Oil club spending

[M113FF]

PSG - Messi (Free + £650k PW)
City - Grealish (£100m + £369k PW)
Chelsea - Lukaku (£98m + £370k PW)

Figures are what's being widely reported. Likely add ons to factor in to wages too so this is base rate.

Phenomenal stuff. Certainly FFP dead and buried.

Ha .... You've used the discredited Nick Harris figure for the Grealish wage. He used the Telegraph as his "source" only for James Ducker of the Telegraph to tell him on twitter he was out of order... quoted elsewere he is on £210k with achievable bonuses taking him to £250k..... then if he wins CL, POTY, Balon D'Or he's on more.

Lukaku's wage was quoted net. He's on about £20mil gross pa.

 

[pascell]

Indeed. Fans have short memories. Even in my early years as a United fan, they were the ones breaking transfer records. Cole was the best example, but Shearer would have been a United player had they had their way. That was before RVN, Ferdinand and Veron - who was a luxury player, at best given the midfield we had then. Nobody else in the PL, and few teams in Europe could do that.

Clearly the driving force for success was Sir Alex, but being able to outspend your rivals is always going to help. United won the CL with four forwards who would start for every other PL club at that time.

I've seen fans on here justify it by arguing that the club generated it's own money, rather than relying on rich owners. If that makes you feel better, fair enough but I personally don't see the difference. Pre-Abramovich, it wasn't a level playing field so lets not pretend it was. Without the rich owners coming in United would have probably dominated the last fifteen years plus and the PL would be like Germany, or worse.

Personally, with a neutral's hat on, I think the PL is a better product than it was. United (or, more accurately the owners of the club) recognised early that football was going to a be a big business and monetised the brand. Rich owners of other PL clubs, keen to get a piece of the action were inevitable. This is what the game is now, and United benefit from it as much as any other club. They weren't a working mans club even before the Glazers came in, hence why we've got fans all around the globe.

I fully agree

 

[Hester_manc]

No they can't. Only the likes of Man Utd and Bayern could perhaps match the rest but they can only field 11 players. So when City, PSG or Chelsea come calling with high wages, are you gonna say no?

Also, why put the moral onus on footballers?

The only reason the oil clubs are so good is because so many players choose the money. My point is that they will often earn less in clubs like Juventus, Madrid, Munich, Dortmund, Liverpool and United, but many players will still be able to make more money every week, than they can spend in clubs like that, and therefore I do not understand, why they choose to represent an oil club when there are alternativs.

I do not see anything wrong in placing a moral responsibility on the players. After all, it is the players themselves who choose to represent an oil club. It is their choices career-wise, moral choices and sporting choices. Do we not all have a moral responsibility for our choices?

 

[Charrockero]

People saying "these oil clubs have ruined football/are trying to ruin football" have short memories apparently.

Just a few months ago sleazebags like Perez and the Glazers were the first to line up for their own exclusive little competition to hog all the money

SuperLiga is the counter to Oil Clubs.

"Football is for the fans" says Ceferin and goes and rewards Al Khelaifi the chairmancy of the ECA. "Financial Fake Play" is a FIFA-arab controlled body used to continue fotball monopolization and to break opposition.

But well, we have what we deserve, If you guys love football go and watch lower divisions.

 

[VorZakone]

The only reason the oil clubs are so good is because so many players choose the money. My point is that they will often earn less in clubs like Juventus, Madrid, Munich, Dortmund, Liverpool and United, but many players will still be able to make more money every week, than they can spend in clubs like that, and therefore I do not understand, why they choose to represent an oil club when there are alternativs.

I do not see anything wrong in placing a moral responsibility on the players. After all, it is the players themselves who choose to represent an oil club. It is their choices career-wise, moral choices and sporting choices. Do we not all have a moral responsibility for our choices?

You're gonna tell a footballer from Brazil's favelas not to make more money? Some of these players have charities of their own, support their local villages etc. Chelsea is an English football club, you're going to say no to Chelsea as your employer because Abramovich is their owner? Really?

 

[Pretzels81]

Simple. UEFA is corrupt and so is FIFA.

 

[Botim]

Just for some context, transfer spendings in the last 10 years (in €):

Man City 1,63 billion
Chelsea 1,47 billion
Barcelona 1,47 billion
Man United 1,44 billion
Juventus 1,44 billion
PSG 1,39 billion
Atletico M 1,10 billion
Real M 1,07 billion
Liverpool 1,04 billion
Inter Milan 1,01 billion

If you wanna talk net spend, two clubs are far above the rest, and they're both from Manchester (1,09 & 1,04 billion)

 

[Botim]

SuperLiga is the counter to Oil Clubs.

No, it isn't. It's to stop clubs like Leicester from ever sitting at the big boy's table.

A proper counter to the oil clubs would be a salary cap and a more even distribution of money across the football pyramid. But that's the opposite of what clubs like Real and Barca want. They want all the money all the time and can't stand new clubs breaking their hegemony.

 

[chilax]

Another question - to anyone who might know: how's Roman doing these days, money wise? Has he been making the right moves lately? I mean, taking bloody Covid (and bloody Brexit, I guess) into consideration and so forth. What's the verdict on him as a money maker?

Made $2B last year alone, now worth $18.75B (Bloomberg). Helps that his company supplied steel for Trump’s Wall

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I mean currently we seem to be spending by increasing our debts going by all the accounts that have come out over the past 2 years and we still havnt go the full picture of what the pandemic cost us last season. So we can defiantly make a case that we are spending money we haven’t earned.

As for cooking books. Again I don’t know the ins and outs of City’s books. But we have made some pretty hefty payments that don’t show on the wage bill or transfer in out outs. To name a few….Mourinho’s pay off was rumoured to be just short of 20 million, the signing on fee’s for Zlatan, Cavani and Sanchez were all around the 8 figure + mark. We paid Nani to play for sporting for a year as part of the Rojo deal.

Having ago at any other club for there spending with our level of spending just seems hypocritical.

You are missing the point. We payed Jose through the club directly. It was accounted for. Just like our sponsorships are genuine.

One unique covid season does not change the fact that most of our revenue through a large global fanbase. Many of which will never go to Old Trafford. Match day revenue slipped to a lower proportion of income many years ago for us.

Re: City payments. See Mancini example below. This is likely the tip of the iceberg.

"Manchester City paid Roberto Mancini extra via Abu Dhabi club, claims leak

Mancini alleged to have had two contracts while City manager
Second said to have been with another Sheikh Mansour club"

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...bu-dhabi-money-second-contract-sheikh-mansour

 

[Chief123]

I'm dead serious. At one point one of you will have to do better then "bad oil club, murderous state, infinite pockets".

So i'll reiterate, as of 2021, how is Qatar bankrolling PSG?

How can you be so naive by not knowing PSG is effectively owned by Qatar?

 

[Nytram Shakes]

You are missing the point. We payed Jose through the club directly. It was accounted for. Just like our sponsorships are genuine.

One unique covid season does not change the fact that most of our revenue through a large global fanbase. Many of which will never go to Old Trafford. Match day revenue slipped to a lower proportion of income many years ago for us.

Re: City payments. See Mancini example below. This is likely the tip of the iceberg.

"Manchester City paid Roberto Mancini extra via Abu Dhabi club, claims leak

Mancini alleged to have had two contracts while City manager
Second said to have been with another Sheikh Mansour club"

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...bu-dhabi-money-second-contract-sheikh-mansour

It’s a smaller chunk of the revenue but it still accounts for hundreds of millions a year. When you include tickets, and on site sales.
add to that no over seas tours. limitations on marketing opportunities, turndown in global revenue. You just have to lookthe accounts that have been disclosed over the past 2 years too know the money we are spending is borrowed money not earned money. And we currently have spent more than any one else. Having ago at other clubs in those circumstances, even dodgy as hell ones like city reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[hungrywing]

You are missing the point. We payed Jose through the club directly. It was accounted for. Just like our sponsorships are genuine.

One unique covid season does not change the fact that most of our revenue through a large global fanbase. Many of which will never go to Old Trafford. Match day revenue slipped to a lower proportion of income many years ago for us.

Re: City payments. See Mancini example below. This is likely the tip of the iceberg.

"Manchester City paid Roberto Mancini extra via Abu Dhabi club, claims leak

Mancini alleged to have had two contracts while City manager
Second said to have been with another Sheikh Mansour club"

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...bu-dhabi-money-second-contract-sheikh-mansour

Did Der Spiegel ever similarly specify how the players' under-the-table dealings were packaged? e.g. 'consultant' 'sporting ambassador' etc?

 

[Kentonio]

I think he's talking about the fact clubs like yours just come in with no history, and spend monies higher on two player, than that whole list of players above.

You see this right here, this 'no history' stuff is why you don't see many supporters outside of United/Liverpool coming out with this.

PSG is the only newcomer, and even then they have 50 years of football history behind them. Chelsea have been around for 116 years. City for 127 if you ignore their prior incarnations.

You know why ball boys exist in football? Because back in the 1905 Chelsea had an extremely fat goalkeeper. True story. First time City won the FA Cup? 1904. The league? 1936. At Chelsea we were slower, wasn't until 1955 we won the league.

By 'no history' what you actually mean is 'didn't dominate football for a long period'. Well guess what, neither did almost any other clubs. When you try and insult us over that, you insult basically every other club and their fanbases.

 

[duffer]

"You've got no history" = "I only support my side because they were successful".

 

[ReddBalls]

What deal is overvalued? It was the case 5 years ago with the QTA contract but this deal was replaced by Accor.

Funny how QiA owns 11.3 % of Accor and is the second largest shareholder, though.

https://group.accor.com/en/finance/accor-share/shareholding-structure

 

[RedRover]

You see this right here, this 'no history' stuff is why you don't see many supporters outside of United/Liverpool coming out with this.

PSG is the only newcomer, and even then they have 50 years of football history behind them. Chelsea have been around for 116 years. City for 127 if you ignore their prior incarnations.

You know why ball boys exist in football? Because back in the 1905 Chelsea had an extremely fat goalkeeper. True story. First time City won the FA Cup? 1904. The league? 1936. At Chelsea we were slower, wasn't until 1955 we won the league.

By 'no history' what you actually mean is 'didn't dominate football for a long period'. Well guess what, neither did almost any other clubs. When you try and insult us over that, you insult basically every other club and their fanbases.

Spot on.

The laugh is, 90% plus of the people you see coming out with this stuff on here will support United for one reason alone ; they were succesful. Whether they want to admit that or not, that's a fact.

I'm a United fan, but not above my local club, and that's obviously my choice. I laugh when I read some of the stuff on here. What a lot of these people are saying is that "I liked it best when only my club could afford the best players". It's fine, for their club to go and buy Paul Pogba and pay him £400k a week, the same summer as they paid whatever for Lukaku, but that's all fine because we sell loads of shirts in China. They can dress it up as "it's killing the game" etc. but that's not what they mean because if Haaland is available next summer, and United pay £20 million to Raiola and make him one of the top earners in the world they'll all be on here loving life.

Meanwhile, my first club lost both of it's top scorers from last season this summer because they've been offered £3k a week elsewhere and we can't afford it

You know what, it's great to see all the purists on here so concerned about the future of football. There are clubs up and down the country who I'm sure would love the extra support on a Saturday and some money over the gate.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Just for some context, transfer spendings in the last 10 years (in €):

Man City 1,63 billion
Chelsea 1,47 billion
Barcelona 1,47 billion
Man United 1,44 billion
Juventus 1,44 billion
PSG 1,39 billion
Atletico M 1,10 billion
Real M 1,07 billion
Liverpool 1,04 billion
Inter Milan 1,01 billion

If you wanna talk net spend, two clubs are far above the rest, and they're both from Manchester (1,09 & 1,04 billion)

And one made that money legitimately after decades of good management. The other financially doped and faked sponsorships while paying off managers through other clubs owned by the same state backed franchise.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Ha .... You've used the discredited Nick Harris figure for the Grealish wage. He used the Telegraph as his "source" only for James Ducker of the Telegraph to tell him on twitter he was out of order... quoted elsewere he is on £210k with achievable bonuses taking him to £250k..... then if he wins CL, POTY, Balon D'Or he's on more.

Lukaku's wage was quoted net. He's on about £20mil gross pa.

I don’t think you should be lecturing anyone on City’s reported wages when we all know how you sneaky fecks like to pay part of player wages off the official records.
feck knows what any of your players are really on.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Didn’t the last few window, we broke the record and signed the most expensive defender(Maguire), midfield(Pogba), and striker(Lukaku)? I am quite sure that if Mino wasn’t Haland agent, we will break the record again for him next summer. These clubs that has ”oil money” invested in them had a poor foundation, so significant inflow of cash was needed to even get them to a top level. Else, it would take years for them to build such a top club. I have no problem with it as it makes football more competitive and give more praise for managers who accomplish things without significant invest like Pochettino at Spurs, Rodgers at Leceister, gasperini at Atalanta, Wenger at Arsenal, Klopp at Dortmund, Nagelsman at Rb, etc.

Does it? You seen how many league titles city and PSG have been winning lately?
6/8 league titles between them.
City have won the last four league cups. PSG have won 6/7 French Cups and 6/7 French League Cups.

if there’s one thing oil money hasn’t done it’s “make football more competitive”. All it’s done is make two really shit and terribly run clubs go from being completely useless to completely dominating their domestic game because some rich blokes in the Middle East wanted a few toys.

 

[Tincanalley]

Sickening isn’t it

Strangely accepted and universally praised by the media though. All the various things ‘killing football’ yet everybody takes a blind eye to oil money.

The Guardian seems to struggle with any negative reference to the cheating oil clubs. The sustainability of the pyramid, the hypocrisy of City seems off limits or only touched on gingerly. The piece on the Charity Shield completely ignored Leicester, and focussed on poor attendance (!) and Pep’s t-shirt.

 

[Tincanalley]

SuperLiga is the counter to Oil Clubs.

"Football is for the fans" says Ceferin and goes and rewards Al Khelaifi the chairmancy of the ECA. "Financial Fake Play" is a FIFA-arab controlled body used to continue fotball monopolization and to break opposition.

But well, we have what we deserve, If you guys love football go and watch lower divisions.

Some good points, seems to me; though I can’t comment on the allegation about FFP.

 

[Kentonio]

Does it? You seen how many league titles city and PSG have been winning lately?
6/8 league titles between them.
City have won the last four league cups. PSG have won 6/7 French Cups and 6/7 French League Cups.

if there’s one thing oil money hasn’t done it’s “make football more competitive”. All it’s done is make two really shit and terribly run clubs go from being completely useless to completely dominating their domestic game because some rich blokes in the Middle East wanted a few toys.

In the last 10 years there have been 5 different champions in the PL. In the 10 years before Roman arrived there had been 3, and United had won 7 out of 10.

 

[edcunited1878]

Funny how QiA owns 11.3 % of Accor and is the second largest shareholder, though.

https://group.accor.com/en/finance/accor-share/shareholding-structure

Hahaha! Keeps on getting better...I went through the entire connection with this person and the level of ignorance and lack of self awareness is mind numbing.

 

[Amadaeus]

Does it? You seen how many league titles city and PSG have been winning lately?
6/8 league titles between them.
City have won the last four league cups. PSG have won 6/7 French Cups and 6/7 French League Cups.

if there’s one thing oil money hasn’t done it’s “make football more competitive”. All it’s done is make two really shit and terribly run clubs go from being completely useless to completely dominating their domestic game because some rich blokes in the Middle East wanted a few toys.

What @Kentonio said. Before Psg, Lyon was the supremes ruler of the French league. Same in the premier league, it was United. The oil money has balanced things out. There is no reason that United should not be winning the league. The only difference is the coaches. We have invested as Much as any other top club. If we we’re ruthless and signed Conte, I will be confident that United would win a big trophy this season. This season, the board has invested heavily again in the squad. A trophy is a must and we should win the league or challenge to the last day. Same with the champions league.

 

[Ludens the Red]

In the last 10 years there have been 5 different champions in the PL. In the 10 years before Roman arrived there had been 3, and United had won 7 out of 10.

What @Kentonio said. Before Psg, Lyon was the supremes ruler of the French league. Same in the premier league, it was United. The oil money has balanced things out. There is no reason that United should not be winning the league. The only difference is the coaches. We have invested as Much as any other top club. If we we’re ruthless and signed Conte, I will be confident that United would win a big trophy this season. This season, the board has invested heavily again in the squad. A trophy is a must and we should win the league or challenge to the last day. Same with the champions league.

Its not ‘balancing things out’ it’s just a new team dominating in place of another.
Man city and PSG have been very dominant domestically for a fair amount of years now as result of historical amounts of spending. I don’t know how that can possibly be argued. I get beyond the last five years city didn’t have it all their own way but the inevitable has happened and they are now dominant. Three titles out of four and two of those were done by February. This doesn’t really fit any sort of definition of making football more competitive.

 

[LoneStar]

The direction football is heading to is unsustainable. Some clubs can afford to have a better second 11 than the starting lineup of most teams in these leagues.

The wages and transfer fees are getting absurd. Barca is only the start, more clubs will follow this trend since they won't be able to compete with oil clubs. In the end, I think it would end up with most of the 'big' clubs under these billionaires. Don't think a salary cap necessarily helps with anything if these clubs can transfer money through other avenues like sponsorship etc.

 

[Kentonio]

Its not ‘balancing things out’ it’s just a new team dominating in place of another.
Man city and PSG have been very dominant domestically for a fair amount of years now as result of historical amounts of spending. I don’t know how that can possibly be argued. I get beyond the last five years city didn’t have it all their own way but the inevitable has happened and they are now dominant. Three titles out of four and two of those were done by February. This doesn’t really fit any sort of definition of making football more competitive.

Given that both Chelsea and United have just invested heavily and Liverpool are probably back, let's see how this season plays out before jumping to any conclusions about City dominating everything.

 

[CG1010]

In the PL atleast we have seen before that Chelsea looked to be dominating and then Fergie built an extremely competitive team to challenge them. Similar challenge could come from Chelsea or us (though nobody has a Fergie). I am very sure that any manager who breaks the monopoly of City would be seen as one of the best if not the best managers in the world. Klopp did it already but he needs to get back there at the top and do it again.

 

[Camara]

What @Kentonio said. Before Psg, Lyon was the supremes ruler of the French league. Same in the premier league, it was United. The oil money has balanced things out. There is no reason that United should not be winning the league. The only difference is the coaches. We have invested as Much as any other top club. If we we’re ruthless and signed Conte, I will be confident that United would win a big trophy this season. This season, the board has invested heavily again in the squad. A trophy is a must and we should win the league or challenge to the last day. Same with the champions league.

Didn't Lyon deserve that position due to their good decisions? (I'm asking, that's my impression)

 

[Chesterlestreet]

He's doing well I think. Not murderous oil state well, but he's not going to run out of cash any time soon. Unfortunately the only hope with him is that now he's achieved the Champions League a couple of times he gets bored of them.

Made $2B last year alone, now worth $18.75B (Bloomberg). Helps that his company supplied steel for Trump’s Wall

Cheers - appreciate it.

 

[11101]

What @Kentonio said. Before Psg, Lyon was the supremes ruler of the French league. Same in the premier league, it was United. The oil money has balanced things out. There is no reason that United should not be winning the league. The only difference is the coaches. We have invested as Much as any other top club. If we we’re ruthless and signed Conte, I will be confident that United would win a big trophy this season. This season, the board has invested heavily again in the squad. A trophy is a must and we should win the league or challenge to the last day. Same with the champions league.

If it had only balanced things out that wouldn't be such a problem but it's gone way beyond that. The price inflation they have brought with them has elevated the cost needed to compete to unsustainable levels for anybody who doesn't have a government behind them, and the need to keep up means some clubs are pushing themselves beyond their limits. We are lucky that we have a massive commercial arm behind us but you've got teams like Villa and Palace adding big figures to their wage bills to stay competitive. And that's only the Premier League, where money is reasonably well guaranteed. In the Championship Fulham just spent 14m to bring in a no mark right winger in from Liverpool's reserves.

 

[slyadams]

In the PL atleast we have seen before that Chelsea looked to be dominating and then Fergie built an extremely competitive team to challenge them. Similar challenge could come from Chelsea or us (though nobody has a Fergie). I am very sure that any manager who breaks the monopoly of City would be seen as one of the best if not the best managers in the world. Klopp did it already but he needs to get back there at the top and do it again.

Of course its possible, but it still took a combination of probably the best manager in the world at the moment (Klopp), a £400m spend and some generational youth team talent to win one PL title (with an insane point total). That's where its gotten to. Leicester are the obvious counter example, but honestly, that situation was so outside the realms of normal it should be seen as an outlier rather than an indicative data point.

 

[DixieDean]

This is spot on. What's the point even celebrating this shit.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

In the last 10 years there have been 5 different champions in the PL. In the 10 years before Roman arrived there had been 3, and United had won 7 out of 10.

The first half decade of that 10 years City were building up to dominance though. You can’t build that in a few years even with all the money in the World.
Now City have won 3 of the last 5 and are big favourites to make it 4 from 6.

So “more competitive” I think not, you’ve simply swapped Arsenal’s competitiveness of the 00’s for oil money.

United winning 7 from 10 was due to one man’s genius, not from having the biggest wallet, the highest wages or highest spend. Post Fergie in a World without City’s owners the league winners would look like:

Liverpool, Chelsea, Leicester, Tottenham, United, Liverpool, Liverpool, United.

So still 5 winners but no one looking like going on a huge run of dominance as massive favourites to win 4 from 6.

And I’d say we’d go into this season with Liverpool, United and Chelsea as joint favourites for the league. Now that’s competitive.

 

[Botim]

United winning 7 from 10 was due to one man’s genius, not from having the biggest wallet, the highest wages or highest spend.

United won 8 of the first 11 seasons of the Premier League. I would argue it's because of the ever increasing tv money and other clubs getting a financial injection, that the PL finally became competitive.

Post Fergie in a World without City’s owners the league winners would look like:

Liverpool, Chelsea, Leicester, Tottenham, United, Liverpool, Liverpool, United.

Ah, the old hypothetical, the classroom bully of arguments.

First of all, it would have been 4 winners, not 5 (don't know why you include Spurs).

Secondly, what if Chelsea hadn't been taken over? Then United would've won 14 of the first 20 PL season, with Arsenal (5) and Blackburn winning the other 6. How boring is that?

So still 5 winners but no one looking like going on a huge run of dominance as massive favourites to win 4 from 6.

Just over a year ago there was a thread titled "will Liverpool ever lose a game again?" or something to that extent. These things flow. City can't buy all the players in the world, Guardiola won't stay forever.

 

[SuperiorXI]

This is spot on. What's the point even celebrating this shit.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Don't even hear a peep from them about City

 

[Zen86]

Don't even hear a peep from them about City

Yep, I must've missed the similar comments about Pep and Grealish.

 

[Kentonio]

United winning 7 from 10 was due to one man’s genius, not from having the biggest wallet, the highest wages or highest spend.

Yeah nice fiction, and if I hadn't actually lived through that time I might buy it. As it is I remember very clearly United buying in top players that most of our clubs couldn't have dreamed of getting, and using their reputation as the top team in the UK to lure in other clubs best players without having to pay top prices. Very much like Bayern in fact.

Re transfers, are we forgetting already that United set a world transfer record by spending £28-29m on Veron at a time when the British transfer record was only £15m? and then a year later broke it again by buying Rio for £29m? This after bringing in the likes of Cantona, Keane and Hughes in years previously.

I can't actually find any solid figures on club wages for that time (I also don't remember anyone really talking about it much back then) but a quick look at the highest paid player per season shows it being Keane from 99-03.

Ultimately I don't blame United for dominating. If your club has the advantages to do so, then of course you're going to do it. But please spare us this myth that it was all just down to Fergie, because it wasn't. He's the most successful manager in English football history, but ultimately money and club profile are the main factors that determine long term success. Take away the smart business people who leveraged United's on-field successes into a highly commercial global brand and you don't win all those titles over an extended period.

 

[BusbyMalone]

Don't even hear a peep from them about City

huh?

Delaney has been extremely outspoken when it comes to City and their ownership. He's been speaking about it for a few years to the point where City fans hate the guy. So that's simply not true for him.