho or some obscure island you would barely bother. If the person was a street beggar you wouldnt even care. What separates them in this case is the amount of money at their disposal.
Same goes with the clubs. You wouldnt bother if it was Scumford united.
The problem is not who the investors are, it is the rules being set and how they are used in practice. Which in turn affects the (your) level of competition.
In my opinion, it will never be completely any competition on equal terms. Because one of the biggest losers would be the already established biggest clubs in europe...
If the country was very poor or small like San marino, Lesotho or some obscure island you would barely bother. If the person was a street beggar you wouldnt even care. What separates them in this case is the amount of money at their disposal.
Same goes with the clubs. You wouldnt bother if it was Scumford united.
The problem is not who the investors are, it is the rules being set and how they are used in practice. Which in turn affects the (your) level of competition.
In my opinion, it will never be completely any competition on equal terms. One of the biggest losers would be the already established biggest clubs in europe...
Emobot7
5 years ago
On another topic, if Nice suddenly become an huge club that can rivalize with PSG, I see it as a good thing for both the league and PSG. Because having someone to compete with will motivate them more and in turn, will permit them to be more consistant outside of their league as well. For me, everyone is winning from this situation, as long as Jim Ratcliffe actually intend to invest and be ambitious with Nice.
Ledley
5 years ago
San Marino 🇸🇲 GDP: 1.55 Billion
Lesotho 🇱🇸: 2 Billion
Qatar 🇶🇦: 183 Billion.
—-
Keeping in mind that is a country’s Yearly GDP so if they spent 100% of that wealth, a country like Qatar would make the exact same or more the following year, assuming their economy grows in the positive.
We aren’t talking Sugar Daddy’s. More Sugar Countries.
Probably fair say if United Kingdom opened Manchester United. 3 Trillion dollar economy then it’s fair Pele.
_Pelle_
5 years ago
Edited
You’re fumbling in random directions. And you just proved my point... if it was Lesotho or San marino you would not have bothered, nor compared to UK. Which is a ridiculous comparison as no country would invest its entire economy on a football club. Farfetched to say the least.
And again, the main problem is the rules such as FFP etc. If all clubs on the entire european continent would compete on the same terms UCL for example would look different. A consequence could be that the biggest clubs brake out from UEFA and start an own superleague, so UEFA is forced to let EPL, la liga, serie A get 4 spots. How is that fair competition?! Why should they get almost all prizemoney?! Most money from TV licences?! etc.
The big clubs are trying to get monopoly on the market and money, and you whine about sugar daddys/countries being a threat and prevent fair competition?!
If anything they contribute to that bad atmosphere but they are far from being some kind of main evil.
The problem is how the rules are setup, how they are built around existing powerstructures... by favoring bigger clubs and leagues. And its not going to change, because the vast majority of fans around the world support these leagues/clubs. A club like Real madrid has only in facebook 110M supporters... would they accept competing on same terms as any given bulgarian club?
Sugar daddys are a ”disturbance in the force”. Especially if they buy a club that does not have a history of being one of the prime clubs. And if you don’t want these kinds of investors in football you need fair rules that gives all clubs the possibility to compete on equal terms... including economical terms!
Not pseudo-rules favoring the biggest/richest/most popular. Like UCL has become.
You’re fumbling in random directions. And you just proved my point... if it was Lesotho or San marino you would not have bothered, nor compared to UK. Which is a ridiculous comparison as no country would invest its entire economy on a football club. Farfetched to say the least.
And again, the main problem is the rules such as FFP etc. If all clubs on the entire european continent would compete on the same terms UCL for example would look different. A consequence could be that the biggest clubs brake out from UEFA and start an own superleague, so UEFA is forced to let EPL, la liga, serie A get 4 spots. How is that fair competition?! Why should they get almost all prizemoney?! Most money from TV licences?! etc.
The big clubs are trying to get monopoly on the market and money, and you whine about sugar daddys/countries being a threat and prevent fair competition?!
If anything they contribute to that atmosphere but they are far from being some kind of main evil.
The problem is how the rules are setup, how they are built around existing powerstructures... by favoring bigger clubs and leagues. And its not going to change, because the vast majority of fans around the world support these leagues/clubs. A club like Real madrid has only in facebook 110M supporters... would they accept competing on same terms as any given bulgarian club?
Sugar daddys are a ”disturbance in the force”. Especially if they buy a club that does not have a history of being one of the prime clubs. And if you don’t want these kinds of investors in football you need fair rules that gives all clubs to compete on equal terms... including economical terms!!
Not pseudo-rules favoring the biggest/richest/most popular. Like UCL has become.
Ledley
5 years ago
it was Lesotho or San marino you would not have bothered
No, I wouldn’t because Jim Ratliffe has a wealth greater than their GDP.
You’re fumbling in random directions
I think you have copy and pasted this sentence above.
I didn’t bring up the question of Lesotho and San Marino 🇸🇲. Fumbling and bumbling would be like saying Roman Abramovic owner of Chelsea, has equal Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) than Qatar 🇶🇦. And then being angry 😤, asking why Qatar can’t spend the same as other owners.
Both can have wealth.
Emobot7
5 years ago
Apparently, the deal is nearly done! Wonder what this will give!
_Pelle_
5 years ago
It's an englishman... and as such it's ok to be a sugar daddy.
So, apparently, the OGC Nice is going to be bought by Jim Ratcliffe, the richest person in the UK. He want to invest significantly in them and one of his target for the club would be to play the Champion League. This move sound good to me cause Ligue 1 is in dire need of another power-house to give PSG a run for their money. Considering Nice already have quite a few talented player, this could be a match in even. What do you guys think?