JFDI...............................................comment by Wearethefamousthfc. #31. Martin Jols Blue & White Army (U10288)
posted 4 minutes ago

Most of us dislike what City have done but at the same time, very happy that the sky 4 have been broken up

If results go a certain way this weekend, only one of the sky 4 could be in the champions league next season..
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thus answering a big resounding no to the question posed by the OP. Well done and basically what I said many pages ago.
___________________________________________

So what was the question I posed? My posting was about the profligate spending in English football & the potential for disaster for many clubs. It was not aimed at the Sky 4 or the break up of that so called elite group.

I wouldn't be comfortable with it either ole, I'm proud of how Arsenal are run. It bugs me though how we get ridiculed and criticised for running our club properly.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"On the flip side, If I were in your shoes now, I'd be looking at every angle I could to somehow justify it, just like City fans are doing"

For me, its not that Macca. It's the fact that investment has happened into all clubs at some point in their history, it is just that peoples memory only seems to go back 10 years. I don't understand why people think something is bad now when it has existed since Football began. It just screams hypocrisy to me.

Ultimately, I suppose it depends on the term "deserving" of success. I tend to think of football in terms of the fans, as that is what, for me, it is all about - the creation of shared memories. Now, some fans will never get to know what it feels like to win a championship, in fact if you take the last twenty years, fans of 88 clubs have not had the chance to feel that (I didn't think I would until recently, now we have a good chance). That doesn't matter to them now, the highs and lows come from other feelings such as promotion/relegation and getting one over a local rival.

What I would love more than anything is a league that starts and at least 10 clubs have a chance of winning it. Will that happen with the old system? No. Will it happen with FFP coming in? No. Until football is completely revolutionised, then that will not happen. It is ultimately a business, that is why as your fanbase has grown, your success on the pitch has been cemented. The only way to compete with that and keep the league competitive has been from outside investment and I, as a city fan, am just happy to sit at the top table for a while.

I wouldn't really want that to happen. I'd rather FFP was enforced properly. But if it's not then we'd just be falling behind and criticised for running ourselves properly, so if you can't beat em join em

City have had consistently better gates than Chelsea and Liverpool for the last 10 years but without the CL money and the worldwide exposure it brings to marketing then we'd never been able to move up a level without outside investment.

It isnt all about what you spend, it gives you an advantage, but chelseas best players over the years have been terry(free) lampard(11m) cech(something like 7m).
Its never impossible to compete and football always goes in cycles...........................

Drogba £24m
Essien £24m
Carvalho £20m

All integral to your success under Jose.

Chelsea's wage bill is about £185m out of revenue of about £200m

So even when players came up for free or are cheap at the end of their contracts, such a Ballack, Ashley Cole, Deco, Cheslsea were able to blow the opposition out of the water

Let's not pretent that anything but money is the reason why Chelsea's trophy cabinet is a lot fuller now than pre-Roman. It's just because City are now on the block that CFC are not getting it all their own way.

Chelsea have spent the most (££610m) in the years since Roman arrive. It compares to about £140m in the previous 10 years. They top spending during the whole EPL period , £200m more than anyone else other than City, and still £100m more than City.

Let's not pretent that anything but money is the reason why Chelsea's trophy cabinet is a lot fuller now than pre-Roman. It's just because City are now on the block that CFC are not getting it all their own way.
------------------------------------------------

But Chelsea by and large aren't the one's complaining about it Devonshirespur - lets also forget that when Chelsea had no money Spurs were not shy in shelling out for the likes of Gascoine, Waddle, Linnaker ect!

No I haven't forgotton!

So what was the question I posed? My posting was about the profligate spending in English football & the potential for disaster for many clubs. It was not aimed at the Sky 4 or the break up of that so called elite group.
--------------------------------------------------

Ifyou realy cant remember your question should you have asked? If you can't be bothered to remind yourself by looking should I have to give it to you?

Good job I am used to you Tottenham fans and your selective recollections.

Your question is there for all to see: Impossible to cope with?

Now of course this may not be what you meant but is that my fault?

Those were the days when Spurs splashed out £1.75m on Gazza & £600k for Waddle .

I couldn't give a toss how much City have spent, any fan of any club would welcome the investment City have had, sometimes it brings problems with having too may ego's in a team but apart from the mad man Balotelli and theTevez issue Mancini has managed the team well.

Nearly Thirty years ago, big money in those days Devonshire - and certainly more than most clubs could afford.

Justify it how you will!

The worlds's greatest ever goalkeeper 500k

Bit different , paying money for a player like casccoine who brought us success and world wide exposure compared to players like Shevchenko who cost nearly 30 million to sit on a bench

JFDI.......................................Both my asking and the title were by and large rhetorical, the real point was will football in general survive this explosion of cash which inevitably will lead to implosion and a number of clubs being wiped out.

But thanks for your attempt at sarcasm anyway!

Wage caps are the only way forward, 50% of income maximum in wages

Like I said Weare, thirty years difference - the transfer market has gone up with inflation in that time buddy.

Shevchenko was not so much flop as people made out anyway - always gave 100%! But thats digressing from Genius's discussion anyway!

Watch what you say about Chelsea anyway Weare - or I'll tell Mrs Weare about you!

Tell you what i'm sick of hearing, people saying "their fans deserve it" when talking about city, why?because they crowds of 30,000 in league one, so what, they come from a large city and should attract large numbers, what about the long suffering fans in the lower reaches of league two, small town clubs who could'nt possibly get those crowds, it think they are more deserving of a bit of success.

Bit different , paying money for a player like casccoine who brought us success and world wide exposure compared to players like Shevchenko who cost nearly 30 million to sit on a bench
--

Every club makes mistakes. For instance, you paid over 16 million for Bentley, now he is not even on Spurs' bench.

If clubs such as Rangers and Leeds and even my own club can , or nearly can end up in administration, financial armageddon is a distinct possibility.

The taxman has gone easy on football clubs in the past. This is clearly going to change in the future.

what about the long suffering fans in the lower reaches of league two, small town clubs who could'nt possibly get those crowds, it think they are more deserving of a bit of success.

either that or move.

Premier League Club Income 2011 (Source: Telegraph survey)

1. Man Utd = £331.4m
2. Arsenal = £255.7m
3. Chelsea = £222.3m
4. Liverpool = £183.7m
5. Spurs = £163.5m
6. Man City = £153.2m
7. Aston Villa = £92m
8. Newcastle = £88.5m
9. Everton = £82m
10. West Ham = £80.9m
11. Sunderland = £79.4m
12. Fulham = £77.1m
13. Bolton = £67.7m
14. Stoke = £66.8m
15. Wolves = £64.5m
16. West Brom = £59.4m
17. Blackburn = £57.6m
18. Blackpool = £51.7m
19. Wigan = £50.5m
20. Birmingham = n/a

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

Obviously things will have changed for 2012 but this gives an idea of how clubs will have to adapt to FFP.

Funds towards things like stadium/training ground developement and other infrastructure ventures does not fall within FFP rules. So these will be the areas where clubs will have to think more outside the box in terms of benefitting from other funds that are not income generated, in order to help actually improve their income.

Meltonblue is the only man making much sense on here. Cant be bothered with it anymore...YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT MAN CITY FOR SPENDING MONEY

Maybe city could get someone to sponsor their grass at the etihad for about £100m a season, someone from the middle east maybe.

5. Spurs = £163.5m

--

This is due to Champions League. I am sure the accounts speak different in this financial year.