"teams buy trophies"

[Edmeiste]

This stems back to the argument I had with a city fan yesterday. He brought up a point that just made me scratch my head. He basically said that if we or chelsea or them win a title, it's classified as a bought title. His logic is because each of us have dipped into the market and bought players to improve our squads so that qualifies as 'buying the title' and that people only have a problem with City because they've bought so many players in a shorter amount of time compared to us or Chelsea.

He also said FFP is to prevent clubs like Everton getting outside money and profiting from that.

My thought is that it's a oversimplified argument.

Just wondering what you lot think about it.

 

[Relevated]

In all honesty I don't really give two fecks if them or any team buy the title now or in future. I won't like it obviously since they gain a huge disadvantage and an enormous amount of luck because which fecker in this day and age would buy a shit club like city and transform them in such a small amount of time? It is really annoying and in addition to that the fans have the nerve to brag on about how successful they have become and are suddenly better than clubs such as Manchester United. But when they claim they are better than us it just proves how good we are, doesn't it? Would they brag on about how they have overtaken us if we were not great anymore? No, they wouldn't.

It just adds to the joy when we win a premier league title or when a sugar daddy club wins one and then we chase it because the worlds thinks we are out and down but we own those rich clubs ass every single fecking time but people never learn. They always mess with United but they always get their ass handed to them. Maybe they never will learn but it just makes the victory for us more sweeter.

 

[SilentWitness]

He also said FFP is to prevent clubs like Everton getting outside money and profiting from that.

Yeah, cause City haven't done that....

 

[Cheesy]

So basically, does your City supporting mate not condone what they do? If he thinks we buy titles, fine, but their big money signings have been well documented in recent times. I don't need to go into more depth about that part.

As for FFP, I think it's almost meant to help clubs like Everton in a way. While any of their promising young talent would have been poached instantly for a lot of money, bigger clubs will now have to be more sensible, so they can't afford to throw £20m on players like Jones and Henderson, like Liverpool and us did. As well as that, they can't offer wages as big which will mean that there's not as much of an incentive for the younger players to leave anyway.

I don't see it really working out that way though. It'll still have a long term benefit for clubs like ourselves, who earn more money and can spend more than others. To go with that, clubs like Man City will find a way around the rules which allows them to keep spending as much as they want to.

 

[SilentWitness]

So basically, does your City supporting mate not condone what they do? If he thinks we buy titles, fine, but their big money signings have been well documented in recent times. I don't need to go into more depth about that part.

As for FFP, I think it's almost meant to help clubs like Everton in a way. While any of their promising young talent would have been poached instantly for a lot of money, bigger clubs will now have to be more sensible, so they can't afford to throw £20m on players like Jones and Henderson, like Liverpool and us did. As well as that, they can't offer wages as big which will mean that there's not as much of an incentive for the younger players to leave anyway.

I don't see it really working out that way though. It'll still have a long term benefit for clubs like ourselves, who earn more money and can spend more than others. To go with that, clubs like Man City will find a way around the rules which allows them to keep spending as much as they want to.

Thing is we need to produce and sell at least one top talent to keep performing as consistently as we do. The Arteta transfer this season most likely helped us getting Jelavic and the loans we have brought in as Pienaar's, Drenthe's and Donovan's wages are probably pretty high. We have actually managed to secure long contracts on the young players hyped by the media too but unless we sell one of Barkley or Rodwell for big money in the next 1-3 years we might struggle unless we get investment.

 

[Edmeiste]

So basically, does your City supporting mate not condone what they do? If he thinks we buy titles, fine, but their big money signings have been well documented in recent times. I don't need to go into more depth about that part.

As for FFP, I think it's almost meant to help clubs like Everton in a way. While any of their promising young talent would have been poached instantly for a lot of money, bigger clubs will now have to be more sensible, so they can't afford to throw £20m on players like Jones and Henderson, like Liverpool and us did. As well as that, they can't offer wages as big which will mean that there's not as much of an incentive for the younger players to leave anyway.

I don't see it really working out that way though. It'll still have a long term benefit for clubs like ourselves, who earn more money and can spend more than others. To go with that, clubs like Man City will find a way around the rules which allows them to keep spending as much as they want to.

No he just says that people are upset because they're doing this 'project' so quickly and that they're going to build a brand just like we did.Basically saying they'll mimic us because he continues to argue that what they're doing now is everything we have done.

 

[peterstorey]

The Arteta transfer this season most likely helped us getting Jelavic and the loans we have brought in as Pienaar's, Drenthe's and Donovan's wages are probably pretty high.

Yeah good business but you'd rather have kept Arteta around as we'd have rather kept say Vieira for another couple of years.

 

[SilentWitness]

Yeah good business but you'd rather have kept Arteta around as we'd have rather kept say Vieira for another couple of years.

Honestly i wouldn't have.

£10 million for a 29 year old who gave 6 years of very good service was a great return. With that we have bought a 26 year old striker who's had a blistering start and has his best years ahead of him at a time that we were crying out for a goalscorer. Add to that, we are in 7th which is where we finished last year, but then we were 4 points behind Liverpool. Now we are 3 points ahead and only 2 points off our total from last season. Also managed an FA Cup semi-final (even though we played shit in it).

A part of me feels as if we are on the up actually.

 

[africanspur]

Well, you certainly don't win them consistently by being poor, regardless of how good the manager is.

 

[peterstorey]

Honestly i wouldn't have.

£10 million for a 29 year old who gave 6 years of very good service was a great return. With that we have bought a 26 year old striker who's had a blistering start and has his best years ahead of him at a time that we were crying out for a goalscorer. Add to that, we are in 7th which is where we finished last year, but then we were 4 points behind Liverpool. Now we are 3 points ahead and only 2 points off our total from last season. Also managed an FA Cup semi-final (even though we played shit in it).

A part of me feels as if we are on the up actually.

I'm not saying it wasn't good business (as selling Vieira was for us) but that in an ideal world you keep him around AND make the extra signings. I expected you to win that semi - you were appalling.

 

[newtonheathdave]

Just to remind you lads. United are only in the position they are in today because they spent well outside their means with money they had not earned.
Back in the day, Mr Edwards invested large amounts of cash that was a lot more than Uniteds turnover. It was not cash gained by winning trophies, by sponsorship deals or paid for by the fans. It was money he invested from outside the game and a lot more money than United could afford at that time, to try and make United successful again.
Now because of that investment, United were in a prime position to take advantage of the changing environment not only within football, but in life in general. That investment paid off. TV broadcast rights changed and more money came in, sponsorship increased, United started winning and so the money kept on rolling in. Then United were floated and more money came in. United were extremely fortunate to be in a position then where no one could really challenge them financially.
The problem though that has come up for united is that they were so good at what they did, A leech like Glazer realised he could make a lot of money out of United.
Also in the past, United have been on the brink of going under and been bailed out by rich individuals who have spent money.
There is absolutely nothing new to what City are doing as United have done it all before.
Considering United fans always go on about history, it is absolutely unbelievable how a large number of their fans know absolutely nothing about Uniteds history. Or is it a case of just seeing what they want to see?
Now at the end of the day, City got very lucky, there is no denying that. But it just shows people petty jealousy when all they are moaning about is how much City spent. City did not write the book in regards to spending money, they are just following the instructions inside.
In 50 years time, if City are successful then no one will mention the money. Just like no one mentions the money invested by Edwards or the money United needed to be bailed out by John Henry Davies in 1900ish and James Gibson in the 30's.
If the trend in football continues then in years to come the money spent by City will seem like a wise investment. That is as long as they grow and worryingly for united fans, that purely depends on success.
Now I don't expect United fans to congratulate City on becoming a very good team or to even like it but to just say City bought it all is wrong. £50 notes don't go onto the field to play, it is 11 players. And Just like United have done in the past, these players had to be bought with outside money.
Also to them people that say that City are bad for the game. Tell that to all the people that tuned into watch the derby last week and break all viewing records. I bet that 650 million people are glad City have been rejuvenated.

 

[jojojo]

I tend to agree that financial fairplay helps maintain the status quo rather than level the playing field. It's main value is that it'll reduce the temptation for other big clubs to overspend, at the expense of financial viability, to compete directly on transfer fees and wages.

The big league tables reflect wages paid, not 100%, and not without room for over/under achievement but it's still a very obvious correlation. The CL is where the action is and it's going to be a tough climb for any club to get there. City are the latest lottery winners, and they may now be the last ones.

If it was really about making competition more even then we'd be looking at the American approach of spending caps, drafting players and all that stuff. But that's a hugely different financial, sporting and training model and the idea of a sporting franchise that chooses to rename itself or relocate as if it's just another branch of the entertainment business is horrifying - yes, I'm looking at you Milton Keynes.

 

[Edmeiste]

Just to remind you lads. United are only in the position they are in today because they spent well outside their means with money they had not earned.
Back in the day, Mr Edwards invested large amounts of cash that was a lot more than Uniteds turnover. It was not cash gained by winning trophies, by sponsorship deals or paid for by the fans. It was money he invested from outside the game and a lot more money than United could afford at that time, to try and make United successful again.
Now because of that investment, United were in a prime position to take advantage of the changing environment not only within football, but in life in general. That investment paid off. TV broadcast rights changed and more money came in, sponsorship increased, United started winning and so the money kept on rolling in. Then United were floated and more money came in. United were extremely fortunate to be in a position then where no one could really challenge them financially.
The problem though that has come up for united is that they were so good at what they did, A leech like Glazer realised he could make a lot of money out of United.
Also in the past, United have been on the brink of going under and been bailed out by rich individuals who have spent money.
There is absolutely nothing new to what City are doing as United have done it all before.
Considering United fans always go on about history, it is absolutely unbelievable how a large number of their fans know absolutely nothing about Uniteds history. Or is it a case of just seeing what they want to see?
Now at the end of the day, City got very lucky, there is no denying that. But it just shows people petty jealousy when all they are moaning about is how much City spent. City did not write the book in regards to spending money, they are just following the instructions inside.
In 50 years time, if City are successful then no one will mention the money. Just like no one mentions the money invested by Edwards or the money United needed to be bailed out by John Henry Davies in 1900ish and James Gibson in the 30's.
If the trend in football continues then in years to come the money spent by City will seem like a wise investment. That is as long as they grow and worryingly for united fans, that purely depends on success.
Now I don't expect United fans to congratulate City on becoming a very good team or to even like it but to just say City bought it all is wrong. £50 notes don't go onto the field to play, it is 11 players. And Just like United have done in the past, these players had to be bought with outside money.
Also to them people that say that City are bad for the game. Tell that to all the people that tuned into watch the derby last week and break all viewing records. I bet that 650 million people are glad City have been rejuvenated.

I'm sure they care How you can say people accusing you of buying the trophy is all wrong? In a sense it's true. You wouldn't be where you are without the Abu Dhabi group. Although Edwards did bring outside money, you make it seem as if that was the reason for our success.

The bigger problem is that as fans we can't talk about our situations very objectively and tend to generalize and pick things that suit our viewpoints. You know this much is true. Your tagline fits your post.

We all know that throwing money at a situation doesn't always make it work.

You see what you want to see as well dave. It's called bias. I'm not even sure why you care so much of how we view you and your club.

 

[RedRover]

This stems back to the argument I had with a city fan yesterday. He brought up a point that just made me scratch my head. He basically said that if we or chelsea or them win a title, it's classified as a bought title. His logic is because each of us have dipped into the market and bought players to improve our squads so that qualifies as 'buying the title' and that people only have a problem with City because they've bought so many players in a shorter amount of time compared to us or Chelsea.

He also said FFP is to prevent clubs like Everton getting outside money and profiting from that.

My thought is that it's a oversimplified argument.

Just wondering what you lot think about it.

My opinion, for what its worth - allegations by United fans that City have "bought" the title is just sour grapes.

I've said it before on here but United spent money like water for years - breaking records left right and centre and signing top players from rival clubs. The list of such deals is endless. When you consider that United still hold the English Record for a Defender nearly 10 years ago which has never been beaten.

Some fans on here seem to distinguish between "earned money" and "given money" and fair enough - but I don't see any real difference. United still spent money on players that other clubs could only dream of.

United were at the forfront of making football a business and the PL a global brand and profitied heavily from the same with the huge ground, investment in training and youth set up and ability to buy top players all following and producing decades of success - so fans can hardly moan when every Oligarch wants in on the excitement.

City have spent fortunes but it has showed signs of slowing - they needed to spend heaviliy to make it into the "top tier" as quickly as possible. Chelsea did the same. Now both sides are up there they can compete for the very best players. Its what any ambitious owner would do.

The simple fact is City are ambitious and want to win trophies. Some of their better players are either home grown (Hart, Richards) or were already at the club (Kompany) and they've not really broken the bank yet to ridiculous transfer fees so they seem to be doing it the right way.

The irony of it all is United could probably do with going out and spending knocking on £70 - 100 million on three or four players in the next few seasons if they're going to stay competative. I'm sure those accusing City would be more than happy if we did spend that sort of cash this summer.

 

[newtonheathdave]

I'm sure they care How you can say people accusing you of buying the trophy is all wrong? In a sense it's true. You wouldn't be where you are without the Abu Dhabi group. Although Edwards did bring outside money, you make it seem as if that was the reason for our success.

The bigger problem is that as fans we can't talk about our situations very objectively and tend to generalize and pick things that suit our viewpoints. You know this much is true. Your tagline fits your post.

We all know that throwing money at a situation doesn't always make it work.

You see what you want to see as well dave. It's called bias. I'm not even sure why you care so much of how we view you and your club.

To be honest I don't care at all. IF we win the league then I certainly do not give a toss what United fans think of how we done it (It is still a big IF yet imo as well, certainly not over yet)
I just think it is hypocritical United fans criticising City for things United have been guilty of doing in the past.
Your right, Uniteds success is not down just to Edwards investment. United took advantage fully of the opportunity they were given. Just like City now have to take advantage of their opportunity. But United fans for some strange reason seem to think that throughout their history they have grown naturally and earned all their success the hard way, when in reality that really is not the case.
Your right, City would not be where they are now without the Abu Dhabi group. Just like united would not be where they are now without the fundraisers City held many many years ago to try and stop you going bump, or without the support City gave United to stop Manchester Central getting Uniteds place in the league, when United were again on the verge of going bankrupt.
Like everything in life, the only way to succeed is by making the most of all the opportunities that come your way. United have done it and now it is Citys turn to see if they can do it.
One thing that does wind me up though is the lack of credit Mancini gets, he has done an absolutely remarkable job.

 

[antihenry]

To be honest I don't care at all. IF we win the league then I certainly do not give a toss what United fans think of how we done it (It is still a big IF yet imo as well, certainly not over yet)
I just think it is hypocritical United fans criticising City for things United have been guilty of doing in the past.
Your right, Uniteds success is not down just to Edwards investment. United took advantage fully of the opportunity they were given. Just like City now have to take advantage of their opportunity. But United fans for some strange reason seem to think that throughout their history they have grown naturally and earned all their success the hard way, when in reality that really is not the case.
Your right, City would not be where they are now without the Abu Dhabi group. Just like united would not be where they are now without the fundraisers City held many many years ago to try and stop you going bump, or without the support City gave United to stop Manchester Central getting Uniteds place in the league, when United were again on the verge of going bankrupt.
Like everything in life, the only way to succeed is by making the most of all the opportunities that come your way. United have done it and now it is Citys turn to see if they can do it.
One thing that does wind me up though is the lack of credit Mancini gets, he has done an absolutely remarkable job.

I agree with all of what you're saying except for that last part.

Remarkable in what way? Considering the money City spent, the depth of squad quality assembled and the time it took, anything bar the league title should be considered a failure.

Being a Chelsea fan I've got nothing against City and/or Mancini but if he somehow manages to feck it up by missing out on the title after spending half a billion over the last four years on a star filled squad, he should be shown the door. There's nothing remarkable about it, he should be expected to deliver it, nothing less.

 

[Chabon]

There have always been owners pouring money into clubs, the difference with City is the scale of it, both compared to previous eras and to the current financial capabilities of pretty much every single other club.

It is entirely without precedent for one to club to be so utterly financially dominant, and the only reasons people haven't realised just how devastating it is for the league is because Mancini is a mediocre manager, and because Ferguson is an amazing one.

I've said it before on here but United spent money like water for years - breaking records left right and centre and signing top players from rival clubs. The list of such deals is endless. When you consider that United still hold the English Record for a Defender nearly 10 years ago which has never been beaten.

What is the relevance of breaking transfer records on individual players to overall transfer spending?

 

[newtonheathdave]

There have always been owners pouring money into clubs, the difference with City is the scale of it, both compared to previous eras and to the current financial capabilities of pretty much every single other club.

It is entirely without precedent for one to club to be so utterly financially dominant, and the only reasons people haven't realised just how devastating it is for the league is because Mancini is a mediocre manager, and because Ferguson is an amazing one.

Right well go compare that to when Edwards put all the money in and it will look pretty similar. Compare how much was invested in contrast to how much United turned over
As for Mancini being a mediocre manager. I suppose that is for another thread and I will not derail this one with why I think hes a superb one.
But another thing toexplain your chart a little, City only had to spend all that money because Mark Hughes really is a terrible manager and Mancini had to undo all the mistakes Hughes made.

 

[Chabon]

Right well go compare that to when Edwards put all the money in and it will look pretty similar. Compare how much was invested in contrast to how much United turned over.

That's not how arguments work mate, if you want to make that claim, provide the evidence.

 

[Spoony]

There's spending and then there's City and Chelsea. Liverpool for example have spent hundreds of millions(more than United) in the last couple of decades...but for what? The difference is City(and Chelsea) can afford to leave a £45m asset rot in the reserves...whereas at any other club they'd have been shown the door. It's a kin to winning FM on cheat mode.

 

[newtonheathdave]

I agree with all of what you're saying except for that last part.

Remarkable in what way? Considering the money City spent, the depth of squad quality assembled and the time it took, anything bar the league title should be considered a failure.

Being a Chelsea fan I've got nothing against City and/or Mancini but if he somehow manages to feck it up by missing out on the title after spending half a billion over the last four years on a star filled squad, he should be shown the door. There's nothing remarkable about it, he should be expected to deliver it, nothing less.

Mark Hughes spent half of that money and most of it on wank players. Not only has Mancini had to replace them players at extra cost but he has also had to deal with all the problems them players brought.

 

[thegregster]

To be honest I don't care at all. IF we win the league then I certainly do not give a toss what United fans think of how we done it (It is still a big IF yet imo as well, certainly not over yet)
I just think it is hypocritical United fans criticising City for things United have been guilty of doing in the past.
Your right, Uniteds success is not down just to Edwards investment. United took advantage fully of the opportunity they were given. Just like City now have to take advantage of their opportunity. But United fans for some strange reason seem to think that throughout their history they have grown naturally and earned all their success the hard way, when in reality that really is not the case.
Your right, City would not be where they are now without the Abu Dhabi group. Just like united would not be where they are now without the fundraisers City held many many years ago to try and stop you going bump, or without the support City gave United to stop Manchester Central getting Uniteds place in the league, when United were again on the verge of going bankrupt.
Like everything in life, the only way to succeed is by making the most of all the opportunities that come your way. United have done it and now it is Citys turn to see if they can do it.
One thing that does wind me up though is the lack of credit Mancini gets, he has done an absolutely remarkable job.

Can you please back this up with figures for the Fergie Era.

Please post turnover/profit by year backed up with transfer spent.

For example the year fergie went on a big splurge in the transfer market in Summer 89-he spent around 5.5mil City actually spent more the next summer.


Players in
PLAYER
Ian Bishop £465,000
Gary Fleming £150,000
Clive Allen £1,100,000
Colin Hendry £700,000
Peter Reid
Alan Harper £150,000
Mark Ward £1,000,000
Adrian Heath £300,000
Niall Quinn £800,000
Neil Pointon £600,000
Tony Coton £1,000,000
Mark Brennan £500,000
Total: £6,765,000


City also spent huge money at the time on the likes of Keith Kurle and Terry Phelan. These two cost as much as Fergie net spent in winning the league in 92/93.

What Fergie spent was no way out of the norm for the time. What City have along with Chelsea is the greatest advantage ever in the history of the game in England.

Fergie didnt need to outspend liverpool to a ridiculous level to win the league. If you could be actually bother to check out the figures he spent less than Liverpool to get their. City will have spent ridiculous amounts to get ahead of United.

Look at the 8mil City spent in the summer of 93 compared to half that for United. Fergie build United up because he was a great manager who spent well on the right players. He didnt just keep throwing money at players till it started to gel.

Fergie never had anything close to the advantage City/Chelsea have.

Also on the point of being saved from bankruptcy you could hardly claim its close to the same thing. I am pretty sure Liverpool fans would swap their situation with Citys in a flash.

 

[Chabon]

He's pretty much kept on the defensive unit which existed before his time, and then added an army of attacking players most of which cost over 20 million quid. The cheating at FM is about as apt an analogy as you're ever likely to find.

Aside from their back six, which isn't really down to Mancini, City aren't a team, they're a collection of stunning attacking talents who are brilliant when they can be arsed. For the money spent, Mancini has done a mediocre job.

 

[Spoony]

Aside from Aguero and Silva, has he signed any truly quality players?

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Aside from Aguero and Silva, has he signed any truly quality players?

Wasn't YaYa one of his? I'd say he was quality

 

[Chabon]

Aside from Aguero and Silva, has he signed any truly quality players?

Toure is fantastic, but as with all his good singings, he was an open goal. It's akin to crediting Fergie for signing Rooney. Here's a full list of Mancini's signings:

Stefan Savic £6,000,000
Gaël Clichy £7,000,000
Sergio Agüero £38,000,000
Costel Pantilimon £3,000,000
Samir Nasri £22,000,000
Owen Hargreaves Free
Jerome Boateng £11,000,000
Yaya Toure £24,000,000
David Silva £25,000,000
Aleksandar Kolarov £17,000,000
Mario Balotelli £24,500,000
James Milner £26,000,000
Edin Dzeko £27,000,000
Adam Johnson £7,000,000

Just the 240 million quid spent in two years having inherited a squad which was already the most expensive in football, and for what, a team which is, at best, going to scrape the title on goal difference having done absolutely nothing in the other four cup competitions? I bet there a hundred managers who could have done a much better job.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Toure is fantastic, but as with all his good singings, he was an open goal. It's akin to crediting Fergie for signing Rooney. Here's a full list of Mancini's signings:

Stefan Savic £6,000,000
Gaël Clichy £7,000,000
Sergio Agüero £38,000,000
Costel Pantilimon £3,000,000
Samir Nasri £22,000,000
Owen Hargreaves Free
Jerome Boateng £11,000,000
Yaya Toure £24,000,000
David Silva £25,000,000
Aleksandar Kolarov £17,000,000
Mario Balotelli £24,500,000
James Milner £26,000,000
Edin Dzeko £27,000,000
Adam Johnson £7,000,000

Just the 240 million quid spent in two years having inherited a squad which was already the most expensive in football, and for what, a team which is, at best, going to scrape the title on goal difference having done absolutely nothing in the other four cup competitions? I bet there a hundred managers who could have done a much better job.

Let's all pray they don't go on to win the PL.I have this feeling that if they get that winning mentality, loke SAF did with utd, they will be competing and winning major honours for years to come.Some believe they already will but I'd love to delay world domination for as long as possible

 

[newtonheathdave]

This is not my work but it makes interesting reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1988-91, United spent £15.2m = 1.62x their 1989 revenue of £9.4m. That's the equivalent of United spending £533m today.
So United were allowed to spend first in order to grow, & continue spending freely for next 2 decades. But City will be banned from doing same. Also, Martin Edwards borrowed the money to fund that investment in players, just like Sheikh Mansour has with City.
The money was borrowed not self-financed. Utd were allowed to do something that City won't be allowed to do, i.e. carry on spending. Utd were allowed to spend first in order to become more successful, and they were allowed to continue spending without any limitations on how much they spent. And it also disproves the myth that Utd didn't spend in order to become successful under fergie.
Uniteds revenue was £9.4m in 1989. Uniteds revenue is now £330m. He invested first in order to grow. It only became self-financing AFTER Utd had grown. But these new FFP rules actually bans clubs from investing first in order to grow.
Utd spent 1.62x their revenue, which equates to a huge amount today and Utd would not have met FFP rules in 1989. Obviously there is inflation but that is almost equivalent to City-style spending
Utd basically bought an entire new first team (in fact the XI fielded v MCFC in the 5-1 defeat was the most expensively assembled team then), and they spent a huge amount doing so, and that new first team went on to win trophy after trophy from 1992 onwards. THAT was the team that started Utd's success.
FFP has been specifically designed to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from outspending rivals. FFP has been designed to stop smaller clubs from being able to compete with bigger clubs. And the people who negotiated it with UEFA were the ECA exec board, which consists of David Gill (Man United Chief Exec), Rummenigge, and CEOs/presidents from Real, Barca, AC, Inter etc.
City have spent first in order to grow, but we won't be allowed to continue spending, so our growth will be curtailed by FFP. MUFC didn't have that limitation that MCFC have.
The point being that why did the rules change to stop MCFC being able to spend money?
The answer: It's because of this bunch of biased club executives below:
http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/eca-executive-board/
These were the ones who negotiated FFP with Platini, and surprise surprise they managed to get FFP designed in such a way that it stops clubs like City from being able to compete financially with Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC and Inter - the exact teams who have representatives on the ECA exec board. Keep the big teams big and the poor teams poor. Changing the rules to stop certain teams being able to compete is called "cheating", I think you'll find.
FFP rules were originally going to regulate debt and then next you heard about FFP it was based on clubs' revenue and "break-even". Many journos such as Oliver Kay and Marcotti from The Times and Martin Samuel from the Daily Mail all think that FFP has been deliberately designed to protect clubs like Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC, Inter at the top and to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from being able to compete with those clubs. It's not rocket science to see that it has been designed to do that. For example, if FFP came in tomorrow, and assuming wages = 58% of revenue, this shows what each of the top 6 clubs would be allowed to spend on wages:

1. United; 192m
2. Chelsea; 141m
3. Arsenal; 131m
4. Liverpool; 108m
5. Spurs; 95m
6. Manchester City; 89m

My point, which is that Utd were allowed to invest first in order to grow and then to continue spending on winning a title and then the introduction of Sky’s money gave them money to invest.
This demolishing the myth that Utd didn't spend before they became successful, and I'm showing that Utd were allowed to carry on spending after that initial huge investment, whereas City will be banned from doing the same due to FFP

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

 

[RedPhil1957]

Mark Hughes spent half of that money and most of it on wank players. Not only has Mancini had to replace them players at extra cost but he has also had to deal with all the problems them players brought.

Its not the transfer spending that bothers me, in the end that money helps the game, its the ludicrous wages City pay. Yes united, liverpool and other big clubs spent big and paid higer wages but players in the main desperately wanted moves to those clubs. Chelsea were the first english club to offer huge wages simply as a way of attracting players to the club, now city have taken this one huge step further because lets be fair very few of their players would be near the club without the wages. Unlike transfer fees wages drain the game and have an adverse effect all the way down the leagues as agents push to get ever more, based on what top players earn.

 

[newtonheathdave]

He's pretty much kept on the defensive unit which existed before his time, and then added an army of attacking players most of which cost over 20 million quid. The cheating at FM is about as apt an analogy as you're ever likely to find.

Aside from their back six, which isn't really down to Mancini, City aren't a team, they're a collection of stunning attacking talents who are brilliant when they can be arsed. For the money spent, Mancini has done a mediocre job.

Hes not kept the defensive unit at all. Hughes got rid of Hart and brought in given. Mancini thankfully rectified that mistake. Hughes brought in Bridge and Mancini thankfully got rid of Bridge. Hughes was playing Kompany in midfield then Kompany got injured. Hughes got sacked and thankfully Mancini put Kompany back to cb. Also Richards was struggling under Hughes, it is no coincidence Richards is playing his best football for years under Mancini.
Under Hughes we could not defend for toffee where as under Mancini we have had the best defensive record in the country 2 years running.

 

[thegregster]

This is not my work but it makes interesting reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1988-91, United spent £15.2m = 1.62x their 1989 revenue of £9.4m. That's the equivalent of United spending £533m today.
So United were allowed to spend first in order to grow, & continue spending freely for next 2 decades. But City will be banned from doing same. Also, Martin Edwards borrowed the money to fund that investment in players, just like Sheikh Mansour has with City.
The money was borrowed not self-financed. Utd were allowed to do something that City won't be allowed to do, i.e. carry on spending. Utd were allowed to spend first in order to become more successful, and they were allowed to continue spending without any limitations on how much they spent. And it also disproves the myth that Utd didn't spend in order to become successful under fergie.
Uniteds revenue was £9.4m in 1989. Uniteds revenue is now £330m. He invested first in order to grow. It only became self-financing AFTER Utd had grown. But these new FFP rules actually bans clubs from investing first in order to grow.
Utd spent 1.62x their revenue, which equates to a huge amount today and Utd would not have met FFP rules in 1989. Obviously there is inflation but that is almost equivalent to City-style spending
Utd basically bought an entire new first team (in fact the XI fielded v MCFC in the 5-1 defeat was the most expensively assembled team then), and they spent a huge amount doing so, and that new first team went on to win trophy after trophy from 1992 onwards. THAT was the team that started Utd's success.
FFP has been specifically designed to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from outspending rivals. FFP has been designed to stop smaller clubs from being able to compete with bigger clubs. And the people who negotiated it with UEFA were the ECA exec board, which consists of David Gill (Man United Chief Exec), Rummenigge, and CEOs/presidents from Real, Barca, AC, Inter etc.
City have spent first in order to grow, but we won't be allowed to continue spending, so our growth will be curtailed by FFP. MUFC didn't have that limitation that MCFC have.
The point being that why did the rules change to stop MCFC being able to spend money?
The answer: It's because of this bunch of biased club executives below:
http://www.ecaeurope.com/about-eca/eca-executive-board/
These were the ones who negotiated FFP with Platini, and surprise surprise they managed to get FFP designed in such a way that it stops clubs like City from being able to compete financially with Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC and Inter - the exact teams who have representatives on the ECA exec board. Keep the big teams big and the poor teams poor. Changing the rules to stop certain teams being able to compete is called "cheating", I think you'll find.
FFP rules were originally going to regulate debt and then next you heard about FFP it was based on clubs' revenue and "break-even". Many journos such as Oliver Kay and Marcotti from The Times and Martin Samuel from the Daily Mail all think that FFP has been deliberately designed to protect clubs like Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, AC, Inter at the top and to stop clubs like City and Chelsea from being able to compete with those clubs. It's not rocket science to see that it has been designed to do that. For example, if FFP came in tomorrow, and assuming wages = 58% of revenue, this shows what each of the top 6 clubs would be allowed to spend on wages:

1. United; 192m
2. Chelsea; 141m
3. Arsenal; 131m
4. Liverpool; 108m
5. Spurs; 95m
6. Manchester City; 89m

My point, which is that Utd were allowed to invest first in order to grow and then to continue spending on winning a title and then the introduction of Sky’s money gave them money to invest.
This demolishing the myth that Utd didn't spend before they became successful, and I'm showing that Utd were allowed to carry on spending after that initial huge investment, whereas City will be banned from doing the same due to FFP

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

Big problem. That figure is outrageously wrong.

90/91
Total: £650,000

89/90
Total: £5,415,000

88/89
Total: £2,250,000

87/88
Total: £3,570,000


Surprise surprise. When you actually start quoting figures you are Wrong.

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=1724&teamTabs=transfers

The amount fergie spent from 89-91 was around 8mil. Also he recouped around at least 1.5mil.

 

[PhilipB]

Dave, can you paragraph please? I want to read that other post but it's wrecking my eyes.

 

[Chabon]

From 1988-91, United spent £15.2m = 1.62x their 1989 revenue of £9.4m

I stopped reading that bollocks you posted after reading that first sentence. I know City fans tend to be a bit dense, but surely even you can spot what's wrong with the above.

 

[kps88]

I agree with Dave that managing a team like City isn't as easy as its being made out to be. You need a someone with a strong CV and personality to get a bunch of mercenaries playing as a team. If he ends up winning the league I'd say he's done a fantastic job.

To be fair to Hughes, he was never the owners man and I don't think he had their full backing from the beginning.

 

[newtonheathdave]

Its not the transfer spending that bothers me, in the end that money helps the game, its the ludicrous wages City pay. Yes united, liverpool and other big clubs spent big and paid higer wages but players in the main desperately wanted moves to those clubs. Chelsea were the first english club to offer huge wages simply as a way of attracting players to the club, now city have taken this one huge step further because lets be fair very few of their players would be near the club without the wages. Unlike transfer fees wages drain the game and have an adverse effect all the way down the leagues as agents push to get ever more, based on what top players earn.

I agree with you but if you can give me one way that City could have gone about things differently then I would like to hear it. In future City will not have to pay silly wages unless it is for the top top stars as they now have more to offer than just money.
People say City should have tried to grow naturally but that just does not happen. If we had tried to do that like Everton or Spurs then as soon as we got any where near the top then the likes of Kompany would have been taken from us. Just like United do to which ever Spurs player they want or what they did with Rooney and just like chelsea did with us in regards to SWP.
The sad state of affairs is that if you want to challenge for titles then the only way to do it, is the way City have done it. If anyone can show me another way it could be done then I would like to see it.

 

[Chabon]

The sad state of affairs is that if you want to challenge for titles then the only way to do it, is the way City have done it. If anyone can show me another way it could be done then I would like to see it.

The reason that you can now only challenge for the title by being like City and Chelsea, is because of City and Chelsea.

 

[newtonheathdave]

I stopped reading that bollocks you posted after reading that first sentence. I know City fans tend to be a bit dense, but surely even you can spot what's wrong with the above.

Not my work, I have just copied that. The fact still remains that in the past that United have spent more than they earned and been bailed out by sugar daddies. They have also been close to bankruptcy and City helped them see that off. City also helped secure your place in the league.
So it is hypocritical for United fans to criticise City for spending money to try and achieve something when in fact if it was not for sugar daddies as you call them investing in United then today you would not even exist.

 

[newtonheathdave]

The reason that you can now only challenge for the title by being like City and Chelsea, is because of City and Chelsea.

Tell that to Blackburn

 

[Decotron]

How came someone compare to the two clubs in this regard I'll never know. Many of the current City side are there for the money, pure and simple.

Lots of United big signings over the years were offered more money elsewhere. Theres a lure a club like United brings to the table, this will continue and City simply cant match that with money.

 

[KM]

That's what happens Dave, when you without any research copy facts from Bluemoon.