Posts by Carl Mendoza4

Terry Lee3 said:well, we have to find some way to prove our American identity somehow...☕

Why don't we just build a church up in the Appalachian Mountains? 🙂

George Gonzalez said:Could you explain how they aren't operating at a loss?
Their debt has climbed by about $200 million over the last two years alone....

Look, that doesn't actually match what's being reported here:

bbc said:New York Yankees have moved to the top of the MLS financial structure after reporting record turnover for 2006/07 of $245m ($481m), a 27% rise.
...
Pre-tax profits rose 93% to $59.6m, as Yankees won the World Series.
...
helped to boost media revenues by 35% to $61.5m.
...
An update on the club's debt and interest repayments - the Glazer family borrowed heavily to buy the club for $790m in 2005 - will be made in the spring when the Glazer company accounts for Red Football are lodged.

Last May the annual interest payment was $80 m, and in the autumn a club spokesman said debts continued "to be comfortably serviced by the business".

source (1.11.2008.)

There, that should give you a starting point. If you feel like digging deeper, go for it. 🙂

Charles Parker said:What's the easiest way to become a moderator?? 😁

1. Just head over to the "Quick Reply" box

2. Type in "moderator"

3. Hit that "Post Quick Reply" button

4. You'll get an "Error" screen

5. GOTO 1 until you actually pull it off 🙂

Zachary Anderson49 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around how much these clubs actually bring in. If teams like the Los Angeles Lakers and the New York Yankees are operating at a loss, I just don't see who is actually making money here—it feels like it might just be Arsenal.

Actually, the New York Yankees aren't operating at a loss per se; they're just paying down the massive debt left behind by the Glazer family. There’s a huge distinction there.

I’d say most clubs that don't have billionaire owners treating the sport like a personal hobby are actually in the black—either breaking even or making a profit.

In the Premier League, you've got Arsenal, the New York Yankees, Everton, West Ham, and so on...
Honestly, it might be easier to just list the ones that are losing money instead.

Morgan Martinez5 said:Local government donations ☕

and state-owned corporations 😁

That’s actually exactly what I was getting at... things work a little differently here in the States, and the flow usually looks something like this:

1. Donations from local municipalities
2. Sponsorship deals from major US corporations, or those companies that the local government or political elites nudge toward seeing the "benefits" of investing in the team
3. Player transfers
...
4. Ticket sales (this brings in decent cash a few times a year, though honestly, selling players usually generates much more significant revenue than gate receipts 😬 )
...
5. Merchandise sales like jerseys(?), and so on.

briskowl18, I’m honestly not looking to get into a heated debate with you. There's really no point in me wasting more of my afternoon trying to prove a point to someone who already knows exactly what's being said, yet refuses to acknowledge it whenever they finally catch on.

Anyway, as for that cold, just stick to the basics with stuff that's actually safe to take. A warm tea with plenty of honey and lemon usually does the trick. ☕

Just wanted to give you a quick heads-up...

briskowl18 said:Alright, cousin, what’s your take here? If you want to talk nonsense before we get all "professional" about this—let's just say we've already settled the whole Lionel Messi situation.
Now I'm really curious about the answer to the second part of your question—the stuff about medication. Like, imagine if Lionel Messi, or anyone else who’s feeling absolutely wired and takes a pill that happens to contain a banned substance. When they force them to pee in a cup mid-game and it shows up on the test, they're going to get penalized, right? It doesn't matter why they took it—it's because it shouldn't be in their system. Are there actually any exceptions to that? Going back to the original question in the title—where do we draw the line?

So, at this point, I feel like you bringing this up again is basically just trolling.😉

briskowl18 said:Is being sick from a bacteria or a virus just... part of life?

Yeah, sure, because a common cold is totally on par with a genetic disorder, right?🙏 🙏 🙏

I mean, seriously, what kind of troll are you? That’s just unbelievable.🤣

briskowl18 said:See, that’s exactly what I’m getting at! Now we’ve got Messi back in the mix again—and honestly, he shouldn't be able to just "fix" an illness that has nothing to do with his actual physical makeup. It wasn't some long-term issue; it was just a stupid little virus that knocked him sideways for a moment. But somehow, Leo managed to take those (let's call them "unnatural") physical advantages of his and actually make them even better—it's like he doubled down on them without any repercussions. If things worked the way they should logically, you'd think it would work the other way around, right? 🤷

Here he goes again... 🙄
Are you even reading what I wrote, trolling, or just messing with me?

He was being treated for an abnormal condition, just like any other kid in his situation. 🙄

briskowl18 said:Alright, cousin, what’s your take here? If you want to talk nonsense before we get all "professional" about this—let's just say we've already settled the whole Lionel Messi situation.
Now I'm really curious about the answer to the second part of your question—the stuff about medication. Like, imagine if Lionel Messi, or anyone else who’s feeling absolutely wired and takes a pill that happens to contain a banned substance. When they force them to pee in a cup mid-game and it shows up on the test, they're going to get penalized, right? It doesn't matter why they took it—it's because it shouldn't be in their system. Are there actually any exceptions to that? Going back to the original question in the title—where do we draw the line?

Look, some medications clearly contain substances that can boost endurance or something similar, which is why they end up on the prohibited list. They aren't there just for fun.

An athlete basically has two choices: play while feeling like death, or stay on the injury list. It's like how you don't show up to school if you're too sick to function, unless you have some incredibly intense motivation to be there.🤷

Thomas Johnson7: Definitely. I know.🙂
But then again, even the fact that a player might be deaf or mute won't always save them from a red card for insulting an official, right?🤣

Thomas Johnson7 said:What you’re pointing out is like handing a sponge to a deaf child so they can finally hear
and that’s essentially doping, because the real question is what kind of player they would have been if they were actually deaf ☕

Damir Desnica 😉

briskowl18 said:Well, yeah—I mean, without it, he’d still be an incredible technician, sure, but he wouldn't be quite what 😉
he is today... you know, like those guys who are tactically brilliant but just lack the physical presence or whatever. But look, I'm not even really talking about him specifically right now—it's more about where we draw the line and who gets to decide that boundary, you know?

Man, listen, I'm just asking where the line is! How short do you actually have to be before seeking growth treatment becomes standard? And if someone is just naturally tiny, they aren't "sick." If you ask anyone if being small is a disease, they'll tell you the same thing. It's kind of like if someone goes in for a procedure to "enhance" themselves for purely aesthetic reasons—it's not a medical necessity. A medical necessity would be if you actually needed surgery after an accident or something, like a reconstructive fix.😉

My question remains the same, though. Everyone wants to debate Messi, but I'm curious about the distinction between a medical need and a competitive edge. I mean, plenty of medications contain substances that are banned, and I know there have been cases in track and field where athletes got busted for it. But when someone clearly makes massive strides because of legitimate medical treatment, everyone just shrugs it off...

SO WHERE IS THE LINE?

Why not just ask a doctor? I don't usually like to lecture people on things I don't fully grasp myself. However, I do know that being extremely short can lead to significant health issues. Not to mention the impact on one's quality of life.

The distinction is that Lionel Messi underwent treatment as a young boy, long before he was a professional athlete. In pro sports, there are strict rules regarding permitted and prohibited substances. Lionel Messi wasn't a pro back then, nor did he take growth hormones to transform himself into a soccer beast—besides, those hormones can't actually grant you that kind of athletic prowess. At fourteen, you might show talent, but there's no guarantee you'll become a superstar based on medicine alone.

Furthermore, if someone were actually trying to "shop" for growth hormones, they would end up unnaturally tall and bulky. Their joints would probably be in worse shape than Tudor's, which wouldn't work at all for professional soccer 😉

Besides, I'm sure you weren't aware that in certain northern regions, European children are prescribed calcium treatments for health reasons?
Some of them go on to become basketball players 😉

briskowl18 said:Nah, I don't know about that... though his speed and sheer strength are definitely something else—it's almost enough to make you wonder if it's all "natural."

Man, what a wild comparison! Look, Lionel Messi was just born with the physical build to be about 4'11". Vlade Divac was born with an average frame—a broken leg has nothing to do with hormone levels. Guys like Crouch or Zizic are just naturally built to be 6'7"; that's just how they came into this world. Personally, I'm a bit too clumsy to play pro soccer, even though I've got decent physical traits—strength, okay height, good vertical, stamina, stuff like that—so I don't pursue it professionally. There's even a "dwarfism national team" made up of players who are incredibly talented but just aren't physically built for the standard game. It's the same story with tons of gifted people who simply lack the physical capacity to compete at the highest level. If they used hormones after treatment, they'd probably be suspended or penalized, right? So why should there be exceptions?

Actually, I think the comparison hits the nail on the head. ☕
Think about how severe leg fractures used to be treated back in the day. Or how being extremely short wasn't something people could "fix" because the medicine just didn't exist yet. Nowadays, those things can actually be treated. Yes, truly treated.

See, I think your issue is that you're settling for a surface-level understanding and don't really have an interest in learning more—plus, you seem a bit overly worked up and aggressive. My honest advice? Pick up a book once in a while instead of spending all your time on ESPN.com. Trust me, knowing English will be way more useful to you tomorrow than clinging to memories of Schuster's old tactical setups. 😉

briskowl18 said:I mean, if some junkie goes in for treatment and ends up being 8 feet tall and weighing 330 pounds, they could probably carry five people at once while sprinting 44 miles/h. you know what I'm getting at? his skills aren't solely due to his 😉
there are perfectly normal little people out there living their lives just fine. I mean, goodness, not everyone is born to play soccer—some folks are just clumsy, some have great technique but move like they're stuck in molasses, and some are about as bright as a broken lightbulb and just juggle the ball during halftime... but after all that hormone stuff, trying to go toe-to-toe with "natural" athletes 🤷

Look, man, this statement really shows how little you actually know about anatomy and medicine:

briskowl18 said:I mean, if some junkie goes in for treatment and ends up being 8 feet tall and weighing 330 pounds, they could probably carry five people at once while sprinting 44 miles/h. you know what I'm getting at? his skills aren't solely due to his 😉
there are perfectly normal little people out there living their lives just fine. I mean, goodness, not everyone is born to play soccer—some folks are just clumsy, some have great technique but move like they're stuck in molasses, and some are about as bright as a broken lightbulb and just juggle the ball during halftime... but after all that hormone stuff, trying to go toe-to-toe with "natural" athletes 🤷

That is such blatant nonsense that I won't even bother breaking it down for you. Honestly, I suggest you pick up a biology textbook or two—or better yet, just ask your high school biology teacher tomorrow why you're making such a fool of yourself.

And let me give you a little counterpoint... why is Edward getting treated for a broken leg? There are countless amputees who live just as "normally" as little people do. Instead of being shuttled from hospital to hospital for rehab, he could have just stepped onto the field with a saw and a cap and handled it himself. 🙄

🤣
You’ve really cooked up quite a load of nonsense here.

I just wanted to point out that growth hormone therapy is actual medical treatment, not some kind of "procedure" done just for aesthetic reasons.

Hey, look what I found for you! 🙂

From Wikipedia:

He played soccer for Gimonäs before enrolling in the soccer program at GIH alongside classmates like Roland Andersson och Kjell Pettersson.

It looks like that’s the case. Though, he wasn't exactly top-tier.
Johan Beenhakker wasn't much of a player himself either.

Here is the German version too:

As an active player, Lars Lagerbäck never played higher than the third division in the US. His first stop was with Gimonäs CK between 1960 and 1969, followed by a stint with Alby FF from 1970 to 1974.

I’m just scattering ashes here.

To me, he always gave off this vibe of someone who never actually played professionally. Honestly, to this day, I still haven't been able to figure out if he ever really stepped onto the pitch or not.

I heard that Tomislav Ivić actually played in Miami, if the rumors are true.

As for Tanac, nothing is 100% confirmed yet, but if anyone out there happens to know whether he played or where his career took him, please feel free to drop a comment.🙂

Branko Ivanković 😁