|
|
 |
« Répondre #31 le: 16 Janvier 2013 à 16:26:14 » |
|
the "Les verts" mentioned in the "maxifoot" article are not the st-etienne team, but a political formation. Initially ecological, they (quickly) moved to a more traditional socialist party. The "green" part of their program is not different from the socialists.
As for the important part: I think there are 4 differences between City, PSG, Anji (tomorrow Monaco?) and the "older glories" that you quote (Real, Liverpool, Juve...) :
1) Comments: Now everything is more known. The transfer prices of every single D2 player is known, and is in M€, while by the pasts most transfers were confidential, then less commented. And thanks (?) to internet, it is commented by everyone. Including (and mostly) jerks, while by the past only "elites" were allowed to comment... [Note that it was already the case with Chelsea, which created a lots of comments at that time. Now completely forgotten, you are right...]
2) Players: Initially, "Rich" clubs were the clubs with a bigger palmares (so more fans, more revenues). When Platini went to Juventus, Beckham to Real or most D1/L1 players to Arsenal, it could be seen as a "sportive choice". Of course the player multiplied its salary by 4 or 5 doing so, but who cared? But when Tevez, Eto'o or Ibrahimovic leave their "prestigious" clubs for these "less known" or "forgotten" new-teams, this "seems" only a monetary reason. This has been particularly highlighted for City, PSG and Anji because in the few years before they were bought, a lot of Arabic or American clubs bought (or tried to) good "mercenary" players... But, past the glory of playing for a well-known formation, players need some challenges. When C.Ronaldo leaves MU to Real, he leaves everything he had with no certainty of success in another team (a gamble Messi is not challenger enough to attempt). Thing is: now we comment these choices. When Beckham goes to the US, Eto'o to Russia or Drogba to China, they are not only pre-retirering, they are improving the championship in which they are going. Just as Pelé or Beckhenbauer did by the past, but no one remember that. When Ibrahimovic signs to Paris, or Beckham to LAG or Eto'o to Anzi, he signs up for the same challenge Pelé went for: improving football. [This is slightly different for Man.City or Malaga]
3) Team: The speed used to build these teams (in a few months) is way higher than the time needed for Real or MU to build themselves (through decades). Note that when Real build their "galactic team" in the late 90s, they did it very fast too, and lots of complains occurred at that time. This point is not really different from point 1, because a team which builds quickly is more visible than a team who builds through years.
4) Owners: Last but not least, the way these "new" clubs are built is way different than for the others: you noticed it, and it has been a well-known fact for the last 20 years, clubs build their teams "at credit": when Liverpool spend millions to build a competitive team and win nothing, they collapse. A risk which does not exist in spain, when Real or Barca have huge debts and no one cares. Now the difference between these teams and City, PSG, Anzi (by the past, Milan as well) is that if they don't win, they loose their investment. For PSG, it is different: if QSI invests and PSG don't win, QSI will just pay the bill, and keep investing. There is no "risk" in investing here, while for MU, Arsenal or Juve, people could say "They invested, and now it's paying off: they were right", while for Liverpool they said "They invested, they lost. Good try though". For PSG or Anzi, they know the only thing they will be able to say is "They invested, they won. No gamble here".
|
