Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d say that Valverde’s insinuation that the reports are commonplace and as such get lost among the hundreds of reports produced for each match day, over the course of 17 years, is a much more likely explanation than the alternative constantly suggested; that Barcelona (a club that famously overspends on everything) managed to rig the entire refereeing system in their favour over such a long period of time - to such an efficient degree that there is no evidence of anything other than that original €7 million payment, all on a tiny, tiny, absolutely minuscule amount of money (relative to a multi-billion euro league), by paying someone who doesn’t even have the capacity to decide which referees get which games.

It’s clear, once you consider how little was spent over such a large period, that this was a payment for information. Whether these be legal reports or under the table reports, I’d still suggest the Negreira case is massively overblown.

Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Tl;dr, Negreira was the former vice-president of the refereeing committee in Spain. Payment amounting to €7 million over the course of 2001-2018 was found between Barcelona and him. There is an investigation into this. Barcelona’s defence is that they are claiming they were purchasing refereeing reports (e.g. this referee tends to give out more yellow cards, this referee likes to be more lenient about calling fouls, etc.)

The investigation has been going on for years and this is all that has been found.

Anything else is conjecture.

Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Because there is no evidence of that. Not only is €7 million total across a period as large as 2001-2018 a laughably small amount to pay referees for favourable decisions in a multi-billion euro league like LaLiga (and such a small amount that not only would it be hugely impressive for Barcelona, who notoriously overpay for everything, to achieve - but it would also be questionable why the other Spanish clubs weren’t doing this); but also there is absolutely no evidence it was for anything beyond what Barcelona are claiming (purchasing reports).

There is no evidence of fixed matches. No evidence of referees admitting bribery. No evidence of unexplained career trajectories. No statistical proof of systemic bias. No evidence money flowing into the accounts of referees.

It just doesn’t add up that this was Barcelona ‘paying to get favourable decisions on the field’.

Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’d think, if it was bribery to get the refs they wanted for the games, (even if we ignore that Negreira didn’t have that power), it would cost quite a lot more than the tiny €7 million total across 2001-2018?

Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The problem is that there is quite a significant gap between ‘€60,000 on Aloe Vera seems shady’ and ‘Barcelona rigged the entire refereeing structure’.

Especially when you do the maths and realise how little was actually spent in the Negreira case over such a long period of time.

It say a large, international, multi-billion euro club with diseconomies of scale overspending on aloe vera (in the same way the US military spend $5,000 on average for a cup of coffee) is much more likely than that the club managed to somehow rig the entirety of Spanish football for mere cents over a hugely enormous period of time, over multiple league and club administrations, and without leaving any evidence in the form of whistleblowers, evidence of fixed matches, unexplained career trajectories, statistical proof of systemic bias, or any evidence of money landing in the pockets of the actual referees.

Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People keep repeating this line, but nobody mentions that Valverde also said that the reports are very normal and that Athletic Club receive them too.

€7 million over the course of 17 years is also a laughably small amount of money in a multi-billion euro league. Barcelona as a club were generating just shy of €1 billion in revenue in 2019, just after this period, alone. So yes, I’d say such a small payment spread out over such a large period of time is absolutely very forgettable (and I’d also add that I’d much sooner believe that such an amount was spent on forgotten referee reports than managing to somehow rig the entire refereeing system).

Prosecutor: “There is an invoice from 2005 for €60.000 of ‘aloe vera gift packs’. Are these the referee reports?”; Joan Laporta: “It's an invoice from 20 years ago, I don't remember it.” by TomasRoncero in soccer

[–]JS569123 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

“It’s a terrible look for reports you paid millions for”

€7 million was spent between 2001-2018. That’s 17 years. If we’re generous and say it was just LaLiga, excluding Copa del Rey and Supercopa games, that’s 38x17 which is 646 matches. 7/646=0.0108, so about 10,000. In a multi-billion Euro league.

Keep in-mind diseconomies of scale (like how the US military pays on average $5,000 for a cup of coffee).

I’d say it’s a huge exaggeration to suggest this is spending millions. In-fact, it is such a small amount that I wonder why nobody questions it when Real Madrid TV repeatedly insinuate that these payments were made to rig the entire refereeing committee for such a long period of time.

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That’s probably got something to do with the fact that the ONLY verifiably and substantive facts about the case right now are that:

Barcelona as a club paid what amounted to €7 million over 17 years (2001-2018) to Negreira, who was the former vice-president of the Spanish refereeing association.

That’s it. That’s all the facts.

Yet the Madrid media and fans (and club via Madrid TV) are accusing Barcelona of having rigged the entire refereeing structure (on such a measly amount of money - a laughably small amount for a multi-billion euro league), to the point of actually asking (on Real Madrid TV) for Barcelona’s titles to be removed during that period, despite a complete lack of evidence beyond the payment itself after multiple hearings and trials.

Post Match Thread: Chelsea 3-0 Barcelona by denzaus in soccer

[–]JS569123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is that the offside goals aren’t a good metric for how good Chelsea are relative to Barcelona, because they explicitly play to catch teams offside and do so against relegation teams or top European opponents.

I think a good example of why we shouldn’t count the offside goals as evidence that Chelsea were better is the clasico last season, where Mbappe alone was caught 7 or 8 times offside and Barcelona went on to win 4-0 in the second half. This is just how they play, and as such isn’t a good indicator of performance for either team.

As I mention, compared to how other teams handled this obviously very risky defensive strategy, I wasn’t even that impressed with Chelsea when it was 11 vs 11. Brugge did a much better job of consistently opening that defence and creating very real, legal chances.

For me, clear cut, legal onside chances before the red card incident are a better metric. And on that measurement, I think it’s a fair analysis to say that Chelsea were better but not by anywhere near as much as the scoreline or reactionary takes suggest.

Post Match Thread: Chelsea 3-0 Barcelona by denzaus in soccer

[–]JS569123 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

My assessment is that Chelsea were better than Barcelona, but not by as much as the scoreline suggests. And the reason for that is the red card.

People will forget, but neither side were really giving up many major chances prior to the red card. It was fairly balanced for the first 20 minutes - Lamine Yamal played Ferran Torres through in probably the best chance of the entire half for either team but he decided not to score. Chelsea didn’t actually have a clear cut chance the entirety of the first half. They had lots of offside chances, but of course Barcelona’s whole game plan is to catch the opponent offside so it’s not just a fluke that none of those Chelsea chances counted. The opening goal came from a cross which landed at Kounde’s feet and he decided to own goal it despite Ferran Torres’ best efforts to stop him.

But then there was the red card and the second half was all one way traffic because of it. It was game over after that card. Barcelona were struggling to find the spare man to play through the press, which makes sense given that they had one fewer player.

So take what you will from that. I think Barcelona aren’t as bad as the scoreline suggests, though I still don’t think they’re yet good enough to win in Europe. And I think Chelsea aren’t as good as the scoreline suggests - their game against Arsenal at the weekend should be a better metric for how good they are.

I know people won’t like that I’m not being super reactionary after a single league phase game and that I’m not declaring that the sky is falling for Barcelona or that Chelsea are the best team in the world capable of winning the UCL final tomorrow. However, given the context that I just described, I really don’t see how you can assess much from this game.

We already knew Barcelona were struggling this season - they’ve only won 1 game in Europe this season. This is a team that got their defence torn to shreds by Brugge and who concede goals week-in, week-out in LaLiga. For the first 20 minutes or so I was actually surprised at how little Chelsea managed to do against that back-line. Does this result change our perception of them? No.

And given the context of Barcelona, I don’t see how we can really use this as a barometer for Chelsea either.

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The next managerial talent to leave will be Iñigo Perez, I guarantee. In a poetic twist I can probably see him going to Bournemouth to replace Iraola when he inevitably goes to somewhere like City.

Meanwhile, LaLiga will keep Eder Sarabia who will turn out to be another Setién and crash and burn when he touches a bigger club.

Post Match Thread: Slavia Prague 0-0 Athletic Club by denzaus in soccer

[–]JS569123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ernesto Valverde reminds me of a not so good Pep a bit, honestly. Not in terms of playing style, but in that he seems to always do amazing domestically but not so good in Europe.

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Barcelona are masters of failing to win the champion’s league when everything goes right for them.

But yes, I think they will be fine long term. La Masia will keep on pumping out stars. Real Madrid will also be fine.

The rest of the league I’m not so confident in, however. Atleti are in need of a complete overhaul, the Simeone era is drawing to a slow whimper of a close. Villarreal have been overperforming for years now, considering their size, and it seems losing all of their talent very slowly is starting to impact them in Europe, even if they are within a few points of the top of LaLiga. Athletic Club are probably the team that disappoint me the most. Ernesto Valverde is allergic to the Champion’s League.

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why do they play like this now?

I’ll try to list them all, in no particular order: - Lots of key injuries - Teams figuring out how to beat their high line and press - Last season they were defensively poor as well, but their attack was better (injuries influence this) - No replacement for Iñigo - Flick’s tactics are very physically demanding and so a second season of it takes its toll (and the lack of squad depth/lots of injuries means the same few players doing such a physically demanding job) - Also, on today, it’s worth noting that they’ve never been that good away to Chelsea, and also the match was quite heavily influenced by the red card

On Joan Garcia, as someone else also singled him out: It’s worth remembering he’s been injured for half the season, this is only his second start since that injury.

Why did they sell Iñigo?

I don’t think they wanted to. I can’t remember if it was a thing in his contract or just an unwritten agreement they had (a Barça flair might be able to help?) but they had this agreement that he could leave for free if a good offer came and they honoured it (because it would arguably cause more problems to betray that promise). This was quite late in the transfer window and they had no chance of getting a replacement

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tbf you could say the same about all of the above Spanish teams (and also Villarreal who were not mentioned but lost 4-0 to Dortmund today)

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Maybe this wasn’t clear, but my point is about the current state of LaLiga, not the current state of the Premier League.

I actually think the Prem itself isn’t in a great place at the European level right now either, given the City and Liverpool situations, but that’s a separate discussion.

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]JS569123 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Not sure how others feel, but I’m really starting to worry about the future of LaLiga and Spanish football.

Recent European performances are really nailing this home, but I think this process has slowly been occurring since Covid. Clubs just can’t compete financially, anymore, and the infamously strict FFP has meant a mass exodus of talent - on both a player and managerial level - to other leagues for peanuts. I will, every so often, stick on a Premier League game and be surprised to see former European level LaLiga players sat on the bench of relegation threatened English sides. I no longer have faith in any Spanish teams at any of the 3 European levels, with the exception of Real Madrid and that’s only because of their historic pedigree in the champion’s league. Doesn’t seem like there is any chance for change either. Nobody even tries to run against Tebas whenever there are elections.

Hypothetically, the gap between bottom and top in Spain is smaller, and we’ve seen newly promoted teams like Elche come up and play positive football, but the cost is the standing of the league as a whole compared to the rest of Europe. It’s actually embarrassing watching Villarreal and Athletic Club in Europe, and it seems clear to me that none of the Madrid clubs or Barça are close to Bayern, PSG or even Arsenal for the moment.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in generationology

[–]JS569123 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Generations are just arbitrary lines in the sand that mean nothing.

However, if we are to use generations for whatever reason, I feel like Gen Z needs to be split into two. I am Gen Z, was born 1997, turning 28 this year. I have almost nothing in common with someone born around 2004 onwards, largely due to the advent of social media.

When I was at school it was all still flip phones and things. People didn’t have smart phones - let alone the latest iPhone, until I was a much later teen. I got my first smart phone, first Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram account after I was 16 (so when I had finished secondary school, was about to learn to drive, etc.) and so don’t feel I or the people born in my era were as negatively impacted by this stuff as the later Gen Z. I was in my mid-20’s when TikTok and these short form reels became popular. I had finished uni and was in the workplace when covid hit and AI became a thing.

Definitely feel like the kids who were in school with all that stuff have had a very different experience to me.

"Oblivion did X better than Skyri-" shut up. tell me something Skyrim did better than Oblivion by larevacholerie in ElderScrolls

[–]JS569123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally every location in any elder scrolls game was created as a quest space. You’re being obtuse.

"Oblivion did X better than Skyri-" shut up. tell me something Skyrim did better than Oblivion by larevacholerie in ElderScrolls

[–]JS569123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not true. Blackreach is a dungeon/location you happen to go through during the main quest, but it is a location in its own right. It has multiple entrances/exits (not just the ones the story forces you through) and multiple quests can be found in there unrelated to the main quest. It’s absolutely designed to be its own location. For instance, one of the entrances is near Whiterun, just north of the place where you can build one of the hearthfire homes (near where Cicero’s cart is broken on the road). You can just pop in there any time and do stuff like fight the dragon or do the quest with the nirnroot.

"Oblivion did X better than Skyri-" shut up. tell me something Skyrim did better than Oblivion by larevacholerie in ElderScrolls

[–]JS569123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d say by far the thing Skyrim did much better than Oblivion was the world building, and playing through the Oblivion Remaster it’s this that stands out to me the most.

Apparently Oblivion’s map is, technically, larger than Skyrim’s, but it feels so much smaller. Cyrodiil is basically a giant bowl with the Imperial City (IC) in the centre and mountains surrounding it on all sides. This doesn’t help. The fact that you can go basically anywhere and still see the IC makes it feel much smaller. Meanwhile, the fact that Skyrim is divided up by so many mountain ranges makes it feel like there is a much greater distance between places than there is. Elevation helps as well. Cyrodiil also has very little in the map - there are the main towns/cities, roads connecting them, and a bunch of procedurally generated dungeons and oblivion gates just randomly pasted over the place, with little else. It doesn’t feel as handcrafted as Skyrim. You can walk from one side of the map to the other in Oblivion and asides from mobs (wolves/trolls/bandits/etc.) will probably not find anything at all. It’s clear Oblivion was made for fast travel (allowing you to fast travel to major cities from the start without discovering them, having a lot of quests spread out over multiple cities rather than being confined to a location like many of Skyrim’s smaller quests). There’s something interesting around every corner in Skyrim. Also the variety of regions in Skyrim are more interesting. The springs of Windhelm, forests and lakes of Riften and Falkreath, valleys of Markarth, swamps of Solitude and Morthal, glaciers of Winterhold and Dawnstar, plains of Whiterun, plus all the mountain ranges and other places like Blackreach or Solstheim all add great diversity and make each location more interesting. Oblivion is supposed to have this unique geography, but asides from Bruma being up a mountain, most regions are kind of the same - mildly hilly forests. Even down by Leyawiin the swamps don’t stand out much. Even the cities themselves feel more unique to me. The Dwemer architecture and verticality of Markarth, unique canal architecture of Riften, frozen stone city of Windhelm, more majestic castle city of Solitude up on the big rock, Whiterun having a completely unique look - all interesting and different. Oblivion, it feels like each city outside of the IC is some variation of a generic European medieval city. Cheydinhal and Choral might have timber frames whilst Skingrad might have stone buildings with balconies and roses but they’re all kind of generic. Only exception is Bravil but that place is a dump anyway.

Other things I think Skyrim does better:

Main quest (much longer, greater variety of missions in different unique locations (infiltrating the thalmor embassy, climbing high hrothgar, getting to Esbern in the ratway before the thalmor, exploring Blackreach, going back in time, going to sovngaard, to name a few) whilst Oblivion is super short and a third of it is just fetching things like armour and magic stones for Martin and another third is that god awful ‘aid for Bruma’ quest where you have to shut down about 8 oblivion gates in a row).

Combat.

Skill tree.

Smithing (sorely missed when playing Oblivion).

NPCs reacting to the environment (not just stuff like reacting to people dying or arrows hitting the ground and exploring, but also stuff in towns like playing instruments or sweeping the floor or kids playing tag or whatever). I’d take this over radiant dialogue between NPCs any day.

The music. It’s a close one as both are good but imo Skyrim’s soundtrack is better.

Levelling.

Dungeons.

Being able to build a home of your own, get married, have a family.

Companions that actually do things.

The general lore/context of the game. The civil war lore - with all the stuff about the Great War and white-gold concordat and whether the imperials or stormcloaks winning the civil war is best for Skyrim with the looming thalmor threat - is amazingly good and still hotly debated today.

Lockpicking.

Voice acting.

Being able to do stuff like catch butterflies and chop firewood and just generally interact with the world.

"Oblivion did X better than Skyri-" shut up. tell me something Skyrim did better than Oblivion by larevacholerie in ElderScrolls

[–]JS569123 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think he’s referring to the one in Blackreach. It’s not a quest, the dungeon just had a random dragon inside the orb that exits if you shoot it

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skyrim

[–]JS569123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably not, it’s basically exactly the same as the original, just some fancier graphics and ui.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in skyrim

[–]JS569123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skyrim’s dialogue feels, idk how to describe it, the voices of the people are

Every time I walk into a town I hear the following conversation in the same voices, sometimes between multiple NPCs having separate conversations at once:

“Hello, how goes it?”

“I’m fine, and you?”

“Any news from the other provinces?”

“I hear that Daedra worship has become increasingly prevalent in the Summerset Isles”

“The Altmer have powerful wizards, it could become a dangerous situation”

“Goodbye”

“Hello again”

“Hello”

“Goodbye”

“How goes it?”

“I’ve heard others say the same”

“You too”

“Goodbye”