Topic: Your opinions on Chinese ownership

[ThePoolMan]

I take your point about rich v super rich, but Walker, for example, was incredibly wealthy at the time and fundamentally changed the way we thought about the game.

But to address your points; The two you are really using as examplars are Chelsea and City. Even these are somewhat different (as City's level of wealth dwarfs Chelsea). I think you are giving Chelsea a bit of a free pass based on the success of Mourinhio, I for one would be dubious of an Abramovich style takeover - his continuous meddling, use of mercenaries and treatment of managers and youth players would not personally sit well with me. In particular the way he demeans managers and lets the players have free reign over the dressing room (which largely did for Mourinhio and others) would make the whole thing too much of a drama for me.

City though are somewhat different, I give you that. There you have a Sheikh who is using City to promote a brand. His involvement has largely been low key, behind the scenes and largely uncontroversial. However there is no guarantee that the consortium looking to do business with Liverpool are of the same colour. Mansour is a political figure with access to state funds and no real limits on how he spends them. He also has links to other sporting ventures and had that experience before taking over at City. The same pressures as a normal business or businessman are not in evidence. In contrast this mooted consortium is that of a group of businessmen who might have very different views on club ownership and might not show the same level of patience and non-intervention as Mansour. In fact I am not sure any club will ever be able to match City's tame, rich Arab.

I agree with you that City basically hit the lottery and then some. How did we end up with the original American owners instead!

I accept that Chelsea's owner has been a good deal more obstructionist - his original sacking of Mourinho was shooting his own club in its foot. Having said that, people have been saying that he would lose interest for a long time, but he is still there backing his club, so there's something to be said for billionaire owners like Abramovich...

[ThePoolMan]

That's what I was saying.

At the time he was one of the richest blokes in the world, and if I remember correctly invested pretty much fuck all. He's still worth more than Abramovich now.

This idea that there are different levels of billionaire, and the only two 'mega billionaires' are at Chelsea and City is hilarious.

I concede your point about Mittal being worth more when he bought his stake in QPR, as seen in this article https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/oct/07/lakshmi-mittal-qpr-rich-list

However as disclosed by the same article, Mittal was only a minority owner having 20% in the club, whereas the bigger share was held by Ecclestone. As such, QPR was not in the same position as City and Chelsea which were basically the personal sporting vehicles of their respective owners.   

[ThePoolMan]

Well done lad, you've shown you can read.

Now go back to what I posted and try reading that too. Or we can do an English lesson around past and present tense.

I concede your point on Mittal being richer then than he is now.

However looking up the relevant time of his ownership in QPR commencing also revealed he was only a minority owner of QPR.

As such you are not making an apt analogy at all in naming QPR as an example.

[El Lobo]

I concede your point on Mittal being richer then than he is now.

However looking up the relevant time of his ownership in QPR commencing also revealed he was only a minority owner of QPR.

As such you are not making an apt analogy at all in naming QPR as an example.

Mate we can go through every big money takeover in modern football, and talk about who was worth what and who was richer. Your point about Abramovich and Mansour being the only two really mega rich billionaires compared to others, and that's what we should assume this Chinese lot would do, is ridiculous. For every Man City there's a dozen examples of other big takeovers which haven't led to anything but disaster.

[Nessy76]

That made me smile Nessy and so Real Madrid have always been successful because they have always been shy when it comes to buying the best players - Right?

I guess you're too young to remember the Galactico side. There's never been a team built that way before or since. Put Ronaldo, Bale, Neuer and Pogba into the current Barcelona side and you might be somewhere close. Point is, even they lost out to more cheaply assembled teams. Ask Rafa.

[Nessy76]

I agree with you that City basically hit the lottery and then some. How did we end up with the original American owners instead!

By jumping at an attractive looking offer without finding out the details. Sound familiar?

[ThePoolMan]

By jumping at an attractive looking offer without finding out the details. Sound familiar?

Except that those two did not have the means to bankroll the club at all. They didnt even have the money to buy the club...

[ENSKIED]

Mate we can go through every big money takeover in modern football, and talk about who was worth what and who was richer. Your point about Abramovich and Mansour being the only two really mega rich billionaires compared to others, and that's what we should assume this Chinese lot would do, is ridiculous. For every Man City there's a dozen examples of other big takeovers which haven't led to anything but disaster.

By such a yardstick [if it is true courtesy of real in-depth analysis] then City and Chelsea with all their specialist and business advisors should have listened to Forum fans, or some at least and never have allowed the takeovers, because the odds against any success was sure to probable failure . . . . . would that be a fair summing up of were this debate now is?

[ThePoolMan]

I guess you're too young to remember the Galactico side. There's never been a team built that way before or since. Put Ronaldo, Bale, Neuer and Pogba into the current Barcelona side and you might be somewhere close. Point is, even they lost out to more cheaply assembled teams. Ask Rafa.

https://curiositykilledtheconsumer.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/real-madrid-business-model/

Here's another perspective that argues that the galactico model was precisely the thing that propelled Real Madrid to becoming the biggest club in the world revenue wise.

[El Lobo]

By such a yardstick [if it is true courtesy of real in-depth analysis] then City and Chelsea with all their specialist and business advisors should have listened to Forum fans, or some at least and never have allowed the takeovers, because the odds against any success was sure to probable failure . . . . . would that be a fair summing up of were this debate now is?

Erm, no. Try again.

But interesting about both of those clubs as well. They were both pretty downtrodden when they were bought if I remember correctly. And they were both bought for relative peanuts. They were hardly prime assets that just needed a little bit of work.

[Nessy76]

Except that those two did not have the means to bankroll the club at all. They didnt even have the money to buy the club...

Precisely. You need lots of information, beginning with the name of one of the buyers.

[Historical Fool]

By such a yardstick [if it is true courtesy of real in-depth analysis] then City and Chelsea with all their specialist and business advisors should have listened to Forum fans, or some at least and never have allowed the takeovers, because the odds against any success was sure to probable failure . . . . . would that be a fair summing up of were this debate now is?

Err yes. Everyone should listen to forumites. The voice of the collective knows best.

[ThePoolMan]

Mate we can go through every big money takeover in modern football, and talk about who was worth what and who was richer. Your point about Abramovich and Mansour being the only two really mega rich billionaires compared to others, and that's what we should assume this Chinese lot would do, is ridiculous. For every Man City there's a dozen examples of other big takeovers which haven't led to anything but disaster.

Actually the only apt parallel between the Chinese bid and the clubs int he premiership is Manchester City because it is the only existing example of a club being basically owned by a sovereign nation. 

[Nessy76]

https://curiositykilledtheconsumer.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/real-madrid-business-model/

Here's another perspective that argues that the galactico model was precisely the thing that propelled Real Madrid to becoming the biggest club in the world revenue wise.

Interesting, but that claims Real won "no trophies" during the Galactico period? Also, it's very old data.

[ENSKIED]

I guess you're too young to remember the Galactico side. There's never been a team built that way before or since. Put Ronaldo, Bale, Neuer and Pogba into the current Barcelona side and you might be somewhere close. Point is, even they lost out to more cheaply assembled teams. Ask Rafa.

Every team, that is every team no matter how good loses a football match, it's what you win in terms of trophies that counts and Real Madrid win trophies and in order to keep winning trophies they continually recruit the best, often breaking he world transfer fee record in this continually process of striving to be the very best. They are the most successful club in football history and it's no coincidence that [like with Barca] this comes virtue of mega-spending, which in its turn creates mega-earnings.

[El Lobo]

Actually the only apt parallel between the Chinese bid and the clubs int he premiership is Manchester City because it is the only existing example of a club being basically owned by a sovereign nation.

Ahhh what a discussion this could be if you actually had any idea about any of the people involved in a potential takeover. But alas, you don't.

[ThePoolMan]

Precisely. You need lots of information, beginning with the name of one of the buyers.

And I return to the same point that I have been repeating again and again to you and CraigDS. We are arguing in this thread on what would be the best course of action for the good of the club based on certain assumptions - chief of which is that the bid is basically being made by a proxy for the Chinese Government. If so, then the name of the ostensible officer whose name will appear is immaterial just as it is today immaterial who is the front man appointed by mansour to head up City, because the real owner is Sheikh Mansour.

There is no cogent information to speak of in the public domain. If we are to insist on information, then that is the end of this thread. So it is self-defeating to ask for that information at this time.



 

[ThePoolMan]

Ahhh what a discussion this could be if you actually had any idea about any of the people involved in a potential takeover. But alas, you don't.

And I refer you to my point that I have repeated again above to Nessy.

[El Lobo]

'I have absolutely no idea' would be so much quicker to read and write.

[Nessy76]

Every team, that is every team no matter how good loses a football match, it's what you win in terms of trophies that counts and Real Madrid win trophies and in order to keep winning trophies they continually recruit the best, often breaking he world transfer fee record in this continually process of striving to be the very best. They are the most successful club in football history and it's no coincidence that [like with Barca] this comes virtue of mega-spending, which in its turn creates mega-earnings.

They weren't any more successful once they went down the Galactico route than they were before. They were beaten not just in matches, but to trophies, more often than not, and by teams with much smaller budgets and no "stars".

They proved beyond all doubt that you can buy most of the best players in the world and you still won't be the best team in the world.

[ENSKIED]

Erm, no. Try again.

But interesting about both of those clubs as well. They were both pretty downtrodden when they were bought if I remember correctly. And they were both bought for relative peanuts. They were hardly prime assets that just needed a little bit of work.

I see, or I think I do EL, that we should now shoehorn into the debate that in order for a takeover to be successful the club should be "down trodden" some form of mandatory and hitherto unknown business concept might be applicable? If that is the intention, or the intention is that such an observation if seemingly true adds a new dimension to matters we must suppose then there must be some form of logic in there somewhere. I'm sure we can winkle it out.   

[Nessy76]

And I return to the same point that I have been repeating again and again to you and CraigDS. We are arguing in this thread on what would be the best course of action for the good of the club based on certain assumptions - chief of which is that the bid is basically being made by a proxy for the Chinese Government. If so, then the name of the ostensible officer whose name will appear is immaterial just as it is today immaterial who is the front man appointed by mansour to head up City, because the real owner is Sheikh Mansour.

There is no cogent information to speak of in the public domain. If we are to insist on information, then that is the end of this thread. So it is self-defeating to ask for that information at this time.

I am not asking you for anything. I am pointing out that there are huge risks involved which you seem determined to pretend aren't there because they interfere with your fantasy football aspirations, forgetting that you are playing with a real club that a lot of people genuinely give a shit about.

I don't know where you were during the G&H debacle, but for those of us who followed that mess, making sure it never happens again is very important. You can pretend that's not the case, but you are doing a disservice to people who pop in here to catch up if you insist that everything is rosy based on nothing other than your own imagination.

The point, which you seem to agree is valid, has to be made frequently to make sure everyone is up to speed. You constantly arguing the toss serves nothing and nobody except yourself as you give the impression that there is more information out there than we actually have. It's like when they talk about climate change on the news and have to bring on some "sceptic" moron* in the name of balance, it leaves the casual viewer with the impression that there is a serious "debate" in the science, when there is none.

This is a country that was just persuaded to vote itself out of a large trading block and into financial disaster because people are not generally very good at processing information. It would be lovely if we could assume that everyone is going to read this whole thread (God help them) and come away with a balanced view of the situation, but it's hugely unrealistic. Most people open on the last page, so yes, we do need to keep making that point, just as other points have been made, over and over again.

By objecting so strenuously, you give the impression that there is a flaw in the argument. You can come across quite well. People will take you seriously.  There isn't a flaw though, as you sometimes admit. We don't have enough information to know if it would be a good thing for the club. I'm sorry that fact distresses you, but nit picking over it every time doesn't change that.

*I am not calling you a moron, I think you are quite an intelligent person and you make some good points.

[Red JR]

Liverpool under Souness spent more on players than Blackburn did under Dalglish. They may have had a wealthy owner, but they invested in relative unknowns like Shearer, Hendry, Flowers and Sutton while we were pissing money away  Clough, Ruddock, Walters and an endless stream of dodgy Nordic players.

Spending the most money isn't a guarantee of anything and never will be. The original Galacticos had most of the best players in the world. But they were beatable, and arguably no more successful than Real Madrid always have been.

you really don't understand net spend do you? If you sold messi for £100m and replaced him with Ronaldo for £100m you won't have a team that's £100m better off and you haven't really spent £100m. It's quite simple.

And Hendry, Shearer, Sutton and Flowers were not superstars but they certainly weren't relative unknowns at the time.

But yeah agree we pissed our money up the wall at the time?

[Nessy76]

you really don't understand net spend do you? If you sold messi for £100m and replaced him with Ronaldo for £100m you won't have a team that's £100m better off and you haven't really spent £100m. It's quite simple.

And Hendry, Shearer, Sutton and Flowers were not superstars but they certainly weren't relative unknowns at the time.

But yeah agree we pissed our money up the wall at the time?

I understand it perfectly. Read what I said again, there's nothing I can add to help you here. If you don't think having £300m worth of talent available should be enough to get a top four place, then you are demonstrably wrong.

[Red JR]

It depends if the money is being recycled or not. If you've bought a player and then sold him to buy another player you can't really add that to the total spend. It will distort what you're actually  spending. Finances are like a revolving door. You can't just say Suharto a manager had a gross spend of this much. That's ridiculous.

[Red JR]

It depends if the money is being recycled or not. If you've bought a player and then sold him to buy another player you can't really add that to the total spend. It will distort what you're actually  spending. Finances are like a revolving door. You can't just say Suharto a manager had a gross spend of this much. That's ridiculous.

such a

[ThePoolMan]

I am not asking you for anything. I am pointing out that there are huge risks involved which you seem determined to pretend aren't there because they interfere with your fantasy football aspirations, forgetting that you are playing with a real club that a lot of people genuinely give a shit about.

I don't know where you were during the G&H debacle, but for those of us who followed that mess, making sure it never happens again is very important. You can pretend that's not the case, but you are doing a disservice to people who pop in here to catch up if you insist that everything is rosy based on nothing other than your own imagination.

The point, which you seem to agree is valid, has to be made frequently to make sure everyone is up to speed. You constantly arguing the toss serves nothing and nobody except yourself as you give the impression that there is more information out there than we actually have. It's like when they talk about climate change on the news and have to bring on some "sceptic" moron* in the name of balance, it leaves the casual viewer with the impression that there is a serious "debate" in the science, when there is none.

This is a country that was just persuaded to vote itself out of a large trading block and into financial disaster because people are not generally very good at processing information. It would be lovely if we could assume that everyone is going to read this whole thread (God help them) and come away with a balanced view of the situation, but it's hugely unrealistic. Most people open on the last page, so yes, we do need to keep making that point, just as other points have been made, over and over again.

By objecting so strenuously, you give the impression that there is a flaw in the argument. You can come across quite well. People will take you seriously.  There isn't a flaw though, as you sometimes admit. We don't have enough information to know if it would be a good thing for the club. I'm sorry that fact distresses you, but nit picking over it every time doesn't change that.

*I am not calling you a moron, I think you are quite an intelligent person and you make some good points.

Since there seems to be a failure of communication here, I will again reiterate my argument which is really quite straightforward.

1. Assumption - this bid is from the Chinese Government through a proxy
2. If so then FSG needs to seriously consider selling to them - whether as a minority stake at first or outright
3. This is because the club needs to obtain access to greater funds to be able to enable the club to compete on a level playing field with the "super-clubs" that are basically using financial doping to overpower other clubs
4. There is an inference made that the Chinese Government is buying into the club for a political purpose for national prestige
5. Therefore based on their previous conduct which has seen enormous and virtually unlimited funding given to make any national prestige project a success, the Chinese Government will require on-field success as a pre-requisite
6. As rational actors, they will be aware that this will require significant funding which they should as rational decision-makers having spent a billion in purchasing the club int he first place, be prepared to expend
7. As China is the second biggest economy in the world, Liverpool FC will therefore have a significant competitive advantage.

This is an argument that is made for the present interim purposes for the sake of a thought experiment as we wait for more information. The alternative would eb to close this thread as there is no new information yet.

I am not mooting for the club to be sold immediately and in an irresponsible manner without due diligence being effected satisfactorily. Clearly the assumptions will have to be proven true in order for the bid to have any chance of being accepted.

I am also not denying that they will make the Sheikh Mansour look like a Nobel prize winner in terms of image and human rights. They are not by any stretch of the imagination ideal owners ethically speaking. But on the other hand they will be ruthless in the pursuit of success and any failure and incompetence at the club will not be long tolerated. Sooner or laer, the application of will and purpose and unlimited moneys will achieve the desired result.

I have supported this club since the 80's. I was indeed 'around" when the first american owners owned this club. I was one of those who agonised over their tenure. I was one of those who thought it was a disastrous decision when they sacked Benitez.  I have long awaited Liverpol to return to the top again and we came so close under Benitez.

However the present climate is much more difficult with the advent of simply enormous amounts of money flowing into the game and the double whammy of super-capitalised clubs exerting their financial might and the previous have-nots being empowered by the TV money to now threaten us.

We are losing our financial edge over the "smaller" clubs and we are being left behind further and further by the big three in this league.

Something drastic has to change.

[ENSKIED]

They weren't any more successful once they went down the Galactico route than they were before. They were beaten not just in matches, but to trophies, more often than not, and by teams with much smaller budgets and no "stars".

They proved beyond all doubt that you can buy most of the best players in the world and you still won't be the best team in the world.

You're banging on about this Galactico period as though it is something tangible and distinct in this modern era. It was a soundbite by Perez at a certain time for the media, however, the origins of the Galactico policy date as far back as the 1950s. Real have always indulged the Galactico concept ergo in the fifties and sixties when they were winning 5 ECLs [ECC as was] as well as domestic trophies with Di Stéfano, Puskas, Rial, Santamaria, Gento, Kopa, etc etc they were all the then "Galacticos" and that set the blueprint for Real's continued major achievements in football. To ignore this is, is to ignore facts in preference to your own bias. For Liverpool to rescale the heights that Shankly and Paisley took us to, we need to invest in good /great players and THEN we need to KEEP THEM, not forced to sell them to Chelsea, Barca, Man City and Real, in the latter case [Real] losing them for nothing and next to nothing [McManaman, Owen].

[Nessy76]

It depends if the money is being recycled or not. If you've bought a player and then sold him to buy another player you can't really add that to the total spend. It will distort what you're actually  spending. Finances are like a revolving door. You can't just say Suharto a manager had a gross spend of this much. That's ridiculous.

Yes, but I am simply talking about the value of the players in the squad, so net spend doesn't come into it. Rodgers was not trading players up in that way.

[Qston]

Has there been any further news since the flurry of articles about a month ago ?  I know there were some denials but that strikes me as unlikely because the FT are normally pretty sure about their sources.

[owens_2k]

Spending the most money isn't a guarantee of anything and never will be.

Except it is.

[Nessy76]

You're banging on about this Galactico period as though it is something tangible and distinct in this modern era. It was a soundbite by Perez at a certain time for the media,

No. Just wrong. They always bought good players. They never assembled multiple world player of the year winners in that fashion. No-one has, before or since.

[ThePoolMan]

No. Just wrong. They always bought good players. They never assembled multiple world player of the year winners in that fashion. No-one has, before or since.

The original Real Madrid team that established their fame basically contaiend a who's who of the world's greatest players though. They may not have used the term galaticos but they certainly were. They were on a different level than anyone else at the time as a result.

The diference is that they did not use that as a marketing tool and strategy in the way that perez has done in recent years.

[Red JR]

Yes, but I am simply talking about the value of the players in the squad, so net spend doesn't come into it. Rodgers was not trading players up in that way.

there are a lot of reasons why he had £300m to spend (I'm sure if he could have kept Suarez and Sterling and not had the money he would have). Also if you look at the season we came second we barely had a proper squad (I think we only used something like 17 players all season) and certainly not one that would have coped with the demands of CL footie so he had to build a squad.

Don't get me wrong he got it horribly wrong at the end but I don't think we should forget he's given us players like Studge, Coutinho, firminho, Can, Lovren, Clyne. These are all good players.

[Craig S]

How about being sponsored by Indonesia's state owned airline.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36920293

I think they have been publicly owned since 2011, when it was floated.

[Alan_X]

I concede your point about Mittal being worth more when he bought his stake in QPR, as seen in this article https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/oct/07/lakshmi-mittal-qpr-rich-list

However as disclosed by the same article, Mittal was only a minority owner having 20% in the club, whereas the bigger share was held by Ecclestone. As such, QPR was not in the same position as City and Chelsea which were basically the personal sporting vehicles of their respective owners.   

Ecclestone is worth £3.1 billion. So the joint ownership was worth £11 billion or more. The difference in net spend between us and the top three is about £20-30 million a year over the last 10 years. It's not in the billions.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-2003-to-date/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-2003-to-date

[Eeyore]

I think they have been publicly owned since 2011, when it was floated.

Still 60% state owned according to this  http://www.indonesia-investments.com/business/indonesian-companies/garuda-indonesia/item211

[4pool]

Since there seems to be a failure of communication here, I will again reiterate my argument which is really quite straightforward.

1. Assumption - this bid is from the Chinese Government through a proxy
2. If so then FSG needs to seriously consider selling to them - whether as a minority stake at first or outright
3. This is because the club needs to obtain access to greater funds to be able to enable the club to compete on a level playing field with the "super-clubs" that are basically using financial doping to overpower other clubs
4. There is an inference made that the Chinese Government is buying into the club for a political purpose for national prestige
5. Therefore based on their previous conduct which has seen enormous and virtually unlimited funding given to make any national prestige project a success, the Chinese Government will require on-field success as a pre-requisite
6. As rational actors, they will be aware that this will require significant funding which they should as rational decision-makers having spent a billion in purchasing the club int he first place, be prepared to expend
7. As China is the second biggest economy in the world, Liverpool FC will therefore have a significant competitive advantage.

This is an argument that is made for the present interim purposes for the sake of a thought experiment as we wait for more information. The alternative would eb to close this thread as there is no new information yet.

#4: China’s President Xi Jinping has said he wants China to get a World Cup. He wants the Chinese national side to be able to compete at a high level. Multiple articles about this when the investment news into LFC from China was brought up.

LFC winning the League  or the Champions League or even making top 4 has not one iota to do with furthering the Chinese game, organizational structure, or ability to host a World Cup.

That takes investment within China not outside.

#5 & #6: As per #4, Chinese governments national pride means fuck all when it comes to LFC.

Further, large Chinese investment has not changed the scope of football with any of their investments so far. Unless you can name a qualified success where a Chinese investment arm has dumped millions into any of the various clubs they have already invested in, then don't assume that if Everbright or any other Chinese investment firm buys into LFC, that funds for playing staff surely follows. The facts are, so far, that has NOT happened where Chinese investment into various teams in the League they have bought into.

Name the top 10 players in the World and not one has been bought by a club that has Chinese investment. So why do you think any Chinese investment into LFC will mean the very top players will come here?

#7: In your mind, should Everbright buy into LFC , it follows that LFC gets a competitive advantage within China.

So can you explain how FSG gave LFC a competitive advantage in the USA?

No one will deny that Chinese investment should open up the market in China and allow for further investment from other Chinese firms via sponsorship.

But you seem to infer that we will be rolling in Billions, when the facts are Chinese investment has already happened with other football teams, and they sure aren't rolling in the billions and selling 50 million kit shirts in China. Just like American investment firm FSG didn't mean LFC would sell even 1 million more shirts in America.



Where you fail to understand things is Everbright, if it is them, is an investment vehicle set up to make money. Not spend like crazy on players because it will enhance Chinese National pride.

You're assuming, spend money to make us win = China getting their jollies. When the reality is, Chiense investment in other clubs or Leagues hasn't meant any sort of automatic spending spree and trophy haul.

The facts are there, should you look for them.

[ENSKIED]

No. Just wrong. They always bought good players. They never assembled multiple world player of the year winners in that fashion. No-one has, before or since.

No on this occasion you're wrong I'm afriad. [I'm not really afraid, it's just the way our quirky language can unfold] but anyway you're  wrong on this.

[vagabond]

No on this occasion you're wrong I'm afriad. [I'm not really afraid, it's just the way our quirky language can unfold] but anyway you're  wrong on this.

Real Madrid cl winning team of 2000:

GK    27    Iker Casillas
SW    15    Iván Helguera
CB    18    Aitor Karanka
CB    12    Iván Campo
RWB 2    Míchel Salgado    
LWB    3    Roberto Carlos    
RM    8    Steve McManaman
CM    6    Fernando Redondo (c)
LM    7    Raúl
CF    9    Fernando Morientes       
CF    19    Nicolas Anelka

Real Madrid cl winning team of 2002:

GK    13    César       
RB    2    Míchel Salgado    
CB    4    Fernando Hierro (c)
CB    6    Iván Helguera
LB    3    Roberto Carlos    
DM    24    Claude Makélélé       
RM    10    Luís Figo       
LM    21    Santiago Solari
AM    5    Zinedine Zidane
CF    7    Raúl
CF    9    Fernando Morientes

The galacticos team is easy to spot.