Net spent shouldn’t really be a used these days, especially when revenue has changed so much tv money and sponsorship brings in far more money now. It also shouldn't be used by Chelsea or City fans considering how much they have cheated this net spent stat. Spending 100s of millions on teenage talent, put some in youth teams then loan 20+ young players out a year and then you sell them off to prop up net spent and FFP. Chelsea have obviously not been as bad at this recently because of the Hazard sale.
True. Another good reason to end oil consumption as soon as possible, in addition to stopping climate destruction.
We're all guessing, but I've read numerous times that Messi's wages of c. £500k p/w are AFTER tax, so you'll need to add the tax to that one and gross it up
If Messi paying for himself was such a certainty then every club in the world would be trying to sign him right now. The single best player in the world, maybe in history, and it'll come to a net cost of zero? You'd be insane not to go for it.
That was business people finding an effective way to level the playing field at the top. It was much more fairer than being state backed. I don't get why people love oil clubs but hate the ESL as one is much more fairer than the other. If you hate both fair enough.
Real Madrid have certainly had one or two dodgy bungs from the Spanish Government but nothing like on the scale of Chelsea, City and PSG.
Patrons are part of the sport history while a closed league made of marketable clubs isn't.
As far as I understand they were going to expand and bring in other clubs at some point. Closed leagues have been doing great in America for a long time.
Just because one is wrong, it doesnt mean the other is right. Both oil clubs and greedy leech owners are simultaneously putting the nails in the coffin. Short-sighted thinking to suggest otherwise.
it is not whataboutery. The statement was our player sales revenue is generated by selling to oil clubs, which is not true. Our largest recent sale was to Real Madrid. The player sales this year have not been to oil clubs.
That was a reaction to oil clubs and the failure of UEFA to regulate spending - something that was completely ignored by the media and many on here. City have won 5/10 titles and are about to sign the 2 best players in the league for 260m quid - a year without crowds when 99% of clubs are in a precarious economic environment. Everyone brings up our spending - do people actually think that’s sustainable in this economy? Our revenue growth is in decline. The new kit deal is less than our old one. We still haven’t found a training sponsor. If City continue as they are this league will turn into the Bundesliga. I’m going to keep on repeating this until people wake up - Manchester United and Liverpool can earn far more from media revenue if they were allowed to sell their own packages - however this isn’t allowed as it would be inequitable and give them an unfair advantage - yet city who aren’t reliant on tv money, crowd money or sponsorship money due to being backed by an entire state can spend whatever they want. How is that equitable? Any attempt by the traditional clubs to increase their revenue streams so they could actually half-compete with these feckers is met by Gary Neville et al saying they’re greedy and have to be stopped. Any attempt for FFP is met with the same condemnation. Nobody is playing this through to the end.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It would still be a closed league which isn't part of the sport's history. And in the US the closed leagues are doing well but the system and logic is totally different, I personally like both and I want to have both I don't want to see football turn into what US sports, you would kill a lot of midsize clubs who aren't a thing in the US.
The David Luiz 50mil deals back and forth with PSG was a bit dodgy.
And City, Chelsea. Conveniently forgotten that they were part of the fiasco too.
Care to elaborate? Because despite all these accusations, Chelsea have never been found guilty of bending FFP rules. Yes they spent massively and were the highest spenders every summer but that was before the rules were implemented and they have fully complied with the rules till date.
I didn't suggest otherwise though, did I?
Off course. It's just hypocritical to blame the demise of the game on 2/3 clubs.
I agree completely. Whenever I see another record transfer by United I can't help but feel it's still bankrolled by John Henry Davies or James Gibson. Doesn't matter how much time has passed or what happened since, because it was all artifical cash at some point.
Are those wages correct?
Do you accept there's a difference between the oil clubs and us?
I think he's talking about the fact clubs like yours just come in with no history, and spend monies higher on two player, than that whole list of players above.
I'm simply replying to the OP and the figures he's stating. We've spent similar amounts on transfer fees and wages, it's just that in some cases we've spent poorly and haven't had a return on our investments.
We haven't spent similar as a body of work when the oil gang came in though.
Buying youth for 100s of millions? Care to show proof of this? You do realise this buy-and-sell model for profit is also adopted by the likes Juventus, Liverpool and Dortmund? Are they cheating the net spend stat also? I don't see any cheating in implementing a business model that ensures you stay within the financial play rules. I'm almost certain Utd will embrace this model soon and I wonder what would be your opinion then.
Which was mainly a response to oil money! It’s brought nothing but negatives to the game. Oh except the neutrals can support a team to beat Utd!
Proof? How do you think City and Chelsea got so many good young players to get an amazing academy so quickly.
Exactly this.
Difference is United spend money that they earned. You can't be too angry at Bill Gates spending his money but you will be angry at a ruthless dictator like Sadaam spending stolen money.
Actually the history of FFP is interesting it wasn't an answer to oil money or at least wasn't supposed to. It was an answer the issue of clubs going into bankruptcy, the initial idea was the emulate the french system of the DNCG but big clubs saw the opportunity to create a legal oligopoly. Same big clubs had no issue inviting oil money to their super league or taking oil money left, right and center because what actually matter to them is to have an oligopoly.
That’s all true. The post I responded too was talking about the super league which was a response to the financial doping already in the game.
Another thing to consider is American sports clubs are franchises, and ownership has and will relocate a club to another city. It's a unique environment to other nations and regions sporting systems. And every know and then the owners permit a new franchise or two to enter the closed circuit for an astronomical fee, and occasionally a league will contract a franchise. They also have anti-trust protection despite breaking/limiting numerous free-trade rules.
My bad, the Super League is nothing else than a money grab by clubs that are currently significantly wealthier than almost everyone elese.
I didn't want to got into detail, I almost mentioned the Kraken's 650m entry fee.
Indeed. Fans have short memories. Even in my early years as a United fan, they were the ones breaking transfer records. Cole was the best example, but Shearer would have been a United player had they had their way. That was before RVN, Ferdinand and Veron - who was a luxury player, at best given the midfield we had then. Nobody else in the PL, and few teams in Europe could do that.
