You're on the mark, LTD.

All of the football (soccer) spending talk is absolute BS being spouted by people who know NOTHING about business. John Henry and FSG do not "spend" on the Red Sox -- THE RED SOX ARE INSANELY PROFITABLE FOR THEM (largely because of the significant fraction of NESN they own). Arguments about "oh, FSG is spending too much on Liverpool which hurts their spending on the Sox" are totally wrong unless FSG is debt- or capital-financing the Sox. And they're not -- BECAUSE THE SOX ARE PROFITABLE.

And it's not a case of "FSG takes more profit out of the Sox than they would otherwise because of Liverpool; money that could have been invested in the Sox." The Sox are profitable including their hard capital investments (basically, capital expenditures for them = Fenway and Fort Myers facilities construction/improvement), and they cannot invest a ton more in "soft capital" -- players -- because of the de facto salary cap in MLB.

The Liverpool expenditures are being paid mostly by the obscene amounts of money the big EPL teams get from TV revenue (there's a rights pool that's shared among all teams in the Premiership, and then each team gets paid based on specific games that are televised) and sponsorship revenue. The actual gate is probably the least of their revenue streams (although still quite significant, especially for teams like Man U and Arsenal who have titanic 60k-90k capacity stadia). For a rich team like Liverpool, the owners will be putting in, at most, about $10-30m per year. And that's only if they have to do so to keep the team solvent (insolvent teams can actually be penalized points in the standings -- it's to prevent teams from debt-financing massive expenditures on players in the hopes that they'll recoup the funds via higher placement in the league, which rarely works and usually just drives the team into receivership).

So the FSG/Liverpool talk really grinds my gears, because all the people complaining (Heyman, et al.) make clear is that they blatantly know nothing about business nor about how the EPL finances work.

You're on the mark, LTD.

All of the football (soccer) spending talk is absolute BS being spouted by people who know NOTHING about business. John Henry and FSG do not "spend" on the Red Sox -- THE RED SOX ARE INSANELY PROFITABLE FOR THEM (largely because of the significant fraction of NESN they own). Arguments about "oh, FSG is spending too much on Liverpool which hurts their spending on the Sox" are totally wrong unless FSG is debt- or capital-financing the Sox. And they're not -- BECAUSE THE SOX ARE PROFITABLE.

And it's not a case of "FSG takes more profit out of the Sox than they would otherwise because of Liverpool; money that could have been invested in the Sox." The Sox are profitable including their hard capital investments (basically, capital expenditures for them = Fenway and Fort Myers facilities construction/improvement), and they cannot invest a ton more in "soft capital" -- players -- because of the de facto salary cap in MLB.

The Liverpool expenditures are being paid mostly by the obscene amounts of money the big EPL teams get from TV revenue (there's a rights pool that's shared among all teams in the Premiership, and then each team gets paid based on specific games that are televised) and sponsorship revenue. The actual gate is probably the least of their revenue streams (although still quite significant, especially for teams like Man U and Arsenal who have titanic 60k-90k capacity stadia). For a rich team like Liverpool, the owners will be putting in, at most, about $10-30m per year. And that's only if they have to do so to keep the team solvent (insolvent teams can actually be penalized points in the standings -- it's to prevent teams from debt-financing massive expenditures on players in the hopes that they'll recoup the funds via higher placement in the league, which rarely works and usually just drives the team into receivership).

So the FSG/Liverpool talk really grinds my gears, because all the people complaining (Heyman, et al.)make clear is that they blatantly know nothing about business nor about how the EPL finances work.

I find it difficult to believe that Mike doesn't understand why someone would taunt Giselle like that. Mike, you grew up here! You know what New York fans are like! Normal sports fans are glad their team won. NY sports fans are glad your team lost. This, then, surprises you?

But Pete was pumped! And jacked!

I'll second this. The Curran piece was outstanding. But I think both Bedard and Curran are correct re: Welker -- he should have caught the pass, but he shouldn't have been expected to catch the pass. In other words, it was a very difficult pass to catch, but the kind of pass that a receiver of his caliber should be catching. If that makes sense.

I don't blame Wes at all. I agree with Curran -- the safety was the key play. It changed the tone of the game 150%. If the Pats march down the field on that possession and make it look easy, they put the Giants on their heels and make them get into a playing-from-behind mindset. Instead, the Giants gained confidence and held the ball for almost the entire quarter. Night & day.

John McDaniels wasn't forcing balls to his favorites.

I'm not sure what game you were watching, then. The Giants WRs only made about three or four truly tough catches in the game. For the most part, Manning was putting the ball right where they wanted it. The Pats receivers actually made a lot more tough catches on rushed throws. They didn't make the one that counted, though.

I agree. It was a bad, rushed throw that would have been a great catch by Welker, not a good throw that was botched by him.

I would also be relaxed and very "if they win, great; if not, at least we got there" in my attitude.... if it weren't those effing mouthy Giants and their a-hole fanbase on the other side of the line of scrimmage. Losing to them is like having a knitting needle jammed in my tear duct.

If you read Mushnick's column, you'll never complain about the columnists in this town ever again. There's crap, there's utter crap, and then there's "is this actually my uncle after 8 Heinekens and a tab of acid????"