"Wouldn't you have to take that all the way down the leagues and wouldn't PL teams be accused of setting the cap at an amount they can afford that teams like Bury could never ever get close to

Why shouldn't Bury insist on the cap being at a level they can afford to give them a chance of one day playing PL football?

You can't just draw a line somewhere and tell the clubs below that line, tough luck"

The principle is correct, the implication of it is up for debate - it would work if only the top leagues adopt this approach for instance.

comment by geniusgreaves, Lasagne delivery for Arsenal, Newcastle & Fulham, must be consumed by 12 noon on May 13th!! (U1302)
posted 11 minutes ago

JFDI............................There did used to be a fairly level playing field, which is why clubs like Luton, Wimbledon, Ipswich et al used to be able to get into the top division and compete for the title with realistic chances of achieving some glory.

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

The three teams you mentioned did well and are advocating what I said all along, it is possible to compete, there was not a level playing field when those teams did well, they rolled up their shirt sleeves and grabbed what they can.

This highlights the real dilemma within football, started by Chelsea in 2003 onwards
==============================================

Started by United and continued by Leeds, Wigan and Fulham you mean

Sorry Genius, should read go some way to advocating what I said all along.

Theres a serial liar on this thread. He knows who he is.

JFDI.............................I understand what you mean, however I think the gap is way too big these days. In the past there was always one team that could upset the applecart, Wimbledon did it by ruffling feather both on and off the pitch. Ipswich did it with sublime football and great managers..............................

Come on Mr Chelsea, name names!!

Bubbles how are you?.............................In a way you are right, think the Leeds situation was based on the premise that CL football would be a regular thing. United have always been a club that attracts top players & therefore top fees, but they also had a great youth academy especially in the 80's and 90's.

I have no issues per se with City buying the league. I respect the way they play and the legacy they are trying to build regarding their academy and the city as a whole. They are spending 100s of millions to fast track them to success and in years to come I expect them to be financially viable, producing their own players and competing without constant hand outs.

I also respect the City fans who have been through hell but still stayed with their team.

Chelsea on the other hand I remember Kenyon banging on about "self-sufficient in 5 years time" and they are still posting losses of £80m. It wasn;t that long ago (EPL era) when they weren't winning anything when they had sub 10,000 attendances.

Sugar daddies does take away from the enjoyment of the league to some extent. It's like playing poker against a millionaire, they don;t care if they lose £2k, I'd be gutted if i lost £50.

It would be better if the competition was closer and not simply as a result of money spent.

IMO wage cap at % of revenue would not work, it would probably make worse the ability of smaller clubs to challenge for anything. The SKY 4 would have a strangle hold, more success, more money, biggger wage budget, better players, more success etc...Chelsea and City would not have been able to break in to the top 4 to such an extent without their cash injections.

comment by Don and Bubbles love child (U1762)
posted 48 minutes ago
Some of these comments are hilarious.

You do realize the day Roman showed up we were in the top 4 and won 5 trophies the previous 6 season's, aswell as regularly handing sound thrashing's to Liverpool, United and especially Tottenham? not to mention being on a 13 year unbeaten league run against the latter.

- - - - -

there is a reason why you were sold for £1 to Abramovich, because you were so badly managed and had spent well beyond your means to achieve "success".

The only difference now is you spend well beyond you means and Roman mops up the losses

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/chelsea-transfers.html

Look how much chelsea spent in the 99-00 season

Devonshire spur what on earth are you about?

You say on one hand you respect city because their fans are loyal. Funny you didnt mention their financial situation. You're talking as if city are turning over a profit year on year but then you go onto chelsea and criticise us because our chief exec said we'll be self sufficient in 5 years. Why should that make you view us any different When did kenyon even bang on about? He Might have said once or twice but he never banged on about it.

Genius

I'm fine, yourself?

Nervous for Sunday?

Kenyon used to say stuff fairly regularly - turning the world blue, 2 champs' leagues in 10 years and breaking even in 10 etc.

Why did I have to be in an exam? Now I'll have to read all of this

Bubbles..................I am good thanks, opened a right Pandora's Box posting this today!

Yes a little nervous but also fairly calm in a strange way. Whatever is going to be is going to be..........................

If we get 3rd spot it will be better, however if we finish 4th the nerves will be worse on the 19th I can tell you!

Bubbles youre posting on here during an exam?? How'd do you pull that off?

comment by Mr Chelsea (U3579)
posted 9 minutes ago
Devonshire spur what on earth are you about?

You say on one hand you respect city because their fans are loyal. Funny you didnt mention their financial situation. You're talking as if city are turning over a profit year on year but then you go onto chelsea and criticise us because our chief exec said we'll be self sufficient in 5 years. Why should that make you view us any different When did kenyon even bang on about? He Might have said once or twice but he never banged on about it.

- - - - -

City are a few years into their project. Time will tell whether they break even one day, but their plans are strong and will benefit the wider community through regeneration and investment locally.

Chelsea are 9 years in and still posting £70m losses and you're going backwards! When the going gets tough, another £80m is splashed out like in the Jan 11 window, or this past season.

9 years on and you are no closer to being self sufficient than you were when Roman arrived

Mr Chelsea

No finished about 2 hours ago

3 hour exam though

was that your 11plus Bubbles

No my Key Stage 3 Maths

JFDI.............................I understand what you mean, however I think the gap is way too big these days. In the past there was always one team that could upset the applecart, Wimbledon did it by ruffling feather both on and off the pitch. Ipswich did it with sublime football and great managers..............................
-----------------------------------------------

And teams like Swansea, Wigan, Blackpool have and are doing it now.

Devonshire agreed. The money which roman has spent, some of it has been wild and some sensible but we've got a state of the art youth academy now, we're looking to fund a new stadium to help increase our revenues, we've bought a lot of youth in the past few years, the players who mourinho and ranieri originally bought are stil around.nearing the end of their shelf life now but most of them repaid us back with trophies. Granted we had some duds in between. we are 70m in the red but its not impossible to claw that back. Our spending bar torres has been sensible recently. City's owners though look to be more switched on and have already put plans in place to help them grow on and off the pitch. We've only just started doing that in the last 3\4 years.

The History of Kenyon


Jan 2005 (£90m losses)
Chelsea post losses of £87.8m for 2003-04, Roman Abramovich’s first season in control. Chelsea say they will break even by 2010. Peter Kenyon says: “Two years ago we were seen as streets paved with gold. That is over. Chelsea is now being run properly. The club is being run as a business.”

Jan 2006 (£140m losses)
Kenyon insisted he was not alarmed, saying a "series of exceptional one-off items" were behind the figure.
"What matters is that there's a point in time where Chelsea are self-sufficient," added Kenyon.
"I think it matters as he's a good businessman, he's a passionate supporter of Chelsea and we think that being recognised as one of the top football clubs is success on the field and success in business."

Feb 2007 (£80m losses)
Chelsea post £80m losses for 2005-06. Kenyon says: “”You know what? As chief executive I want to pay [Abramovich] back [his loans] because that would show we are running this club as a real proper sustainable business.” Club will be self-sufficient by 2010, says Kenyon.

Dec 2008 (£66m losses)
Chelsea's chief executive, Peter Kenyon, has pledged that the club will be cash self-sufficient from July 1 next year, a commitment that would ensure they are no longer reliant upon Roman Abramovich's interest-free loans to cover costs, from players' wages to forays into the transfer market.


Dec 2009 (£44m losses)
By which point Kenyon had left his post…..probably due to sheer embarrassment!

If City's figures are anywhere near this in 5-7 years time i'll be equally as disparaging of their running of the club.

BTW those losses add up to £420m from 2005 - 2009. I think somewhere in that Kenyon refers to Roman as being a "good business man"