PIF and RB Sports & Media

[TRon]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yes and no, I don’t think Paris has that much potential except when artificially boosted by Qatari money. 
 

TBH I still think of them as a weird Frankenstein club in some ways, a relatively average club in an average league but with loads of money making them big. 

 

 

You might be right. As stated already, I don't really follow French football, this is just my perception that a Paris club had the potential to be one of the world's biggest. Maybe once the money dries up they will go back to being a farmers league. Maybe that could be true of Man City and Chelsea for that matter. They were well known clubs when I was growing up, but certainly no world beaters. Money definitely catapulted them into the stratosphere, and being associated with London and Manchester probably helped. 

[Monters]

57 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

No they weren't man. You need to let that one go.

 

Man U are a sleeping giant. Liverpool were a sleeping giant. PSG ascension is only possible with the crazy investment they have received - that's not a sleeping giant. You were wrong on that point man.

When?

 

Unless I have miss counted sixteen major honors since 2000 not including Charity Shields

Most be the lightest of light sleepers, not sure Man U are that asleep either 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Monters

[TheBrownBottle]

20 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Paris being Paris is always going to attract eyes, same way as London. I accept that the French League wasn't much of a competiton, but that's not what I'm saying. My point is that PSG being based in Paris always had the potential to be one of the biggest teams in the world. I mean, that's how it has played out right?

 

 

Totally agree re the general appeal of Paris, but not in terms of them being potentially one of the world’s biggest clubs - despite the size of the city (over 10m in the urban area), it doesn’t have another top flight club, and PSG never attracted large or fervent support.   It just isn’t a football city.  Of course, they’re winning constantly, so they can fill their ground - which is smaller than the Stadium of Shite.  

[TRon]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Totally agree re the general appeal of Paris, but not in terms of them being potentially one of the world’s biggest clubs - despite the size of the city (over 10m in the urban area), it doesn’t have another top flight club, and PSG never attracted large or fervent support.   It just isn’t a football city.  Of course, they’re winning constantly, so they can fill their ground - which is smaller than the Stadium of Shite.  

 

I think the ethnic mix of Paris now as compared to a few decades ago might have changed that historical view a bit though. Those with African or north African heritage tend to follow football ahead of other sports so I don't really see PSG becoming a small time club again. But if Le Pen grabs power who knows. They might re-nationalise the French league and start using Parc de Princes to sell goats and pigs in the not too distant future. 

[JT24]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Totally agree re the general appeal of Paris, but not in terms of them being potentially one of the world’s biggest clubs - despite the size of the city (over 10m in the urban area), it doesn’t have another top flight club, and PSG never attracted large or fervent support.   It just isn’t a football city.  Of course, they’re winning constantly, so they can fill their ground - which is smaller than the Stadium of Shite.  

Very much does have another top flight club. In fact, they play next door to PSG. 

[madras]

6 minutes ago, JT24 said:

Very much does have another top flight club. In fact, they play next door to PSG. 

Now it does or at least will from August. How many of the past 20yrs has Paris had more than PSG in the top flight.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by madras

[The College Dropout]

12 minutes ago, Monters said:

When?

 

Unless I have miss counted sixteen major honors since 2000 not including Charity Shields

Most be the lightest of light sleepers, not sure Man U are that asleep either 

 

 

 

Pre-FSG - they were a long way away from the revenues of Arsenal and Man U. Didn't maximise their global reach.

 

FSG have realised Liverpool's potential as a properly elite club. There was 20-30% of unrealised potential for 30-odd years.

 

[Chicken Dancer]

Aye, Liverpool were very much a 'cup' team in my life (36) until Klopp imo. They had the odd flirt with the title under Benitez & famously with Rodgers. The Klopp appointment changed everything there for sure & it just shows what the right appointment can do for a club.

 

They're an absolute monster now, like they were before my day - or so me fatha tells me. But that's only really changed in the last decade I reckon, even under Rodgers in 2014 the consensus was that they were massively overachieving. 

[Monters]

The American chancers brought them down but Liverpool have always been and will always be a massive football institution especially by UK standards.

So revenue is the metric to judge now?

Arsenal 7 major honors in the same time period... and they are also a massive institution.  Highbury was an unreal ground behind the scenes in it's day but they are still smaller than Liverpool.

In grates typing this born in the 70's so lived through the Liverpool love in from Paisley onwards and despise them more than any other club apart from the unwashed down the road but you can't ever say they've been anything other than a big club since Shankly and their first influx of cash  

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It isn’t anticompetitive to have FPPT for membership - PIF refused to go through it.  The PL’s objections were dropped literally one day after KSA paid the fine and allowed BeIN back into the country.

You say that as though it’s gospel which it clearly isn’t, maybe Ashley could have saved himself thousands in legal bills and got your advice first.

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, Monters said:

The American chancers brought them down but Liverpool have always been and will always be a massive football institution especially by UK standards.

So revenue is the metric to judge now?

Arsenal 7 major honors in the same time period... and they are also a massive institution.  Highbury was an unreal ground behind the scenes in it's day but they are still smaller than Liverpool.

In grates typing this born in the 70's so lived through the Liverpool love in from Paisley onwards and despise them more than any other club apart from the unwashed down the road but you can't ever say they've been anything other than a big club since Shankly and their first influx of cash  

I agree with the bolded. Arsenal are historically the 3rd biggest club in England. By a distance from the top 2.  England has 2 European aristocratic teams. I would count about 8–10 across Europe with 6-8 able to be competitive due to the size of their leagues (so excluding Benfica and Ajax).   
 

I count:

Real

Barca

Juve

Bayern

Man U

Liverpool

could argue both Milan clubs too

 

For 25 years - Liverpool operated at a level below these.  For 25 years they operated below the level of Arsenal.  They were less successful on the pitch, smaller revenues, couldn’t attract the same calibre of player. As late as the mid 10’s Alexis Sanchez was choosing Arsenal over Liverpool.  Players were doing that in 00’s and most of the 90’s.  
 

FSG have returned Liverpool to being an elite European club. They knew that was possible when they bought them and it could be done sustainably.  

[Monters]

Agree with your club list. 
 

Personally I’d always go Milan over Inter but that’s purely Maldini worshipping 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Monters said:

The American chancers brought them down but Liverpool have always been and will always be a massive football institution especially by UK standards.

So revenue is the metric to judge now?

Arsenal 7 major honors in the same time period... and they are also a massive institution.  Highbury was an unreal ground behind the scenes in it's day but they are still smaller than Liverpool.

In grates typing this born in the 70's so lived through the Liverpool love in from Paisley onwards and despise them more than any other club apart from the unwashed down the road but you can't ever say they've been anything other than a big club since Shankly and their first influx of cash  

 

 

I heard that Liverpool weren't really considered a big team until Shankly's era, then they had massive success in the league and in Europe and that cemented them as legends across the world. How much of that is true I don't know. 

[Monters]

   Very true, that’s why I mentioned Shankly in the post 😆

 

From memory and happy to be corrected they were back rolled by the family behind the football pools competition around then too. 

[Whitley mag]

2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

I heard that Liverpool weren't really considered a big team until Shankly's era, then they had massive success in the league and in Europe and that cemented them as legends across the world. How much of that is true I don't know. 

It’s true prior to the 1974 cup final against us we were on the same number of trophies, they played in front of 20k crowds pre Shankly.

[TRon]

Just now, Monters said:

   Very true, that’s why I mentioned Shankly in the post 😆

 

From memory and happy to be corrected they were back rolled by the family behind the football pools competition around then too. 

 

But it does show that being a massive club is relative. Liverpool are a major city so always had potential to be a big club because of their catchment area. Paris would be similar I imagine for the same reason, and also the international awareness being France's premier city.