£930m: What City spent to reach Premiership summit

finneh · May 11, 2012

Well I'll only finish saying instead of City a different club would perpetually get Champions League football, the only difference is that they wouldn't be nearly as good as City and so the competition as a whole would be worse. The financial boost and exposure involved in Champions League football means that a club will gamble to get in it (not just a random well run club, a club that takes a big financial gamble) and once there will rarely ever get knocked off. The top 4 would have become a league within a league without relegation or promotion. Instead we have 6 clubs fighting for Champions League football instead of the same 4 every single season ad in my opinion that only makes the league better and more exciting.

We've lost Nasri to City, just like Benzema to Madrid and Sanchez to Barcelona. You move on, that's Football. Cole went to Chelsea because Arsenal couldn't match the wages he wanted, if Chelsea weren't there the chances are United or Madrid or AC or Inter or Barcelona would have offered him more wages than Arsenal and signed him. Arsenal are never going to keep hold of a salary incentivised footballer, it's the same reason Nasri left.

Trionz · May 11, 2012

"The top 4 would have become a league within a league without relegation or promotion."

What the feck are you talking about?

Before Chelsea became rich, they were in & around those 3 CL spots.
Leeds were in CL as well remember.
It became a stagnant Top 4 after Chelsea became rich.

Despite all their wealth, Chelsea have reached CL final only twice.
Well run clubs in Arsenal, Liverpool & United have contributed more to get extra/4th CL spot.

Without City/Chelsea, there is always a chance of acquiring a CL spot, atleast for well run club.

I don't give a feck if there are 6 clubs running for 4 spots, when 2 of them just don't deserve that.

Trionz · May 11, 2012

finneh said:
We've lost Nasri to City, just like Benzema to Madrid and Sanchez to Barcelona. You move on, that's Football. Cole went to Chelsea because Arsenal couldn't match the wages he wanted, if Chelsea weren't there the chances are United or Madrid or AC or Inter or Barcelona would have offered him more wages than Arsenal and signed him. Arsenal are never going to keep hold of a salary incentivised footballer, it's the same reason Nasri left.

And how did they induced that into modern footballers?

Cole went to Chelsea, because he was informed behind the scenes that he will always be paid more than what Arsenal will offer.

If Chelsea weren't there, The feck there wouldn't be any inflation of wages.
how do you miss the logic?

MrMarcello · May 11, 2012

If I were a wealty benefactor, a club like Everton or Leeds would interest me. Imagine Leeds being bought up by a billionaire, accumulating 100 points and being promoted to the Premiership, and within two-three years after having splunked 300-500m in transfer fees they are suddenly in the top three or four and challenging for honors. This for a club that ran itself into the ground with bad management. But now they can afford insane transfer fees and player wages due to some benefactor.

Meanwhile, clubs like Everton, Newcastle, Fulham, et al, are pushed further down the totem pole with no realistic chance to now overtake three clubs with limitless bank accounts and two or three clubs with large stadia and proper management (i.e. Arsenal, Tottenham and United).

Soon enough, SAF retires, Gill is ran off, and the Glazers make the wrong management hirings, and United finish tenth, then losing a few players to these lottery winning clubs. Old Trafford might experience a few no-shows that starts to become frequent event. Suddenly, another billionaire wants in on this Premierships experience and buys up Bolton or some other club. Then it basically becomes a league of four or five billionaires trying to beat one another. Glazers either sell off to a billionaire that does the same thing or they just run the club while extracting the profits, content with not spending too much to compete with the billionaire boys club.

Zen86 · May 11, 2012

RedRover said:
It's easy to condemn fans of other clubs and bleat on about the "romance" of football when you've had decades of success.

I've passionatley followed my local side for nearly 25 years, and we've won feck all, and largely only just stayed afloat. Would I love someone to come in and spend a bit of cash to get us up the league? - Of course I would.

The fact is it must have been miserable for City fans who've won nothing for years and having to watch United dominate. Is it any wonder they're now enjoying their success? the same goes with Chelsea.

I don't think anyones actually arguing that the City/Chelsea fans don't enjoy having money. Funnily enough though, there's a bigger picture in football.

RedRover said:
As is clear, I personally have no axe to grind with City, and am actually pleased its two northern teams battling for the title for once. I think it promises to be an interesting few years.

Can't disagree with you more.

RedRover said:
But for me, a lot of the City bashing seems to be people trying to justify why United can no longer spend big in the transfer market (despite being more than willing to in the past) - as if there's some sort of honour in struggling by and papering over the cracks.

As a fan I want United to be up there year on year, and an concerned that it may not happen for much longer if the situation remains as it is.

Again, there's a bigger picture to football and I don't believe in the 'if you can't beat them, join them' philosophy of yours. Not everyone can hope for a rich owner to come along, and if they did football would be fecked.

finneh · May 11, 2012

Trionz said:
"The top 4 would have become a league within a league without relegation or promotion."

What the feck are you talking about?

Before Chelsea became rich, they were in & around those 3 CL spots.
Leeds were in CL as well remember.
It became a stagnant Top 4 after Chelsea became rich.

Despite all their wealth, Chelsea have reached CL final only twice.
Well run clubs in Arsenal, Liverpool & United have contributed more to get extra/4th CL spot.

Without City/Chelsea, there is always a chance of acquiring a CL spot, atleast for well run club.

I don't give a feck if there are 6 clubs running for 4 spots, when 2 of them just don't deserve that.

You are talking about a time where Champions League money was merely a bonus to finishing in the league, nowadays Champions League money puts you on a totally different pedestal to every other club in the league. You either gamble on paying Champions League salaries and praying you keep/get Champions League football or you play conservative like Spurs did and pay Europa League wages and risk falling out of the Champions League after a season.

Without the influx of money it'd be a simple case of United, Arsenal and 2 other teams (probably 2 from Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea) qualifying every single year and the gap between these 4 and the other 16 would get bigger and bigger.

Then guess what? You'd have the exact same situation, clubs like Everton, Villa etc would have no chance breaching the top 4 without a billionaire backer because they couldn't afford the Champions League wages to compete for 4th.

Trionz said:
And how did they induced that into modern footballers?

Cole went to Chelsea, because he was informed behind the scenes that he will always be paid more than what Arsenal will offer.

If Chelsea weren't there, The feck there wouldn't be any inflation of wages.
how do you miss the logic?

Footballers have been chasing the dime for decades, just because that dime is now a dollar doesn't mean anything has changed. Do you think Nasri was quite happy earning £50k until big, bad Man City turned his head and told him he could triple it? Bullshit. He was clearly looking for the best deal possible elsewhere, whether than was £120k from United or £150k from City is immaterial. The same is the case with Cole, Arsenal were underpaying him in comparison to what he could earn elsewhere, so he left.

If it wasn't Chelsea it'd have been someone else, because Arsenal's wage budget is not sufficient to keep World Class players. Real Madrid, Inter, Juve, United and Barcelona pay similar in wages than City/Chelsea. So unless your argument is that 6-7 teams paying far more in wages than Arsenal is ruining the game, whereas 4-5 would be fine then I'm confused.

Also, City and Chelsea (along with every club who can afford to) feed the monster that is modern day footballers, they didn't create them.

RedRover · May 11, 2012

Zen86 said:
I don't think anyones actually arguing that the City/Chelsea fans don't enjoy having money. Funnily enough though, there's a bigger picture in football.

Can't disagree with you more.

Again, there's a bigger picture to football and I don't believe in the 'if you can't beat them, join them' philosophy of yours. Not everyone can hope for a rich owner to come along, and if they did football would be fecked.

You miss my point - United shouldn't need a rich owner, nor is that what I'm advocating. The point I'm making is that United should be able to compete and bring in top players to supplement whatever talent is coming through.

As regards the "bigger picture" in my view United have done as much to perpetuate what is "modern football" and the money in the PL as any other club - City are the ultimate symptom of it, but not the cause - football has been fecked in terms of competiton for years, and its accepted by most people that that's the case.

United lead the way in this country and rode the crest of the "business wave" - the result was they got bought out and things seemed to change in terms of available transfer funds.

United need to move with the times in terms of refreshing the squad - Fergie won't be around for ever. If they don't the club will suffer - and it won't be city or chelsea's fault.

Gazza · May 11, 2012

RedRover said:
That's fine - to me it makes little difference. United had the benefit of being able to buy the best players - even from close PL rivals on the odd occaision it suited. To moan now when City do the same, is in my view, a bit rich.

City want to be succesful - so they'll spend in order to do that. They have no other choice. The same will no doubt occur if and when another club is bought up.

It may even occur if and when United are bought up - and presumably we'll see condemnation from the majority of the board. That's football as it is, although I suspect a few may change their tune - probably put the blame back onto City's and Chelsea's of the game and suggest we have no other choice.

Not moaning. Stating facts and relating to them to why United are different from City, is all.

Gazza · May 11, 2012

Zen86 said:
I don't think anyones actually arguing that the City/Chelsea fans don't enjoy having money. Funnily enough though, there's a bigger picture in football.

Can't disagree with you more.

Again, there's a bigger picture to football and I don't believe in the 'if you can't beat them, join them' philosophy of yours. Not everyone can hope for a rich owner to come along, and if they did football would be fecked.

Very true.

#07 · May 11, 2012

I haven't read this properly. Honestly I don't think there's a need. 1st is 1st, 2nd is nowhere. How you get there is irrelevant. Had United beaten Wigan and Everton we wouldn't even be having this debate. I don't care what City do. I expect United to do better.

gooDevil · May 23, 2012

Premier League clubs lost £392m last year despite record £2.2bn income

Manchester City, in the third year since Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi bought the club and began to pour in money to acquire a team capable of winning the Premier League, lost £197m, the greatest financial loss in the history of football.

Chelsea lost the next highest amount, £68m, bankrolled by their owner, the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, who loaned £94m into the club during 2010‑11. Liverpool, documenting the first eight months of ownership by John Henry's Fenway Sports Group, lost £49m.

The Premier League's 20 clubs collectively made a loss of £392m last year, after spending all of their record £2.2bn income. Of the clubs which were in the Premier League in 2010‑11, the year of most clubs' latest published accounts, only five, 25%, made a profit, £71m in total. Of the other clubs, 14 made losses, totalling £463.4m.

In total, £1.5bn was spent on wages by the 20 clubs in 2011 (including Birmingham's £38m wage bill in 2009‑10). That accounted for 69% of the clubs' total income, slightly up from the 68% of income the clubs spent in 2009‑10 on wages.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-losses-2010-11-profits

RyanGoggs · May 23, 2012

Good to see us post a profit even after paying off interest charges and spending a fair whack on New players. I still don't quite see how City will pass the FFP regulations unless they sell the likes of Tevez, Balotelli, Adebayor and a load others AND then don't reinvest in the team.

AlwaysRedwood · May 23, 2012

RyanGoggs said:
Good to see us post a profit even after paying off interest charges and spending a fair whack on New players. I still don't quite see how City will pass the FFP regulations unless they sell the likes of Tevez, Balotelli, Adebayor and a load others AND then don't reinvest in the team.

There are quite a few City fans who feel this is what they will do. They believe FFP forced City to go on a huge spending spree, so they could then sell the players for profit as FFP rules come into effect.

They also think we have bought titles, so they are idiots.

Edmeiste · May 23, 2012

AlwaysRedwood said:
There are quite a few City fans who feel this is what they will do. They believe FFP forced City to go on a huge spending spree, so they could then sell the players for profit as FFP rules come into effect.

They also think we have bought titles, so they are idiots.

Based on their criteria, everybody has. The other day one of them wrote down on a sheet of paper the starting 11 for both them and us and calculated the total in terms of transfer fees and showed how we came out marginally more than they did... :houllier:

Search

Search

£930m: What City spent to reach Premiership summit

finneh

Full Member

Trionz

New Member

Trionz

New Member

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...

Zen86

Full Member

finneh

Full Member

RedRover

Full Member

Gazza

Full Member

Gazza

Full Member

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP

gooDevil

Worst scout ever

RyanGoggs

Insists on dating women in public places - for the

AlwaysRedwood

New Member

Edmeiste

New Member