New Real Madrid President Perez wasn't kidding when he promised to spend. With Barcelona winning everything the 2008-2009 year, as well as an embarrassing 6-0 beatdown on Real Madrid, RM is ready to spend $400 million on transfers to return to Galactico greatness. It is this policy that polarizes the team with soccer fans.
$94.05 million for Kaka
$131.2 million for Cristiano Ronaldo
My Barca friend at work walked up to me saying my Real Madrid team makes him sick. That anyone could spend that much money for a game, especially while the world is in debt, is sick.
And FIFA President Sepp Blatter, who shits on EPL teams all day rigging Champions League finals so there is no all EPL final and demanding that the EPL implement a transfer cap because EPL teams spend "outrageously," actually defends Real Madrid's spending:
"We are in a very sensitive market nowadays, because there is an economic crisis," he said. "But in football, if we are in a good market, it means that football is a good product, not just to buy or sell but a product that gives people what they want, which is emotions.
"This is the game of the people and they need stars. Okay, it is a lot of money, but he is performing." -ESPN
EPL teams like Liverpool, Manchester United, and Chelsea need stars that were performing, why did you have a problem then but not when Real Madrid does it during global economic crisis? Yeaaaahhh bitch don't lie. But that's a point away from this article. The point is that Blatter had to defend the fact that Real Madrid is spending so much during global economic crisis. Manchester United, who has a debt of $1.07 billion, has owners having to reaffirm that the sale of C.Ronaldo was not debt related and that Fergie was free to spend:
"The idea Manchester United are motivated by a debt burden is just not true," added the spokesman. "It is not an issue.
"The fact is Cristiano Ronaldo decided, after six years, it was time to move on and the manager said okay.
"Sir Alex Ferguson is in total control of his squad. He is empowered to make whatever decisions he thinks are in the best interests of Manchester United. That continues to be the case." -ESPN
So again we revisit the point of this article: is it ethical to be spending while the world is in debt?
If your team is not in debt, you can borrow. If your team's financial big wigs thinks your team can recoup and make money from borrowing, you can borrow. If your team is using the country's banks because you are supported by the royal family, then you can borrow. If your team is $1 billion in debt or over, I would think it's safe to say that you shouldn't be spending on shit.
Don't be mad that other people have money and spend it. There's a debt because money isn't moving due to low confidence in paying back debt. That's why banks are being bitches about school loans here. My little brother is having a bitch of a time starting college. GOOD THING I FINISHED 10 YEARS AGO MUAHAHHAHAHAHA. Even further still, if you see someone spend, don't go spending what you don't have. You're not rich like your neighbor is. Accept it and move on.
So what am I saying? While Blatter can suck my ass for crying about EPL teams spending...
Liverpool in big debt, Manchester United in big debt, Chelsea in big debt (although the club is technically borrowing from their owner), Arsenal doing alright...
Only Arsenal should spend, but they're doing it right by sticking with the youth they have on the "cheap." Chill with the spending for a year. Just a year. Then next year buy off all of Arsenal's players. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA
3 comments:
Spending that much money on an athlete is stupid because athletes get hurt, and if you are paying them that much money you are probably paying them based on performances they will never repeat, chasing the dragon if you will....never in the history of anything has doling out huge money to a player in any sport ever been worth it..
that's actually an interesting conversation which I kinda had with my coworkers.
A-Rod was a big money move and you're getting what you pay for, but the Yankees fell into the trap that anyone they spend a lot of money on will get results like him.
Shaq was a big money move and he gave them 3 rings, but it really fucked their salary cap and was lucky 1) Phil's a good coach, 2) Jerry West owns putting teams together, and 3) Kobe was good, but young enough to keep his contract low enough for cap space.
And your comment about when they get hurt is REALLY amplified in these situations. When Shaq got hurt (which was a lot), the Lakers SUCKEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. When A-Rod was hurt this year, the Yankees suckkkkkedddd. with Real Madrid, it may not affect them as much because they got two of the three best players in the world individually. One guy gets hurt and the other guy just has more ball time.
Real Madrid had spent a zillion on Zidane and that was worth it with a bunch of Champions Leagues. I DUNNO. Kaka and C.Ronaldo will be interesting, but if it bombs, it bombs BIG and all of Spain is in debt (which will make Barca happy).
I thought the money gets transferred because of the lost revenue that the team might get from that player being on the team (posters/shirts/anything with player name & #/advertising $ coming in). So the transfer has nothing to do with the actual performance of the player. If you look at it that way, don't you think the revenues coming in to Real will be >= the transfer fee being paid out? I would think so.
Post a Comment