It was bound to happen soon...

[rnm]

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.

[G_Man]

'Facetious' is the only word in the english language that has all 5 vowels in order - FACT

[Tom]

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 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.

[rnm]

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.

[Tom]

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?

[rnm]

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]

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?

[Tom]

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]

however, as they are external and hope to make a few million quid out of it - people are up in arms

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.

[rnm]

Sorry that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsover.

It means cut out the crap and get to the point

[Tom]

It means cut out the crap and get to the point

You mean like your increasingly torturous attempts at justifying the unjustifiable

[rnm]

Oh my god what am I doing, someone has made me take something serious on here 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

[Tom]

Yeah, whatever.

[rnm]

You mean like your increasingly torturous attempts at justifying the unjustifiable

now that really doesn't make sense

[rnm]

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.