The flip side of the ethical coin is the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City being run like a business
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is applicable to every club. Take Man Utd for example, was Moyes really sacked solely because of the poor results or the fact that the poor results led to a dramatic fall in the club's share price? Every club is run like a business.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
In short whichever business model a club adopts, they will be required to sustain revenues through larger commercial deals and to a lesser extent match day incomes.
The days of billionaires pumping hundreds of millions into clubs to sustain an untenable cash flow are now gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very simple
The only reason people say chelsea and city have ruined football is because it effects the status quo of the previous top sides who had the monopoly on players and titles for many years
Liverpool
United
Arsenal
Have ALL outspent there rivals at some point in there history to be the best.
Arsnenal fans gizzed all of the shop when they blew 45m on ozil and that's on one player. They preach to the masses about being sustainable but at the same time want their manager sacked for not spending the money to challenge.
United are run on debt
Liverpool spent 55m on Andy Carroll and Jordan Henderson and people seem to forget under their last regime they were in the courts for debt based discrepancies. It was only when FSG came in and bankrolled the cash to buy the players needed to succeed. What you think Brendan Rogers invented football ? No he had the players to do so and the managerial nous to implement the tactics to make them title challengers.
There have been many times in history teams have used their financial muscle to out do their rivals.
The only people who say city and chelsea are ruining football are the supporters of the top clubs who have been effected by it.
You won't hear a peep from Liverpool fans when they go and spend 100m in an attempt to sustain their success.
Spurs despite what they tell you did actually spent 100m in an attempt to catch the top boys and failed miserably. So miserably in fact that very quickly the fans reverted back to this very argument to console themselves
Real Madrid, Barcelona, bayern Munich have for years had a. Financial monopoly over other teams same with united.
If the wealth in football was more fairly distributed then you wouldn't need the likes of roman and the sheik coming in.
Just out of curiosity OP, who is your chosen club?
If it wasnt for City's and Chelsea's millions we wouldn't be on our way to winning the title playing the way we do.
Toby lerone Climbing the stairway to Haven One Article at a time (U12295)
Agree with all of that.
comment by joeymancityz .. great work agent Moyes (U4783)
posted 3 minutes ago
Just out of curiosity OP, who is your chosen club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is a United wum, who with the use of a very powerful microscope can claim to have a pea sized brain.
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 2 minutes ago
If it wasnt for City's and Chelsea's millions we wouldn't be on our way to winning the title playing the way we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not spent a penny in doing so no?
All home grown players are they ?
Where did Suarez grow up in Liverpool?
English players very rarely go out and buy World Class players these days- people who are already established as World Class. They can buy players who are nearly at that level and develop them to that standard: most established World Class players are picked up by the two biggest clubs in the World- Real Madrid and Barcelona.
Penalty spot, tell me, who was the first English club to qualify for the European/CL cup? I will give you a clue the first quaifiers came from the winners in the 1955 season.
The winners were told not to enter by the FA, a decision that may have prevented a significan contribution to the clubs history, indeed the history of English football.
History is not about trophies, trophies are a measure of success.
You could argue that any club who is on the breadline is doomed to playing defensive football just to survive.
Just watch Sawnsea go into a downward spiral of negative depression!
If that is because playing expansive football against rich clubs is suicide, then yes City and Chelsea have ruined football.
Ahhhhhh - the old Liverpool Littlewoods excuse
The Littlewoods family was very rich yes but United were said to be richer than Liverpool from the 50s onwards (including our period of domination)
Funnily enough, Liverpool didn't break the transfer record until as late as 1995 when they signed Collymore.
Who broke the record for highest fee by a British club in the 70s - Manchester City for Steve Daley
Who broke it in the 80s ? United for Bryan Robson
In these decades, teams wouldn't create a new starting XI - they'd add the odd player every other season.
When we lost our prize player in Kevin Keegan, we actually paid less for his replacement - King Kenny
Nice try though
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 7 seconds ago
You could argue that any club who is on the breadline is doomed to playing defensive football just to survive.
Just watch Sawnsea go into a downward spiral of negative depression!
If that is because playing expansive football against rich clubs is suicide, then yes City and Chelsea have ruined football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok
Your a dumb a55
If Chelsea and City had not come about then United would have dominated far more than they did with Liverpool nearly going into administration and Arsenal paying off a stadium debt. It would have been like the 12/13 season a lot more often.
"comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 minutes ago
Penalty spot, tell me, who was the first English club to qualify for the European/CL cup? I will give you a clue the first quaifiers came from the winners in the 1955 season.
The winners were told not to enter by the FA, a decision that may have prevented a significan contribution to the clubs history, indeed the history of English football.
History is not about trophies, trophies are a measure of success."
"Qualifying" for the EC just meant you happened to win the title they year the EC was formed.
Did you think the FA didn't try to stop Busby taking United into Europe too? Or was it just Chelsea?
The FA called it a tin-pot competition, yet Busby was a visionary, and took his team to compete in the competition that all clubs now crave.
They wouldn't even accommodate the fixtures in 1958 to allow them time to travel back from the competition that they said was a waste of time.
The subsequent rush to get home contributed to the Munich disaster. So don't talk about the FA!!
Liverpool are still going to win the league.
Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho are all going to make it happen.
I'm happy!
Liverpool are where we're at first and foremost because of lods-of-emone....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
All the other factors pale in comparison.
United won all their titles in a period of dominance because of...you guessed it....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
Same with City, same with Chelsea same with Arsenal
comment by Metro. (U6770)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ahhhhhh - the old Liverpool Littlewoods excuse
The Littlewoods family was very rich yes but United were said to be richer than Liverpool from the 50s onwards (including our period of domination)
Funnily enough, Liverpool didn't break the transfer record until as late as 1995 when they signed Collymore.
Who broke the record for highest fee by a British club in the 70s - Manchester City for Steve Daley
Who broke it in the 80s ? United for Bryan Robson
In these decades, teams wouldn't create a new starting XI - they'd add the odd player every other season.
When we lost our prize player in Kevin Keegan, we actually paid less for his replacement - King Kenny
Nice try though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Moores did put money into the club and you possibly would not have won the throphies you did without it.
My post was not anti liverpool, just proof that the big successful clubs always have money to back them up.
The only exception I can think off is Forest and they only won 1 title before sliding back down the table.
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 2 minutes ago
Liverpool are still going to win the league.
Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho are all going to make it happen.
I'm happy!
____________________________
You lasted long whatnext, as usual
Toby lerone
When you compare Arsenal's net spend over the last 10 seasons (circa 850,000 per season) it is significantly less when compared to the majority of PL teams and a drop in the ocean when compared to City, Chelsea, and United.
Yes and they've won nothing at all.
Liverpool are where we're at first and foremost because of lods-of-emone....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
-----
see my previous post
Liverpool were not and contrary to popular belief the top spenders, even in their period of dominance
I like football, clubs play football. Like it or lump it if you want to watch the sport you enjoy, played by players you're familiar with then the PL's what you're going to have to watch.
But the Moores did put money into the club and you possibly would not have won the throphies you did without it.
------
Of course they did - but you say this like we were th only club with resources.
All clubs spent and some more than Liverpool (even in their period of dominance)
This info is accessible in the public domain.
comment by Respected Kings Road (U1762)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 2 minutes ago
Liverpool are still going to win the league.
Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho are all going to make it happen.
I'm happy!
____________________________
You lasted long whatnext, as usual
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign in if you want to comment
Are Chelsea and City ruining football? Pt 1
Page 2 of 4
posted on 25/4/14
The flip side of the ethical coin is the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City being run like a business
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is applicable to every club. Take Man Utd for example, was Moyes really sacked solely because of the poor results or the fact that the poor results led to a dramatic fall in the club's share price? Every club is run like a business.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
In short whichever business model a club adopts, they will be required to sustain revenues through larger commercial deals and to a lesser extent match day incomes.
The days of billionaires pumping hundreds of millions into clubs to sustain an untenable cash flow are now gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very simple
The only reason people say chelsea and city have ruined football is because it effects the status quo of the previous top sides who had the monopoly on players and titles for many years
Liverpool
United
Arsenal
Have ALL outspent there rivals at some point in there history to be the best.
Arsnenal fans gizzed all of the shop when they blew 45m on ozil and that's on one player. They preach to the masses about being sustainable but at the same time want their manager sacked for not spending the money to challenge.
United are run on debt
Liverpool spent 55m on Andy Carroll and Jordan Henderson and people seem to forget under their last regime they were in the courts for debt based discrepancies. It was only when FSG came in and bankrolled the cash to buy the players needed to succeed. What you think Brendan Rogers invented football ? No he had the players to do so and the managerial nous to implement the tactics to make them title challengers.
There have been many times in history teams have used their financial muscle to out do their rivals.
The only people who say city and chelsea are ruining football are the supporters of the top clubs who have been effected by it.
You won't hear a peep from Liverpool fans when they go and spend 100m in an attempt to sustain their success.
Spurs despite what they tell you did actually spent 100m in an attempt to catch the top boys and failed miserably. So miserably in fact that very quickly the fans reverted back to this very argument to console themselves
Real Madrid, Barcelona, bayern Munich have for years had a. Financial monopoly over other teams same with united.
If the wealth in football was more fairly distributed then you wouldn't need the likes of roman and the sheik coming in.
posted on 25/4/14
Just out of curiosity OP, who is your chosen club?
posted on 25/4/14
If it wasnt for City's and Chelsea's millions we wouldn't be on our way to winning the title playing the way we do.
posted on 25/4/14
Toby lerone Climbing the stairway to Haven One Article at a time (U12295)
Agree with all of that.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by joeymancityz .. great work agent Moyes (U4783)
posted 3 minutes ago
Just out of curiosity OP, who is your chosen club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is a United wum, who with the use of a very powerful microscope can claim to have a pea sized brain.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 2 minutes ago
If it wasnt for City's and Chelsea's millions we wouldn't be on our way to winning the title playing the way we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not spent a penny in doing so no?
All home grown players are they ?
Where did Suarez grow up in Liverpool?
posted on 25/4/14
English players very rarely go out and buy World Class players these days- people who are already established as World Class. They can buy players who are nearly at that level and develop them to that standard: most established World Class players are picked up by the two biggest clubs in the World- Real Madrid and Barcelona.
posted on 25/4/14
Penalty spot, tell me, who was the first English club to qualify for the European/CL cup? I will give you a clue the first quaifiers came from the winners in the 1955 season.
The winners were told not to enter by the FA, a decision that may have prevented a significan contribution to the clubs history, indeed the history of English football.
History is not about trophies, trophies are a measure of success.
posted on 25/4/14
*English clubs.
posted on 25/4/14
You could argue that any club who is on the breadline is doomed to playing defensive football just to survive.
Just watch Sawnsea go into a downward spiral of negative depression!
If that is because playing expansive football against rich clubs is suicide, then yes City and Chelsea have ruined football.
posted on 25/4/14
Ahhhhhh - the old Liverpool Littlewoods excuse
The Littlewoods family was very rich yes but United were said to be richer than Liverpool from the 50s onwards (including our period of domination)
Funnily enough, Liverpool didn't break the transfer record until as late as 1995 when they signed Collymore.
Who broke the record for highest fee by a British club in the 70s - Manchester City for Steve Daley
Who broke it in the 80s ? United for Bryan Robson
In these decades, teams wouldn't create a new starting XI - they'd add the odd player every other season.
When we lost our prize player in Kevin Keegan, we actually paid less for his replacement - King Kenny
Nice try though
posted on 25/4/14
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 7 seconds ago
You could argue that any club who is on the breadline is doomed to playing defensive football just to survive.
Just watch Sawnsea go into a downward spiral of negative depression!
If that is because playing expansive football against rich clubs is suicide, then yes City and Chelsea have ruined football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok
Your a dumb a55
posted on 25/4/14
If Chelsea and City had not come about then United would have dominated far more than they did with Liverpool nearly going into administration and Arsenal paying off a stadium debt. It would have been like the 12/13 season a lot more often.
posted on 25/4/14
"comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 minutes ago
Penalty spot, tell me, who was the first English club to qualify for the European/CL cup? I will give you a clue the first quaifiers came from the winners in the 1955 season.
The winners were told not to enter by the FA, a decision that may have prevented a significan contribution to the clubs history, indeed the history of English football.
History is not about trophies, trophies are a measure of success."
"Qualifying" for the EC just meant you happened to win the title they year the EC was formed.
Did you think the FA didn't try to stop Busby taking United into Europe too? Or was it just Chelsea?
The FA called it a tin-pot competition, yet Busby was a visionary, and took his team to compete in the competition that all clubs now crave.
They wouldn't even accommodate the fixtures in 1958 to allow them time to travel back from the competition that they said was a waste of time.
The subsequent rush to get home contributed to the Munich disaster. So don't talk about the FA!!
posted on 25/4/14
Liverpool are still going to win the league.
Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho are all going to make it happen.
I'm happy!
posted on 25/4/14
Liverpool are where we're at first and foremost because of lods-of-emone....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
All the other factors pale in comparison.
United won all their titles in a period of dominance because of...you guessed it....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
Same with City, same with Chelsea same with Arsenal
posted on 25/4/14
comment by Metro. (U6770)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ahhhhhh - the old Liverpool Littlewoods excuse
The Littlewoods family was very rich yes but United were said to be richer than Liverpool from the 50s onwards (including our period of domination)
Funnily enough, Liverpool didn't break the transfer record until as late as 1995 when they signed Collymore.
Who broke the record for highest fee by a British club in the 70s - Manchester City for Steve Daley
Who broke it in the 80s ? United for Bryan Robson
In these decades, teams wouldn't create a new starting XI - they'd add the odd player every other season.
When we lost our prize player in Kevin Keegan, we actually paid less for his replacement - King Kenny
Nice try though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Moores did put money into the club and you possibly would not have won the throphies you did without it.
My post was not anti liverpool, just proof that the big successful clubs always have money to back them up.
The only exception I can think off is Forest and they only won 1 title before sliding back down the table.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 2 minutes ago
Liverpool are still going to win the league.
Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho are all going to make it happen.
I'm happy!
____________________________
You lasted long whatnext, as usual
posted on 25/4/14
Toby lerone
When you compare Arsenal's net spend over the last 10 seasons (circa 850,000 per season) it is significantly less when compared to the majority of PL teams and a drop in the ocean when compared to City, Chelsea, and United.
posted on 25/4/14
Yes and they've won nothing at all.
posted on 25/4/14
Liverpool are where we're at first and foremost because of lods-of-emone....money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money..money...
-----
see my previous post
Liverpool were not and contrary to popular belief the top spenders, even in their period of dominance
posted on 25/4/14
I like football, clubs play football. Like it or lump it if you want to watch the sport you enjoy, played by players you're familiar with then the PL's what you're going to have to watch.
posted on 25/4/14
But the Moores did put money into the club and you possibly would not have won the throphies you did without it.
------
Of course they did - but you say this like we were th only club with resources.
All clubs spent and some more than Liverpool (even in their period of dominance)
This info is accessible in the public domain.
posted on 25/4/14
comment by Respected Kings Road (U1762)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Half Full (U19539)
posted 2 minutes ago
Liverpool are still going to win the league.
Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho are all going to make it happen.
I'm happy!
____________________________
You lasted long whatnext, as usual
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2 of 4