I don't think there has been a monopoly for a few years now, since L'pool went off the rails, and before. More like a top two (Man U and Chelsea). Funny you say that Chelsea were hanging around the top 4/5 and that Newcastle were there too at some stage. Doesn't really support your theory then, of a top four monopoly, does it? The fact is, and you know it as well as I do, that it is possible for a side to break into the "top four" without spending obscene amounts of money. And the other point: Chelsea were already a recognised club in Europe and has already won trophies before their breakthrough season, I don't know what other proof you want that they were already a good side. City finished in 10th place two seasons ago. The further you are down the table is indicative of the quality of your side: thus more investment is needed? See?
Spurs could have categorically broken the big four last season, what with Liverpool still struggling, and cemented their place in the CL had City not blazed past them. And with Arsenal looking weaker than ever this season their top four spot could have been up for grabs and Newcastle could have made a good fist of it. However, City have raised the bar for squad size, cost and depth, and hence Newcastle are pretty much guaranteed to drop off the pace as soon as they get a couple of injuries. Don't get me wrong, the system is unfair and the success of the top clubs begets more success. But then it always has been - it was unfair when Liverpool were dominating in the 70s and 80s, and when Utd were dominating in the 90s and 00s. And City are not going to make any difference to that, they are just going to increase it as the gap between the top and the rest will just get wider They are now part of the problem, not the solution. We are reducing the debt. We sold £504 million worth of bonds in January 2010 and our accounts for the last quarter show debt of £433 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8475317.stm http://www.firstpost.com/sports/manchester-uniteds-quarterly-earnings-up-by-30-131757.html I know not all Utd fans agree with me, but from my point of view, I'm much happier with an owner like the Glazers than one like Abramovich. Had Abramovich taken over as Utd owner instead of the Glazers, SAF would have been sacked for failing to win the league in 2004, 2005 and 2006; players like Giggs, Scholes, Rio, Fletcher and Anderson would have been shipped out in favour of high profile imports who would've damaged team spirit and cohesion; youngsters like Cleverley and Welbeck wouldn't be getting a sniff of the first team; and instead of Hernandez we'd have been lumbered with Torres. The Glazers have given us the stability and long term approach needed to succeed, and stay way ahead of Chelsea despite them spending five times as much as us since 2003. And if the Glazers sold up tomorrow we'd be absolutely fine. If Abramovich or Mansour stopped funding Chelsea or City the clubs would literally cease to exist given FIFA rules about having to pay all salaries to players. Obviously the Glazers wouldn't have had success at a club like Chelsea, City or Liverpool, where revenue wasn't enough to support the club without external spending, but for a self sufficient club with global commercial appeal like Utd they are pretty much perfect. The only complaint is the debt, and that hasn't stopped us from winning four out of the six PLs since they took over
They know how to run a business AND a sports club. Many owners are good businessmen (they must be to be worth the 100s of millions/billions that they are) but the Glazers were sucessful with the Tampa Bay Buccaners and you can't argue with the results United have had under their tenure so far. It's testamant to the fact that we have hardly heard from them ever but it's not as if they have no presence at some matches etc etc. Also SAF has praised them. That's always a good sign. http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...d/s/1240748_ferguson_glazers_are_great_owners http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/28/sir-alex-ferguson-glazers-manchester-united
Who has broken the British transfer record the most? Who was the first club to pay 100k a week wages? And its City who are ruining everything! Short memories
arent you supporting the view that in order to get in to (and stay) in the top 4 you need to spend big money, and keep doing so. as i said previously, which you probably didnt read, spurs only got in because liverpool stopped spending money, whilst spurs kept on investing, admittedly not man city level, but wasnt that due in part to the emergence of bale? united are no strangers to inflation of salaries and transfer fees, remember ferdinands £115k a week contract, keanes salary etc. what is the solution to closing the gap between the top 4 and the rest in your opinion?
Like I said, still scraping around hoping for some acceptance and vindication Oh, and Sol Campbell was the first player to get £100k a week at Arsenal.
Yes to get into the top four you need to spend money. But the more external money that comes into the game, the greater the gap gets between the top four and the rest. First Chelsea jumped straight over Arsenal and Liverpool by spending loads of Abramovich's money, and now City have jumped straight over everyone. It's at the stage where only Utd can still keep competitive, as shown by the last seven years and this season. If it keeps up, how long before the best club is simply the one with the richest owner? We run the risk of the clubs, the fans, the communities all being worth nothing - City's owner has already put more money into City in about three years than City's own fans have over the last ten years and it's still going. Clubs are already selling the names of their ground in the desperate grub for money. Sooner or later an owner will decide to move a club or change its name or whatever, and not give a flying **** about the fans cos they won't be the ones who pay the bills any more. In fact, the whole top four monopoly only really became an issue after Abramovich bought Chelsea - it's only after 2003 when Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool established their dominance - prior to that Newcastle, Leeds, Blackburn, Spurs and Everton all had good chances of breaking in. Which is why I think City taking the external spending to the next level is probably only going to make things worse. The solution to closing the gap between the top four and the rest is difficult, what with the CL providing so much money. Ideally we need a system where the CL spreads money throughout the game rather than just paying straight to the competing clubs. But that would probably drive the clubs out of the CL and into some European Super League. So unfortunately there isn't really a solution, but like I said the consistent arms race of richer and richer owners is only making the problem worse and increasing the gap between the top four and the others. And sooner or later it'll all end it tears with an owner going way too far and a PL club ceasing to exist.
Stick your acceptance up your arse! Oh, and you didn't answer the question about British transfer records.
I did use them earlier, the poor numpty just quoted the wrong post It's hard not to agree it's been uncompetitive since Abramovich came along and inflated the fees and salaries. Since 2005 Chelsea and Utd have been the only ones with the financial muscle needed to win the PL, and Liverpool and Arsenal have been the only ones able to consistently stay in the top four. Heck, the scouse practically bankrupted themselves putting together a decent challenge in 2009 and are still paying for it. But then given all that was triggered by Chelsea's ridiculous spending, it's hard to see how City spending even more ridiculous amounts of money is going to do anything but make it completely uncompetitive for anyone else. At least when it was only the Chavs spending £100 million a year other clubs could hope to break the top four without having to spend twice their annual revenue...
My quote was intended for you, assuming you knew what you had said, not some Welsh rag trying to be clever. Me a numpty, your the one stood outside the swamp holding a cabbage patch doll !!!!!!!!!!!
So you'll agree the sky 4 created the monster but choose to criticise city for smashing the monopoly held by them?Quite honestly the sheer hypocrisy is astounding.You complain that City are making it uncompetitive for everyone else which is exactly what it was for everyone else not in receipt of the Champions league cash cow before.If the wages hadn't been inflated to a ridiculous degree beforehand then City wouldn't have had to offer even better and bigger contracts.Interesting article in the mail about city http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Manchester-Citys-195m-loss-Martin-Samuel.html
Have custard and comas finally seen the light, they haven't posted since post #90 , do you two agree with what Swamp has posted so far ?
HendyMMA Glory hunter from Bangor,it wont be long before you're telling everyone how you used to stand on the kippax watching Colin Bell
