Nostr notes by ATXRambler

depends on how much you enjoy the lifting for itself, I suspect. ...

2026-05-27T08:05:34Z

In reply to nevent1q…2wc0
_________________________

depends on how much you enjoy the lifting for itself, I suspect. Beyond a certain point strength training makes its own set of demands on your body and time...

again, there's this "swoop in, buy your way to ...

2024-09-03T17:30:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…48e4
_________________________

again, there's this "swoop in, buy your way to success" narrative which is wildly obscuring what is actually going on at Newcastle, at least (I think there are similar dynamics at Aston Villa). I mean, you do know that Spurs' net spend over the last five years is quite a bit more than NUFC's, yes?

far too early to be sure about Brentford.

2024-09-03T15:15:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…ueh9
_________________________

far too early to be sure about Brentford.

I do find it a bit funny to try to claim Arsenal and Spurs (10 ...

2024-09-03T00:54:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…w6pr
_________________________

I do find it a bit funny to try to claim Arsenal and Spurs (10 year net spend 850 and 660M EUR) are in the same category as Brentford and Brighton (60 and 270M) - and they're not competing for the same things.

The poster child for the distorting effects of the existing rules isn't City - it's Man United.

The fact that there are rules doesn't mean the rules are ...

2024-09-02T23:41:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…vemt
_________________________

The fact that there are rules doesn't mean the rules are optimal or even particularly good at accomplishing what they set out to do. The criticism, again, is that it hamstrings teams which are not in financial danger, and at the same time is effectively much less constraining on the existing big teams than for everyone else.

If you're actually interested in competitive balance you want the anchoring rules.

I assume this is a rhetorical question, and you know the answer, ...

2024-09-02T23:28:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…mr8c
_________________________

I assume this is a rhetorical question, and you know the answer, but running a couple of years of large surpluses from sales isn't really a great way to sustainably challenge for the top of the table.

Just to jump to the inevitable conclusion here - I am not any ...

2024-09-02T19:14:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…we70
_________________________

Just to jump to the inevitable conclusion here - I am not any time soon going to be convinced that a system that ties owners' ability to invest in teams to the size of their sponsorship deals is one which is motivated by sporting merit. "Get a bigger stadium and then you will be allowed to buy players" is precisely the opposite of the way it should go.

why do you think the rules are there?

2024-09-02T19:04:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…zrts
_________________________

why do *you* think the rules are there?

??? Those sales were to reach compliance with the rules. You ...

2024-09-02T17:31:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…l0wn
_________________________

??? Those sales were to reach compliance with the rules. You think Newcastle sold Anderson and Minteh because they were short on cash?

I'm pretty sure Newcastle wasn't going to go bankrupt if ...

2024-09-02T14:47:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…uchv
_________________________

I'm pretty sure Newcastle wasn't going to go bankrupt if there wasn't a net sell in this transfer window.

I'll be honest and say this particular form of lecturing from ...

2024-09-02T13:58:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…hl09
_________________________

I'll be honest and say this particular form of lecturing from Spurs fans is their most irritating attribute. Wanting to make sure clubs stay viable is a good thing; saying that you can't make affordable investments to correct for previous mismanagement is something else.