Sad Day
Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: SOCIAL
Forum Name: OTHER SPORTS
Forum Description: For all non-rugby chat
URL: http://www.xxxxx/forum_posts.asp?TID=39432
Printed Date: 09 June 2023 at 8:02am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sad Day
Posted By: Abbey
Subject: Sad Day
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 8:21am
|
I know many will argue otherwise, but for me yesterday was a very sad day for sport with the chequebook Charlies excelling. Man City will now win the Premiership and Toulon may retain the Heineken Cup. There's neither justice nor romance when sporting teams whose success is manufactured by merely having far more money than the rest, succeed. And there's a report out today showing the disparity in Formula 1 where Ferrari were awarded £80M prize money last season (they didn't even win the constructors championship) and Marussia had £6M for finishing last. Contrast this with the Premier League where Man Utd took £60.8m as Champions and QPR had £40m as bottom - a ratio of just 1.5 : 1. On top of this, only 5 teams in F1 are allowed to sit on the governing committee (Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes, Ferrari and Williams). In tennis, the top players are paid to appear in the tournaments outside the Grand Slams whilst the lesser players have to pay to enter. Hardly conducive to fair and equal competition. There must be true sports left out there where taw talent prevails? |
Replies:
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 9:41am
|
Toulon have the 4th biggest budget in French rugby. The bulk of their money comes through sponsors, cafes, restaurants and merchandise, and the council. To compare them with Manchester City is a bit bizarre. |
Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 10:16am
|
The common denominators are benefactors dominating in a de-regulated sport, with a governing body that has commercial advancement ahead of sporting integrity. BPL, Top14, an F1 are impressive commercial juggernauts to be fair. As for talent prevailing. Mmm. |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 10:22am
The other end of the spectrum is Union owned teams controlling everything and having the power to move players about between teams and turn some sides into development sides. Getting the balance is rather difficult. |
Wil Chips wrote:Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 10:26am
|
Always been reasonably impressed by the NFL (to a point) in respect of bowing to the inevitable commercial realities but keeping a degree of fairness with draft picks etc. Albeit that platform has been re-visited and tweaked umpteen times in the last 20 years to get where it is today. |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 11:21am
They're exactly like Man City. They remind me of Little Britain's Lou and Andy.. "I want that one" |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 11:22am
Talk me through how they are exactly like Man City. |
Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 11:38am
| Wish the Scarlets were a chequebook charlie team. That would mean being as successful as the teams mentioned rather than each season being a chore. |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 1:58pm
Both teams have a proud history but mainly as "also rans". Man City have been perceived in the past two decades (or arguably longer) as the second team of Manchester. Toulon have had scattered minor success over their 104 year existence. Both were in the lower tiers of their respective leagues with precarious finances when taken over by millionaires (Man City were initially bought by Thaksin Shiniwatra but afterwards by an Abu Dhabi based investment group). Toulon were taken over by comic magnate Mourad Boudjellal. Man City's new investors started buying big name stars (an immediate £100M outlay on players), Toulon's owner convinced several of the world's top players including Tana Umaga and Gonzala Queseda to join what was a second division team. Afterwards Man City started to accumulate some of the world's top names such as Carlos Tevez and Robinho Toulon have acquired the services of Habana, Andrew Mehrtens, Jonny Wilkinson, George Gregan, Carl Hayman, Bakkies Bohta ...... Both have had former international managers in charge - Man City have had Keegan and Erriksson whilst Toulon took St Andre away France. Now, you're either being obtuse or are a Man City fan. As I've answered your question, perhaps you can tell me why Toulon and Man City are miles apart in their approach because I, frankly, neither agree nor can see any justification in your argument. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees both Man City and Toulon as plastic teams. |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 2:05pm
|
Oh, I should add that Man City also have the 4th largest turnover in the Premier League, which is the position quoted for Toulon. |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 2:15pm
|
Thanks. some good info. [QUOTE=Abbey] As I've answered your question, perhaps you can tell me why Toulon and Man City are miles apart in their approach because [quote] I will. -Manchester City's debt last year was £51m -Toulon are debt free -Manchester City's owner cleared £300m debt -Toulon's owner has never done anything of the sort. -Toulon's owner has put in around 600k a year since joined in 2005. That's probably not far off what some Welsh and English club benefactors put in. -Toulon's operating budget was 9m Euros when he joined in 2005. It is now 22m Euros -Toulon receive 9.2m Euros a year in sponsorship through companies like Volkswagen. That is a tremendous amount to get. They also get about 5m Euros from their council for stadium costs etc. That's 14.2m of money raised through good business nous and good working relationships with local organisations. Add on the merchandise, restaurants and ticket sales and THAT is what pays for the best players in the world - not Mourad Boujelall's wallet. -Who pays Sergio Agearo's wages? |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 2:37pm
|
Toulon had a deficit of €10m when Boudjellal took over in 2002 - the debt was such that they were demoted by the FNR. He cleared their debt (it's all relative as money in football is massive compared to rugby) I agree that Volkswagen put a large amount into Toulon, but no sane person can say they put an equal amount into salaries than their competitors. Boudjellal paid Gregan's €400,000 out of his own pocket and there are rumours that his claim of not putting much into the club is rubbish. Basically, Toulon flout the French wage cap (as investigated by journalist Ian Moriarty) whilst we all know Man City circumnavigate the UEFA's toothless financial fair play rules. Cheers for the debate, by the way. Not feeling well today and this has given me a bit of vaavoom. |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 2:49pm
|
There's no doubt that money plays a big part in Toulon's success. But to have transformed the club from generating less than the current salary cap to 2.2 x the current salary cap is some achievement. I think Mourad steps down next year, and the next president will unlikely be a multi-millionaire in the same bracket as him. So if they continue to turnover 22m Euros, win the league and the Euro cup - will they still be a sugar daddy driven plastic team? |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 3:01pm
I suppose it depends on whether they continue to sign the Dan Carters rather than the James Hooks. Obviously players go to where the success is but I find it strange that Toulon get the stars where Toulouse don't (as much). Toulon aren't as plastic as Racing, I wholeheartedly agree!! |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 3:14pm
Where would you go if you were Dan Carter? Toulon or Toulouse? |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 3:27pm
I'm not falling into your trap...... Whoever paid me the most money  |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 3:31pm
|
Toulon have built a massive money making brand. And are now winning the trophies to boot. I say fair play to them. They are self sufficient, which is a bit of a difference to Saracens and Man City. If one day those 2 are self sufficient then fair play. Professional sport takes money to make money. |
Posted By: Iwlew
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 5:09pm
But what annoys me is the rugby they play, pen kick and drop goal Wilkinson, for the stars in the backline they have youd think theyd score more tries. ------------- And We Were Singing... |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 5:25pm
I guess I'm easily pleased. I'd take a couple of Heineken Cup trophies and a league title with a kicking game. |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 5:28pm
|
Whatever next ???? You'll have Governing bodies paying touring sides to come & play friendly international matches ! Oh wait ..... ! ------------- |
Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 6:07pm
| As I am a pretty cynical sort, and just out of interest, when have things ever been any different? |
Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 7:03pm
I suppose players have always chased the glory, even in the amateur era. However, it wasn't as cut-throat in those days. Players would turn out for their local side and refuse to move to the glamour sides (not always, obviously). Players like Billy James and Ray Gilles were mostly loyal to Aberavon (although James did end up at Swansea), Gwyn Evans at Maesteg (although Bateman joined Neath) and many others were loyal to Ebbw Vale, Newbridge, Cross Keys etc. But there have always been the likes of Tommy David and Barry John leaving for glamour sides. The same is true in football with players like Steve Bull at Wolves. It just gladdens the heart to see players like Gerrard and Giggs/Scholes - although it helps they weren't Stockport or Tranmere players! My original point, though, is the buying of success on such a scale that you end up mopping up players just to stop the opposition from having them. Toulon can call on Wilkinson, Giteau or Michelak at OH. Man City, and others, merely ship them out on loan. With the money available in modern sports, the rich get richer etc. There are few sports which demonstrate this more than F1. Hell, even darts is big bucks these days! |
Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 7:35pm
Definitely take (and agree with) your point: it's the gap between rich and poor widening so much now that's made sport what it is today; seen it in football for ages and are seeing it in rugby now. I think it's great seeing the resurgence of Liverpool this year for the sake of variety to challenge Chelsea, Man City and Man U with their billionaire backers, however, they've only been able to achieve that as the result of a huge investment from their own new billionaire backer. I do agree the money in sport (football especially) seems ludicrous and so disproportionate to the real world. My comment was mainly alluding to there being a tendency to romanticise the past, and there have always been rich clubs and thus players attracted to them to also improve their salaries. Was on a QI when apparently the richest sportsperson ever was a charioteer from ancient Rome. So F1 drivers now having huge salaries is probably not really any different.
|
Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 8:37pm
| Top posting. Too many to thank. |
Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 8:47pm
Ah go on.  |
Posted By: roy munster
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 8:57pm
|
the game needs strong regulations and strong regulators , just as the economy at large needs them. The trouble is who regulates the regulators? who limits them getting too wasteful , too self serving and too powerful? Its like the movie casino , where everyone is watching everyone and the eye in the sky is watching them all (the cameras) and still millions were being smuggled back to the old boys in little italy.....sadly we dont have an ace rothstein character running the ship ------------- ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER) |
Posted By: English Scarlet
Date Posted: 05 May 2014 at 3:25pm
| It comes to something when spending £50 million in a summer is a quiet one for the big clubs. |
Posted By: Mundoscarlet
Date Posted: 05 May 2014 at 5:35pm
| Got to disagree with you on Liverpool here. Just had a quick look at soccer base that shows the transfers for teams going back seasons . The last 3 years Liverpool spent between 35-40 per season, that's on average 6-7 players per year. Average around 6.5-7 million per man which is very little in the big scheme. Biggest spend was 97 million in 09-10 but they recouped 73.1 in sale of players too. John Henry realises what lfc means to the fans, hence redeveloping of a field to 58,500 within 2 years but he also reduced 300 million of debt. There aren't many clubs in the premiership run properly now, rather than a rich mans plaything. |