Meh. I always cringe when Liverpool, Arsenal and especially United act all holier-than-thou about money with Chelsea. When it's regarding that greedy rich clubs' association of theirs, it's absolutely farcical.
Yeah, they're all a bunch of bastards, really aren't they? They're only in it for the money, the greedy sh!ts. They don't seem to realise that they can ruin football with their money-making scheme. Pricks. Revelian
Every man who are rich will try their best to become richer, it is very hard to resist your "passion" to become greedy. And i believe if you can, you are a good person
I'm no fan of the G14 but let's keep some things in perspective: - The G14 will only expand if it benefits them, and given the political machinations behind their bouts with UEFA and FIFA, adding more clubs from the larger leagues won't exactly alter their status or abilities. There is no fame or money just in membership, so if anyone wants in then they're simply buying into the hype created by the existing members. - Chelsea's wealth stems from RA, not so much the club. Yes, they're establishing a new brand but they're still miles away from financial independence, let alone sustainability for this level. And last I checked other clubs have insanely wealthy owners, they just don't sink it into the clubs the way RA has done with Chelsea. (Guess you need that 3rd Billion or so before feeling safe enough to not care where it goes. ) - Given the above, I can't see the G14 simply adding a club because they're "wealthy." The clubs that form the group also claim some semblence of history and contribution to the game. If money were the only indicator than some investor could back Grasshoppers or Bohemians and demand entry!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G-14.jpg chelsea should be in that group looking at the calibre of some of the other members. Bayer leverkusen? marseille??
Oh, I agree. But that's exactly what makes me wince when the likes of Arsenal and Man United talk about being "uncomfortable" having Chelsea in their little sewing circle. The G14 was created to cement the advantages held by the biggest, richest established clubs in 2000, and they resent Abramovich & Chelsea for muscling their way into the big-time anyway. I don't think this is really true anymore. The only thing stopping Chelsea from being profitable at this point (I think) is the massive amount they spend on transfers every year. With the quality of their current squad, they could easily rein in their spending in that department as of now. They have much higher tv and sponsorship income than the non-big 4 clubs, and the 2nd highest gate receipts in Europe after Man Utd (maybe 3rd after Arsenal now). I agree that this is the image G14 would like to project, but look who they have included already. There's Leverkusen, who were only added because they had a good CL run and the G14 would look foolish if their member clubs weren't totally dominating that competition. Also PSG, who have only existed since 1970. Not so much tradition there, but there sure is the potential to become a really rich club, having one of the biggest cities in Europe all to themselves. But anyway, all I was trying to say is that it's just really hypocritical for Man Utd, Inter, Barca et al to object to Chelsea on any sort of "moral" grounds. The G14 club has a cynical mission of protecting the interests of the world's richest football teams, and it's ironic that they're now in the position of trying to fend off a rival who's even richer than them.
Marseille, sure. But all Leverkusen had when they joined the G14 was a few recent successful seasons, not any kind of winning tradition. In fact, before 1980, they had only ever played in the lower divisions, and they still have never won a single league title. Nor are they a well-supported team. Their ground only holds 22500, which is tiny by German standards.
I won't contest this idea and I'm among the loudest proponents of fairer sharing of league revenue and distribution of European proceeds. I'd rather see more Champs League money paid to League's than individual teams. But there is something to be said about how the advantages were attained by most big clubs. If they truly are that popular that they'll draw 76k paying fans or garner huge sponsorship contracts who's to hold that against them? If Chelsea devise a model for sustainability at this point more power to them, though methinks a part of that will require their fans paying out the nose given the ground limitations and/or the costs of any moves there. They may be able to sustain the overall level of budget with the new EPL contracts and with regular deep runs in the ECL, but that alone may not guarantee the same disparity between them and other clubs (like 'Pool and Arsenal), and faltering in the CL may cost them dearly here. There's a reason they've posted huge losses the past few seasons and are now pimping themselves across the globe to buy more (plastic) fans. (jibe meant but in good spirit, Nice. ) I can't speak to the selection of Leverkusen save for one thing: The G-14 membership resembles a proportional balance among major leagues/nations not unlike UEFA. Given Germany's size it makes some sense to want another team from there. I'd have thought Schalke, but that wasn't my call to make. Maybe Bayern and Dortmund wanted someone who'd be less assuming to join them, pulling their own version of "Chelski? Nein!" Hypocritical? Possibly, and I'll even grant an outright "sure." Ironic? Hardly. More like smart business. If the formation of the G14 is for exactly the purposes you're touting, all the more reason to limit who else gets in the act. Especially among cheif competitors. I do know people among those clubs are fearful of allowing outside powers/money too much influence over clubs. At least the large corporate support of Leverkusen is financially grounded.
