£930m: What City spent to reach Premiership summit

[Chabon]

Right, for the geniuses claiming equivalence between City now and United in the past, here is a comparison of the clubs' net spend each season of the premier league. The team in bold spent more that season:

92/93 £215,000 £2,750,000
93/94 £2,850,000 £5,750,000
94/95 -£3,980,000 -2,220,000
95/96 £2,900,000 £3,590,000
96/97 £500,000 £950,000
97/98 -£2,525,000 £1,250,000
98/99 £25,950,000 -£498,000
99/00 £16,050,000 £6,700,000
00/01 -£8,300,000 £9,710,000
01/02 £29,300,000 £28,900,000
02/03 £27,050,000 £9,850,000
03/04 £13,350,000 £6,875,000
04/05 £21,350,000 -£7,600,000
05/06 £1,000,000 -£11,250,000
06/07 £4,100,000 -£2,400,000
07/08 £26,550,000 £39,120,000
08/09 £33,750,000 £117,900,000
09/10 -£64,500,000 £99,000,000
10/11 £13,550,000 £117,000,000
11/12 £38,150,000 £48,250,000

We didn't even outspend City for most of the 90s, nevermind the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Blackburn. We had a period of financial supremacy over City starting in 98 (when they were in the third tier) and to a lesser extent the rest of the league shortly after the millenium, but it was a million miles away from City now.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

you cant really group chelsea with man city, chelsea were a decent club before abramovich...they at least made champions league without him and also have seemed to always attract good players...not a chelsea fan just a fact

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

This might help...

Manchester City rise calls United to reflect on life with the Glazers - Page 3 - RedCafe.net

Thanks mate. Much appreciated.

 

[thegregster]

Right, for the geniuses claiming equivalence between City now and United in the past, here is a comparison of the clubs' net spend each season of the premier league. The team in bold spent more that season:

92/93 £215,000 £2,750,000
93/94 £2,850,000 £5,750,000
94/95 -£3,980,000 -2,220,000
95/96 £2,900,000 £3,590,000
96/97 £500,000 £950,000
97/98 -£2,525,000 £1,250,000
98/99 £25,950,000 -£498,000
99/00 £16,050,000 £6,700,000
00/01 -£8,300,000 £9,710,000
01/02 £29,300,000 £28,900,000
02/03 £27,050,000 £9,850,000
03/04 £13,350,000 £6,875,000
04/05 £21,350,000 -£7,600,000
05/06 £1,000,000 -£11,250,000
06/07 £4,100,000 -£2,400,000
07/08 £26,550,000 £39,120,000
08/09 £33,750,000 £117,900,000
09/10 -£64,500,000 £99,000,000
10/11 £13,550,000 £117,000,000
11/12 £38,150,000 £48,250,000

We didn't even outspend City for most of the 90s, nevermind the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Blackburn. We had a period of financial supremacy over City starting in 98 (when they were in the third tier) and to a lesser extent the rest of the league shortly after the millenium, but it was a million miles away from City now.

You get Newtonheathdave on here who go on about how much fergie spent around 89-91 but he never mentions the fact that city spent big money back then. They spent over 6mil in summer 1990 which was more than any English team had spent in a summer.

 

[Guy Incognito]

We didn't even outspend City for most of the 90s, nevermind the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Blackburn. We had a period of financial supremacy over City starting in 98 (when they were in the third tier) and to a lesser extent the rest of the league shortly after the millenium, but it was a million miles away from City now.

Of course, but you have to put it into context. If you are successful, why do you need to outspend the other; surely a successful club is one who can keep their best players and build on that? Moreover, outspending doesn't equal success -- Sunderland from 2006 to 2009 spent more than Chelsea, by this logic they should have been challenging for a trophy or two. Which they haven't.

 

[Chabon]

Of course, but you have to put it into context. If you are successful, why do you need to outspend the other; surely a successful club is one who can keep their best players and build on that? Moreover, outspending doesn't equal success -- Sunderland from 2006 to 2009 spent more than Chelsea, by this logic they should have been challenging for a trophy or two. Which they haven't.

I'm sorry, but what on earth has this got to do with anything we're discussing?

 

[RedRover]

That's the thing, though. It doesn't.

A club that spends money it has generated itself is clearly different from a club that spends from a bottomless pool of someone else's money.

No one needs to blame City or anything, but you have to acknowledge that basic fact.

It is a fact - but to me it makes no difference. City have spent millions because that's what it takes to break the strangle hold the few privileged clubs have had over the league in recent years. Now then can compete, and they will increase their profile around the world - and will likely become more viable as time goes on.

United had a huge advantage over other clubs in trying to sign top players - and the fans were more than happy with it, but now - because another club is blowing us out of the water it's suddenly different?

City are a sympton of modern football, and United and other top clubs have made modern football what it is - a multi million pound business which attracts billlionaire oil sheikhs and billionaire businessmen keen to make a profit a la the Glazers.

Both clubs got billionaires, just seems ours have profit as number one priority whereas City's owners seem keen on success.

 

[peterstorey]

Right, for the geniuses claiming equivalence between City now and United in the past, here is a comparison of the clubs' net spend each season of the premier league. The team in bold spent more that season:

You need to factor in wages to get 'football' spend to give a realistic comparison.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I'm sorry, but what on earth has this got to do with anything we're discussing?

It doesn't -- just a generalised point about spending. Outspending on transfers only tells one part of the story, there are other factors to determine the financial strength of a club. Like wages.

 

[Chabon]

You need to factor in wages to get 'football' spend to give a realistic comparison.

Indeed, but until Keane stirred it all up nobody in English football was paid really daft money, and our basic wages weren't hugely superior to the other big clubds. In addition we've always kept the wage bill proportionate to the club's income, and this is a better area in which to draw on the "we earned our money" cliche. We earned more than anyone else, why wouldn't we pay our players more?

 

[Gazza]

It is a fact - but to me it makes no difference. City have spent millions because that's what it takes to break the strangle hold the few privileged clubs have had over the league in recent years. Now then can compete, and they will increase their profile around the world - and will likely become more viable as time goes on.

United had a huge advantage over other clubs in trying to sign top players - and the fans were more than happy with it, but now - because another club is blowing us out of the water it's suddenly different?

City are a sympton of modern football, and United and other top clubs have made modern football what it is - a multi million pound business which attracts billlionaire oil sheikhs and billionaire businessmen keen to make a profit a la the Glazers.

Both clubs got billionaires, just seems ours have profit as number one priority whereas City's owners seem keen on success.

We had an "advantage" that was fashioned from our own means. City's advantage was handed to them. A vital difference to me, but if it doesn't matter to you then that's a fundamental difference in philosophy, and we're probably never gonna agree. No matter.

 

[MrMarcello]

So how many City fans decried and deplored Abramovich's spending but suddenly think it's just alright?

 

[MrMarcello]

Indeed, but until Keane stirred it all up nobody in English football was paid really daft money, and our basic wages weren't hugely superior to the other big clubds. In addition we've always kept the wage bill proportionate to the club's income, and this is a better area in which to draw on the "we earned our money" cliche. We earned more than anyone else, why wouldn't we pay our players more?

Not true. Boro tossed high wages to the likes of Ravanelli, Chelsea were importing foreign players throughout the 90s, and I would wager Newcastle were offering high wages at the time. United lost out on many stars, mostly to other leagues, by not pushing wages above 25k per week. This all prior to Keane asking for a huge increase circa 2000.

 

[ghaliboy]

I'd still disagree though. Success buys you fans, but club values and romance keeps them. I can't see anything romotely likable about Chelsea or City, unlike other top teams both in England and Europe.

WW2, Busby, Munich, Bobby Charlton, Dunc, Fergie. The romance is disappearing from football I agree.

Even in 20 years how are you going to have a romantic sortie with 'A rich sheikh hit IDKFA with City and bought up a winning team'.

Even with the amount of 'business' that United has done over the last few years. Glazers and such. It takes away from the spectacle. A footballing institution and historical landmark of English football we are first and foremost. Business we are second imo.

I do wonder what ADG is looking to get out of this whole venture. It will just sink money imo. They will struggle to bring up the club with how little they can sell other than material things.


(edit: Not to draw away from City having history prior to the takeover.)

 

[Trionz]

What romance is there supporting City and Chelsea, feckall is what.

You would be surprised the way fans think.
One of my friend was Chelsea supporter and i wasn't really updated with World football.
He said to me that Chelsea were under-dogs and Abrahimovic came & invested in class players which won them the league.
The way he was saying that seemed to protray Abrahimovic as some kind of hero.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's simple.

City have that banner in their ground saying "thank you shriekh mansour" or something along those lines.

We have the Sir Alex Ferguson stand.

The post about clubs needing this kind of backing to compete the privileged clubs by Redrovers is silly. How did clubs like a united become previledged? We earned the right. Through great men doing great things. That's what teams should have to do to become big. And if its unreasonably difficult then tweaks in the rules must be made. Financial aid like this isnt right.

 

[RedRover]

We had an "advantage" that was fashioned from our own means. City's advantage was handed to them. A vital difference to me, but if it doesn't matter to you then that's a fundamental difference in philosophy, and we're probably never gonna agree. No matter.

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.

 

[RedRover]

You would be surprised the way fans think.
One of my friend was Chelsea supporter and i wasn't really updated with World football.
He said to me that Chelsea were under-dogs and Abrahimovic came & invested in class players which won them the league.
The way he was saying that seemed to protray Abrahimovic as some kind of hero.

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.

We can bang on about history of the club - and of course do so with pride. It's interesting though how people criticise Liverpool fans for doing exactly the same thing. To me, football is the here and now, and you're either moving forward or moving backwards.

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.

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.

 

[Chabon]

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.

Are you bother to read this thread at all? It's been pointed out, repeatedly, with masses of evidence, that City are not "doing the same." There is no comparison between United's spending at any point in our history with what City have done in the last four years, none whatsoever. Anyone who makes the comparison is either wilfully ignorant or pushing an agenda.

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.

Last season was United's most costly summer ever. We do still spend big sometimes, as big as we ever have, almost literally nothing has changed about our approach to transfers.

 

[Commadus]

City and Chelsea have caused idiotic inflation through massive transfer spending. United and Arsenal have caused inflation through paying off huge debts. At least Atsenal got a new stadium we just got the Glazers.

I loved United more in the 80's than I do now because I don't like what the Glazers have done for United.

 

[finneh]

The post about clubs needing this kind of backing to compete the privileged clubs by Redrovers is silly. How did clubs like a united become previledged? We earned the right. Through great men doing great things. That's what teams should have to do to become big. And if its unreasonably difficult then tweaks in the rules must be made. Financial aid like this isnt right.

We were at the top at a time when media and Commercial revenues had boomed and we took full advantage. Yes, we were at the top because of our success, but should that mean that no-one ever has the right to compete on the basis that they haven't been as successful in the past? With the disparity in income in the league as it currently stands there is no chance that even the likes of Arsenal could compete with us if we were debt-free, in 2011 our turnover was nearly 1.5x Arsenal's and our net profit before tax, interest etc was 2.38x higher than Arsenal's. The Premier League would be like Scotland if Rangers were liquidated.

You're ideology seems to be that clubs who are historically big and successful because they were in the right place at the right time (or "earned it") deserve to big perpetually successful.

The one question I would like anyone who holds this view to answer is what kind of miracle would say Everton have to perform to be able to compete with us for years to come, and how long would it take (without getting into unbelievable amounts of debt).

 

[Trionz]

But Arsenal are doing something about it and so are rest of the clubs.
Arsenal's commercial revenue is tied due to couple of deals and once released they would gain more profits.
Once Stadium debt is fulfilled, lot more can be done to increase revenue.
All this while we have not won for 7years.

Previously Liverpool dominated, Now you guys, In future someone else will do.
Just because you can't force your way because you are unable to manage the finances of your club well, it doesn't make having sugar daddy excusable.

 

[Chabon]

With the disparity in income in the league as it currently stands there is no chance that even the likes of Arsenal could compete with us if we were debt-free, in 2011 our turnover was nearly 1.5x Arsenal's and our net profit before tax, interest etc was 2.38x higher than Arsenal's. The Premier League would be like Scotland if Rangers were liquidated.

What exactly is your evidence for this counter-factual? The implication seems to be that if we didn't have the debt we'd spend like City and Real, but as it stands we currently spend substantially less money than we have available every season. What evidence is there that we'd substantially outspend everyone else if we could?

As for your Everton example. Well, imagine if City and Chelsea didn't exist, how much better would Everton's prospects for progress be then? The answer is, without question, astronomically better. And Everton are just one of a dozen big clubs who can no longer hope to compete at the top because City and Chelsea have bought themselves permanent primacy.

 

[Trionz]

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.

We can bang on about history of the club - and of course do so with pride. It's interesting though how people criticise Liverpool fans for doing exactly the same thing. To me, football is the here and now, and you're either moving forward or moving backwards.

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.

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.

We were talking about overseas fans who never bothered to look up who Manchester City are before.

 

[Trionz]

Only Place where City would look like an investment, would be in BCG matrix of Sheikh Mansour's profile.

What exactly is your evidence for this counter-factual? The implication seems to be that if we didn't have the debt we'd spend like City and Real, but as it stands we currently spend substantially less money than we have available every season. What evidence is there that we'd substantially outspend everyone else if we could?

As for your Everton example. Well, imagine if City and Chelsea didn't exist, how much better would Everton's prospects for progress be then? The answer is, without question, astronomically better. And Everton are just one of a dozen big clubs who can no longer hope to compete at the top because City and Chelsea have bought themselves permanent primacy.

Exactly. Take Aston Villa for instance. They were Top-4 hopefull once and with emergence of City, they are obviously being smart & showing less ambition.

 

[Chabon]

But Arsenal are doing something about it and so are rest of the clubs.
Arsenal's commercial revenue is tied due to couple of deals and once released they would gain more profits.
Once Stadium debt is fulfilled, lot more can be done to increase revenue.
All this while we have not won for 7years.

Previously Liverpool dominated, Now you guys, In future someone else will do.
Just because you can't force your way because you are unable to manage the finances of your club well, it doesn't make having sugar daddy excusable.

This actually reminds how idiotic it is to suggest that United fans railing against City and Chelsea can only ever be seen as jealousy or sour grapes. United have, after all, directly benefited from Chelsea's insanity, and we're the only club who can say that. It's quite possible that City will do the same thing. In essence, Chelsea killed off the rest of the competition for us, meaning we only ever had to deal with them. Most significantly they completely wrecked Arsene Wenger's well-developed plans to dominate the premier league.

I have no hesitation suggesting that had Abramovich never come along then Arsenal would be the biggest club in English football right now, and that we would have won less than the four titles we've managed in the nine years since the takeover. And just as Arsenal were building up to that level in spite of Chelsea, City come along and knock them back down to square one. Chelsea's largesse is part of our most successful ever period, and as a United fan I have no reason to hate them. I loathe what they've done to the game because I'm a football fan.

As an aside, I also think it's highly likely that without Mourinho's Chelsea, Liverpool would have won a title under Benitez, but that's harder to argue for.

 

[finneh]

But Arsenal are doing something about it and so are rest of the clubs.
Arsenal's commercial revenue is tied due to couple of deals and once released they would gain more profits.
Once Stadium debt is fulfilled, lot more can be done to increase revenue.
All this while we have not won for 7years.

Previously Liverpool dominated, Now you guys, In future someone else will do.
Just because you can't force your way because you are unable to manage the finances of your club well, it doesn't make having sugar daddy excusable.

Arsenal are the club with the second highest turnover in the Country (and therefore second placed to benefit from the aforementioned boom). They can do something about it for the same reasons Liverpool and to a lesser extent Spurs can. The fact remains however that without City/Chelsea United would be 19 points ahead of our nearest rivals this season and cumulatively we would have won each of the last 7 seasons by a total of 101 points over Arsenal (over 14 per season on average).

Now if Arsenal were and are that far behind, where would that leave the rest of the league? Sure you might see the occasionally Everton in the Champions League for a season which would be a nice change, but the disparity of income coming in from this competition would just cement another club into a top 4 block year in year out.

What exactly is your evidence for this counter-factual? The implication seems to be that if we didn't have the debt we'd spend like City and Real, but as it stands we currently spend substantially less money than we have available every season. What evidence is there that we'd substantially outspend everyone else if we could?

As for your Everton example. Well, imagine if City and Chelsea didn't exist, how much better would Everton's prospects for progress be then? The answer is, without question, astronomically better. And Everton are just one of a dozen big clubs who can no longer hope to compete at the top because City and Chelsea have bought themselves permanent primacy.

The implication is that we are currently by far the most successful team in the Country, if you take away Chelsea/Man City we'll have walked the league for 7 years in a row (minus the odd challenge by Liverpool). If you then took away the debt as well the gap would be widened, unless we would just be letting over half a billion sit in the bank. I'm not saying we would have signed every player under the sun, but it is common knowledge that we can't offer the wages that Chelsea & City offer, but can substantially out-pay every other team in the league. Also there is no evidence that we spend substantially less than we have available each season, I'd say we spend exactly what we have.

Everton's prospects without Chelsea and City would still be tiny at best. They'd have a similar chance of establishing themselves in the elite than the likes of Sevilla or Betis in Spain, who are currently more than 45 points behind the leaders.

A top 4 would be established without City/Chelsea and they would get richer season on season with Champions League money and Champions League exposure boosting their Commercial income. Your assertion that Everton are one of a dozen clubs that can no longer to hope to compete at the top is in my opinion total fantasy. Irrespective of City and Chelsea their wage budget would be dwarfed by ours (and Liverpool/Arsenal's), as would their points tally. The best they could have hoped for is the occasional Champions League swansong season.

It's no coincidence that the fans of the teams that would benefit most from City/Chelsea disappearing are the ones saying it is unethical. Vested interest.

Exactly. Take Aston Villa for instance. They were Top-4 hopefull once and with emergence of City, they are obviously being smart & showing less ambition.

So Aston Villa, another sugar daddy team would have benefited from no sugar daddies? I find that hard to believe.

 

[2Bullish]

Arsenal are the club with the second highest turnover in the Country (and therefore second placed to benefit from the aforementioned boom). They can do something about it for the same reasons Liverpool and to a lesser extent Spurs can. The fact remains however that without City/Chelsea United would be 19 points ahead of our nearest rivals this season and cumulatively we would have won each of the last 7 seasons by a total of 101 points over Arsenal (over 14 per season on average).

Now if Arsenal were and are that far behind, where would that leave the rest of the league? Sure you might see the occasionally Everton in the Champions League for a season which would be a nice change, but the disparity of income coming in from this competition would just cement another club into a top 4 block year in year out.



The implication is that we are currently by far the most successful team in the Country, if you take away Chelsea/Man City we'll have walked the league for 7 years in a row (minus the odd challenge by Liverpool). If you then took away the debt as well the gap would be widened, unless we would just be letting over half a billion sit in the bank. I'm not saying we would have signed every player under the sun, but it is common knowledge that we can't offer the wages that Chelsea & City offer, but can substantially out-pay every other team in the league. Also there is no evidence that we spend substantially less than we have available each season, I'd say we spend exactly what we have.

Everton's prospects without Chelsea and City would still be tiny at best. They'd have a similar chance of establishing themselves in the elite than the likes of Sevilla or Betis in Spain, who are currently more than 45 points behind the leaders.

A top 4 would be established without City/Chelsea and they would get richer season on season with Champions League money and Champions League exposure boosting their Commercial income. Your assertion that Everton are one of a dozen clubs that can no longer to hope to compete at the top is in my opinion total fantasy. Irrespective of City and Chelsea their wage budget would be dwarfed by ours (and Liverpool/Arsenal's), as would their points tally. The best they could have hoped for is the occasional Champions League swansong season.

It's no coincidence that the fans of the teams that would benefit most from City/Chelsea disappearing are the ones saying it is unethical. Vested interest.




So Aston Villa, another sugar daddy team would have benefited from no sugar daddies? I find that hard to believe.

Half a billion in the bank

 

[Crustanoid]

I can't believe anyone couldn't be disgusted by the prospect of the biggest european and two biggest english prizes being acquired by financial doping. We've reached a moment where football is now dictated by which mea-rich owner can throw the most stupid amounts of money on success with the by-product of catastrophic wage inflation and unprecedented player/agent power. It's the final confirmation of football being fecked at the top level, perhaps irreversably

 

[Trionz]

Arsenal are the club with the second highest turnover in the Country (and therefore second placed to benefit from the aforementioned boom). They can do something about it for the same reasons Liverpool and to a lesser extent Spurs can.

The Boom happen between 1991-1999 right. Arsenal were inconsistent during that period. Often toggling between 5-14 spots in league.
Arsenal began the club with second highest turnover after they switched to Emirates which was after 2005.

The Boom was already in place and benefitting each club in equal proportion compared to Arsenal. While Arsenal with Wenger capitalised; Newcastle, Blackburn(remember you guys used to compete with them for titles), Everton couldn't & didn't became a sustainable & consistent club like Arsenal.

What Arsenal has done is proper management from every angle possible. (but lacked proper negotiation in commercial deals.)

The fact remains however that without City/Chelsea United would be 19 points ahead of our nearest rivals this season and cumulatively we would have won each of the last 7 seasons by a total of 101 points over Arsenal (over 14 per season on average). Now if Arsenal were and are that far behind, where would that leave the rest of the league? Sure you might see the occasionally Everton in the Champions League for a season which would be a nice change, but the disparity of income coming in from this competition would just cement another club into a top 4 block year in year out.

???

If the league were without City & Chelsea's riches, won't Arsenal be collecting different combination of points & not be that far off?

Arsenal didn't win against Chelsea for a long time, till last season. City beat us twice this season and Surely if they were not rich, Arsenal won't find it as difficult.

Point average means nothing.

 

[Trionz]

we'll have walked the league for 7 years in a row

How?

 

[RedRover]

Are you bother to read this thread at all? It's been pointed out, repeatedly, with masses of evidence, that City are not "doing the same." There is no comparison between United's spending at any point in our history with what City have done in the last four years, none whatsoever. Anyone who makes the comparison is either wilfully ignorant or pushing an agenda.



Last season was United's most costly summer ever. We do still spend big sometimes, as big as we ever have, almost literally nothing has changed about our approach to transfers.

This ignores the fact that the game has changed exponentially over the last decade to fifteen years. City have spent much more money - because they had to in order to break the top four. In years gone by the teams at the top were fairly fluid (Blackburn, Newcastle, Villa, Norwich and various others mounted semi serious title bids) - in the later part of the last decade it hasn't been the case and the top four has become so entrenched that any club without huge sums of money simply could not compete.

In terms of transfers we'll hve to agree to disagree - Young was bought as his contract was running down, De Gea is very young for a keeper and represents good value, as does Jones (both have significant sell on value, and as youngsterswon't be on huge wages) - all good signings but in my view not the top quality established players we need to slot in and replace the likes of Giggs and Scholes.

Maybe these tranfers do "fit the mould" - up and coming players, but in the past the club had quaility is spades with the golden generation, Keane et al. Those players are now either gone, or not long for PL football - so its a new situation, requiring (in my view) decisive action - only it seems that we don't have the money to deal with it.

 

[peterstorey]

What Arsenal has done is proper management from every angle possible. (but lacked proper negotiation in commercial deals.)

A lot of criticism is leveled at Edelman but he needed to frontload the deals to get the debt down in the early stages. If he hadn't done that then the problems with the property deal would potentially have been worse.

 

[RedRover]

We were at the top at a time when media and Commercial revenues had boomed and we took full advantage. Yes, we were at the top because of our success, but should that mean that no-one ever has the right to compete on the basis that they haven't been as successful in the past? With the disparity in income in the league as it currently stands there is no chance that even the likes of Arsenal could compete with us if we were debt-free, in 2011 our turnover was nearly 1.5x Arsenal's and our net profit before tax, interest etc was 2.38x higher than Arsenal's. The Premier League would be like Scotland if Rangers were liquidated.

You're ideology seems to be that clubs who are historically big and successful because they were in the right place at the right time (or "earned it") deserve to big perpetually successful.

The one question I would like anyone who holds this view to answer is what kind of miracle would say Everton have to perform to be able to compete with us for years to come, and how long would it take (without getting into unbelievable amounts of debt).

This is the root of it for me - esentially some fans who are moaning about new money in the game don't like the fact that the status quo has been challenged - they liked it better when United were the richest and the best.

The point re an Everton is a good one - Newcastle are a good example. A good season this year and some of their players are likely to be poicked off by the big four - because financially they can't compete,and they'll be back in mid table before long.

 

[finneh]

The Boom happen between 1991-1999 right. Arsenal were inconsistent during that period. Often toggling between 5-14 spots in league.
Arsenal began the club with second highest turnover after they switched to Emirates which was after 2005.

The Boom was already in place and benefitting each club in equal proportion compared to Arsenal. While Arsenal with Wenger capitalised; Newcastle, Blackburn(remember you guys used to compete with them for titles), Everton couldn't & didn't became a sustainable & consistent club like Arsenal.

What Arsenal has done is proper management from every angle possible. (but lacked proper negotiation in commercial deals.)

???

If the league were without City & Chelsea's riches, won't Arsenal be collecting different combination of points & not be that far off?

Arsenal didn't win against Chelsea for a long time, till last season. City beat us twice this season and Surely if they were not rich, Arsenal won't find it as difficult.

Point average means nothing.

The boom has been pretty consistent for the last 15-20 years (which is almost certainly curving off now), first it was the original Premier League Sky TV packages, then the exponential increases in European TV deals and prize money and finally the overseas Premier League TV deals.

The likes of Newcastle, Blackburn (who were also run by a sugar daddy) etc gambled on expensive signings, rather than infrastructure. Arsenal were and are well run and deserve credit for being where they are. The problem is that good management can only take you so far... Arsenal have had great management from Wenger and great management from a board level and yet can't even close to compete with United. Spurs and Everton likewise, lets not pretend that it's only the last 5-6 years that these clubs haven't been competing for honours.

Arsenal would be collecting slightly different point tallies without City/Chelsea, but the fact remains that playing identical opposition over the past 7 seasons we are 101 points ahead of you, which is domination of an unprecedented level.

Maybe walked 7 league titles was a slight exaggeration, as there have been 1-2 relatively close challenges from outside City/Chelsea. Probably walked 5 and deservedly won 2.

 

[Trionz]

A lot of criticism is leveled at Edelman but he needed to frontload the deals to get the debt down in the early stages. If he hadn't done that then the problems with the property deal would potentially have been worse.

True.

The boom has been pretty consistent for the last 15-20 years (which is almost certainly curving off now), first it was the original Premier League Sky TV packages, then the exponential increases in European TV deals and prize money and finally the overseas Premier League TV deals.

The likes of Newcastle, Blackburn (who were also run by a sugar daddy) etc gambled on expensive signings, rather than infrastructure. Arsenal were and are well run and deserve credit for being where they are. The problem is that good management can only take you so far... Arsenal have had great management from Wenger and great management from a board level and yet can't even close to compete with United. Spurs and Everton likewise, lets not pretend that it's only the last 5-6 years that these clubs haven't been competing for honours.

Arsenal would be collecting slightly different point tallies without City/Chelsea, but the fact remains that playing identical opposition over the past 7 seasons we are 101 points ahead of you, which is domination of an unprecedented level.

Maybe walked 7 league titles was a slight exaggeration, as there have been 1-2 relatively close challenges from outside City/Chelsea. Probably walked 5 and deservedly won 2.

We did & then changed our philosophy to suit the stadium debt and apparently planned to be cautious with our transfers.
It was timed with Chelsea's emergence.
It won't be long before we can be at the level where United were before Glazers.

Everyclub deserve the same environment to benefit from that Arsenal once received when Wenger arrived.
Is it fair to other clubs that they won't get to have a chance like Arsenal got & make something out of it?

The likes of Newcastle, Blackburn (who were also run by a sugar daddy) etc gambled on expensive signings, rather than infrastructure.

Well, then that was mismanagement, but they did get the chance, didn't they?

Maybe walked 7 league titles was a slight exaggeration, as there have been 1-2 relatively close challenges from outside City/Chelsea. Probably walked 5 and deservedly won 2

Bayern Munich is richest club in Germany. Second/Third in World ranking in terms of profitability, so rich that they can lure away a Schalke extremist to become their no.1; yet they didn't walked 5 league titles in a row.
It didn't take sugar daddies to breach their stronghold.


Imagine if City & Chelsea were in Bundesliga, can you imagine Dortmund establishing themselves?
I don't, because as soon as they observe how well their players were doing, they wouldn't let them stay there a year longer.

Arsenal would be collecting slightly different point tallies without City/Chelsea, but the fact remains that playing identical opposition over the past 7 seasons we are 101 points ahead of you, which is domination of an unprecedented level.

If City & Chelsea were not rich, Arsenal would have amassed different point tallies & might have won the league couple of times. Or Someone else would have. No way you guys would have won everything.

Chelsea took Cole from us, City took away few players. Also They limited the kind of players we can approach with them inflating the market & wages.
How many players did United lose to Chelsea & City?

If they were not here, Arsenal would have had stronger team & over those 7 season amassed much much more points.

 

[Waltraute]

This is the bit I've never got myself, with Abramovich as well, for all of the money spent on buying and propping up Chelsea and City these people could have bought United far cheaper and had a far more prestigious brand to play with.

They want to be saviours and legends.

They want to be needed, and they want to have a place at the High Table without their business practices/politics being too closely scrutinised.

Buying United would achieve nothing but maintaining the status quo in terms of on-pitch success -- which they wouldn't be credited for anyway -- a whole host of animosity from the support, and 10.000 journalists digging in to dish the dirt.

 

[finneh]

We did & then changed our philosophy to suit the stadium debt and apparently planned to be cautious with our transfers.
It was timed with Chelsea's emergence.
It won't be long before we can be at the level where United were before Glazers.

Everyclub deserve the same environment to benefit from that Arsenal once received when Wenger arrived.
Is it fair to other clubs that they won't get to have a chance like Arsenal got & make something out of it?

Well, then that was mismanagement, but they did get the chance, didn't they?

Bayern Munich is richest club in Germany. Second/Third in World ranking in terms of profitability, so rich that they can lure away a Schalke extremist to become their no.1; yet they didn't walked 5 league titles in a row.
It didn't take sugar daddies to breach their stronghold.

Imagine if City & Chelsea were in Bundesliga, can you imagine Dortmund establishing themselves?
I don't, because as soon as they observe how well their players were doing, they wouldn't let them stay there a year longer.

If City & Chelsea were not rich, Arsenal would have amassed different point tallies & might have won the league couple of times. Or Someone else would have. No way you guys would have won everything.

Chelsea took Cole from us, City took away few players. Also They limited the kind of players we can approach with them inflating the market & wages.
How many players did United lose to Chelsea & City?

If they were not here, Arsenal would have had stronger team & over those 7 season amassed much much more points.

As I said before Arsenal deserve immense credit for being arguably the best run club in the Country. They have invested in the correct areas including their youth setup and a new stadium, however how many teams can viably do that? With or without Chelsea/City do you think Everton would have a new stadium and a turnover to compete with the bigger clubs? With or without City/Chelsea won't the bigger clubs pick off the other clubs' players at will?

The only difference is that United would have their pick of essentially any player who wants to stay in or come to the Premier League. Arsenal broke their wage structure and offered you £100k? How's £140k sound? The only difference between the situation with City/Chelsea and without it for Arsenal is that they are closer to us now than they would have been, but also would be nailed on second every season.

Also you are slightly wrong. Every club had the same environment to benefit as Arsenal once did when Wenger arrived. This window of opportunity where the playing field was far more even has now gone. Put the Wenger of 15 years ago in charge of Everton today, irrespective of sugar daddies and they wouldn't be in the same position, not even close. Moyes (a very good manager) has been there over a decade, 5 years of which were pretty unaffected by sugar daddies and he has achieved one Champions League finish.

And re: Bayern Munich, you have missed the most glaringly obvious reason for their lack of dominance. They've had 7 managers in 7 seasons and 17 since Ferguson joined United. If Alex Ferguson had been Bayern Munich manager for the last 25 years I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that he'd have won 20+ league titles instead of their current 12.

I also hate this suggestion that "City inflate wages for everyone". They only inflate the wages for players that they acquire. I said in another thread, Sagna or Carrick aren't going to say to Wenger/Fergie: "pay me the £150k I could earn at City", because City don't want to sign them. City and Chelsea only have a squad of 25.

United lost as many players to Chelsea and City as we have to Real, Barcelona and historically Italian teams. If we can't meet their wages, they go elsewhere, whether that's to City, Italy, Spain, China or the United States it is pretty immaterial.

In terms of player departures the amount of money City have overpaid for Arsenal players you should be writing them a thank you card. If reinvested properly you should have a far better team because of City. Far better them than Barcelona who unsettled your captain for years and eventually manipulated a deal where he left for half his value.

 

[2Bullish]

As I said before Arsenal deserve immense credit for being arguably the best run club in the Country. They have invested in the correct areas including their youth setup and a new stadium, however how many teams can viably do that? With or without Chelsea/City do you think Everton would have a new stadium and a turnover to compete with the bigger clubs? With or without City/Chelsea won't the bigger clubs pick off the other clubs' players at will?

The only difference is that United would have their pick of essentially any player who wants to stay in or come to the Premier League. Arsenal broke their wage structure and offered you £100k? How's £140k sound? The only difference between the situation with City/Chelsea and without it for Arsenal is that they are closer to us now than they would have been, but also nailed on second every season.

Also you are slightly wrong. Every club had the same environment to benefit as Arsenal once did when Wenger arrived. This window of opportunity where the playing field was far more even has now gone. Put the Wenger of 15 years ago in charge of Everton today, irrespective or sugar daddies and they wouldn't be in the same position, not even close. Moyes (a very good manager) has been there over a decade, 5 years of which were pretty unaffected by sugar daddies and he has achieved one Champions League finish.

And re: Bayern Munich, you have missed the most glaringly obvious reason for their lack of dominance. They've had 7 managers in 7 seasons and 17 since Ferguson joined United. If Alex Ferguson had been Bayern Munich manager for the last 25 years I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that he'd have won 20+ league titles instead of their current 12.

I also hate this suggestion that "City inflate wages for everyone". They only inflate the wages for players that they acquire. I said in another thread, Sagna or Carrick aren't going to say to Wenger/Fergie: "pay me the £150k I could earn at City", because City don't want to sign them. City and Chelsea only have a squad of 25.

United lost as many players to Chelsea and City as we have to Real, Barcelona and historically Italian teams. If we can't meet their wages, they go elsewhere, whether that's to City, Italy, Spain, China or the United States it is pretty immaterial.

In terms of player departures the amount of money City have overpaid for Arsenal players you should be writing them a thank you card. If reinvested properly you should have a far better team because of City. Far better them than Barcelona who unsettled your captain for years and eventually manipulated a deal where he left for half his value.

Good post but if Arsenal are arguably the best run club in the country, i'll take a bit of mismanagement and a trophy anyday.

 

[Trionz]

As I said before Arsenal deserve immense credit for being arguably the best run club in the Country. They have invested in the correct areas including their youth setup and a new stadium, however how many teams can viably do that? With or without Chelsea/City do you think Everton would have a new stadium and a turnover to compete with the bigger clubs? With or without City/Chelsea won't the bigger clubs pick off the other clubs' players at will?
The only difference is that United would have their pick of essentially any player who wants to stay in or come to the Premier League. Arsenal broke their wage structure and offered you £100k? How's £140k sound? The only difference between the situation with City/Chelsea and without it for Arsenal is that they are closer to us now than they would have been, but also would be nailed on second every season.

Then They deserve to have that priviledge because they worked their way to have the attraction of players.

Chelsea & specially City don't deserve that attraction.

Also you are slightly wrong. Every club had the same environment to benefit as Arsenal once did when Wenger arrived. This window of opportunity where the playing field was far more even has now gone. Put the Wenger of 15 years ago in charge of Everton today, irrespective of sugar daddies and they wouldn't be in the same position, not even close. Moyes (a very good manager) has been there over a decade, 5 years of which were pretty unaffected by sugar daddies and he has achieved one Champions League finish.

Why Not?

About Moyes, He guided Everton to Top 4 in 2005-06.
Now he doesn't have a chance ever.

Yes. Every Club had that opportunity.
I don't know why you want that 'had' to never be 'have'.

And re: Bayern Munich, you have missed the most glaringly obvious reason for their lack of dominance. They've had 7 managers in 7 seasons and 17 since Ferguson joined United. If Alex Ferguson had been Bayern Munich manager for the last 25 years I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that he'd have won 20+ league titles instead of their current 12.

Whatever. They have a pool of world class talents in their disposal.
With the same ever changing managers, they have reached 2 CL finals in 3 years.
They are a team well capable of dominating Bundesliga on paper but football is not played on paper.

Similarly, United won't win all PL titles, if there is no City or Chelsea challenge. Someone else will come along.

I also hate this suggestion that "City inflate wages for everyone". They only inflate the wages for players that they acquire. I said in another thread, Sagna or Carrick aren't going to say to Wenger/Fergie: "pay me the £150k I could earn at City", because City don't want to sign them. City and Chelsea only have a squad of 25.

Dude, Arsenal lost Mata to Chelsea, this very summer.
Arsenal lost Nasri/United couldn't buy Nasri because City offered better wages.

They just don't only inflate the wages for players that they acquire...
They inflate it for Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, & all the clubs who have a chance of getting a class player. If a player is aware, he is on similar ability level as Lescott, he is going to fecking ask for 70k least and even that is not affordable for some Top clubs.

United lost as many players to Chelsea and City as we have to Real, Barcelona and historically Italian teams. If we can't meet their wages, they go elsewhere, whether that's to City, Italy, Spain, China or the United States it is pretty immaterial.
In terms of player departures the amount of money City have overpaid for Arsenal players you should be writing them a thank you card. If reinvested properly you should have a far better team because of City. Far better them than Barcelona who unsettled your captain for years and eventually manipulated a deal where he left for half his value.

Who? Veron? Mikel?
Who else? Massive players they were for you, weren't they?

We lost Cole(best left back in world) to begin with; where he was tapped behind the scenes.


-----------------


I don't know why are we even engaged in such huge discussion.
My point is without Chelsea & City, more clubs would have benefitted.

Simple question would be-
If City were not rich, how many CL places would have been available for clubs which are well run?

Undoubtedly 'One'.
City were never even wee bit close to Top 4, but Liverpool & Tottenham have suffered due to them.
That one spot would have been up for grabs for everyone & whosoever got that spot would have benefitted from CL.