Have state funded oil clubs ruined football?

[croadyman]

I know people slag off fan channels and when you talk about Goldbridge it's a valid argument, however was very refreshing to hear Joe Smith from Stretford Paddock talk from the heart about how the oil trio have near destroyed all the old euro giants. I do not give a shite if this sounds over dramatic but if this carries on then it really makes we want to lose that love of the game

 

[Noodle]

might wanna check how Romans wealth was acquired


exactly! Which is why I don’t get why Chelsea and city fans puts themselves through coming onto a United forum into threads like these to repeat the same stuff they’ve been spouting for years. You’re never going to get a positive response. No United fan is gonna go “you know what, you’re right, Chelsea and city’s money has been great for football and is just like how United used to spend” etc etc.

I can accept our initial splurge played a big part in disrupting the markets back in 2003/04. I can also accept that we were a top 4 club at the time but that the investment projected us up a level.

I can't accept moral lectures from a club who keep claiming to be unable to keep up with us when they have a net spend that is more than double ours in the past 10 years and higher than ours over the last 20 seasons (£1.81bn spent and £651m sold = £1.16bn). You've just spent £110m+ on two players, you spent £90m to smash the transfer record to get Pogba and dozens of posts on here seem to claim Utd can't keep up, it's baffling hypocrisy no matter what you think about the origins of the money. If the insinuation in the post is that it's the money that's destroying football rather than the source then Utd are just as culpable, as is any team that is splurging, City, Utd, Chelsea, PSG, Barca, Real...

I can accept our part in 'ruining' football, can you?

 

[Zaphod2319]

I know people slag off fan channels and when you talk about Goldbridge it's a valid argument, however was very refreshing to hear Joe Smith from Stretford Paddock talk from the heart about how the oil trio have near destroyed all the old euro giants. I do not give a shite if this sounds over dramatic but if this carries on then it really makes we want to lose that love of the game

Those giants needed to be destroyed for the good of the game. Who wants to see the same three teams always winning?

 

[stevoc]

Ah I see eight pages in and there’s still a few who can’t seem to work out why clubs backed by an entire countries oil wealth is seen differently to self made millionaires acquiring football clubs and supporting them with their own personal wealth.
There is obviously a clear fecking difference between the spending of Wigan, Villa, Leicester etc to city, Chelsea and PSG. One set of these clubs has the financial backing of a few businessmen, the other set are backed by an entire countries resources.

This seems really obvious. Chelsea and city fans, why do you continue with this? And get all defensive? Why do you insist on these whataboutisms? Just accept it and embrace it. Who cares? Enjoy your trophies and stop whining. Nobody is ever going to like, accept or respect you. Let alone Fecking Man United fans who have more reasons than any other club to dislike oil clubs.

Some seem a bit too dim to make that distinction others obviously know full well but won't let it get in the way of their agenda/trolling.

 

[TheReligion]

Nice to see United getting Ronaldo home and City being left feeling small again.

Mbappe to Real will be nice too.

 

[Botim]

Eerily quiet here now that United have the highest net spend in Europe. And it's not close either.

That is, until Real drop 180 million on Mbappé off course.

 

[duffer]

Eerily quiet here now that United have the highest net spend in Europe. And it's not close either.

That is, until Real drop 180 million on Mbappé off course.

Haven't Arsenal spent more?

 

[Skåre Willoch]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I found it interesting.

2 out of 5 are petroclubs.
1 out of 5 is owned by an oligarch.
2 out of 5 are the usual spanish sides, with (at least) one of them being in big trouble.

 

[Botim]

Weirdly, that 96 page report doesn't mention actual totals. They also have Atletico ahead of United, that can't be right?

The most interesting facts I thought were:

- that the top 30 clubs account for 47% of total transfer spend (= as much as the next 4109 clubs combined )
- that solidarity payments ($38 million) haven't risen since 2011 (so have de facto declined, taking inflation into account), but agent fees have risen from $131m to $640m

Those are the real cause of the biggest problem in football: the ever increasing inequality between clubs/leagues

 

[stevoc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I found it interesting.

2 out of 5 are petroclubs.
1 out of 5 is owned by an oligarch.
2 out of 5 are the usual spanish sides, with (at least) one of them being in big trouble.

Yeah but sure United have the biggest net spend in Europe this summer or something.

 

[Raoul]

Not just state funded oil clubs but sugar daddy ownership in general, is gradually destroying football. Everything from Roman onwards basically.

 

[Zaphod2319]

Ruining it for the teams that were ruining it for everybody else maybe!! Roman save football for all!

 

[stevoc]

It's interesting in the report it says over this 10 year period City have signed 130 players compared to United 68(almost double), Arsenal 76 and Liverpool 78 respectively. Seems like a huge turnover of players over such a relatively short period of time. Even Chelsea only signed 95 in the same period. Lends credence to the theory that City just buy 2-3 players for a position in the hope one works out and then ship the ones that don't out. Where as other clubs have to hang on to some players who don't work out as well as hoped and just make do.

 

[padr81]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I found it interesting.

2 out of 5 are petroclubs.
1 out of 5 is owned by an oligarch.
2 out of 5 are the usual spanish sides, with (at least) one of them being in big trouble.

I'd be curious to see last 5 years

 

[van Persie]

Ruining it for the teams that were ruining it for everybody else maybe!! Roman save football for all!

You mean by turning football into some lottery game? These oil funded clubs will always be trash in my eyes anyways

 

[Tom Van Persie]

I see Chelsea fans are living up to their reputation in this thread.

 

[Botim]

It's very annoying that this report doesn't contain any actual numbers, aside from the number of transfers. No total spend, no total earned, no net spend...

Also, their list is different from what you find on Transfermarkt (who are usually pretty reliable). This would be the top 10 for 2010/11 to 2020/21 according to TM:

I'd be curious to see last 5 years

2016/17 to 2021/22:

The most damning numbers are in the last column, which shows how bad Utd are at selling players. Also, I'd be fuming if I were an Arsenal fan.

 

[Bole Top]

I love how this thread is basically about which clubs have the right to "ruin" football, less about whether the football is actually ruined or not.

 

[noodlehair]

If it wasn't a rich Russian or Saudi, it would just be another American investor seeking to suck profit out of the club and ring fence it from the risk of fair competition, or something similar.

I think the later is doing more to ruin football. No one wants one club having a massive advantage due to being oil funded while most of the others struggle, but that doesn't actually stop fair competition, it just gives one team an advantage that in theory any other team could also stumble upon. It hasn't ruined competition in the PL. There's 4-5 teams who could win this season. Leicester were competitive last season.

What does ruin football is greedy clubs creating systems where they are protected from fair competition, and then in the process ruin the competition. Ala what's happened in La Liga with Real and Barcelona. Someone with endless money could buy out Villarreal for example and they still wouldn't be able to compete due to the financial system that's in place. Hence the drive for the super league now the big two have realised they've fecked everything up.

 

[stevoc]

It's very annoying that this report doesn't contain any actual numbers, aside from the number of transfers. No total spend, no total earned, no net spend...

Also, their list is different from what you find on Transfermarkt (who are usually pretty reliable). This would be the top 10 for 2010/11 to 2020/21 according to TM:







The most damning numbers are in the last column, which shows how bad Utd are at selling players. Also, I'd be fuming if I were an Arsenal fan.

The UK site at least is pretty unreliable for English transfers, they do wacky things with exchange rates for older transfers if I remember.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

Again, not sure where to post this, but since it's about Qatar and corruption, I'll post it here.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Someone with endless money could buy out Villarreal for example and they still wouldn't be able to compete due to the financial system that's in place.

Fernando Roig Alfonso (born 25 June 1947) is a Spanish billionaire businessman, the owner and president of the Spanish football club Villarreal CF and owner of 9% of the Spanish supermarket chain Mercadona.
As of October 2015, Forbes estimated his net worth at US$1.18 billion.

 

[Offside!]

From an English standpoint I would say the likes of Chelsea and City have helped save the premier division along with the improvements at Leicester and Liverpool.

In the first 10 years of the PL United's stranglehold was only broken 3 times (once by Jack Walker's £m's and twice by Arsenal) The same Arsenal who went into debt to build a new stadium so that they could compete with the money generated by Old Trafford.

In the next 10 years United continued to dominate and won 5 more titles but had more competition from Chelsea and latterly City. Arsenal had faded due in no small part to the burden of their new stadium.

We are now 9 years into the next 10 year cycle and City have 4 titles, 2 for Chelsea and 1 each for United, Leicester and Liverpool. That's 5 different winners in 9 years.

And for this season, on paper at least, we have 4 genuine challengers for the title. Football is a competitive sport and if judged by a variety of winners then the sport is in better shape than in the first 10 years when United were in danger of turning the PL into the BL.

Obviously a United fan would love to see 7 titles in 10 years again but to argue it would be good for football is a stretch.