I agree with this exactly. He doesn't place himself in ways that his teammates are able to use. I wish I could see what he was thinking in those moments. It usually seems like what he wants is for the teammate with the ball to beat the next guy on the dribble. He places himself so that, in that case, he'd be in a good location for a surprising pass to open things up. Or maybe with a one-touch redirection off another player? But I can't see at all how he expects just a pass to break him free.
To play devil's advocate, wouldn't reducing/capping the agents' fees make the agents want to have more frequent transfer? 1x6 = 2x3
That's not fair in my opinion. It's not him that put that price tag around his neck. One should only use the paycheck as the measure of how a player performances, not what idiots ask and pay for them. The price payed or asked is the problem that is on the platter of those responsible for it and that excludes the player, unless of course you make him responsible by being that good.
It doesn't have to be. I expect an attacker to recognize that pass is available sooner than CP did. It doesn't take a supernatural talent to know they can force a 1 on 1 with the keeper with the right pass. I didn't ask him to put it right on the free attacker's boot mid-stride. He didn't do that bad on the play or anything, he recognized it a little late and hit a bad ball, but he did try to get it there. Just saying, the pass was an easier one if his awareness is better.
Okay, but what you post now has nothing to do with his 70 million price tag, but what you expect from a player payed like he is.
My expectations of a player have nothing to do with how they are paid. I'm not sure what you're saying. It doesn't matter, agree to disagree.
You make an interesting point about how the agents could make up the difference in volume. Perhaps, the devil is in the details. Just thinking out loud, I wonder if the NFL not only caps agents' fees, but also whether they get paid on an pro rata basis. The reason I say this is because almost all contracts in the NFL have a real and likely part, that's the guaranteed money and years, and the fictitious part, the padding used for marketing purposes. That's why we see contracts announced as 5yrs and $100M, when in fact, only 3yrs are guaranteed, and about $60M. It would be strange for the team to pay the agent 3% on the $100M if the player never fulfills the contract, so I wonder if they pay the agent based upon whether the player is still with the team, so 3% for the first 3 yrs of the $60M guaranteed portion, and then in Year 4 if the player is still with the team. That sort of thing.
Regarding the striker position. In an interview with Ruhr Nachrichten, Zorc said, “It must make sense, that’s crucial.” The prices that were traded and just paid by some clubs, were “extreme”, Zorc finds, but the number of candidates who are really interesting, is also correspondingly low. “Therefore, the striker position is certainly the most complicated on the transfer market right now." https://bvbbuzz.com/2018/08/14/michael-zorc-borussia-dortmund-search-new-striker-complicated/
In other words, their archaic organizational structure prevents them from being much more than the Newcastle of the Bundesliga.
All BvB needs is some golden-Rolls Sheikh or money-laundering Russian financier or "private investment fund" American mafioso sugar daddy.
In soccer world, 2-3 years ago is a long ass time. What can you win now? Chelsea and ManCity were nothing before they got some rich sugar daddies and start winning trophies left and right.
When you're 18, three years is one-sixth of your life, so it is a long time. When you're 60, it's only one-twentieth, so it was yesterday.
Club soccer has changed in the last 20 years. It’s no longer about the size of your stadium, the quality of your academy or the ability of your manager. It’s about an ability and willingness to spend incredible sums of money to acquire players. They can still finish second each year because they’re in a league that is pretty risk averse, but they — and their league — are slipping towards irrelevance in Europe.
Agree with this. Doesn't matter how hard your team play or how good your coach is, it's all about how much money you have to spend on difference makers. Just ask Athletico Madrid. -Ha
Your point of view is startlingly myopic. England just a few seasons ago was an exact counter-example to your entire point. These things are cyclical. Germany can develop talent, that's all you really need for a variety of reasons you're overlooking. Spending the money you make isn't unethical... you're impugning popularity and success, if anything, not the unethical.
It's not disliking billionaires. It's disliking billionaires who make their money in shady ways and use my favorite sport as a means to launder it. Football in Europe is so corrupt, there's nothing to save there at this point. http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/ML through the Football Sector.pdf
Yeah, that's fine... I'm saying when you paint with that "teams that can afford to spend money are unethical" brush, you're necessarily going to paint over the significant differences between clubs owned by shady billionaires (arguably unethical) and clubs that have a history of a certainly level of success that are just popular and thus can keep spending as part of their financial plan (not unethical).