Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
943
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
Those 3 clubs specifically who knows but there was nothing stopping any of them or any other club from hiring the right manager, making smart signings and investing in their academies and producing top talents to compete with the best. You know the way teams used to get to the top for over a century. It's not as if Chelsea were a tiny club that had never won anything pre Roman either. Sorry mate but this idea that the only way to become a top team and club pre 2003 was to get bought by a billionaire is nonsense. As I said it's probably only the case now ironically because of the 3 financially doped clubs inflating the market to such an extent that virtually no club can keep up with them.

United would have had a down turn post Fergie even if City and Chelsea weren't around as we've been in a mess. It simply would have been other clubs winning the league, the fact City and Chelsea have won the league in 6 of the 8 seasons post Fergie says it all. Liverpool only managed to win one by hiring the right manager, making smart signings and producing some top players from their academy. Despite being one of the worlds biggest clubs that's the only way they can compete with City. What hope does any other club have?



The Champions League has lead to the concentration of wealth in a few clubs in each league over the last 30 years. And the Champions League of course has been shaped over the last 2 decades by big clubs strong arming UEFA into more and more concessions that generate money for them so UEFA can stave off the threat of a breakaway Super League. A Super League which teams like Real, Juve, Barca, United and Liverpool have wanted because FFP has failed (and was never effective) and they can't compete financially with the bottomless pits of wealth flowing from Gas/Oil rich nation states.
Well I just look at the leagues in Europe where this didn't happen and see:

Italy - Juve - 9 in a row, only broken this year
Germany - Bayern - 9 in a row and counting
Spain - Three teams have only won the league in the past 17 years and of those 17 only 2 didn't go to Real or Barca.

France is really the only exception, they did get fecked over by PSG as that league always had different winners.

For me, it is pretty obvious that the PL would've become like Italy/Germany/Spain. I mean it was close to being like that from 92. I mean, didn't the PL have the least different amount of winners of a top European league between 1992-2004?

Of course there would've been a wobble post SAF but I think it would've been that, a wobble, everything else indicates leagues become monopolized.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Sorry mate but this idea that the only way to become a top team and club pre 2003 was to get bought by a billionaire is nonsense.
Well I just look at the leagues in Europe where this didn't happen and see:

Italy - Juve - 9 in a row, only broken this year
Germany - Bayern - 9 in a row and counting
Spain - Three teams have only won the league in the past 17 years and of those 17 only 2 didn't go to Real or Barca.

France is really the only exception, they did get fecked over by PSG as that league always had different winners.
So you are refuting my claim that you didn't need a billionaire owner to get to the top of English football before 2003. By saying that post 2003 in completely different countries and leagues that teams won 9 in a row in Italy and Germany over the last decade and that only 3 teams have won in Spain. Well done.

For me, it is pretty obvious that the PL would've become like Italy/Germany/Spain. I mean it was close to being like that from 92. I mean, didn't the PL have the least different amount of winners of a top European league between 1992-2004?

Of course there would've been a wobble post SAF but I think it would've been that, a wobble, everything else indicates leagues become monopolized.
English football has always been more competitive than those leagues. United were only so dominant because we had a once in a generation manager, arguably the greatest of all time. Had Ferguson not been in charge 1992-2013 then I seriously doubt we win 13 out of 21 league titles. Not many managers could have kept a team competing at the top of Engalnd and Europe with such a restrictive wage structure and then compete with finacially doped teams like Chelsea and City while operating on a budget because of the massive debt placed on the club. Without Ferguson United couldn't have dominated the way they did from 93 to 13.

And for me it's pretty obvious that now more than ever there's a danger we're heading towards a 1 team league and it's not far off City winning 7-8-9 titles in a row. Especially since they won't even have to pretend to comply with FFP anymore.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
943
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
So you are refuting my claim that you didn't need a billionaire owner to get to the top of English football before 2003. By saying that post 2003 in completely different countries and leagues that teams won 9 in a row in Italy and Germany over the last decade and that only 3 teams have won in Spain. Well done.



English football has always been more competitive than those leagues. United were only so dominant because we had a once in a generation manager, arguably the greatest of all time. Had Ferguson not been in charge 1992-2013 then I seriously doubt we win 13 out of 21 league titles. Not many managers could have kept a team competing at the top of Engalnd and Europe with such a restrictive wage structure and then compete with finacially doped teams like Chelsea and City while operating on a budget because of the massive debt placed on the club. Without Ferguson United couldn't have dominated the way they did from 93 to 13.

And for me it's pretty obvious that now more than ever there's a danger we're heading towards a 1 team league and it's not far off City winning 7-8-9 titles in a row. Especially since they won't even have to pretend to comply with FFP anymore.
No what I was saying is that from the late 1980's through to the 1990's football had a seismic shift that began to concentrate the wealth into the hands of the established elite clubs. Three key events are important here:

1) Formation of the CL
2) The formation of the PL
3) The explosion in TV rights money

Hence, what happened is that teams that were most successful during this period essentially gave themselves a massive financial injection that took them away from the rest the the clubs in their leagues and cemented the top 4 leagues superiority over the rest of Europe.

Hence, owing to the amount of power the big clubs got from this shift, it required outside money to break into it once it was done.

Another point that you seem to lose is the arguement that the Billionaire clubs/money has made things more competitive as:

1) There have been more winners of the league since they came along than before it.
2) Of the three clubs to win the league pre-Billionaire spending, Blackburn essentially had to do a 90's equivalent of it to win the league.
3) Leagues where they have not had a Billionaire investor have seen their leagues become completely dominated by one, or two (in the case of Spain) clubs as those clubs have been able to complete cement their position.

As I initially said, it is hard to complain about Billionaire owners when clubs had no real chance of competing unless they went that route (feck me even Blackburn had to do it). Now is this perfect, no? However, what other options are there? FFP was a joke, as it was simply a cartel system, and a hard salary cap is never going to be agreed (this would actually be fair.)
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
No what I was saying is that from the late 1980's through to the 1990's football had a seismic shift that began to concentrate the wealth into the hands of the established elite clubs. Three key events are important here:

1) Formation of the CL
2) The formation of the PL
3) The explosion in TV rights money

Hence, what happened is that teams that were most successful during this period essentially gave themselves a massive financial injection that took them away from the rest the the clubs in their leagues and cemented the top 4 leagues superiority over the rest of Europe.

Hence, owing to the amount of power the big clubs got from this shift, it required outside money to break into it once it was done.

Another point that you seem to lose is the arguement that the Billionaire clubs/money has made things more competitive as:

1) There have been more winners of the league since they came along than before it.
2) Of the three clubs to win the league pre-Billionaire spending, Blackburn essentially had to do a 90's equivalent of it to win the league.
3) Leagues where they have not had a Billionaire investor have seen their leagues become completely dominated by one, or two (in the case of Spain) clubs as those clubs have been able to complete cement their position.

As I initially said, it is hard to complain about Billionaire owners when clubs had no real chance of competing unless they went that route (feck me even Blackburn had to do it). Now is this perfect, no? However, what other options are there? FFP was a joke, as it was simply a cartel system, and a hard salary cap is never going to be agreed (this would actually be fair.)
1, 90-00 Arsenal, Leeds, United, Blackburn.

00-10 United, Arsenal, Chelsea. Post Roman in this decade only United could compete with Chelsea.

10-20 United, City, Chelsea, Leicester and Liverpool. Bar Leicester which was a fluke and probably won't happen again only United at the start of the decade and Liverpool right at the end stopped City and Chelsea dominating.

Let's see how the next decade goes. Especially if the Saudis buy a team.

2, Blackburn spent no where near the type of money City and Chelsea do. A local businessman done good invested a 20-30 million and his hometown club were able to win the PL. That won't happen again with nation States Bank rolling teams.

3, That's largely to do with the CL. Germany has always been dominated by Bayern to some extent. Same with Barca and Real in Spain. Before Juve Inter won 5 in a row. France is being dominated because of a gulf state buy out.

Arsenal, Blackburn and Newcastle were able to compete fine without billionaire owners in the 90's before Roman came along.

Yes FFP was a joke and City and PSG treated it as such. They'd do the same with a salary cap enforced by UEFA. That's partly why 10 of the clubs wanted a super league with strict financial limits that teams had to agree to
 

SirReginald

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
231
Supports
Chelsea
Well I just look at the leagues in Europe where this didn't happen and see:

Italy - Juve - 9 in a row, only broken this year
Germany - Bayern - 9 in a row and counting
Spain - Three teams have only won the league in the past 17 years and of those 17 only 2 didn't go to Real or Barca.

France is really the only exception, they did get fecked over by PSG as that league always had different winners.

For me, it is pretty obvious that the PL would've become like Italy/Germany/Spain. I mean it was close to being like that from 92. I mean, didn't the PL have the least different amount of winners of a top European league between 1992-2004?

Of course there would've been a wobble post SAF but I think it would've been that, a wobble, everything else indicates leagues become monopolized.
Don’t quite know what the discussion is here but Lyon were pretty dominant for a while before PSG. 2001-2007. That’s almost all of the naughties.
 

Crustanoid

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
18,252
There is only one solution.

Every time at football club is taken over by a plastic, billionaire, cheating, murder-driven owner, they are annexed into a new league system.

Let’s call it the Plastic League

Basically, at the moment, Chelsea, Man City and PSG would have to be moved into the Plastic League. This entails them playing an eternal round robin tournament against each other, segregated from actual football clubs.

The actual football clubs could then get on with a fair competition, where teams are successful through merit,rather than cheating and attempting to cover up gross human rights crimes.

Maybe once a team turns plastic, a new team is created in the actual football league which assumes their name and qualities.

Meanwhile, over at the Plastic League, if Chelsea, Man City and PSG get bored of their eternal round robin competition where they play each other endlessly in a plastic eternal round robin, they might want to introduce a cup competition.

The new Plastic Cup would involve Chelsea, Man City and PSG playing each other in an eternal round robin competition.

Meanwhile all the actual football clubs get to bring the integrity, authenticity and joy back to the game we all love.

Win win!
 

sangria

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
41
Don’t quite know what the discussion is here but Lyon were pretty dominant for a while before PSG. 2001-2007. That’s almost all of the naughties.
Entirely self-sustained though, from players signed cheaply and sold for far more. No one has a problem with that model.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,471
1, 90-00 Arsenal, Leeds, United, Blackburn.

00-10 United, Arsenal, Chelsea. Post Roman in this decade only United could compete with Chelsea.

10-20 United, City, Chelsea, Leicester and Liverpool. Bar Leicester which was a fluke and probably won't happen again only United at the start of the decade and Liverpool right at the end stopped City and Chelsea dominating.

Let's see how the next decade goes. Especially if the Saudis buy a team.

2, Blackburn spent no where near the type of money City and Chelsea do. A local businessman done good invested a 20-30 million and his hometown club were able to win the PL. That won't happen again with nation States Bank rolling teams.

3, That's largely to do with the CL. Germany has always been dominated by Bayern to some extent. Same with Barca and Real in Spain. Before Juve Inter won 5 in a row. France is being dominated because of a gulf state buy out.

Arsenal, Blackburn and Newcastle were able to compete fine without billionaire owners in the 90's before Roman came along.

Yes FFP was a joke and City and PSG treated it as such. They'd do the same with a salary cap enforced by UEFA. That's partly why 10 of the clubs wanted a super league with strict financial limits that teams had to agree to
Some decent points, but a strange point about Blackburn. Fees were so much lower then so of course they didn't spend what Chelsea and City do, but at the time they were doing the same level of outspending of rivals. I always think that 5m for Sutton is what really blew the domestic market to bits.

Plus teams didn't use as big a squad in those days so fewer players to buy.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Some decent points, but a strange point about Blackburn. Fees were so much lower then so of course they didn't spend what Chelsea and City do, but at the time they were doing the same level of outspending of rivals. I always think that 5m for Sutton is what really blew the domestic market to bits.

Plus teams didn't use as big a squad in those days so fewer players to buy.
Even taking inflation into account mate Blackburn weren't able to spend 3-4 times what even United could afford to spend in one window let's be honest here.

The biggest outlay in a PL transfer window was I think £50m+ by United in 2001. 2 years later in 2003 Chelsea were spending £150m in a window.

Even 20 years later £150m is a fairly big outlay in one window for even big clubs. Circa the late 90's early 00's it was unprecedented. I don't think City even spent more than that in a window until after Guardiola arrived.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,471
Even taking inflation into account mate Blackburn weren't able to spend 3-4 times what even United could afford to spend in one window let's be honest here.

The biggest outlay in a PL transfer window was I think £50m+ by United in 2001. 2 years later in 2003 Chelsea were spending £150m in a window.

Even 20 years later £150m is a fairly big outlay in one window for even big clubs. Circa the late 90's early 00's it was unprecedented. I don't think City even spent more than that in a window until after Guardiola arrived.

Blackburn spent 8.5m to our 2.3m in 92-93 and then another 8.5m to our 3.75m in 93-94.

That's 17m versus 6m so pretty much 3times what we spent.

Let's not pretend Blackburn didn't very definitely buy their way to the top table.

Even the season after, they shelled 6.5m out on a couple of players while we did the Cole deal, but that kind of equalled out once you took out the Gillespie part, and selling Dublin.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Blackburn spent 8.5m to our 2.3m in 92-93 and then another 8.5m to our 3.75m in 93-94.

That's 17m versus 6m so pretty much 3times what we spent.
Yeah and United spent £9-10m in 89/90 and Liverpool spent £8-9m in 91/92 so as I said Blackburn spent big but they weren't spending 2-3 times what United or Liverpool were able to spend in one window.

Let's not pretend Blackburn didn't very definitely buy their way to the top table.

Even the season after, they shelled 6.5m out on a couple of players while we did the Cole deal, but that kind of equalled out once you took out the Gillespie part, and selling Dublin.
And I never suggested that, I'm simply pointing out that while they did spend big they didn't spend to the level that Chelsea and later City were capable of.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
943
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
1, 90-00 Arsenal, Leeds, United, Blackburn.

00-10 United, Arsenal, Chelsea. Post Roman in this decade only United could compete with Chelsea.

10-20 United, City, Chelsea, Leicester and Liverpool. Bar Leicester which was a fluke and probably won't happen again only United at the start of the decade and Liverpool right at the end stopped City and Chelsea dominating.

Let's see how the next decade goes. Especially if the Saudis buy a team.

2, Blackburn spent no where near the type of money City and Chelsea do. A local businessman done good invested a 20-30 million and his hometown club were able to win the PL. That won't happen again with nation States Bank rolling teams.

3, That's largely to do with the CL. Germany has always been dominated by Bayern to some extent. Same with Barca and Real in Spain. Before Juve Inter won 5 in a row. France is being dominated because of a gulf state buy out.

Arsenal, Blackburn and Newcastle were able to compete fine without billionaire owners in the 90's before Roman came along.

Yes FFP was a joke and City and PSG treated it as such. They'd do the same with a salary cap enforced by UEFA. That's partly why 10 of the clubs wanted a super league with strict financial limits that teams had to agree to
I think you're not taking into consideration the kind of inflation that went on in the late 90's and early 00's which meant Chelsea had to go much higher.

Firstly, when Blackburn won the league the world record fee was £13m and when Newcastle tried, they actually broke the world record fee at £15m.

By the time Chelsea cam along the world record fee was £45.5m, so three times as much as Newcastle and Blackburn. As another poster pointed out, Blackburn also went 3x more than Utd to get close to them in 95, looking at gross figures is really a bit misleading as it doesn't consider the wider football market.

Then, as you point out, if we're looking at decades of different winners things are improving. We can try and predict all we want, but we do not actually know City will win multiple titles in a row. Hence, we have to accept things have improved in regards to competitiveness and this is not replicated in the other big 3 leagues:

Germany

1990-00 - Kaiserslautern, Bermen, Dortmund, Stuttgart, Bayern

00-10 - Dortmund, Stuttgart, Bermen, Wolfsburg, Bayern

10-20 - Dortmund, Bayern

Italy

1990-00 - Sampdoria, Milan, Juventus, Lazio

00-10 - Roma, Milan, Juventus, Inter

10-20 - Milan, Juventus

Spain

1990-00 - Barca, Real, Atleti, Deportivo

00-10 - Madrid, Barca, Valencia

10-20 - Madrid, Barca, Atleti

The PL, is the only league where the competitiveness has improved. Furthermore, in Germany and Italy not only have they gone from 4-5 teams winning in a decade but of the two they have winning in the 10-20 decade the split is 2 v 8 and 1 v 9 respectively.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I think you're not taking into consideration the kind of inflation that went on in the late 90's and early 00's which meant Chelsea had to go much higher.

Firstly, when Blackburn won the league the world record fee was £13m and when Newcastle tried, they actually broke the world record fee at £15m.

By the time Chelsea cam along the world record fee was £45.5m, so three times as much as Newcastle and Blackburn. As another poster pointed out, Blackburn also went 3x more than Utd to get close to them in 95, looking at gross figures is really a bit misleading as it doesn't consider the wider football market.
Wel yeah exactly and Chelsea were able to spend more than 3 times that in one window, it was absolutely unprecendented. The current World record is £200m could you imagine someone buying a club next year and spending £600m in one window?

Well I couldn't but then I also never thought a team would be able spend hundreds of millions in one window back in the early 00's. As my post above yours points out Blackburn spent big they were able to match what United and Liverpool could spend in a window but they could never spend 2-3 times what the bigs clubs could manage like Chelsea did. And they certainly wouldn't have been able to spend the equivelant of 3 times the world transfer record in one window. Which was my point about Blackburn's spending never being on the same level as Chelsea or for the most part City's.
 

Mihai

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
3,855
We need @marukomu in this thread.
 

WeePat

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
3,223
Supports
Chelsea
We have been building a project that isn’t about winning the next PL title, but is about dominating domestically and with that becoming a force in European football and the strongest global brand possible. It is one story if we don’t get Haaland because he stays at Dortmund another year or even if he goes to Real Madrid or Barcelona. It is entirely different if he goes to a domestic rival that literally has just beaten us in a Champions League final. What this does is threaten the project, not the next title. With Tuchel, they have an extremely talented yet ruthless manager that is a perfect match to Roman’s own ruthlessness, as well as money to back any goals. Haaland already is a “face of the Champions League” and will be possibly the superstar in football in the next decade alongside Mbappe (who will probably always have the upper hand for being in a national team that is so talented it will challenge for any World Cup and Euro titles for many cycles to come).

Him going to Chelsea is bound to make Chelsea the face of English football, and this goes beyond, I repeat, whether they win the next PL title or retain the next UCL. And whenever Pep decides to leave us, having a rival so well positioned will be even worse for us. That is why I can’t imagine that the people of our club would be so lazy to think “oh, he’s entertaining the possibility of going to another club” and give up on years of work. Unless we were pursuing Mbappe on the side, the news that Haaland could seriously be going to Chelsea HAS to mean we have to fight for this. Spare me the “this isn’t how we work” line: we work for the dominance and there hasn’t been in the last decade one single situation in which one specific signing could downgrade our status and the landscape in English football. That is why I don’t believe we would allow ourselves to miss on him for a domestic rival by being outspent, because of 1) the true cost of having that dominance threatened 2) would allow for a domino effect in the medium and long term. It is one thing to “settle for Kane” in a scenario in which Haaland isn’t available, it’s entirely different if he is.

And were Haaland to go to Chelsea, we may well be left with signing Kane as a desperate move and attempt at some relevance, but it would be realistically as significant as signing André Silva instead. It makes me cringe with second hand embarrassment to read people keep referring to Kane as the “English captain” as if that carries any weight globally (it’s even more irrelevant than the English national team itself, with all due respect, my British friends!). Of course, if people want to tell themselves that Kane would score more league goals overall for us than Haaland would for Chelsea in his first year (which would be a similar scenario that happened in the Bundesliga and didn’t stop him from being the star there), or stuff like “Tuchel will be fired three months into next season” or insisting that he plays a “defensive style” or whatever, frankly, hilarious bullshit that Pep better than anyone knows all too well isn’t going to be the case, they can tell themselves that if it’s comforting at all, go ahead by all means. Even add in the “but Raiola” cliches, if needed. And as fans, maybe all we should care about is next year’s titles.

But I can’t pretend the horizon wouldn’t look bright with Haaland at Chelsea.