Comment deleted by Site Moderator
One thing I would say, is if Chelsea hadnt been competitive in the past decade, how boring would the PL have been at the top? With Arsenal struggling, United would have dominated even more than they had in the 90's. If it wasn't for Man City this year, United would have walked it again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Completly missing the point.
Without Chelsea/City (and other forgeign clubs) creating a ridiculously inflated transfer market and wage structure... Arsenal and Liverpool would have continued to purchase higher quality players and had more success.
Like I have already said, the oil daddys don't bother me.... But let's not start spouting out rubbish about it not really affecting things much
Man U are in the top 5 richest clubs in the world.. lets not point the finger at City who have had a lot of spending to catch up on compared to the rest over the last 20 years. City are entitled to spend money because they havent had anywhere near the money the likes of Chelsea and Man U have had...so this article is pants im afraid.
I say good luck to you City. Go spend 2 billion if it means knocking those arrogant ckunts from there temporary "perch".
Because it means that clubs like Everton and Villa are likely to attract wealthy investors and the trickle down effect of large transfer fees wont reach clubs in the lower divisions.
------
sugar daddies pump external money into football, which causes inflation of transfer fees and wages, which makes it harder for other clubs to compete. This idea that FFP will make it harder for other clubs is balls.
if spurs were to go the way of city and chelsea then that would just be another club on an unlevel playing field.
--
Spurs have a billionaire owner but he don't want to spend money. That actually is bad to football.
---
maf
If Joe Lewis announced he was going to invest £1billion in Spurs there'd be breakdancing on the streets of Hemel Hempstead.
comment by Sir Thomas Of Towton - Wick Voted Best Board (U11544) posted 4 minutes ago
OP is a Spurs fan
And?
-------------
So why have a pop at just United fans when the Op of the article supports Spurs?
I guess I shouldn't need to ask really
no, he didn't. he 'bankrolled' the improvement of old trafford and was in no way a sugar daddy.
If Joe Lewis announced he was going to invest £1billion in Spurs there'd be breakdancing on the streets of Hemel Hempstead.
-------
doubt it... hemel hempstead is mainly arsenal area . i know as i used to play football up that way
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1352649/Martin-Samuel-Fair-play-Roman-75m-reaches-needy.html
I always liked this article from Martin Samuel, about the way the money trickles down the football pyramid.
Genius - we have had the same problem going back to the 70's when it was impossible to compete with Liverpool & Man Utd, Arsenal were never shy of getting their hands in there pockets, Blackburn spent heavily for a while, then my own Chelsea.
Now all of a sudden it's City that are the evil casting a shadow over football.
As far as I'm concerned it's jelousy of those that no longer have carte blanche in the transfer market that are crying the most, over situation they were responsible for creating in the 1st place.
For SAF to cry that City are creating an over inflated market is farcical. What he means is, he's mourning the status quo as it used to be!
We haven't had a fair playing field since at least the 60's!
This is a problem that affects all football clubs right down to the lower leagues which needs tackling before it creates a situation that is impossible to deal with without many clubs going to the wall!
--
With the billionaire owners, there is a chance for football fans won't be ripped. In City's case, it's true. As Chronic suggested everyone likes to see a world class players at his club.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I always liked this article from Martin Samuel, about the way the money trickles down the football pyramid.
------
if that's such a great idea then why doesn't the government just print loads of extra money and hand it out to the public. it'll trickle through society, it can't be a bad thing then right...
Not saying this is a defintite but would we have seen the Fergie Fledgling era if United had had a multibillionaire owner chucking in 100s of millions for transfers every season at the time?
---------------------------------
The fact that Chelsea have not brought through any youth player of any significance during their oil money period suggests you are right.
Last season, they had Sturridge waiting in the wings and performing well in reserves.... But they were too scared to try him out and opted for a £50m striker instead.
if it were self generated income then yes, city would be entitled to spend money. but it isn't and therefore they shouldn't be. why can people not see that?
I say good luck to you City. Go spend 2 billion if it means knocking those arrogant ckunts from there temporary "perch".
Basically you're that thick you don't care if your club will win the title as long as City stop your rivals from doing it? What an absolute twit you are
I don't think anybody would begrudge the City fans they day in the sun and they had a massive way to go to catch up so the money they spent was inevitable really.
But the point made is sound, the bubble will almost certainly burst, it has to, and as the OP says it's a matter of when not if. Now some fans may well say our club will be fine our owners have bottomless pockets, but without the rest of the league and a league which has some sort of competativeness then it's no longer a sport that folk will bother to watch. yes we'll always have our fans but football needs more than the match going fans to thrive. If it wasn't for the millions sat at home all over the world watching the many of the clubs would fold based upon todays wages demands alone.
Clubs like United could easliy compete if they sold their own TV rights, but this leads to an even bigger level of inbalance which would see teams like City, Chelsea, PSG etc spending even more of their owers cash to stay in touch, so the league needs a collective TV deal to stay viable. What needs to be done is there should be a line drawn in the sand, set a date and then adopt the policy used in the super league, you can only spend a certain amount of your turn over on players and their wages. This forces clubs to try to fill the ground more often and engage more with what the fans want and need from their club. It forces clubs to live with their means and should lead to much more youth development in the longer term.
righteous1
Is Dave Whelan at Wigan doing anything different?
He took Wigan from gates of 5000 in L2 to mid table in the Prem by spending money that Wigan did not generate.
QPR also in the recent years. Crawley lower down the pyramid too, and Fleetwood.
Its not just Man City and Chelsea at the top end, its been happening all over English football where rich owners are subsidising mega fees and wages to make their team competitive when otherwise they wouldn't be.
_____________________________________
Thanks, you have just proved my point. Its endemic throughout the game, however it first became that way 7-8 years ago and has accelerated with the emergence of City and their owners.
That is one of the reasons it is endemic, this irrational need to be the biggest and beat at all costs.
In reality a club like Wigan will never win the PL, however 30-40 years ago they might have had a chance, Why? Because the playing field was so much more level in those days.
How many different teams have won the PL since it started?
4............................
United, Chelsea, Arsenal & Blackburn (who effectively did what Chelsea & City are currently doing)
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I think FFP rules will have a small effect on City, they will surely have to get their house in order but i'm sure that a multi billionaire can find a way around these rather fimsy rules.
Basically you're that thick you don't care if your club will win the title as long as City stop your rivals from doing it? What an absolute twit you are
--
Arab - City didn't break Utd records when it comes to transfer money on a single player.
comment by Arab of Manchester (U11781)
posted 36 seconds ago
I say good luck to you City. Go spend 2 billion if it means knocking those arrogant ckunts from there temporary "perch".
Basically you're that thick you don't care if your club will win the title as long as City stop your rivals from doing it? What an absolute twit you are
=============================
no Arab your the one whos THICK... United are on of the top 5 richest clubs in the world. Why should they be afforded that luxury whil others teams like Villa, Everton etc cant compete. You cant pick and choose to point the finger when United are guilty of over spending themselves and breaking many transfer records
Where the money comes from doesn't affect my matchday experience TBH. I'm quite happy about the fact my Seasoncard costs half of what I'd be asked to pay at Loftus Road.
Sign in if you want to comment
Impossible to Compete With?
Page 3 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
One thing I would say, is if Chelsea hadnt been competitive in the past decade, how boring would the PL have been at the top? With Arsenal struggling, United would have dominated even more than they had in the 90's. If it wasn't for Man City this year, United would have walked it again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Completly missing the point.
Without Chelsea/City (and other forgeign clubs) creating a ridiculously inflated transfer market and wage structure... Arsenal and Liverpool would have continued to purchase higher quality players and had more success.
Like I have already said, the oil daddys don't bother me.... But let's not start spouting out rubbish about it not really affecting things much
posted on 10/5/12
Man U are in the top 5 richest clubs in the world.. lets not point the finger at City who have had a lot of spending to catch up on compared to the rest over the last 20 years. City are entitled to spend money because they havent had anywhere near the money the likes of Chelsea and Man U have had...so this article is pants im afraid.
I say good luck to you City. Go spend 2 billion if it means knocking those arrogant ckunts from there temporary "perch".
posted on 10/5/12
Because it means that clubs like Everton and Villa are likely to attract wealthy investors and the trickle down effect of large transfer fees wont reach clubs in the lower divisions.
------
sugar daddies pump external money into football, which causes inflation of transfer fees and wages, which makes it harder for other clubs to compete. This idea that FFP will make it harder for other clubs is balls.
posted on 10/5/12
if spurs were to go the way of city and chelsea then that would just be another club on an unlevel playing field.
--
Spurs have a billionaire owner but he don't want to spend money. That actually is bad to football.
---
maf
posted on 10/5/12
If Joe Lewis announced he was going to invest £1billion in Spurs there'd be breakdancing on the streets of Hemel Hempstead.
posted on 10/5/12
comment by Sir Thomas Of Towton - Wick Voted Best Board (U11544) posted 4 minutes ago
OP is a Spurs fan
And?
-------------
So why have a pop at just United fans when the Op of the article supports Spurs?
I guess I shouldn't need to ask really
posted on 10/5/12
no, he didn't. he 'bankrolled' the improvement of old trafford and was in no way a sugar daddy.
posted on 10/5/12
If Joe Lewis announced he was going to invest £1billion in Spurs there'd be breakdancing on the streets of Hemel Hempstead.
-------
doubt it... hemel hempstead is mainly arsenal area . i know as i used to play football up that way
posted on 10/5/12
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1352649/Martin-Samuel-Fair-play-Roman-75m-reaches-needy.html
I always liked this article from Martin Samuel, about the way the money trickles down the football pyramid.
posted on 10/5/12
Genius - we have had the same problem going back to the 70's when it was impossible to compete with Liverpool & Man Utd, Arsenal were never shy of getting their hands in there pockets, Blackburn spent heavily for a while, then my own Chelsea.
Now all of a sudden it's City that are the evil casting a shadow over football.
As far as I'm concerned it's jelousy of those that no longer have carte blanche in the transfer market that are crying the most, over situation they were responsible for creating in the 1st place.
For SAF to cry that City are creating an over inflated market is farcical. What he means is, he's mourning the status quo as it used to be!
We haven't had a fair playing field since at least the 60's!
posted on 10/5/12
This is a problem that affects all football clubs right down to the lower leagues which needs tackling before it creates a situation that is impossible to deal with without many clubs going to the wall!
--
With the billionaire owners, there is a chance for football fans won't be ripped. In City's case, it's true. As Chronic suggested everyone likes to see a world class players at his club.
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
I always liked this article from Martin Samuel, about the way the money trickles down the football pyramid.
------
if that's such a great idea then why doesn't the government just print loads of extra money and hand it out to the public. it'll trickle through society, it can't be a bad thing then right...
posted on 10/5/12
Not saying this is a defintite but would we have seen the Fergie Fledgling era if United had had a multibillionaire owner chucking in 100s of millions for transfers every season at the time?
---------------------------------
The fact that Chelsea have not brought through any youth player of any significance during their oil money period suggests you are right.
Last season, they had Sturridge waiting in the wings and performing well in reserves.... But they were too scared to try him out and opted for a £50m striker instead.
posted on 10/5/12
if it were self generated income then yes, city would be entitled to spend money. but it isn't and therefore they shouldn't be. why can people not see that?
posted on 10/5/12
I say good luck to you City. Go spend 2 billion if it means knocking those arrogant ckunts from there temporary "perch".
Basically you're that thick you don't care if your club will win the title as long as City stop your rivals from doing it? What an absolute twit you are
posted on 10/5/12
I don't think anybody would begrudge the City fans they day in the sun and they had a massive way to go to catch up so the money they spent was inevitable really.
But the point made is sound, the bubble will almost certainly burst, it has to, and as the OP says it's a matter of when not if. Now some fans may well say our club will be fine our owners have bottomless pockets, but without the rest of the league and a league which has some sort of competativeness then it's no longer a sport that folk will bother to watch. yes we'll always have our fans but football needs more than the match going fans to thrive. If it wasn't for the millions sat at home all over the world watching the many of the clubs would fold based upon todays wages demands alone.
Clubs like United could easliy compete if they sold their own TV rights, but this leads to an even bigger level of inbalance which would see teams like City, Chelsea, PSG etc spending even more of their owers cash to stay in touch, so the league needs a collective TV deal to stay viable. What needs to be done is there should be a line drawn in the sand, set a date and then adopt the policy used in the super league, you can only spend a certain amount of your turn over on players and their wages. This forces clubs to try to fill the ground more often and engage more with what the fans want and need from their club. It forces clubs to live with their means and should lead to much more youth development in the longer term.
posted on 10/5/12
righteous1
Is Dave Whelan at Wigan doing anything different?
He took Wigan from gates of 5000 in L2 to mid table in the Prem by spending money that Wigan did not generate.
QPR also in the recent years. Crawley lower down the pyramid too, and Fleetwood.
Its not just Man City and Chelsea at the top end, its been happening all over English football where rich owners are subsidising mega fees and wages to make their team competitive when otherwise they wouldn't be.
_____________________________________
Thanks, you have just proved my point. Its endemic throughout the game, however it first became that way 7-8 years ago and has accelerated with the emergence of City and their owners.
That is one of the reasons it is endemic, this irrational need to be the biggest and beat at all costs.
In reality a club like Wigan will never win the PL, however 30-40 years ago they might have had a chance, Why? Because the playing field was so much more level in those days.
How many different teams have won the PL since it started?
4............................
United, Chelsea, Arsenal & Blackburn (who effectively did what Chelsea & City are currently doing)
posted on 10/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/12
I think FFP rules will have a small effect on City, they will surely have to get their house in order but i'm sure that a multi billionaire can find a way around these rather fimsy rules.
posted on 10/5/12
Basically you're that thick you don't care if your club will win the title as long as City stop your rivals from doing it? What an absolute twit you are
--
Arab - City didn't break Utd records when it comes to transfer money on a single player.
posted on 10/5/12
comment by Arab of Manchester (U11781)
posted 36 seconds ago
I say good luck to you City. Go spend 2 billion if it means knocking those arrogant ckunts from there temporary "perch".
Basically you're that thick you don't care if your club will win the title as long as City stop your rivals from doing it? What an absolute twit you are
=============================
no Arab your the one whos THICK... United are on of the top 5 richest clubs in the world. Why should they be afforded that luxury whil others teams like Villa, Everton etc cant compete. You cant pick and choose to point the finger when United are guilty of over spending themselves and breaking many transfer records
posted on 10/5/12
Where the money comes from doesn't affect my matchday experience TBH. I'm quite happy about the fact my Seasoncard costs half of what I'd be asked to pay at Loftus Road.
Page 3 of 15
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10