I'm going back to the arenas :)Dude, there are some things that you didn't consider in your answer. The first one is that in the good mood you pay 120k/match and this money aren't so bad considering the market situation we had till now and in any case at the end of the seaons he earned more than 1 m more than you. Then you must consider that with all the respect, the bundesliga is a very difficult tournament, hard than yours it means that a record as you've at the moment is not easy to reach in bundesliga = less money. Third point; if no one excluding Tall blacks invested on the arena, soon Tall Blacks can easily win some championships thanks to the money coming from arena, otherwise if all the other teams invested in the arena you are forced to invested too if you want to keep high your competition level. Last, if he invested 9M more than you, now he has the possibility to have this money back and if I'm not wrong it means that he will have 9M more than you :p
Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.
Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.Rising prices are not a problem in themselves.
Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.Rising prices are not a problem in themselves.But it doens't change the problems if more money cause an indiscriminate rise of the prices
Well this injection of money should be balanced in some way otherwise it will create only inflaction and the raises of the price market, I think you can agree on that.Rising prices are not a problem in themselves.But it doens't change the problems if more money cause an indiscriminate rise of the pricesSo what is the problem with rising incomes and rising prices?
The problem is that the same teams which don't have the money to buy players however cannot have the possibility to go on the market,because as their incomes rise,also prices rise,so there isn't differences with the previous economic system. To make all richer,and to give them the possibility to aavt on market,prices had to rise less than the incomes
The problem is that the same teams which don't have the money to buy players however cannot have the possibility to go on the market,because as their incomes rise,also prices rise,so there isn't differences with the previous economic system. To make all richer,and to give them the possibility to aavt on market,prices had to rise less than the incomesI still don't understand how this is a problem. This change is not necessarily designed to make all richer.
I still don't understand how this is a problem. This change is not necessarily designed to make all richer.
I still don't understand how this is a problem. This change is not necessarily designed to make all richer.In some communities it is difficult to be rich also playing well,this is a problem
Not right,if the competition is different in every country especially in low categories:look at the difference in tv contract(=strenght of the leagues) between Italy and Spain and the other countries in the low categories.It appears that if an X spanish user had to concentrate on the roster to rise also at low level,an X american or russian user can concentrate on palace without losing competitivity in championship