Just how rubbish are England? | Bristol Rovers F. C.

Deleted

Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0

Just how rubbish are England? Jul 30, 2015 19:39:05 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 19:39:05 GMT

Jul 30, 2015 19:03:58 GMT CountyGroundHotel said:

It's TV money that makes Woy's job all but impossible.

Congratulations and thanks to all the nodding donkeys who like to pay Sky to destroy our national game and who buy into the mindless nonsense about 'The best League in the world'.

But the cat is out of the bag, even if Sky disappeared tomorrow, someone else would come along and fill the gap in the market.

irishrover
Global Moderator

Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372

Just how rubbish are England? Jul 30, 2015 21:55:00 GMT

Quote

Post by irishrover on Jul 30, 2015 21:55:00 GMT

Jul 30, 2015 19:03:58 GMT CountyGroundHotel said:

Can't agree that American sport is a good example on 3 counts:
1. Fans would be no more happy that are 'monetarised' sport ended up diverting money from the players to the clubs and by default the owners than the current structure where the players get most of the money;
2. Would we want a system whereby players have litle choice over who they play for, you know the situation your the top player at college from one of the southern states looking forward to playing somewhere warm and Green Bay have a crap season ....;
3. American sport is a closed shop they is no interest in the likes of Bristol Rovers ... goodnight irene.

But a problem does exist in football and it will get worse for 2 reasons:
1. Positive discrimination the FA now seeking to force clubs to include more English or homegrown players (like say a Fabregas) into squads so the value of the better homegrown players will increase because clubs have to have them regrdless of whether they really want them, so they buy the best of the rest just to make up the numbers (if you need to understand how positive discrimination fails look at South Africa where companies have to employ x number of black people to qualify for government contracts, the black people paid to make up those numbers doing nothing think it's great system);
2. Clubs when not buying the best of the rest of 'homegrown' players will buy abroad because they can get players that have already played in the top league in their country, perhaps even getting a few caps, thus seem less of a risk (perhaps understandably). Of course is it just the Man City's, Arsenal's or Chelsea's doing this? Well I don't really see many rumours linking Swansea or Southampton to buying 'homegrown' players to replace their depleted ranks.

In short we're pretty stuck with the system we got & certainly becoming more Americanised (I wonder where the Premier League marketing model come from?) won't improve things for the England national team.

The Premier League marketing model and to some degree it's business model certainly came from the US but it didn't bring the sporting with it which is the problem for the Premier League as a sporting competition. That's on it's own terms not on my judgement (ie. claims to be 'the best league in the world' etc) I'm certainly not advocating for an American style franchise system for English football on any level. All I'm saying is that in the US they have developed (over a lot of years it has to be said) a way of running professional sport leagurs which are still seen primarily as a big business but that still retain competitive parity on the field and maximises the quality of players on display. There's a series of checks and balances in place to ensure that; not because of any great romantic belief in the soul of the sport etc but because ultimately it makes sense commercially. I think there are all kinds of reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be applied to club football - points 2 and 3 being absolutely bang on. I don't think Point 1 is right though - owners don't make money at the expense of players in US Sport. Players are raking it in. Owners essentially make money off the back of each other.

The real point I was making though is about this issue of a player being a financial asset to the club. In the sense that we've created this completely insane market for players which is divorced from their actual value as a footballer. That's what encourages the big clubs to hoard and the players that have high value not being keen to risk damaging that value by dropping down to a side where they'll start regularly. All I'm saying is that in US Sport that sporting value is kept to some degree separate from their commercial value as an asset to the sport. A baseball player may be the best player in the game (and he will probably be paid as much as any sportsman in the World) but he won't be transferred for £100-200 million, if he's moved between clubs it'll be done in a trade that will involve a package of players going back the other way that (in theory at least) have the same potential value on the field. None of that effects how much he is worth financially (either on an individual basis or as an asset to his sport). I know that's simplifying it but the point is there's a system in place that to some degree keeps the sporting value of a player separate. I think something like that achieved the same thing in football would be very beneficial to the game across the board but what it would look like I have no idea and Bamber is probably right about the cat being out of the bag.

Last Edit: Jul 30, 2015 21:58:28 GMT by irishrover

CountyGroundHotel

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,802

Just how rubbish are England? Jul 31, 2015 9:46:55 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 31, 2015 9:46:55 GMT

Still disagree though Irish regarding the difference between how players are valued. In football generally players are valued in terms of £s, some are over valued Sterling some are more realistically valued Delph, but they have an agreed value between both parties with each party trying to maximise their return on the deal. In American rather than valuing players in $s they have just valued them in terms of other players, which you see quite openly with draft trades, with both parties trying to maximise their return on the deal. Ultimately both models get to the same place ie in football you get the cash and buy new players.

I suspect the real difference is that in the American sports there is no international market so valuing players in terms of other players is logical & practical. In football because it's an international market that isn't practical, can you imagine Chelsea doing a deal with Santos saying we'll give you Bertrand, an elderly John Terry & Victor Moses for your new Brazilian superstar? Never going to happen not least as the players won't accept being traded across continents. Once the MLS develops and looks for players who aren't about to retire do you think they will follow the American corporate sports philosophy or the football philosophy on transferring players?

I'd also query how many players are under contract at the top US football or baseball teams that never sniff first team action? I bet they are just as happy taking the dollars rather than being employed by a minor league team as some squad player at Man City

At least we all agree that good or bad we are stuck with the model we have at least until the TV companies stop funding it.

irishrover
Global Moderator

Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372

Just how rubbish are England? Jul 31, 2015 19:00:57 GMT

Quote

Post by irishrover on Jul 31, 2015 19:00:57 GMT

Jul 31, 2015 9:46:55 GMT CountyGroundHotel said:

Still disagree though Irish regarding the difference between how players are valued. In football generally players are valued in terms of £s, some are over valued Sterling some are more realistically valued Delph, but they have an agreed value between both parties with each party trying to maximise their return on the deal. In American rather than valuing players in $s they have just valued them in terms of other players, which you see quite openly with draft trades, with both parties trying to maximise their return on the deal. Ultimately both models get to the same place ie in football you get the cash and buy new players.

I suspect the real difference is that in the American sports there is no international market so valuing players in terms of other players is logical & practical. In football because it's an international market that isn't practical, can you imagine Chelsea doing a deal with Santos saying we'll give you Bertrand, an elderly John Terry & Victor Moses for your new Brazilian superstar? Never going to happen not least as the players won't accept being traded across continents. Once the MLS develops and looks for players who aren't about to retire do you think they will follow the American corporate sports philosophy or the football philosophy on transferring players?

I'd also query how many players are under contract at the top US football or baseball teams that never sniff first team action? I bet they are just as happy taking the dollars rather than being employed by a minor league team as some squad player at Man City

At least we all agree that good or bad we are stuck with the model we have at least until the TV companies stop funding it.

Yes, I think that's right about the evolution of the sports. It is about there being no international market. The competition in the states is between the sports, not within them. That's what it's really about. I'm not for a single moment saying sportsman in the US have no financial value - they have a mammoth financial value it's just that value rests far more with the league/sport itself than the individual clubs. If Man United sell a promising 18 year old for £5 million to Barcelona and he turns out to be the next Messi and worth £100 million that's both a colossal sporting hit and a massive financial hit for them. If a team trades away a promising baseball player or draft pick who becomes one of the best players in the league then it's sporting hit but it's not really that big a financial hit for them because the player asset value is not at the level of the club, it's at the level of the league so it doesn't really make very much difference to the financial success of the club. Even those New York Yankees caps that are sold everywhere contain a massive % that goes to Major League Baseball who then redistribute it out to the other 29 teams in the league - it doesn't all go to the New York Yankees. As far as I know every penny of profit from every United shirt ever sold goes straight into Old Trafford coffers.

There are actually very few examples of players under contract in US Sports teams who never play and normally it's because something quite weird has happened. It's because under salary cap rules there's absolutely no incentive for teams to hoard players - you get penalised for that. As a result very few teams carry more than a few reserves in their squads at any given time. I suppose you could extend it beyond the top league - in which case I guess there is a point in saying that there are probably squad players who would be stars in minor league teams but comparatively they wouldn't be getting paid very much on the whole. I'm not advocating the model - just pointing out that one of the reasons we are where we are is the top football clubs completely bought into the US idea of commercialisation without the kind of checks and balances that keep the sport itself a competitive spectacle. They probably wanted that way - it's why I always think a European Superleague is pie in the sky. If you're Bayern/Real/Barca/United/Chelsea etc why would you do that? Aren't you better off dominating the leagues you play in every single year rather than risking the potential of being an also-ran by having to compete on something that look vaguely like a level playing field?