So, you're still refusing to offer any actual evidence?
I really don't think Blackburn fans care about the death of progress at the top of the premier league any more, they have more pressing concerns.
"teams buy trophies"
- Thread starter Edmeiste
- Start date
it's hilarious. I suspect he'll spot the flaw...eventually. Perhaps not.
That is simply not true, with the money you now have you could have done it with good wages and steady growth. Its been done this way because just like that other rich kid at chelsea your owners want instant success gained by any means. The ultimate health of football is not their concern as long as their particular project is on course.
The truth is that Man Utd were in exactly the right spot to take advantage of the inception of the PL. And they did, fully.
In our 'super-competitive' league, only 3 teams other than Man Utd have won the league since 92. Two of them run by sugar daddies, the other stopped competing for trophies a long time ago. We may have another this season but yet another sugar daddy team.
I don't like what City and Chelsea have done in the slightest. Partly because I don't agree with the principle and partly because they've negatively affected Tottenham. But Dave is right. The only way now to break into the title challenging arena is to be bought out by a very rich man who is willing to fund the team well beyond its means. There is no other way.
Personally, I think a Super League may not be the worse idea. Then the league may get properly competitive again.
I wonder it my great grandad was saying the same things about United that United fans are saying about City 80 years ago.
Arsenal have competed and will again and unfortunately so will Liverpool. Spurs are a little different because they have been just below the very top for 50 years. But they are going closing. In the past you might have lost players to clubs at the very top but it was trophys/glory rather than wages that pulled them from you Chelsea and City changed that.
I am sorry but Citys owners are investing money into football where as Uniteds owners are taking vast sums out. Citys owners are good for the health of football. the fact that City have paid big wages has not caused Evertons or Spurs or Arsenals wages to go up. In fact City have been good to Everton and Arsenal.
Also Citys financial power has at least given some power back to the clubs instead of the players. In years gone by players have been able to hold clubs to ransom. As Tevez has seen, that can not be done to City.
If City would have tried to take things slowly then Platini and his henchmen would have tried to implement FFP before we had a chance to get in to the closed shop.
The only thing I do not think is fair regarding City is the fact we have been able to loan players to our rivals and they could not play against us. I do not think it is fair that Adebayor can play against all our rivals but not against us. that rule needs changing
In 1930-31 United lost their first 12 games (still a record in europe i believe) and were relegated
i really dont know where to begin.City good for Arsenal.
I have heard it all now. You have bought up half their first team. You have inflated wages to suggest otherwise is looney talk. Why do you think Nasri went to city instead of staying at Arsenal or going to United? Also didnt Tevez get a new contract when he said he would leave before?
But why will they? There is a chance that Arsenal may lose their last truly world class player this summer. And Liverpool will have been out of the top 4 for 3 seasons now. They haven't come close to it since. Their squad is filled with average players. There's a long way back for them.
But that's the point. We improve ourselves, push ourselves up the table, maybe look like we're about to do something and then the behemoths at the top of the table pick off the players. Trophies are certainly a factor, probably the biggest. The tripling of their wages I'm sure will also play into their minds. You don't think Carrick, Campbell and Berbatov all got paid significantly more than they were at Tottenham?
And actually, City so far have had no direct effect on our playing squad, other than loaning us Adebayor. Chelsea a bit less so after their pursuit of Modric last summer. What is a factor in our ability to compete with the two Manchesters, two other London Clubs and Liverpool is that all 5 of you can pay significantly more wages than us.
And we may find ourselves in a similar position this summer. Modric will almost certainly leave imo, regardless of whether we finish in 3rd/4th/5th. Bale possibly too. We'll pocket tens of millions again. And be back to square one, as the clubs at the top with consistent CL money maintain their monopoly.
The same will likely happen to Newcastle this summer/next summer too.
City gave Arsenal an awful lot of money for them players. Arsenals wage structure has not been broken because of Citys spending.
City good for Arsenal.
Also didnt Tevez get a new contract when he said he would leave before?
Maybe Nasri chose City as he believed he had more chance of winning trophies and wanted to play with Yaya and Silva
Were they not also on the verge on bankruptcy that year and got bought out?
Who do United thank...
Alex Ferguson for great management?
A worlwide fan base built from heritage and tradition?
Players such as Cantona, Giggs, Beckham, Scholes etc etc etc who played for the honour of wearing the shirt as opposed to the pay cheque?
And the same would have happened to City where upon we would never ever have got the chance to compete.
Spurs are lucky, they have the attraction of being in London going for them and they have done well to get where they are.
Manchester City are not so lucky, we have to compete against United for fans in our own back yard and Manchester is a shit hole so we don't have the attraction London has.
There is absolutely no other way we could have gone about business
If Uniteds worldwide fan base actually contributed towards their club then they might actually not be in any debt
Who do United thank...
Alex Ferguson for great management?
A worlwide fan base built from heritage and tradition?
Players such as Cantona, Giggs, Beckham, Scholes etc etc etc who played for the honour of wearing the shirt as opposed to the pay cheque?
They have invested money into football via transfers but hit it badly with wages and it has driven wgaes up throughout the league fact. Talk to chairmen in lower league clubs if you don't believe me.
Tevez would not have played for United again (and i believe that would have applied to clubs like Arsenal as well) - he made City look stupid and imo still is everytime he puills on shirt.
You keep going on about Platini and FFP although the idea was first mooted before cities takeover.
I am curious as to what you think the long term plan for city should be. Say for the next ten years, do you want Mansour to keep giving you money and make a huge loss every season? Or do you actually think he can build city up to have a turnover bigger than Real Madrid, thats what he would need to do to make you break even? Just forget about FFP and assume he gets around it by sponsorship from sister companies etc.
Do you believe City can ever pay for their wages by their own true generated revenue?
Is this citys future? To be bankrolled every year for the next 10 till you make inroads in revenue?
Aslo how would you feel if united broke up the TV rights?(I wouldnt want this by the way). What if it became United only option to take on City?
Remember 1902?
How can you pass on the opportunity to point out that Davies was literally a sugardaddy, with his wife's money coming from the Tate family? A stretch, I admit, but given the unbridled historical revisionism, it's missing an open goal, Dave.
Also, this thread might be of interest --
https://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abr...had-positive-influence-premier-league-352156/
How can you pass on the opportunity to point out that Davies was literally a sugardaddy, with his wife's money coming from the Tate family? A stretch, I admit, but given the unbridled historical revisionism, it's missing an open goal, Dave.
Also, this thread might be of interest --
https://www.redcafe.net/f7/have-abr...had-positive-influence-premier-league-352156/
No I don't think City need to be spending silly amounts in future in the playing staff. The money needs to be spent on infrastructure which they are doing in the new training ground and in youth development.
There are still avenues for City to grow commercially and to increase revenue. We just have to work towards ffp. As long as we are working towards them then Uefa will not ban us.
At the end of the day, City have the basis of a good young squad. We don't need to pay silly money for players now, it is just a case of fine tuning. maybe some pace out wide and a decent back up cb.
It all depends on how long term the owners are thinking. But imo they will be in it for the long haul and they seem to know what they are doing
That has nothing to do with discussion but yes £30000 was invested in club. Much good it did them anyway as 1934 saw their lowest ever league position and United spent much of the 30's in div 2.
Post war has seen the rise of United to its current position as a world wide name not because of money but because of two of the greatest managers in history.
As for this crap about United having debt and City not - Portsmouth thought they were debt free and successful until their owner wanted his investment (that had already spent) back. ATM there is pots of money but the Arab world is very unpredictable as we have seen in past year so don't be too confident.
But wages alone are much higher than turnover. It was around 174mil before Augero and Nasri came in. There Turnover was 153mil( before CL football to be fair so that will grow).
I am no financial expert but it would seem to me that Citys wage bill will soon be equal to that of say barca/Real. I cannot see how City can match their revenue. They would have to grow to ridiculous levels.
Also isnt wages to turnover always said to be around 50% in a well run club? That would mean city need to turnover 340mil a year?
City will need bankrolling to keep them up there with or without new players, just like Chelsea have. The model is that of an upside down pyramid the whole structure bankrolled by one investment group.
What?In this thread you've single handedly managed to accidentally prove that United's spending was nothing like City's.
My own input is that the City owners can afford to be making a net loss on their investment (compared to the increasing worth of the club) for the next 15 years, until it levels out (which isn't even guaranteed). This is fairly unusual in business let alone football.
The following teams managed a proper title challenge in the pre-Abramovich era:
Manchester United, Norwich, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Newcastle United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Leeds.
Since Abramovich came along and bought Chelsea a near-permanent place at the top table:
Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool.
Since ADUG came along and bought City a near-permanent place at the top table:
Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, City.
Nobody outside that four can have any hope of winning the league for the next ten years, and with Arsenal regressing we all know that for the next decade it will be, at best, the same three clubs hoping to win the title every season. Do you honestly think if Chelsea and City weren't allowed to financially dope then the league would be less competitive?
It's a factor in the overall inflation of transfer fees in the game - specifically English Players - the likes of Ferdinand and Rooney set the bar high.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.
What is the relevance of breaking transfer records on individual players to overall transfer spending?
For me, for a United fan to accuse City of "buying" the title is a bit rich when we've blown money on single players which even our closest rivals wouldn't spend on two or three players at that particular time.
Clearly the figures above tell their own story, and make shocking reading - but it makes me think what United would have spent had they not had the golden generation of players who come through. Had United had to buy a player of Scholes or Giggs quality from the continent they'd have cost a fortune.
I guess, in a nutshell, City have "bought" a title - because they've built a very good side. I just don't feel that in a game so money driven today its fair to criticse on that basis - modern football is what it is - especially as at some stage United may have to do exactly the same.
The players we bought for big money (relatively) in the early 90s contributed hugely to the success we initially had. Obviously it is nothing in comparison to what City are doing now. Spending big money doesn't necessarily buy success, but it goes a long way in helping it.
Every good United side Fergie has ever built relied on purchased players to some extent - in the early 90's Keane, Pallister, Bruce, Parker, Irwin etc - then onto Cole, Stam, Berg, Yorke, - the RVN, Rooney etc. Fact is every manager needs to buy players to move his side on.
I think what the level of spending from City shows is that it takes a hell of an investment to break into the top levels of English Football and challenge the monopoly of the big sides - especially if you're a mid table club.
Yep, completely agree.
Look at dortmund. Athletic bilbao is another great example. They havent won La Liga but they've taken Europa League by storm. There are teams that actually try and build without a huge cash injection. You're a fool if you think it's the only way to be successful. It just takes more time than most of your fans would probably like. It's the quick and dirty way.
The fundamental issue for me is that City fans keep trying to say what they're doing now is the same we've been doing and what we've done in our rise to dominance. That's what offends me because it's clearly not.
I think to settle this, if someone had the time, I certainly dont, to actually compare what we've done in the Fergie era in its entirety to what City are doing now, I think that would help to settle the debate.
We havent done things the same way. It's even sillier that City want to be like us after mocking us for all these years. Criticizing our fanbase and such and now getting the same type of fans. Just ridiculous
I think to settle this, if someone had the time, I certainly dont, to actually compare what we've done in the Fergie era in its entirety to what City are doing now, I think that would help to settle the debate.
We havent done things the same way. It's even sillier that City want to be like us after mocking us for all these years. Criticizing our fanbase and such and now getting the same type of fans. Just ridiculous
Or look at Newcastle United, who in a better world would definitely get Champion's League this summer and build from that towards a title challenge. But we all know that even if they get there, Chelsea will spend another 100 million of someone else's money this summer and push them back out, much as City did to Spurs.
Those were at the beginning the premier league, before the effects of the sky tv money and the expansion of the CL had managed to have an effect. Since then, it has become a closed shop. And challenging doesn't mean a great deal, you don't get a trophy or medal for almost winning a trophy. 4 teams have won the PL. Two of them sugar daddy. We might get a 5th this season, also a sugar daddy. The expansion of CL places and the money that comes with it has made the league just as uncompetitive as the rise of the oil rich. For us that weren't in the correct position to take advantage of the PL's inception and the champions league money, there is little difference between the likes of Man utd and Chelsea/Man City. You made your own money which is why I respect you far more than the other two. But that respect is of little comfort when you come along and pick off players from the less successful clubs, cementing your place at the top and keeping clubs below.
We bought our players - and the titles if you like - with money we generated ourselves. The Glazers aren't exactly in the same league as City's sugar daddy.
ok buddy.And why were Yaya and Silva there?
Investing in your club is one thing. Spending 3-4 times the value of Liverpool football club in transfers is sort of taking the piss. In the past when rich men have invested in a team, like for United, it has been with a view of making that money back, of making a profit in the long run. Now we have Roman and the Sheik using these clubs as toys to impress their friends.
At least Real Madrid make a ton of money and have a huge fanbase, even if they have gotten some free money out of their government that was a bit shady. The vast majority of the money they've spent in their recent history is money they raised.
At least Real Madrid make a ton of money and have a huge fanbase, even if they have gotten some free money out of their government that was a bit shady. The vast majority of the money they've spent in their recent history is money they raised.
Dude, please.
Who do United thank...
Alex Ferguson for great management?
A worlwide fan base built from heritage and tradition?
Players such as Cantona, Giggs, Beckham, Scholes etc etc etc who played for the honour of wearing the shirt as opposed to the pay cheque?
The level of whining on this forum is getting vulgar. Manchester United has been a financial juggernaut. SAF didn't Macguiver his teams, he was able to flex considerably more financial muscle than pretty much all but a few teams in ALL OF WORLD FOOTBALL.
Is he an exceptional manager? Of course. His record speaks for itself and that clubs with similar financial clout have not done what we have done is evidence enough for that.
However until the early part of the last decade, we have been financially in another league compared to just about every other club in England.
The holier than thou attitude is not flattering.
We spent, we had success. The game has been big business, more money is involved, more is at stake, the stakes have been raised. Now to break into this old boys club, and that is exactly what the top of European football is, you need money.
Chelsea and City got lucky, they won the lottery so to speak. They have been spending that money to close the gap. Why is there something wrong with that?
We have enjoyed an unparalleled period of dominance that in very large part is due to the financial power this club has.
Money is money, it is a great equalizer. Stop moping about how they got theirs and worry about us.
If City bought this trophy that they haven't even officially won yet, then how are you any different than any of the ABUtards who claim the same about us?
Degrees of separation don't matter. To say otherwise is just sour grapes.
Not, definitely. Pathetic isn't it.
I agree with the general principle, the richest teams have been winning the title for years, success is largely about money and what is happening at City is not so fundamentally different from what has happened before. Different in some ways, but in essence the same, just on a different scale. But when it comes to scale, who's to say where the line is between an acceptable investment and something excessive? Any line is arbitrary.