It was bound to happen soon...

[rnm]

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]

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.

[rnm]

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

[einar]

[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?

[Rich]

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.

[G_Man]

But they had the option (Tevez) of going to SCUM, except SCUM wanted to own the player not lease them.

[Tom]

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.

[Parm]

" 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 ****s 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.

[rnm]

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

[Tom]

Sorry mate, but I think that this is academic nonsense.

You can't have your cake and eat it

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.

[Rich]

Tom, surely that'll depend on whether he performs in this league?

[Tom]

Sure, no "investment" is risk free. He is a high performing argentinian international though.

[Rich]

I have a sneaky feeling that he's not going to perform over here...



(But what do I know! )

[rnm]

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.

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....

[Tom]

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?