View Full Version : It was bound to happen soon...
..the end of football as we know it
Agent Zahavi behind transfer plan
Football Super agent Pini Zahavi says he is a key figure behind a £100m transfer fund designed to acquire control of the best emerging players in the world.
Zahavi says the fund is being set up by City of London investors.
"The fund is not quite complete, but we're aiming to raise around £100m in order to buy shares in players," Zahavi told the Sunday Mirror newspaper.
"They've asked me to find the players and act as advisor to the fund. The plan is absolutely legal."
Zahavi added: "We will look mainly for young players who develop and eventually play at the highest level.
"Some players will stay at their clubs and some will move.
"Already around 80% of players in South America are partly owned by investors as well as the clubs they play for."
Zahavi is the agent who organised Rio Ferdinand's transfers to Leeds United and Manchester United.
MrMichael
10-09-06, 03:18 PM
Also related to this, from yesterday's Independant
Zahavi 'linked' to new deal to own Argentine players
The trend by which promising young South American players are owned not just by their clubs, but partly or wholly by separate companies, appeared to be taken a step further yesterday when the debt-ridden Argentine club River Plate announced the sale of percentages in five of the team's most promising players to an unnamed business group. The Israeli "super agent" Pini Zahavi is thought to have brokered the dea,l said to be worth $13m (£6.8m).
The controversial trend was highlighted last week when the Argentine World Cup players Carlos Tevez and Javier Macherano joined West Ham from the Brazilian club Corinthians. The players were owned by the company Media Sports Investment and the same firm is reported by the Argentine media to be involved in yesterday's deals. Such ownership arrangements are not illegal, either in South America, or in Britain.
Jose Maria Aguilar, the president of River Plate, explained that 50 per cent of 18-year-old forward Gonzalo Higuain and 40 per cent of midfielder Fernando Belluschi have been ceded to an unnamed business group and that the deal also involves the youngsters Augusto Fernandez (20), Juan Antonio (18) and Mateo Musacchio (16).
Musacchio has yet to play for the River first team, but the talented 16-year-old is expected to be given his debut by manager, Daniel Passarella, this weekend.
Passarella is resigned to losing his best youngsters in the future, but had been particularly keen to keep Higuain for the rest of the Argentine season. "I have no doubt he will play at the top level in Europe" Passarella said last week, "but he's so young and it would be nice if we can keep him here at least until January."
Throughout the transfer window there was speculation that Higuain would be joining an English club, with Portsmouth and West Ham mentioned in the Argentine press. But when Aguilar set off for London last week, Higuain said: "It would be great for me if I could stay another year at River."
River Plate are said to incurring substantial losses each month and the deal is necessary to keep the club afloat. If either Antonio, Fernadez or Musaccchio is sold for more than $2m in the future, River will receive 30 per cent. If they are sold for $3m, 20 per cent and if it is for more than $4m, 15 per cent
However, the trend is far from new. When Aston Villa paid £9m for Juan Pablo Angel in January 2001 little of the money went to River Plate, Angel's club. Nothing came of an investigation into the transfer by the Football Association.
River Plate's city rivals, Boca Juniors, also announced yesterday that they were entering negotiations to buy up more of their star player Rodrigo Palacios. The striker, who played for Argentina in the World Cup and is a hero at Boca, is expected to be sold to a European club next summer. At present Boca, the club Diego Maradona used to play for, own only 17 per cent of the player.
The trend by which promising young South American players are owned not just by their clubs, but partly or wholly by separate companies, appeared to be taken a step further yesterday when the debt-ridden Argentine club River Plate announced the sale of percentages in five of the team's most promising players to an unnamed business group. The Israeli "super agent" Pini Zahavi is thought to have brokered the dea,l said to be worth $13m (£6.8m).
The controversial trend was highlighted last week when the Argentine World Cup players Carlos Tevez and Javier Macherano joined West Ham from the Brazilian club Corinthians. The players were owned by the company Media Sports Investment and the same firm is reported by the Argentine media to be involved in yesterday's deals. Such ownership arrangements are not illegal, either in South America, or in Britain.
Jose Maria Aguilar, the president of River Plate, explained that 50 per cent of 18-year-old forward Gonzalo Higuain and 40 per cent of midfielder Fernando Belluschi have been ceded to an unnamed business group and that the deal also involves the youngsters Augusto Fernandez (20), Juan Antonio (18) and Mateo Musacchio (16).
Musacchio has yet to play for the River first team, but the talented 16-year-old is expected to be given his debut by manager, Daniel Passarella, this weekend.
Passarella is resigned to losing his best youngsters in the future, but had been particularly keen to keep Higuain for the rest of the Argentine season. "I have no doubt he will play at the top level in Europe" Passarella said last week, "but he's so young and it would be nice if we can keep him here at least until January."
Throughout the transfer window there was speculation that Higuain would be joining an English club, with Portsmouth and West Ham mentioned in the Argentine press. But when Aguilar set off for London last week, Higuain said: "It would be great for me if I could stay another year at River."
River Plate are said to incurring substantial losses each month and the deal is necessary to keep the club afloat. If either Antonio, Fernadez or Musaccchio is sold for more than $2m in the future, River will receive 30 per cent. If they are sold for $3m, 20 per cent and if it is for more than $4m, 15 per cent
However, the trend is far from new. When Aston Villa paid £9m for Juan Pablo Angel in January 2001 little of the money went to River Plate, Angel's club. Nothing came of an investigation into the transfer by the Football Association.
River Plate's city rivals, Boca Juniors, also announced yesterday that they were entering negotiations to buy up more of their star player Rodrigo Palacios. The striker, who played for Argentina in the World Cup and is a hero at Boca, is expected to be sold to a European club next summer. At present Boca, the club Diego Maradona used to play for, own only 17 per cent of the player.
http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/internationals/article1431097.ece
Is that an excerpt from your book ?
flmao
ye.....I mean no
Is that statement mutually exclusive ?
i think it's a good thing - enabling smaller clubs to own bigger players, for a period, and they gain if the players increase in value too
it's a bit like a housing agency
It isn't anything of the sort. Ask corinthians. They've just lost their 2 best players - except they weren't "their" players, they were owned by MSI who only have one interest - maximising their profit margins...
It isn't anything of the sort. Ask corinthians. They've just lost their 2 best players - except they weren't "their" players, they were owned by MSI who only have one interest - maximising their profit margins...
So they weren't Corinthians players but they had the benefit of them for less money than normal and as we/they live in a capitalist country, profit maximisation is a given.
" profit maximisation is a given." That's a very naive statement. Profit maximisation doesn't have to be a given. There are many institutions in "capitalist countries" (whatever that's supposed to mean - last time I looked we lived in a democracy, "captialism" is just the economic system we use to govern exchange) whereby "profit maximisation" isn't a given. Would you say that Liverpool FCs reason for existance is "profit maximisation"? What about the public sector (education, health etc.) do those institutions exist for "profit maximisation"?
What I'm saying here is that football needs to protect itself as an institution from these "profit maximisers" - and as an institution it can do so if it chooses to. Fifa, eufa etc. own the game and legislate against parasites like MSI - who don't have the game nor clubs, nor fans in the best interest.
:haha: @ rnm ;)
I think most players will see through this idea. They basically give up a lot of their choices by entering into deals like this. I think it'll continue in South America but I doubt it'll really catch on in Europe.
Ask Tevez and Maschareno if they wanted to join West Ham or SCUM, we all know the answer :handshake:
" profit maximisation is a given." That's a very naive statement. Profit maximisation doesn't have to be a given. There are many institutions in "capitalist countries" (whatever that's supposed to mean - last time I looked we lived in a democracy, "captialism" is just the economic system we use to govern exchange) whereby "profit maximisation" isn't a given. Would you say that Liverpool FCs reason for existance is "profit maximisation"? What about the public sector (education, health etc.) do those institutions exist for "profit maximisation"?
What I'm saying here is that football needs to protect itself as an institution from these "profit maximisers" - and as an institution it can do so if it chooses to. Fifa, eufa etc. own the game and legislate against parasites like MSI - who don't have the game nor clubs, nor fans in the best interest.
If you think my point is naive then I can only counter that your understanding of my point has not taken into account the depth of thinking necessary to understand it fully; it is your swipe that is in fact naive.
I am sure you will appreciate, given some thought, that I wasn't defining the entire economic structure in one fell swoop. If you want to enter into a debate, grant the reader with a modicum of intelligence.
I understand full well the various sub-systems in society which include hospitals, schools and the army (for example) which do not share the objectives of commercially driven organisations.
I don't want to get into an extended debate which will move away from the key central point, so take it as a given that I understand economic systems and that all 'gatherings' do not yearn for increased wealth!
Football, however, has developed and they now balance commercial interests within a wider stakeholder context (fans, employees, local government, investors).
The management of these football clubs is now necessarily about income streams and financial survival; these income streams include gate money, hospitality, sponsorship and naming rights (plus others including gains/losses on player transfers).
Is your fear that the money moves out of the game by giving it to these 'profit maximisers', where do you think this money goes other than into the wider society.
This money is spent by the investors on goods and services which passes down into wages for others and is in return spent on further goods and services - all necessary for the working of the capitalist economy we enjoy.
Why should rich clubs like Chelsea, Manchester and Liverpool enjoy expensive players rather than clubs like West Ham, this shared ownership puts these types of player within the range of the second tier clubs of the premiership - which I, for one, think is great for the football that is now - not the football from 40+ years ago .
CharlieMansonsSquint
10-09-06, 07:39 PM
Fucking leeches.
Ken Bates called Pini Zahavi a dickhead.:D
Just look at what happened at Leeds. Apparently that imbecile Risdale threw away over £25m quid of the clubs money on agents fees during his time there. Scandalous.
Redlife
10-09-06, 07:59 PM
:haha: @ rnm ;)
I think most players will see through this idea. They basically give up a lot of their choices by entering into deals like this. I think it'll continue in South America but I doubt it'll really catch on in Europe.
Ask Tevez and Maschareno if they wanted to join West Ham or SCUM, we all know the answer :handshake:
True. I wonder how players will feel about being 'owned' by a corporation. It sounds different from being owned, ie, merely under contract, by a club.
True. I wonder how players will feel about being 'owned' by a corporation. It sounds different from being owned, ie, merely under contract, by a club.
clubs have many shareholders, the players are already owned - it's just a different form of ownership. it's semantics really.
Redlife
10-09-06, 09:29 PM
clubs have many shareholders, the players are already owned - it's just a different form of ownership. it's semantics really.
I don't know enough about how this will work in future, but from the Tevez/Mascherano transfers it seems like more than semantics.
not really, if they were shareholders of the football club and invested some money with a charge over some of the assets - with a specific requirement to spend the investment on players or a stadium, for example noone would bat an eyelid.
however, as they are external and hope to make a few million quid out of it - people are up in arms :haha:
[QUOTE=Redlife]True. I wonder how players will feel about being 'owned' by a corporation. It sounds different from being owned, ie, merely under contract, by a club.[/QUOT
how can players be forced to sign for a club they are not interested in playing for?
The two Argie chaps will have agreed to move to West Ham as it gets them into a european league. That's why they were happy to leave.
But they had the option (Tevez) of going to SCUM, except SCUM wanted to own the player not lease them.
Is your fear that the money moves out of the game by giving it to these 'profit maximisers', where do you think this money goes other than into the wider society.
I admire your chutzpa in using the hugely discredited theory of "tickle-down economics to defend MSI. So how exactly do MSI's profits go out into "wider society" to the benefit of all. We have a cabal of bent foreign business men buying and selling players and then reaping the financial benefits of this. The money stays in their pockets and in their bank accounts it doesn't go out into the game.
This money is spent by the investors on goods and services which passes down into wages for others and is in return spent on further goods and services - all necessary for the working of the capitalist economy we enjoy.
What you are doing is describing "trickle-down or supply-side economics. It is a FORM of capitalism not some kind of natural condition which you describe as something "we enjoy". It is enjoyed by the super-rich because it maximises their assests which are then protected by low-tax regimes to the detriment of the poor.
Even right-wing economists don't try to use this theory any more. Jeez. In this country supply-side economics has managed to engineer the biggest gap between rich and poor since the 1920s. Similar story in the states. "trickle down" economics do not work, the money stays in the financial systems and is used to generate more money for the super-rich that the system favours.
MSI money will go out of the game. It will be used in dodgy arms and oil deals. This form of selling players effectively removes at one stroke, one of footballs most important ways of generating capital - by developing, and selling football players TO EACH OTHER.
Why should rich clubs like Chelsea, Manchester and Liverpool enjoy expensive players rather than clubs like West Ham, this shared ownership puts these types of player within the range of the second tier clubs of the premiership - which I, for one, think is great for the football that is now - not the football from 40+ years ago .
Do you really think that this "benevolent" system is designed to benefit the poorer clubs? Where do you think Tevez will be in 2 years time? How much money will West Ham get from his transfer? Practically 0. The money will go out of the game into some bent russian's pocket. West Ham won't be able to replace "like with like" because they won't be able to afford it.
" profit maximisation is a given." That's a very naive statement. Profit maximisation doesn't have to be a given. There are many institutions in "capitalist countries" (whatever that's supposed to mean - last time I looked we lived in a democracy, "captialism" is just the economic system we use to govern exchange) whereby "profit maximisation" isn't a given. Would you say that Liverpool FCs reason for existance is "profit maximisation"? What about the public sector (education, health etc.) do those institutions exist for "profit maximisation"?
What I'm saying here is that football needs to protect itself as an institution from these "profit maximisers" - and as an institution it can do so if it chooses to. Fifa, eufa etc. own the game and legislate against parasites like MSI - who don't have the game nor clubs, nor fans in the best interest.
agreed mate,
there's something wrong about what Zhavi wants to do. It's one thing for say Wenger to go to Africa and pick up someone like Toure. You know wenger will help develop the player, make sure he settles in and will do his best to see that player becomes a regualr at Arsenal.
However I can not see Zhavi or his cohorts giving two shits about how a player is settling in or ensuring he develops into his full potential. The moment he starts showing some promise they will look to move him to another club in order to get more exposure and will continue to move him until they have got their money's worth out of him.
I admire your chutzpa in using the hugely discredited theory of "tickle-down economics to defend MSI. So how exactly do MSI's profits go out into "wider society" to the benefit of all. We have a cabal of bent foreign business men buying and selling players and then reaping the financial benefits of this. The money stays in their pockets and in their bank accounts it doesn't go out into the game.
What you are doing is describing "trickle-down or supply-side economics. It is a FORM of capitalism not some kind of natural condition which you describe as something "we enjoy". It is enjoyed by the super-rich because it maximises their assests which are then protected by low-tax regimes to the detriment of the poor.
Even right-wing economists don't try to use this theory any more. Jeez. In this country supply-side economics has managed to engineer the biggest gap between rich and poor since the 1920s. Similar story in the states. "trickle down" economics do not work, the money stays in the financial systems and is used to generate more money for the super-rich that the system favours.
MSI money will go out of the game. It will be used in dodgy arms and oil deals. This form of selling players effectively removes at one stroke, one of footballs most important ways of generating capital - by developing, and selling football players TO EACH OTHER.
Do you really think that this "benevolent" system is designed to benefit the poorer clubs? Where do you think Tevez will be in 2 years time? How much money will West Ham get from his transfer? Practically 0. The money will go out of the game into some bent russian's pocket. West Ham won't be able to replace "like with like" because they won't be able to afford it.
Sorry mate, but I think that this is academic nonsense.
You can't have your cake and eat it :handshake:
Sorry mate, but I think that this is academic nonsense.
You can't have your cake and eat it :handshake:
Sorry I think your reply and failiure to address my points diminishes your arguments. We'll see whose right this time next year when tevez goes to real, utd or chelski. Or the football institutions grow some balls and order an investigation into money and corruption. Incidentally this is already happening through an EU committee.
:handshake:
Tom, surely that'll depend on whether he performs in this league?
Sure, no "investment" is risk free. He is a high performing argentinian international though.
I have a sneaky feeling that he's not going to perform over here...
(But what do I know! :D)
Sorry I think your reply and failiure to address my points diminishes your arguments. We'll see whose right this time next year when tevez goes to real, utd or chelski. Or the football institutions grow some balls and order an investigation into money and corruption. Incidentally this is already happening through an EU committee.
:handshake:
You didn't make any points - you talked about economics.
What do you mean , see who is right? Of course the idea is to sell him when he appreciates in value! By proving he can cut it in the premier league he will earn a profit for the investors.
The club couldn't afford him, so investors pay for him and then make a profit on the increase in value should he be a success.
Nursery clubs with a difference.
Anyway....
You didn't make any points - you talked about economics.
What do you mean , see who is right? Of course the idea is to sell him when he appreciates in value! By proving he can cut it in the premier league he will earn a profit for the investors.
The club couldn't afford him, so investors pay for him and then make a profit on the increase in value should he be a success.
Nursery clubs with a difference.
Anyway....
Please. I talked about economics in order to demonstrate that your polyanna atitude toward the current MSI method of buying and selling players is highly uncritical.
I think that's a pretty comprehensive argument don't you?
Nursery clubs with a difference doesn't cut it. Jack Hobbs was sold for a decent price, which protected the clubs investment in his training by law. The money stays in the club. With MSI money is taken away from clubs as they don't own the players - as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions.
The supposedly "virtuous" MSI system is a process whereby clubs are denied their greatest income stream. The only people that benefit are the "Investors". The club might in the extreme short term, but long term they are out of a player AND any profit they might have got from him. Incidentally MSI sold those two players without corinthians consent. How you can support such a system?
Tom, I've drafted about 3 replies and I can't post any of them, as they all became facetious and I don't want to be.
I can see a place for this deal as I come from a football finance perspective.
You cannot see the deal as you come from a ....well I'm not sure what you are suggesting, a marxist approach of player purchase yet still combined with the open market?
Please don't half define marxism or psuedo communism and then add a few "s around random words so as to create an argument you think I'm having with you.
:sigh:
'Facetious' is the only word in the english language that has all 5 vowels in order - FACT
Tom, I've drafted about 3 replies and I can't post any of them, as they all became facetious and I don't want to be.
I can see a place for this deal as I come from a football finance perspective.
You cannot see the deal as you come from a ....well I'm not sure what you are suggesting, a marxist approach of player purchase yet still combined with the open market?
Please don't half define marxism or psuedo communism and then add a few "s around random words so as to create an argument you think I'm having with you.
:sigh:
:sigh the thing is that you don't answer the questions I put to you. You refuse to aknowledge that this system is anything other than "good" and then you sling mud by suggesting that anything other than the kinds of extreme market solutions that it represents are "marxist", i.e. you argue that any attempt by an institution (e.g. Fifa) to curtail extreme market solutions are interference in something that is necessarily good. I'm not against the free market by any means but that is certain situations if left unregulated have a corosive effect and damage the institutions that rub up against them.
Why do I have to acknowledge that the system is anything other than good - of course it isn't 100% good/perfect, nothing is!
It is an option, an alternative to the preferable traditional methods and shouuld only be used in selective circumstances - where the clubs can see benefits.
I haven't "slung mud" Tom; of course I believe in controls and mechanisms to ensure fairness; just from your previous responses I expected a return along those lines.
What are your questions; please don't take it the wrong way but I have trouble deciphering them amongst the academic equivalent of legalese.
Not that there is anything wrong with academia, I just prefer a more common dialogue.
Why do I have to acknowledge that the system is anything other than good - of course it isn't 100% good/perfect, nothing is!
It is an option, an alternative to the preferable traditional methods and shouuld only be used in selective circumstances - where the clubs can see benefits.
I haven't "slung mud" Tom; of course I believe in controls and mechanisms to ensure fairness; just from your previous responses I expected a return along those lines.
What are your questions; please don't take it the wrong way but I have trouble deciphering them amongst the academic equivalent of legalese.
Not that there is anything wrong with academia, I just prefer a more common dialogue.
If you don't want to debate in detail you really shouldn't invoke Marx in your counter-arguments to me
Questions were pretty clearly flagged up.
Do you really think that this "benevolent" system is designed to benefit the poorer clubs - which appears to be your main argument in support of it?
Where do you think Tevez will be in 2 years time?
Do you think it's a good idea that football clubs main source of income is being invaded by venture capitalists?
How much money will West Ham get from his transfer?
Here's some more:
Do you think chelski will be using this system anytime soon? And if not why?
You claimed that the money would find it's way back into football. How?
Care to describe how you feel corinthian's fans feel right now about these kinds of arrangements?
If you don't want to debate in detail you really shouldn't invoke Marx in your counter-arguments to me
there is a difference between debating in detail and being overly detailed in your debate
Do you really think that this "benevolent" system is designed to benefit the poorer clubs - which appears to be your main argument in support of it?
here we go again; giving a quote like this is the equivalent to putting words in my mouth, i don't see it as benevolent - but i do see some positives
Where do you think Tevez will be in 2 years time?
My crystal ball is broken, but if he is a success then at one of the top clubs in Europe - if he is a failure one of the bottom clubs in the world. Anything in between - anywhere in between.
Do you think it's a good idea that football clubs main source of income is being invaded by venture capitalists?
It is nowhere near their main source of income, for most it is one of their biggests costs - bubble transfers will reduce costs and give opportunities to increase value.
How much money will West Ham get from his transfer?
how much did they pay for his inwards transfer!
Here's some more:
Do you think chelski will be using this system anytime soon? And if not why?
maybe - but probably not, they have access to alternative sourcing methods (lots of cash) with less risk (other than inherent transfer risks)
You claimed that the money would find it's way back into football. How?
again, no i didn't claim the money would find it's way back into football - bigger picture, it will go into the economy as a whole - paying for goods and services - some out of the UK some in the UK. if some stays in the banking system, then that in turn gives other benefits to the wider economy
Care to describe how you feel corinthian's fans feel right now about these kinds of arrangements?
the same as everton fan's felt when rooney left, or when hamman left for bolton/city or ferdinand for man utd.
or alternatively, glad to have received the money from MSI in the first place which gave them security and quality players albeit for a short period
Miracle@Istanbul
11-09-06, 04:27 PM
I love Tom's posts, he is normally spot on with his opinions.
What Zahavi is trying to do here is designed to benefit himself and his friends and in no way football in general or even the players he will claim to represent.
If a club is considering the purchase of a player they have to look at the cost over the full contract period, for instance £10 million for the transfer fee and £30k a week wages for 4 years, which is £6.25 million. So the full cost of the purchase is £16.25 million. The agent's job is to ensure his client (the player) gets the best deal possible and he gets a 10% cut.
If the agent can get the selling club to accept a lower price he can grab a bigger salary for the player, but in this instance he takes the transfer fee so he could make the fee higher and the salary lower. Essentially the agent is able to look after his own interest at the expense of the client, traditionally the agent could only make more by increasing the clients income.
The trickle down economics theory is one of the all time biggest con's. The oligarch's spread that message in Russia, saying initially the state's wealth should be given to a few and then they would spread the wealth through the economy, Yeltsin bought it and did as they said.
The oligarch's took the money out of Russia as quickly as possible and a fair proportion is being spent on a football club in west London, what benefit is that to the Russian economy?
there is a difference between debating in detail and being overly detailed in your debate
Sorry that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsover.
It is nowhere near their main source of income, for most it is one of their biggests costs - bubble transfers will reduce costs and give opportunities to increase value.
Most smaller clubs rely on transfers for their man source of income.
i didn't claim the money would find it's way back into football - bigger picture, it will go into the economy as a whole - paying for goods and services - some out of the UK some in the UK. if some stays in the banking system, then that in turn gives other benefits to the wider economy
Sorry that's not right, my argument was that the money was leaving football, you counter-argued by saying that it was going back into society through organisations like MSI and that made it alright:
Is your fear that the money moves out of the game by giving it to these 'profit maximisers', where do you think this money goes other than into the wider society.
As I said, trickle down theory has been almost entirely repudiated by most sensible economists.
the same as everton fan's felt when rooney left, or when hamman left for bolton/city or ferdinand for man utd.
The difference being that everton et al received huge transfer fees for their players. With this system the club is a mere incubator for venture capitalists to make huge profits. It's exploitation writ large.
or alternatively, glad to have received the money from MSI in the first place which gave them security and quality players albeit for a short period
I suggest you search out some of the stories about how the fans and manager of corinthians reacted when MSI moved their "collatoral".
Redlife
11-09-06, 05:14 PM
however, as they are external and hope to make a few million quid out of it - people are up in arms :haha:
People care about football and don't want to see money being taken out of the sport, which is what this new scam, I mean 'investment opportunity', will do.
It's even different again from a situation like the Glazers at the Scum, in which an investor buys a club and seeks to make a profit from it, because ultimately in a circumstance like that the buyer still has an interest in seeing the club thrive and continue on. Even as he mortgages it to the hilt and tries to accumulate as much profit from it as possible, Glazer has an interest in protecting the club and its interests, even if his motives for doing so are selfish.
MSI and their kind have no interest in the sport at all. Their sole aim is to drain as much money from it as possible.
Sorry that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsover.
It means cut out the crap and get to the point :handshake:
It means cut out the crap and get to the point :handshake:
You mean like your increasingly torturous attempts at justifying the unjustifiable :handshake:
Oh my god what am I doing, someone has made me take something serious on here :handshake: i didn't think it was possible that I could waste time so badly.
You are quite correct in your assumptions and I have changed my mind; my ego is slightly damaged for it, but at least I now have a better understanding of everything.
Thanks Tom
back to not getting involved in sensible discourse :haha:
You mean like your increasingly torturous attempts at justifying the unjustifiable :handshake:
now that really doesn't make sense :handshake:
Yeah, whatever.
Thanks Tom - just I find sensible debate quite taxing for any period of time, I have an extremely short attention span.
No offense meant.
i think it's a good thing - enabling smaller clubs to own bigger players, for a period, and they gain if the players increase in value too
it's a bit like a housing agency
It also means more money disappearring out the game
Not sure how plausible this is for English teams anyway because I believe the registration of any player in the UK must be owned by the clubs themselves and cant be part owned and in addition payments on transfer fees must be made to clubs themselves and not 3rd parties
Why should rich clubs like Chelsea, Manchester and Liverpool enjoy expensive players rather than clubs like West Ham, this shared ownership puts these types of player within the range of the second tier clubs of the premiership - which I, for one, think is great for the football that is now - not the football from 40+ years ago .
It is against the English FA's rules for a players registration to be owned by anybody but the club they are at (I believe)
Please. I talked about economics in order to demonstrate that your polyanna atitude toward the current MSI method of buying and selling players is highly uncritical.
I think that's a pretty comprehensive argument don't you?
Nursery clubs with a difference doesn't cut it. Jack Hobbs was sold for a decent price, which protected the clubs investment in his training by law. The money stays in the club. With MSI money is taken away from clubs as they don't own the players - as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions.
The supposedly "virtuous" MSI system is a process whereby clubs are denied their greatest income stream. The only people that benefit are the "Investors". The club might in the extreme short term, but long term they are out of a player AND any profit they might have got from him. Incidentally MSI sold those two players without corinthians consent. How you can support such a system?
I expect FIFA to cloe the loophole on this and have players solely owned by the clubs
Its not good for the good of the game for large proportions of transfer fees to disappear out of the game
Restrictions on agents fees etc.. has made the more unscrupulous agents life a lot more difficult. Fee transparency has actively given the clubs a pointer as to which agents are worth dealing with and which arent
This is another attempt by an agent to protect his long term income but cant see it succeeding because the authorities cant afford for this to happen
MSI is a group of venture capitalist agents interested in exploiting the game. They have moved into the prem (chelski, pompey, west ham) because it is highly lucrative. The distorting effect of this will IMHO be disasterous for the long term health AND credibility of the game.
enema of the state
12-09-06, 01:38 PM
I expect FIFA to cloe the loophole on this and have players solely owned by the clubs
http://www.soasoas.com/april/gallery/full/DSCN1358a.jpg
i am certain you will turn out to be right
have you made the full time move or are you still on kt?
http://www.soasoas.com/april/gallery/full/DSCN1358a.jpg
i am certain you will turn out to be right
have you made the full time move or are you still on kt?
I am still posting over there
If I ever decide to permanently leave KT I would probably post more on YNWA
Today's Grauniad:
Uefa fear for Hammers
Louise Taylor
Tuesday September 12, 2006
The Guardian
Uefa's president Lennart Johansson fears an explosion of illegal betting if strict new rules on club ownership are not brought in.
He expressed his concern at the mystery surrounding the proposed West Ham takeover, and claimed that only clubs should be allowed to own players.
Johansson, in Berlin at a Fifa conference, said: "We know what's going on and this West Ham case illustrates the problems.
"We have to do something to make the author-ities aware of what's happening and I hope they do something.
Article continues
"Take illegal betting. If two clubs in the same competition are owned by the same person through 'daughter companies' then you know how much money they can earn through betting.
"I am also not happy with individuals or agencies owning players and we are doing our utmost to change the system.
"For me, it also increases the risk of illegal betting when an individual owns a player."
If Gerrard and Alonso were owned by some crowd of investors, do you think they'd be still playing for us or wearing Blue and White respectively?
I think they'd no longer be Liverpool players. 30+m for Gerrard and 25/30m for Alsonso would be too good a ROI :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.