PalenqueBob

As a tourist in a country i like to know about local customs, foods and things like sports - in the U.K. sports it seems means soccer (at least until this Oct when real football comes to Wembley).

And i've frequently asked Brits questions about soccer and am always enthralled with the answers.

So More Q's About British and Continental Soccer at the highlest level.

WHY DO CLUBS NEED A WHITE KNIGHT?

BBC last nite talked about Arsenal, the best team in northeast London i guess, owner Peter Woods selling a stake to a Russian billionaire with the threat that Russians could take over the team.

Seems other clubs like Sunderland are facing similar foreign control

and indeed the NY Yankees of English Premier League, Manchester United, are i think owned by an elderly yank.

Real football teams in the U.S. are huge money-makers and none have foreign owners, which may not even be allowed perhaps as owners themselves vote up or down any would be buyer.

Qs - why can't Brit clubs make a profit and seem to need some white knight?

Why would an elderly yank or an uppity russian guy want to own a British soccer team?

Are teams money makers perhaps?

Can anyone buy a team or like in real football do the other owners have to OK the newbie.

And it would seem ownership of a marginal club like Spurs would be a bad investment as there is always the threat of demotion - unlike NFL teams - the franchise always increases in value it seems, regardless of team record (Detroit Lions for example)

Any input will be appreciated.

audere_est_facere

Dodgy yanks, russians israelis etc buy English (not scottish) because it's the richest game in the world.

The divs who own Spurs paid around £50m for it - it's now worth about £300m a few years later.

Football teams don't make much of a year on year profit - but the capital growth is huge.

Clubs don't need "white knights" at all - in fact most of us would rather they buggered off back where they came from. However Britain, unlike the USA is a country that believes in the free market.

flanneruk

"foreign owners...may not even be allowed perhaps as owners themselves vote up or down any would be buyer."

You mean, as in Exxon gets to agree who can buy shares in Shell?

And this they call competition? It's LEGAL? And the country concerned lectures the rest of the world about free enterprise?

Words (almost) fail me.

PalenqueBob

well ole chap pro sports have special exemptions, voted on by Congress, as to the anti-Trust clauses - called anti-Trust exemptions - thus they can enslave players they first draft involuntarily onto the teams and pay them a forced minimum wage unless they are good enough to bargain with the threat of not playing that year or by going to Canada in case of football, etc.

And some pro sports can even force team ownerships to sell the franchise - like it caught up with gambling interests.

audere_est_facere

Yet another exhibit in the yanks are mad case.

nona1

Yes, because Russian oligarchs are known for charitable works!

duh - they buy them because they are the only people rich enough to buy such high value investments. And its more fun than looking at your shares listing.

nona1

That question was a bit like saying 'why do only incredibly internationally rich people buy private islands costing $100million? Poor island owner needed rescuing? I don't think so.

alanRow

<<< Seems other clubs like Sunderland are facing similar foreign control >>>

Irish bookies only bought it a few months ago

PalenqueBob

OK i get it - it, like the richest real estate in London area, just read 40% goes to billionaire Russians, the most expensive and potentially money making investments are soccer clubs.

so what would be the most worth it clubs and the least - i would assume

Man United would be the most valuable franchise and then maybe

Liverpool Irish one

what pecking order in terms of value would you put them in - talking of premier league i guess.

Larger cities like here are they more valuable or could an Everton (if not in London) be one?

thanks again.

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! American women are heavily favored i guess in FIFA World Cup of Soccer now going on it China

Do England, Wales and Ecosse have separate teams or did they even qualify?

alanRow

<<< Do England, Wales and Ecosse have separate teams or did they even qualify? >>>

England did - though after today's shambles I don't know why they bothered

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...en/6226078.stm

PalenqueBob

2-2 i guess you mean Japan must be terrible

USA 2-2 to North Korea - guess North Korea does have the bomb - i don't follow this much but i guess USA must have been upset in a tie?

I guess there are more boys and girls respectively playing soccer in the U.S. than any other sport.

Reisender

Well I have one comment PalBob - REAL FOOTBALL is for sure NOT the sport played in the USA. That sport is best called handball since the only time the foot touches the ball is for field goals and punts and the kick offs. How can it be called "football" when the ball is carried in the hands, thrown by the hands, and caught by the hands? How?

Also, if the players of USA "football" were real men they would shed all the pads and helmets and get it on - ever watch a Rugby match? They also would play on a proper sized pitch instead of that little patch of grass they use. God forbid if one of those overgrown, overpadded monsters had to run for more than a few seconds. There would not be enough ambulances to haul them all to hospital!

PalenqueBob

little patch of grass

you mean of course Astro Turf or its modern day equivalent

there was a grass revival recently but i think it's now passe

anyway put one of those bear-type ruggers on a line with the NFL behemoths and they would be, pads included, carried off after the first play

they may look like blobs but they often can run a few yards like lightening. and not unlike ruggers there is also a lot of illegal use of hands

i do agree that handball would be more appropriate, football being extant from old fashioned football when they punted a lot more - even when the received the ball right away to gain field position.

waring

"NFL behemoths and they would be, pads included, carried off after the first play"

I sincerely doubt that. The USA's own Matekitonga Moeakiola is 6' and weighs 260 pounds, and he ain't fat.

You may get bigger blokes in Girlie Football, but I doubt they can move.

I haven't seen obesity raised as in issue in Rugby as it is in Girlie Football.

"a followup to a 2005 study at the University of North Carolina that found that 56 percent of NFL football players could be considered obese by the most commonly used medical standard."

PalenqueBob

ask the heavily padded NFL player who's fighting for his life right now and whose best scenario seems to be living but never walking again about that!

And ask punt or kick off returners - some figure by the NCAA moving kick offs back some yards to encourage returns will result in many serious injuries to slim fast guys being buried by brutes.

Reisender

Yes that is a shame about that injured player (can not recall his team or his name). It seems he lowered his head when making the tackle and broke his neck/back and Drs do not expect him to walk again. A shame. We can hope the NFL does not just toss him out with the trash.

PalenqueBob

Like my alma mater, a major major college football power - a kid from a school where a friend taught at - a high school said this kid can't read a lick and he's going to this U, one of the top academic public universities and since he couldn't read how could he even do the silly athletic 'Sports Management' classes, etc.

Well he had a great first year as a ball carrier but busted his knee the second year and left school, of course, and spiralled down

Last year in paper an article said he needed a knee replacement - could hardly walk and could not afford it.

Good old U cut him lose when he got injured and never looked back - yes threw him out with the trash

hopefully NFL has appropriate insurance coverage, etc. to meet his lifetime expenses.

PalenqueBob

Sounds like U.S. is in the toughest bracket in World Cup - with Sweden, North Korea, Nigeria and U.S. i think - called toughest in USA Today today.

Yanks play Swedes today i think and it will be crucial. Only 2 of 4 teams move on.

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!