I mean, it's kinda funny how much they don't give a feck anymore, really.
People care. It was highlighted as an issue during the Sesko saga last summer.Redbull clubs do this and no one seems to care
Didn't Zhirkov transfer from CSKA to Chelsea when both were owned by Roman
That is the goal of the multiclub entities
Redbull clubs do this and no one seems to care
Didn't Zhirkov transfer from CSKA to Chelsea when both were owned by Roman
That is the goal of the multiclub entities
That is one of many issues with the multiclub entities.Redbull clubs do this and no one seems to care
Didn't Zhirkov transfer from CSKA to Chelsea when both were owned by Roman
That is the goal of the multiclub entities
Rightly or wrongly, people seem to 'care' more (get annoyed by it) the bigger and more successful the club / person is doing it.Redbull clubs do this and no one seems to care
Didn't Zhirkov transfer from CSKA to Chelsea when both were owned by Roman
That is the goal of the multiclub entities
Didn't Zhirkov transfer from CSKA to Chelsea when both were owned by Roman
why??INEOS need to sell Nice and Lausanne imo.
why??
i mean if fecking City can get away with it having nothing said or done about it....why not utilize that same model and plan
Because the integrity of the game is gone. Just because other clubs do it why should we stoop to that level? Multi-club ownership should be banned entirely.
Would you like to see us utilize the same model and plan City did by financially doping for 16 years?
I’m fully against this type of stuff in football, but we’re not going to win any medals for not doing it when nobody gives a shit about City et al doing the same.
Are you suggesting Man City would resort to nefarious dealings to circumvent the rules of football?
Surely not.
It's a slippery slope. It needs to be stopped entirely before we're in a huge mess of every single club being under an umbrella of ownership and players moving around the same pathways. It's dull and as I said, ruins the integrity of it all.
It's utter shite. I feel sorry for clubs that are in the chain. Said it in the thread about multi-club ownership but a few PL clubs (Burnley and Bournemouth) are now purchasing Scottish teams and have made no secret about the fact that the Scottish teams are just going to be the small club in the chain.
Redbull clubs do this and no one seems to care
Didn't Zhirkov transfer from CSKA to Chelsea when both were owned by Roman
That is the goal of the multiclub entities
People care. It was highlighted as an issue during the Sesko saga last summer.
Unless you mean the media - in which case, yes, their complicit silence on this is just another area where they fail in their most basic journalistic duties. No surprise there.
I was taking the Sesko case as the most recent one that came to mind but no, you are mistaken - loads of people on this forum have raised the multi club ownership model as being a real issue. It's just not discussed in media because they're absolutely shite at their jobs.Probably you care about Sesko because he was linked to Man Utd and some fans were disappointed to lose him in what seemed like an inhouse dealing
Salzburg to Leipzig transfers will be close to a dozen before Sesko and very few raised dust
So we are kay or overlook it as long as they don't threaten our clubs the ones at the top. Leipzig Watford model has been upsetting the Freiburg, Augsburg Leeds, Southampton before now. The way City upset United fans and Hull City probably doesnt care much. They get shafted either way and for long by the big boys anyway.Rightly or wrongly, people seem to 'care' more (get annoyed by it) the bigger and more successful the club / person is doing it.
I was thinking it was out of order when Watford were doing so many transfers between them, Udinese and Granada. And, as you say, the Red Bull teams. The City groups actions should have raised a lot more red flags than it has done. As some have said on here, there'll be a lot more talk / outrage about it if United start doing similar with the other Ineos clubs.
It's something that's been allowed to seep into Football, I imagine because the clubs doing it have mostly been nouveau riche clubs who are looking to challenge the elite ones, and so people have been quite happy to see them succeed (up to the usual point that they, in turn, join the 'big nasty teams at the top').
I was taking the Sesko case as the most recent one that came to mind but no, you are mistaken - loads of people on this forum have raised the multi club ownership model as being a real issue. It's just not discussed in media because they're absolutely shite at their jobs.
Yes I'm aware of this, although the conflict of interest (which is at the heart of this issue) still absolutely exists in this situation. I don't believe for a second that RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig don't prefer to deal with each other, all things being equal, than other clubs.Red Bull dont own RB Salzburg they only sponsor them so Sesko moving from there to Leipzig is a lot different to players moving between clubs with the same owners.
No?
Uefa is to investigate Roman Abramovich's links with CSKA Moscow after Chelsea were drawn in the same Champions League group as the Russian club yesterday. The oil company of which Abramovich is the majority shareholder, Sibneft, signed a $54m (£30m) three-year sponsorship deal with CSKA in March and Uefa wants to establish whether the Chelsea owner has deeper ties with the club.
But Chelsea said last night that neither Sibneft nor Abramovich have a stake "or any direct interest" in CSKA, adding that Uefa and other Champions League clubs should be "completely unconcerned" by the shirt sponsorship link.
"We are going to look into it and see if there is a controlling interest by Mr Abramovich with two teams in the same group," said Uefa's communications director, William Gaillard. "We have to find out whether it is a controlling interest or not. We may already have the facts to decide to dismiss it as a problem but it has to be looked into thoroughly."
Chelsea's draw with CSKA added to the intrigue in a group in which they also face Porto, their manager Jose Mourinho's previous club, and Paris St-Germain.
A Sibneft spokesman insisted there was "no conflict of interest" involving Abramovich. "We have no equity ownership of CSKA so we have no ability or desire to influence them as a company or a team," said John A Mann II, its head of media relations.
"I cannot support any conspiracy theories because we don't tell CSKA how to play and Sibneft has no direct relationship with Chelsea."
Not the point I was making, no.So we are kay or overlook it as long as they don't threaten our clubs the ones at the top. Leipzig Watford model has been upsetting the Freiburg, Augsburg Leeds, Southampton before now. The way City upset United fans and Hull City probably doesnt care much. They get shafted either way and for long by the big boys anyway.
Red Bull dont own RB Salzburg they only sponsor them so Sesko moving from there to Leipzig is a lot different to players moving between clubs with the same owners.
That's certainly how I understood it, yeah. Just finding a way that the ownership can be deemed legal in a way all the clubs can still compete in European competitions.Come on, there was a box ticking excerise to get around UEFA regulations so both teams could compete in Europe. In reality all they did was remove a few people from certain positions and change how some money was being spent.
Red Bull still effectively owns both teams.
That's certainly how I understood it, yeah. Just finding a way that the ownership can be deemed legal in a way all the clubs can still compete in European competitions.
Hey, I very publicly and in an outspoken way hate them and everything they represent.This unconditional love from Bayern fans towards City is nauseating.
Hard for us to moan about this when our new joint owner has 3 clubs. And if Todibo joins us for a snip, then we'll all be quite pleased with the set up.
I would argue that this model has more merit, because the clubs and scouting networks put the work in to find and develop players. The nursery clubs also benefit financially, and looking at Girona and Nice's current league positions, they seem to be riding high in their own leagues. Unlike previously. So it seems to be a win win situation.
We only find this crooked and underhand because it is attached to City, who have clearly broken just about every rule in the book for inflating bogus sponsorship deals, offering dual bank accounts for players and managers, to hide huge bonus payments, tapping up youngsters and failure to co-operate in an ongoing investigation.
We all know they are dirty, but this is the least of their crimes.
Don’t think it will. Some people will turn away. But they’ll compensate by whoring the game out to other countries and easily make more money than before.Every time this thread is on top I am thinking somethings being done.
If football don't follow its own rules it will implode. Sooner than we think.
While probably true in terms of the hypocrisy of some fans looking to defend it as soon as their club becomes 'part of the problem' too, I'd say that it's not true that the only reason many people have a problem with it is because of City.Hard for us to moan about this when our new joint owner has 3 clubs. And if Todibo joins us for a snip, then we'll all be quite pleased with the set up.
I would argue that this model has more merit, because the clubs and scouting networks put the work in to find and develop players. The nursery clubs also benefit financially, and looking at Girona and Nice's current league positions, they seem to be riding high in their own leagues. Unlike previously. So it seems to be a win win situation.
We only find this crooked and underhand because it is attached to City, who have clearly broken just about every rule in the book for inflating bogus sponsorship deals, offering dual bank accounts for players and managers, to hide huge bonus payments, tapping up youngsters and failure to co-operate in an ongoing investigation.
We all know they are dirty, but this is the least of their crimes.
I'll happily moan, just because our new minority owner has a multi club model doesn't mean it's now right. It should be banned completely. If you invest in football, your money should be going completely into one club.Hard for us to moan about this when our new joint owner has 3 clubs. And if Todibo joins us for a snip, then we'll all be quite pleased with the set up.
I would argue that this model has more merit, because the clubs and scouting networks put the work in to find and develop players. The nursery clubs also benefit financially, and looking at Girona and Nice's current league positions, they seem to be riding high in their own leagues. Unlike previously. So it seems to be a win win situation.
We only find this crooked and underhand because it is attached to City, who have clearly broken just about every rule in the book for inflating bogus sponsorship deals, offering dual bank accounts for players and managers, to hide huge bonus payments, tapping up youngsters and failure to co-operate in an ongoing investigation.
We all know they are dirty, but this is the least of their crimes.
Is it? I absolutely want multi-club ownership gone and have already said I think INEOS should sell Nice and Laussane. It's a conflict of interest and any Todibo transfer would be messy and not feel good either.
But judging by the Greenwood thread it seems I'm in the minority as football > morality most of the time for people.
Some people have already had enough. I know few of them. I can only guess that if I know people everyone else does that to. Some people can quickly become lot of people.Don’t think it will. Some people will turn away. But they’ll compensate by whoring the game out to other countries and easily make more money than before.
why??
i mean if fecking City can get away with it having nothing said or done about it....why not utilize that same model and plan
so the moral highgroundBecause that’s one of the many differences between us and city and why when we win something it counts for something whereas when city win something it counts for nothing other than stopping real clubs winning
That's certainly how I understood it, yeah. Just finding a way that the ownership can be deemed legal in a way all the clubs can still compete in European competitions.
so the moral highground