Football
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
in The Circus
No football thread? Anyway, if you enjoy footie try to catch a glimpse of De Bruyne, Manchester City player. There is some footage of him on iPlayer, Match of the Day. He is in sublime form, playing with a kind of controlled rage. Whether he has something to prove, dunno. Passing, shooting, creating space, utter utter greatness, unplayable, as the saying goes, and if you appreciate athleticism, great beauty. And I'm a Man Utd fan!
Comments
So it's traditional to have a match on Boxing Day and another one on New Year's Day, and then another one between the two. So if you want to keep the rule of keeping matches three days apart, logically you should have this in-between match on the 29th, which this year is Sunday anyway. Instead, 14 teams get shafted by having games on the 26th and 28th, and then, just to stick the boot in, the FA moves Wolves' and City's match from the 26th to the 27th thus undermining the tradition of Boxing Day football anyway, so that whereas everyone else gets either 3 days + 3 days or 2 days + 4 days' break before New Year, those two get 2 days + 3 days.
Meanwhile Liverpool and Sheffield United get the (relative) good fortune of having their New Year's match moved to the 2nd, so that their breaks are 3 days + 4 days.
I mean, I support Liverpool, but I can see why Guardiola is pissed off.
You almost need 2 complete teams worth of players to successfully steer through it all.
One of those matches full of incidents and drama.
I was in a pub last night, and although the pub wasn't showing the match, everyone in the pub soon knew the result from the cheers of those who were following it on their phone ...
If Leeds get promoted, fans are in for a treat, as long as they keep their legendary manager, Bielsa.
Whoa.
What is this 'financial fair-play' stuff? Here in Australia in some sports leagues, we have rules that are designed to ensure clubs have a roughly equal amount of money to spend on players, but it's super obvious such rules don't exist in European football competitions. Clubs vary enormously in financial power.
So I'm trying to understand it right now, and bits and pieces are suggesting that it's not some general spending cap as we have, but a rule that prevents clubs from overspending compared to their own finances?
Pretty much. It's basically an anti-Abramovich law, except that Abramovich himself was wily enough to put Chelsea on a sustainable footing before the rules could take effect.
The point is that an owner is not allowed to play fantasy football with his club (usually his), by buying all his favourite players and then underwriting the club's losses from his own pocket when the club's income is insufficient to cover their wages.
It doesn't do anything to break the cycles of success > money > more success or failure > poverty > more failure. It might help stop people from fixing problems by just throwing money at them.
Not that a salary cap system is perfect, and not that some teams haven't tried to get around it and ended up being stripped of points or titles as a result...
Well, investment implies the expectation of a return, which isn't really the case if you are going to keep putting money in regardless of whether the club makes a profit or not.
In Sheikh Mansour's case, the return seems to be personal vanity at best, and sportswashing Abu Dhabi at worst.
They ended up being relegated fairly shortly afterwards, and having to sell all their best players, and have never been in the Premier League since.
I thought that buying titles stopped after Lloyd George's little troubles.
I should point out that £20 a week was more than the average wage.
It would if the players/clubs were to donate the money to their local hospital.
A big if, in the case of the clubs.
I think most offense is being taken at the idea of normal club employees being furloughed, whereas the wealthy players are still paid (despite doing no work, because there's no football being played.)
It's not a good optic footballers refusing a pay cut, but do we really want Roman Abramovich any richer?
Another point is, why footballers? Does it mean that all well-paid people will be asked to contribute?
Why footballers? Could it be something to do with the fact that the lowest paid player in the Premier League earns more in a week than some nurses in a year?
The median pay for a registered nurse is £23,000 per year; a nursing assistant gets £14,500.
Its all well and good to "clap for the NHS" and refer to nursing "heroes" but the way we pay these people doesn't show respect, never mind admiration.
There are campaigns run by footballers - this, for example - link to Sky News
To reiterate, yes, footballers are overpaid, but cutting their pay doesn't mean the money goes anywhere we want it to go but straight back into the pockets of the like of Roman Abramovich. Which is why the football players union are reluctant to be bullied into taking a 30% pay cut.
While it's worthy of discussion, footballers' (and others') pay isn't really a topic for the Circus. It would fit well in Purgatory if somebody would like to start a thread there.
la vie en rouge, Circus host
Hostly beret off
Ironically, in terms of rounds of the season, they got there VERY early. Just in late June!
They are fully worthy of congratulations.
EDIT: Also, while I'm full of admiration for many, many players in the squad... is not Van Dijk one of the smartest signings of all time?
Not round here he didn't.
Although AIUI he did do enough training and practice to refine the gifts God gave him, he was also a frail - and some would say sinful - human being and so suffered as such.