Blackburn , Chelsea and now City

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by SAred, May 14, 2012.

  1. May 14, 2012
    #1

    SAred Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Location:
    Lee Martin Scores , Sir Alex legacy begins
    Those three teams have one thing in common they all had a great deal of cash thrown at them to help them become league champions. Without that none of these teams would of won the league. United 24 league titles :)

    Now alot of people are complaning that these teams have brought the league etc etc. However I love to see United win everything all the time but without the money men behind the likes of City and Chelsea it would really be just plain boring.

    It hurts seeing the blue side of Manchester lift the trophy but does it not make the league far more exciting having these money teams around.
  2. May 14, 2012
    #2

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    Pumping money into clubs from outside sources isn't as rare as people seem to think it is, take Fulham for example - the year before Al Fayed took them over they were ten points or so from being relegated to non-league football who would spend £11 million or so on the likes of Steve 'Fulham Legend' Marlet.
  3. May 14, 2012
    #3

    Dwazza Van Hernandez A Special Kind of Hipster

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    56,435
    Location:
    Watching comet's lonesome trails
    Sure, but you can't buy a league title at Harrod's.
  4. May 14, 2012
    #4

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    Who wants to buy a title when you can buy a statue of Michael Jackson to be fair.
  5. May 14, 2012
    #5

    Inigo Montoya Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,726
    Think he's very much alluding to buying entire squads very quickly so not sure the Steve Marlet comparison is valid.It's the disproportionate sums that fans are expressing concern about
  6. May 14, 2012
    #6

    Neo_Mufc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,682
    How much longer can City & Chelsea pump money into their clubs?

    IIRC FFP started this season? We have 2 more years till all clubs are assessed?
  7. May 14, 2012
    #7

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12,776
    Location:
    Scotland
    Blackburn's situation was very different for me. Yes, the idea was the same, but the man behind it all ultimately did it for the club he loved, not for marketing issues or all that stuff. They didn't have insane amounts either compared to Chelsea or City; they wered just quite rich in comparison to most in this league.
  8. May 14, 2012
    #8

    elmo Can never have too many Eevees

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,780
    Location:
    AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
    They all wear blue too.
  9. May 14, 2012
    #9

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    As am I, Man United fans are not objecting on principle but those who in practice threaten Man United - I cannot recall teams lower done the league who outspent their means coming in for criticism.

    And Fulham did buy a whole team, they went from the then Division Three to the Premier League in four seasons and spent millions in the process.
  10. May 14, 2012
    #10

    Guy Incognito Full Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    9,328
    Location:
    Somewhere
    It's not cost effective for their owners to keep pumping the cash.

    I'll give the Shiekh and City's chairman this: he hasn't come up with Kenyon's crap that they will break even by so and so year. I can't see him sacking Mancini and perhaps they have realised they can't go down the Chelsea route; they need to keep selling players and buying new ones to regenerate competition. Older players who remain at City will just feel like they have nothing to prove and would be happy to get the pay check.
  11. May 14, 2012
    #11

    Neo_Mufc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,682
    We'll find out the figures at the end of the year? City practically dodged the FFP with their Etihad sponsership. I'm interested to see how Chelsea will do, they'll pick up some nice monies from the CL this year but they will have to replace big players in the coming years too.
  12. May 14, 2012
    #12

    Inigo Montoya Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,726
    Yes but that was to gain PL status not try and win everything in sight.They were just being realistic and season after season they are happy to be there.

    What is it with Chelsea and Fulham anyway?.It's comparable to West Ham hating Orient.I don't get it
  13. May 14, 2012
    #13

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    Our sponsorship with Samsung ends next year as well.
  14. May 14, 2012
    #14

    Inigo Montoya Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,726
    You're forgetting the fact that they've spent huge on a training facility.We'll see how that pans out...hasn't really worked for Chelsea up to now
  15. May 14, 2012
    #15

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    On the contrary, I have as much regard for Fulham as I do for Wigan or Sunderland as I have to point out every time 'the West London derby' comes around. As I said, as late as the mid/late nineties Fulham were in England's fourth flight, there was no reason to be bothered about them at all on our end.

    It just so happens in this case they illustrate the point I am making
  16. May 14, 2012
    #16

    Guy Incognito Full Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    9,328
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Manchester City are one of four English clubs (Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea being the others) who will be in UEFA's FFP pilot study, taking place next season.

    UEFA did say they will be looking to the Eithad sponsorship but I doubt they'll find both parties are related.
  17. May 14, 2012
    #17

    Sarni nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    31,516
    Location:
    Krakow
    That's just because Al Fayed doesn't have means to create a team capable of challenging for major trophies. They came damn close to winning the Europa League two years ago though, it's a shame they had to lose in the extra-time.
  18. May 14, 2012
    #18

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    They were promoted to the premier league at the expense of somebody else, they have been in relegation fights but survived them yet it only matters when it has an influence upon you?

    Interesting.
  19. May 14, 2012
    #19

    Name Changed weso26

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    23,578
    Location:
    Dublin
    From what I read today, the difference in value between City's team when they played us was 50m. City spent 191m (so assuming the journalist was right, we spent approx 141m).

    Now, if Ferguson had played the team that a lot of us wanted, with Young & Valencia playing instead of Giggs & Park, the gap would only be at about 20m.

    We aren't the paupers that some posters seem to be making out. We have spent huge money over the years and gained a lot of success as a result.

    To be honest, it sickens me to see so many United fans bitching and moaning about what City spend. There isn't as much as a difference in the two teams' value as people like to believe. They've just assembled their squad in a much shorter time and we have relied more on players brought through.

    I don't give a feck what City spent. People need to grow a set instead of bitching about City constantly. Nobody will start saying how unfair it is if we go and spend 50m+ on a few players.
  20. May 14, 2012
    #20

    davisjw Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,257
    This perceptive is so one way. They had millions thrown at them during a short period of time, yes. But we've had far more millions than them thrown out at us just over a larger period of time.

    Comparing money spent is a fool's game. There's only 23 players one team can buy. There are more than 23 great players out there. This whole notion of City or Chelsea ruining football was laughable then and is laughable now.

    We used to be the "money grabbing whores" of the PL before Chelsea. Let's deal with it properly, not creating thousands of threads rewording the same topic: City bought PL title.
  21. May 14, 2012
    #21

    Neo_Mufc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,682
    How will the pilot work?
  22. May 14, 2012
    #22

    Cheesy Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12,776
    Location:
    Scotland
    But if those players they bought had somehow been good enough for them to win the leaue ahead of us, I'm sure you'd quickly be complaining about their spending.
  23. May 14, 2012
    #23

    Sarni nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    31,516
    Location:
    Krakow
    From which part of my post have you come to this conclusion?
  24. May 14, 2012
    #24

    Badunk Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,833
    Location:
    Occupied Merseyside
    Hahaha! Spot on!

    Let them spend whatever. We have seen off Blackburn and Chelsea, and we will see off this lot, too.
  25. May 14, 2012
    #25

    Name Changed weso26

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    23,578
    Location:
    Dublin
    Quite possibly we will, but it will be with a shit load of money that we will have to spend to do so.
  26. May 14, 2012
    #26

    Neo_Mufc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,682
    I'm probably the worst person when it comes to asking anything about finances.
  27. May 14, 2012
    #27

    africanspur Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,050
    Chelsea, Man Utd, Tottenham and Man City, congratulations. You have all passed our stringent regulations and will be allowed to participate in European competition.
  28. May 14, 2012
    #28

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    I am having a day of it today, I meant to quote Inigo.
  29. May 14, 2012
    #29

    Guy Incognito Full Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    9,328
    Location:
    Somewhere
  30. May 14, 2012
    #30

    NextSeason Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,974
    Location:
    From the banks of Irwell, to Sicily..
    The number plate of the City parade bus in Manchester now is "C393 BUY". Can't write that.
  31. May 14, 2012
    #31

    Sarni nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    31,516
    Location:
    Krakow
    Dear Man City, you've shown a loss of £220m which is less than £225m loss last time round. You're showing a positive tendency. We're grateful but have to fine you £1.5m.
  32. May 14, 2012
    #32

    FlawlessThaw most 'know it all' poster

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    22,470
    Location:
    @TMOUddin
    Pretty much. I don't hold much hope for it. I think their net spend will definitely go down but not enough to make much of a difference.
  33. May 14, 2012
    #33

    Neo_Mufc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,682
  34. May 14, 2012
    #34

    Crustanoid Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    15,493
    Weird how it's all about attaining world domination with these oligarch owned plastic abomination 'clubs'. I don't ever seem to hear players / staff at proper clubs (the Barcas, Reals, Uniteds) going on and on about this.
  35. May 14, 2012
    #35

    RedCanuck Full Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,416
    Location:
    Toronto
    Name, I agree there is no point getting wound up about what City spend, it's allowed under the rules (for now) so there is nothing wrong about it. Having said that there is a big difference in how United and City have gone about achieving success.

    This is largely meaningless since there are only 11 players on the pitch, the City spending (compared to ours) is in the squad and this doesn't take into account the wages paid.

    United are hugely profitable and that's what makes the difference. If we don't spend some of the profits on players it simply winds up in the owner's pockets. We are entitled to expect United to spend big since they take in the most revenue (and make the biggest profit) off us, the fans.

    For what its worth, I see the definition of "buying the league" is when the owner has to write a cheque to cover the clubs losses at the end of the year. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
  36. May 14, 2012
    #36

    RedCanuck Full Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,416
    Location:
    Toronto
  37. May 16, 2012
    #37

    ruddevil Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    in front of a screen
    Do you know why a Chelsea logo was sticked on a Sauber F1 cars? It's quite rare for a football club sponsoring another major sporting teams, especially a PL club.
  38. May 16, 2012
    #38

    Zen86 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    7,509
    Location:
    That's the joke.
    Thing is with City, everyone knows just how much money they have.

    Every player they sign is going to be increasingly expensive, with higher and higher wages. It's not sustainable, they started the spiralling costs of transfers and wages and unfortunately for Sheik whatever, they're stuck with it.
  39. May 16, 2012
    #39

    Chabon Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,291
    There's a difference between putting money into a club and giving one an enormous financial advantage over every other club in the league. That's where the accusation of 'buying the league' comes from, and why it is justified. City and Chelsea have an enormous financial advantage over every other club in English football, not even we spend anything like the money those two behemoths do. The likes of Fulham and Wigan are, quite rightly, not well liked by lower league clubs, but they don't have as much of a distorting effect on the sport as a whole.

    Also, can we stop with this bullshit that City are just doing what United did. Regardless of the origin of the money spent, United never, ever massively outspent the rest of the league, and on the rare occassions that we have been the top spenders it has tended to be an exception which we have followed with a season or two of purse-tightening. There is simply no factual basis for the suggestion that United also "bought the league." Also, as I've said repeatedly, Manchester United fans are the people with the least to complain about with regards to City and Chelsea, because out of all the non-moneybags clubs we're the ones who suffer least. I hate Chelsea and City because they are killing the game, not because they're making my club less successful, because that simply isn't the case.

Share This Page