I disagree about it not being a problem. Global financing of once local football clubs networked through a combination of multi-club groups and unrooted billionaire pals distorts the one time sport of football, as well as being a significant risk for criminal activity.
22 Apr 2025
2.0K
-
-
Have you only just noticed? (It’s been going on for years, though admittedly in Forest’s case it’s relatively recent)
-
There’s absolutely nothing you, Tricky, I or anyone else can do about it. In theory FIFA / UEFA could, but they all up to their necks in cash, so don’t hold your breath.
Concentrate on what’s on the pitch. Wailing about the rest of it won’t make a jot of difference & will drive you mad.
Though (as I said to Tricky yesterday), I’m not sure the parade of dubious (relatively) local shysters who owned football clubs 50 years ago were quite the shining paragon of disinterested governance that they’re sometimes painted now. You know - Michael Knighton, Alan Sugar, Robert Maxwell… that sort.
-
-
There's quite a lot of apparent projection in your current missives on the subject. If you don't mind me saying. As if you've only just noticed...some of us fought Soar, Scholar, Wray, and held ND's feet to the fire over the impact of his method of achieving control on ordinary stakeholders.
You may have a view, to which you are entitled, but to some of us not all funding is the same, and we can do something - specifically not support what it's become. We can probably agree that it wont be changing any time soon, on account of how badly bent the world is, but that doesn't mean we have to keep treating a different thing the same, or stop mentioning it. I do understand how that might create feelings of dissonance in some.
I've enjoyed football for over fifty years, and these shitheads are not taking that away from me....but if I were starting out today I doubt that I would have a particular reason for supporting forest shaped laundry, in a (currently) nottingham based team. Not least because I couldn't afford to go, and I'd probably be on my playstation, rather than down the park straight after school. So it would be one of the pre-eminent protected elite franchise brands, probably, if at all. Possibly CR7 instead.
I actually quite enjoy watching the running around, performing actions bit..whoever does it (as long as they can do it at a level a bit above what I ever could). I'm not going ra ra ra over a shitfest that I don't enjoy, which as a spin off damages the game that I do like, and the relatively level playing field competition which is the century old cornerstone of it's grip on those who followed it.
You seem quite fresh to the argument, so it's good to have a recap. Nobody is foaming about it...we all know what it is. It's not the thing that it used to be. We don't need to pretend to ourselves that it is to get what we can out of it. We don't have to like all aspects of it, and it's a bit fascistic to insist people just get behind the programme. That's not the agenda here....people can have alternate views and are happy to debate them. If things are a bit shit, look contrary to sporting integrity, and have the whiff of being bent, or even just profoundly stupid, there is legitimate comment to be made here. There are only really two viable major positions...you like what it is, that it's all about protecting brands, that the rules are habitually bypassed on the sly, and it's all about alliances and money, or you don't like it, might mention that every now and again, and accept your part in standing idly by and funding the ordinary people to get fucked over. Again.
-
And there is always something you can do about it, even if it doesn't overtly change things. One small thing might be to refuse to buy or wear anything emblazoned with the name of an illegal gambling company reportedly linked to organised crime and people trafficking, get a vintage shirt instead. Another might be simply to occasionally acknowledge the problems individually and collectively. You can still enjoy the football.
It's the same with ecological breakdown. I can't stop it, but I can do little things to promote and support life. Sometimes you just want to acknowledge out loud that the planet is being destroyed by excessive human lifestyles and exacerbated by billionaires (there are lots of crossovers with football) but it doesn't mean you aren't happy to be alive and shouldn't plant a garden, grow some food and live within some reasonable limits.
-
In transfer news, that Fab fella is apparently saying Newcastle have bid £55M for Elanga and are now pushing hard to sign him.
-
If that's true, it means Elanga's told them he wants to go. Fair play to him. Likeable fella and good fun to watch over the past two years. That United goal will live long in the memory.
-
Given this is their fourth (fifth?) bid I'd taken it as a given that he was interested. It's just whether we are.
-
At £55 I'd tell them to push harder, or do one.
-
Antony has three years left on his contract. There is no pressure to sell. Time for the Scouse to replace Jota with Isak. That would be funny if the Geordies go dicked that way and Elanga decides to stay.
Not listening unless it’s semenyo money and that is 70+.
Or we have someone better lined up. No idea who though…
Chicago: Staying cool.
-
I'm guessing we're playing hardball because it's early in the window. The Scouse need for an all-in-one striker has rather increased though.
60M and he's off. And we need to escalate our recruitment.
-
At £60m he’s gone and that’s a shame as we lose a great player for us and become weaker.
And it’s proving difficult to attract the top players so we’d need to get a bit fortunate with any replacement in that the potential we would be buying turns out good.
-
Sure. I meant that Newcastle will have agreed terms with Elanga now if it's true they're pushing hard on a fee with Forest.
-
Purchasing teams don't normally (officially!) discuss personal terms until they've agreed a fee with the club right. Though I can't imagine it'll be an issue. We're the stumbling block, not Elanga.
-
The "rules" say they can't speak to the player directly until we say it's ok - we don't have to have agreed a fee at that point. But they'll have spoken to his agent and have given an indication of the likely wages and been told Elanga is up for it. And even if that was against the rules (and it's probably a grey area), no-one's ever going to complain and no-one should have a problem with it because we're also having similar conversations with other players' agents.
-
This. No club is going to actively pursue a player who's not bothered about moving. Interest is established first, off the record, and then acted upon. No point spending time agreeing a fee between clubs if the player doesn't want to go.
More than 20 years ago on my first paper, the former owners at Derby used a friendly local journalist they trusted implicitly to quietly vet a prospective managerial appointment with the intention of using that route to find out if he was interested in joining.
This idea that fees are agreed between clubs before any unofficial approach to the player is naïve.
-
I think Anderson might be a rare exception. You get the impression he had no interest in leaving or knowledge it was happening until Newcastle told him to pack his bags.
